Ecology
Conservative hot air adds to climate change
August 6, 2005
The Flat Earth conservatives are at it again. Whether they’re denying the existence of global warming, trying to prevent actually doing anything about global warming, urging that we adopt a dirty energy source like coal as alternative to gasoline --because of global warming, of course -- conservatives are impervious to logic on the subject of the environment. Surely it’s just a happy coincidence that there are powerful vested interests that stand to benefit from these principled positions they take. Wouldn't it be ironic if the red states are the first ones drowned in the floods (that’s the global warming floods that will occur in 2050 according to NASA because of the melting polar ice cap, as in the one we should be worried about—not the coming Armageddon that those same Flat Earth conservatives are spending way too much time thinking about).
MYTH: We shouldn’t pursue energy conservation because it can’t reduce carbon emissions and it limits economic growth—but that’s OK because global warming may not even really be happening
The House of Representatives is about to pass a new energy bill. Predictably, the left and the media are all worked up about how the legislation doesn't do enough to curb our dependence on foreign sources of energy. This is total nonsense and is the height of hypocrisy….
First, the only way to limit our dependence on foreign oil is to produce more of it here. No amount of hybrid cars or ethanol is ever going to limit our consumption.
-- Neal Boortz, “Energy Bill Ready”, www.boortz.com, 07/26/05
The new Asian Pacific Partnership is a Bush administration initiative….
Details of the pact have yet to emerge, but its focus is clear. The pact is an alternative to Kyoto. Rather than regulation of energy, it will focus on research on new technologies.
The contrast lays Kyoto bare. Its supporters have been urging governments in Asia to ratify Kyoto and "invest" in loss-making, renewable energies, depicting them as first mover strategies for a 'carbon-constrained' future.
That strategy carries the burden of higher costs.
The Asian Pacific strategy supports growth and promotes research in new technologies to manage emission of carbon dioxide. That itself makes it more appealing.
It also has the advantage of buying time, as the science of greenhouse warming is far from established.
-- Alan Oxley, “Yes to Growth; No to Kyoto”, www.techcentralstation.com, 08/02/05
On June 23, Rep. Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, sent letters to the climate researchers responsible for developing the notorious “hockey stick” graph, which purports to show a dramatic rise in global temperatures during the 20th century after a millennium of supposedly little change in global temperature.
The hockey stick graph has been [a] key weapon in the arsenal of the global warming alarmists in their efforts to scare the U.S. into signing the Kyoto Protocol and clamping down on greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.
-- Steven Milloy, “Tree Ring Circus”, www.foxnews.com, 07/31/05
REALITY
This represents yet another triumph of ideology over fact or reason for the Right. Boortz asserts that “No amount” (we suspect he means “number”) of hybrid cars “or ethanol is ever going to limit our consumption [of oil]”. He offers no support for this assertion. That’s because it is unsupportable. Perhaps if he said “eliminate” instead of “limit” it would makes sense. But as it stands what he says is ludicrous. Hybrid cars get better fuel efficiency than regular combustion engines. If every car sold in this country from now on were a hybrid it would, by definition, limit our consumption—by exactly the difference between their fuel efficiency and the fuel efficiency of their equivalent non-hybrids. This is just another example of conservatives’ habit of attacking a fantastical left-wing straw man who makes outrageous statements that are much broader than those that liberals are actually making.
Further, Boortz’s underlying conclusion is false. Boortz says “the only way to limit our dependence on foreign oil is to produce more of it here.” There are obviously other ways. As stated above, switching to hybrids is one of them. Investing in mass transit and raising the tax on gasoline, so that people drive less, is another. So is raising the CAFÉ standards and elimination the SUV loophole. Finally, Boortz’s claim betrays the economic ignorance of all conservatives who say that producing more oil domestically will free us from our entanglements in the Middle East. Oil is a fungible good. That means instability in the Middle East affects the global price of oil and therefore effects our economy, regardless of whether we are buying our oil directly from the Middle East or not. (Our oil companies after all, won’t give our oil to American consumers for free. They will sell it to the highest bidder. If the Middle East oil well dries up, then countries that rely on it for energy—like China and Japan, will be willing to pay more for our oil, and our consumers will have to compete with them). The only way to free our shackles from oil bondage is to reduce our consumption.
And of course there are geopolitical and economic reasons to limit our oil consumption, not just environmental ones. But if the right could cast doubt on global warming at least that would eliminate one threat to the health of the oil teat they suckle from. So, it should come as no surprise that a hack-wonk at industry-funded TechCentralStation attempts just that. First Oxley claims that we should not implement the Kyoto accords because they are bad for the environment, then he adds that the alternative—delaying any action while we develop alternative technologies—is acceptable because global warming is not happening. That’s a little confusing, which argument does he really want to make? Well, it doesn’t matter, because he is factually wrong about both. Reducing energy consumption needn’t slow economic growth, in fact, the actions we can take to do so, like building mass transit and making our living arrangements denser and more eco-friendly can actually spur growth. And global warming is not in doubt.
Meanwhile Steven Milloy of FOX News applauds the harassment of a leading environmental scientist. This demonstrates the Right’s politicization of science. Ignorant Republican legislators, and their lackeys like Milloy, should leave the science to scientists.
