Comments on: The Left's Civil War on Cap-and-Trade: Who Likes Political Capitalism? http://www.masterresource.org/2009/07/the-lefts-civil-war-on-cap-and-trade-reconsidering-political-capitalism/ A free-market energy blog Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:39:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Charles Higley http://www.masterresource.org/2009/07/the-lefts-civil-war-on-cap-and-trade-reconsidering-political-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2032 Charles Higley Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:48:58 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=3818#comment-2032 All of this in the face of perfectly natural and possibly significant (meaning crop failures) cooling over the next 20-30 years. With PDO and ENSO in cooling mode and Solar Cycle 24 gone missing, it's a great possibility; we just do not know how severe. We need all the CO2 we can get to facilitate plant/crop growth in the face of cooler temperatures and shorter growing seasons. All of this in the face of perfectly natural and possibly significant (meaning crop failures) cooling over the next 20-30 years. With PDO and ENSO in cooling mode and Solar Cycle 24 gone missing, it’s a great possibility; we just do not know how severe. We need all the CO2 we can get to facilitate plant/crop growth in the face of cooler temperatures and shorter growing seasons.

]]> By: Ken Maize http://www.masterresource.org/2009/07/the-lefts-civil-war-on-cap-and-trade-reconsidering-political-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2031 Ken Maize Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:18:08 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=3818#comment-2031 Adaptation. That's the word. The climate changes, and we adapt, and that's the way it is. We are an adaptable species and the Earth is an adaptable ecosystem. It's been the case for millions of years. Nearly 30 years ago, the House Science and Technology Committee held hearings on global warming, pressured by a young and junior Tennessee Democrat, Al Gore. A three-member scientific panel presented the major testimony at the hearing. I covered that hearing for Energy Daily. The panel Gore's alleged mentor Roger Revelle (1909-1991), one of the founders of the global warming brigade, led the panel. It included Carnegie Mellon University economist Lester Lave, and University of California at San Diego plant ecologist Charles F. Cooper. The three scientists clearly disappointed Gore by advocating adaptation strategies, if global warming were real. They also said the science about warming was still to infantile to make major conclusions. All three had served on an earlier National Academy of Sciences 1980 study looking at climate change and strategies for dealing with it (http://archives.aaas.org/publications.php?pub_id=966.) All three told Gore and the House committee that the prospect of warming, if it was real, was so big that there was no way any kind of international approach could address it. Gore clearly didn't get the message. He still doesn't and, it appears, the Obama administration and Congress don't get it either. I'm a lefty except when it comes to energy and environmental issues, where my experience tells me that the left solutions of big government and big regulation not only don't work, but make things worse. The only pragmatic solution to climate warming -- if it is real and is a problem, which I doubt -- is a low-cost adaptation strategy. There's plenty of time for that. Agricultural practices can change. People can move to higher land (although sea-level rise appears to me to be the least of the allegedly catastrophic impacts of a warmer world). We've got time, we're smart, we can figure out how to deal with the problem. Remember killer bees? What ever happened to them? We figured out that hybridized bees were nastier than our European species, but less of a problem than the pure "African" girls. Handling practices solved the problem (I assert, as a former beekeeper). Adaptation. Adaptation. That’s the word.

The climate changes, and we adapt, and that’s the way it is. We are an adaptable species and the Earth is an adaptable ecosystem. It’s been the case for millions of years.

Nearly 30 years ago, the House Science and Technology Committee held hearings on global warming, pressured by a young and junior Tennessee Democrat, Al Gore. A three-member scientific panel presented the major testimony at the hearing. I covered that hearing for Energy Daily.

The panel Gore’s alleged mentor Roger Revelle (1909-1991), one of the founders of the global warming brigade, led the panel. It included Carnegie Mellon University economist Lester Lave, and University of California at San Diego plant ecologist Charles F. Cooper.

The three scientists clearly disappointed Gore by advocating adaptation strategies, if global warming were real. They also said the science about warming was still to infantile to make major conclusions.

All three had served on an earlier National Academy of Sciences 1980 study looking at climate change and strategies for dealing with it (http://archives.aaas.org/publications.php?pub_id=966.)

All three told Gore and the House committee that the prospect of warming, if it was real, was so big that there was no way any kind of international approach could address it.

Gore clearly didn’t get the message. He still doesn’t and, it appears, the Obama administration and Congress don’t get it either.

I’m a lefty except when it comes to energy and environmental issues, where my experience tells me that the left solutions of big government and big regulation not only don’t work, but make things worse.

