I am not a scientist, but I am also unsure anyone can claim with a 100% certainty that global warming is a consequence of human behavior. I don’t think I am going too far afield stating that some pollutants, whether or not they are causing climate change, are harming world health.
A planet in orbit spinning on an axis along with prevailing winds and shifting weather patterns cause pollutants spewing from any facility to often rest far from their origination.
If there is something all nations commonly share, it is the entrapment in the atmosphere of pollutants. Airborne particles and gases, even if the concentration originates in one geographic area will, come to rest throughout the globe.
India and China together account for about one-third of the worldwide population and both countries are heavily committed to coal generation for about 80% of their current power requirements. Their needs are growing exponentially and China has recently been credited as the world’s largest polluter, displacing the United States, which held that title for decades.
The greenhouse gas phobia, particularly with respect to CO2 emissions, is largely overstated. Quoting a joint study between Zogby Associates and The Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment: the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for just 3.27% of the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere each year, while the biosphere and oceans account for 55.28% and 41.5% respectively. This is statistically interesting given that 63% of people from the same survey believe human activity is the greatest source of greenhouse gases.
The current thrust toward a European Cap and Trade system also has flaws. There has not been any significant decrease in either particles or greenhouse gases since the system was enacted in Europe. In 2008 the first marginal decline was registered. A function of Cap and Trade or the results of Europe’s 19% drop in industrial production?
Ultimately, the United States must derive power from renewable energy resources. But we must also learn from past mistakes. As corn-based ethanol was quickly deemed the panacea for high energy prices, the previous administration enacted thoughtless legislation without truly examining the unexpected consequences of higher food costs and taxpayer subsidies.
The European model of Cap and Trade has apparently not worked, but it has increased energy costs and in turn increased the cost of power vital to manufacturing. Does Congress feel they can make a failed example work or will new legislation produce an even larger failure? Foreign governments are already bristling at a possible “Clean Energy Trade Policy” which could be enacted by the United States.
I fear that should our diminishing manufacturing base become even less globally competitive that we will try to economically blackmail countries that do not abide by standards we impose. Protectionist policies, regardless of how they are disguised, have never succeeded historically. The problem needs to be addressed through a partnership of private industry and government along with comprehensive global pacts.
The movement away from fossil fuels needs to be gradual otherwise the shock to our own economy may create another crisis. The worst approach is to capriciously spend trillions of dollars to reduce pollutants by a miniscule amount while fooling the American taxpayers about the legitimacy of the plan. A thoughtful, cohesive and intelligent approach is necessary and reducing pollution needs to be a global endeavor and priority.
