California Political Gas

Back to '06 and a "Local Voices" submission to the OMR that they refused to print but did so latter as a letter to the editor.

The Oroville Mercury-Register has printed no fewer than four stories in the last several weeks concerning global warming, not including those that I have contributed. They each point toward more regulation and less freedom. Both mean less money in your pocket. I have attempted to initiate consideration for a more thoughtful approach. The political climate has become far to over heated (no pun intended) for our own good so I will continue to present logical and scientific research data and alternatives to this hyper inflated problem.

California just passed the California Climate Act of 2006, giving the state broad authority to regulate emissions from “stationary sources” and trucks and cars. This past week the U.S. Supreme Court accepted arguments from 12 northeastern states attempting to require the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions standards on motor vehicles, which, supported by the DC Circuit Court, lacks the authority, and so, declines to do so. Earlier this month, Sen. Barbara Boxer called on the president to “move quickly to adopt economy-wide constraints on domestic greenhouse gas emissions and then work with the international community to forge an effective and equitable global agreement.” When the new congress takes over, she will be the chair of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, held by James Inhofe who, like many others, and myself show skepticism of the cause and effect of minor warming. Look for carbon taxes to be on the horizon that would be paid by large company’s who will pass that cost right on to you and me in the form of higher prices.

My point is to make you aware of political rather than scientific facts. Despite accepting constraints on its economy by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union emissions have increased an average of 9% per year between 2000 and 2005. By comparison, the U.S., which didn’t ratify, only increased 1.7% for the same period. Kyoto exempts developing nations such as India and China that increased emitted CO2 gases by 11.2% and 55% respectively.
Stupid liberal alarmism demands that we handcuff our economy to promote solutions that won’t solve a problem which extensive evidence suggests is moderate, manageable and primarily natural in origin. Infinitely worse, they use faulty models, extreme what-if scenarios and exaggerated fears of climate cataclysm to justify depriving Earth’s most impoverished citizens of electricity, water purification and other modern technologies that would improve and save countless lives. Countries like Malawi, Kenya, Mozambigue and Namibia, to name a few, struggle to provide adequate power, and in total, only 10% of sub-Saharan Africa has electricity, which is produced primarily by burning fossil fuels. Kyoto supporters would deny them this basic need.

How many more must go hungry and die before Western leaders understand that this is not a political game. That is unconscionable and immoral. It is the real climate change catastrophe. Truly ethical and socially responsible policies would foster robust debate about costs and benefits, leaving with the great American people, their charitable ability to alleviate the conditions of these poor countries.