|
The Issues That Matter |
EnvironmentGlobal WarmingThis will probably be a surprise to you--but the evidence for global warming is far less certain than you think. Even if it is happening, it is not clear that mankind is the major force behind it. We may not even be a minor force. 1. Much of the data upon which the claim of global warming is made comes from the U.S. Historical Climate Network, a series of weather stations around the United States. It turns out that many of the stations that are part of USHCN are in locations where human activities have substantially changed over the period that these weather stations have been gathering data. For example, a USHCN station at the end of an airport runway, and another one five feet from a burning barrel in a condominimum complex built in a rural area. Another such station is now next to 22 air conditioning compressors--which, of course, produce heat! 2. The global warming experts have a rather elaborate set of models that they use to produce their data. And every once in a while--someone discovers an error in those models. For example, global warming activists used to claim that 1998 was the warmest year on record. Whoops! No longer. Now, 1934 is the warmest year on record. There was a technical error in how they computed this. 3. It appears that other planets in our solar system are also warming up. The ice caps on Mars are shrinking. Mars has warmed up about 0.5 degrees Celsius since 1976--roughly in line with the claims for Earth. While the evidence isn't as clear-cut, Neptune seems to be getting brighter, and roughly synchronized with the claims that the Earth is getting warmer. 5. There have been some recent changes in solar behavior--and while you aren't going to see mention of it in most newspapers or on television, there are scientists who are beginning to admit that the warming has stopped--and at about the same time that the Sun has changed its behavior. I will not support any public policy action to deal with "global warming" until we have clear evidence of its magnitude, and that we know how much of it is the work of man, and how much is factors beyond our control. Some of those who are advocating that we "do something" before it is too late have financial interests in making sure we "do something." As usual, there are business interests looking to make money off this--and if they destroy the economy and jobs of millions of people, so what? Alternative Sources of PowerGlobal warming is, at best, insufficiently certain as a basis for destroying our economy. There are strong arguments for becoming less dependent on fossil fuels--of which the strongest is that the more money we ship to the Middle East, the more money ends up in the hands of our enemies. Paying for imported petroleum (regardless of which country it comes from) damages our balance of payments, too. There are environmentalists who believe that we need to breach the hydroelectric projects along the Northwest's rivers because of the environmental damage that they cause. With what we know now, there might have been a good argument against building those dams. But they are built, they produce electricity that is cheap, and they produce no greenhouse gases. The last thing that Idaho needs is to scrap a clean source of cheap electricity. I support building nuclear power plants. Increasingly, thoughtful environmentalists, like former antinuclear protesters G. Pascal Zachary and Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore now support the careful development of nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. I've had my concerns about nuclear power in the past, primarily because of questions about its economic viability without government subsidies, but at current petroleum prices, I'm ready to support nuclear power plants for electricity production. Photovoltaic and wind power are two other alternative energy systems that make a lot of sense for Idaho--within the limitations that both have. Right now, photovoltatic electricity production is not cheap enough to compete with hydroelectricity. I am confident that within the next two to five years, photovoltaic will be competitive (maybe sooner). Wind power, at least in some parts of the state, is already competitive--although like solar power, it isn't reliable enough to completely replace traditional energy sources. Idaho government can, and should, encourage these alternative energy sources--but I am very reluctant to see Idaho government provide strong subsidies or incentives. There are two good reasons:
I trust free markets more than the enthusiasm of environmentalists. Free market pricing usually bears some relationship to the real scarcity of the goods that you are selling. The current system of using corn to produce ethanol is a good example. Making ethanol from sugar cane makes sense, because sugar cane produces more sugar than corn does. Making ethanol from corn appears to be using more energy than it produces--and huge governmental subsidies hide what an inefficient process this is. Dark SkiesWhat is this doing on the Environment page? I'll confess that I have my own selfish interest in having a dark sky: I do astrophotography for a hobby. Many of us in the 22nd district enjoy the splendor of the Milky Way overhead in summer, and you would probably like to keep those dark skies. There's an environmental side to this. There are very few traffic accidents 100 feet above ground level, and burglars generally keep their feet on the ground. Exterior lighting that illuminates the night sky is a complete waste of energy--and washes out the beauty of the stars. Every watt sending light up into the night sky is a wasted watt. This isn't just an environmental issue. There are some disturbing indications that excessive illumination at night increases the risks of certain cancers. It usually does not make economic sense to go out and replace existing light fixtures with "full cutoff" or "fully shielded" exterior lighting. Electricity is so cheap here in Idaho that it will take years for the savings to justify changing an existing fixture. But installing an ecofriendly light fixture on new construction generally doesn't add any cost at all--and it does reduce long-term electricity needs, and saves the owner a little money. If the studies about the link between breast cancer and night illumination turn out to be correct--that will save a lot of women grief in the future. Some counties and cities in Idaho already have ordinances that prohibit "light trespass." I look forward to passing something similar statewide. While I am reluctant to see the state government require full cutoff or fully shielded exterior light fixtures, I do see this as being a legitimate area for government regulation, since light pollution doesn't stay on the owner's property. |