The only pragmatic solution to climate warming — if it is real and is a problem, which I doubt — is a low-cost adaptation strategy. There’s plenty of time for that.

Agricultural practices can change. People can move to higher land (although sea-level rise appears to me to be the least of the allegedly catastrophic impacts of a warmer world). We’ve got time, we’re smart, we can figure out how to deal with the problem.

Remember killer bees? What ever happened to them? We figured out that hybridized bees were nastier than our European species, but less of a problem than the pure “African” girls. Handling practices solved the problem (I assert, as a former beekeeper). Adaptation.

]]> By: Climate-change adaptation tipping point « Green Grift http://www.masterresource.org/2009/07/the-lefts-civil-war-on-cap-and-trade-reconsidering-political-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2029 Climate-change adaptation tipping point « Green Grift Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:14:45 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=3818#comment-2029 [...] cap-and-trade, climate change Leave a Comment  Robert Bradley at MasterResource suggests that internal division among the left on U.S. climate change legislation may be preparing the ground for a more realistic approach to climate change: A realistic look at [...] [...] cap-and-trade, climate change Leave a Comment  Robert Bradley at MasterResource suggests that internal division among the left on U.S. climate change legislation may be preparing the ground for a more realistic approach to climate change: A realistic look at [...]

]]> By: Andrew http://www.masterresource.org/2009/07/the-lefts-civil-war-on-cap-and-trade-reconsidering-political-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2030 Andrew Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:12:13 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=3818#comment-2030 "Perhaps “100% carbon-free in 10 years” was only meant as an idealistic goal to be abandoned." Well, um, Duh! Did he really think that anyone really believed they could do that? Does he really believe that's even <i>possible</i>? Forget climate modeling, Hansen should probably go back to his telescope with that one! “Perhaps “100% carbon-free in 10 years” was only meant as an idealistic goal to be abandoned.”

Well, um, Duh! Did he really think that anyone really believed they could do that? Does he really believe that’s even possible? Forget climate modeling, Hansen should probably go back to his telescope with that one!

]]> By: S. Fred Singer http://www.masterresource.org/2009/07/the-lefts-civil-war-on-cap-and-trade-reconsidering-political-capitalism/comment-page-1/#comment-2028 S. Fred Singer Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:33:31 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=3818#comment-2028 Hansen’s proposal of a carbon tax paid into the Treasury is certainly a much better alternative to Waxman-Markey -- if one really wanted to limit CO2 emissions – assuming, of course, that such a policy is needed 1. that anthropogenic CO2 increases will make a significant contribution to Global Warming. The evidence says No, contrary to the IPCC report; see www.nipccreport.org 2. that a warmer climate (such as existed during many periods of earth history) is worse than a colder climate. A carbon tax would certainly be more effective and less costly. But it is not as attractive to politicians as the Waxman-Markey bill, which dispenses multi-billions of goodies and deserves to be called “The Full Employment for Lobbyists Act of 2009.” But even an energy tax has many loopholes that surely will be exploited. Should farmers pay the tax? What about municipalities, police, firemen, hospitals, clergy, etc, etc. The Defense Department? Surely they will exempt “pollution-free” solar and wind energy. But how will enviros react to nuclear energy – which also emits no CO2? One could go on… The best course of action is to do nothing – and adapt to inevitable naturally-caused climate changes, as mankind has been doing since the dawn of history. Hansen’s proposal of a carbon tax paid into the Treasury is certainly a much better alternative to Waxman-Markey — if one really wanted to limit CO2 emissions – assuming, of course, that such a policy is needed
1. that anthropogenic CO2 increases will make a significant contribution to Global Warming. The evidence says No, contrary to the IPCC report; see http://www.nipccreport.org
2. that a warmer climate (such as existed during many periods of earth history) is worse than a colder climate.
A carbon tax would certainly be more effective and less costly. But it is not as attractive to politicians as the Waxman-Markey bill, which dispenses multi-billions of goodies and deserves to be called “The Full Employment for Lobbyists Act of 2009.”
But even an energy tax has many loopholes that surely will be exploited. Should farmers pay the tax? What about municipalities, police, firemen, hospitals, clergy, etc, etc. The Defense Department? Surely they will exempt “pollution-free” solar and wind energy. But how will enviros react to nuclear energy – which also emits no CO2? One could go on…
The best course of action is to do nothing – and adapt to inevitable naturally-caused climate changes, as mankind has been doing since the dawn of history.

]]>