Monday, July 23, 2012
Last week, during an entertaining display of comedic jujitsu about the Obamas’ awkward “kiss cam” moment, Jon Stewart managed to subtly relitigate the 2000 Election, saying that had Al Gore won, the “Earth’s temperature would be maybe a few degrees cooler.”
It is tempting - and perhaps comforting - to dismiss
Stewart’s snark-infused banter solely as sour grapes, both with a bygone
election and President Obama’s failures. That, however, would be a mistake.
Stewart’s lightly disguised political commentary reflects
a reinvigorated radical environmentalist movement that hopes to leverage the
summer heatwave and drought into legislative action on global warming...er,
climate change...er, global climate disruption.
Just for fun, let’s imitate Joe Biden by taking Stewart’s
joke “literally.”
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the combined global land and ocean average surface
temperature for the first six months of 2012 was about 0.94 degrees Fahrenheit
above the 20th century average, making it the 11th warmest on record. By
Stewart’s climate calculations, if we were living in the hypothetical aftermath
of an Al Gore administration, the first six months of 2012 would have been 2.06
degrees Fahrenheit BELOW the 20th century average.
What would the “enlightened class” have said about below
average temperatures?
A Newsweek article from April 28, 1975, which declared
“earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” gives us an idea:
“If the climatic change is as profound as some of the
pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. ‘A major climatic
change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,’ warns
a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ‘because the global
patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly
dependent on the climate of the present century.’”
The thought experiment and historical déjà vu raises
interesting questions about Earth’s “proper” temperature and climate. It also
gets to the inherent assumption made by folks like Jon Stewart, Nancy Pelosi,
Al Gore, Barack Obama and many others that we can, in fact, control the
climate.
Last week, as if to prove Stewart’s pop culture routine
is intimately tied to current policy discussions, the Washington Post’s
Wonkblog highlighted two of many “zany geoengineering schemes” designed to
control earth’s climate: artificial volcanoes and growing plankton in the
ocean.
Ironically, this is a mirror image of the 1970s when
scientists proposed “spectacular solutions” to global cooling “such as melting
the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers.”
But as the infamous Newsweek article goes on to note,
geoengineering solutions “might create problems far greater than those they
solve.”
For those that accept the premise that we must act to
prevent the climate from changing, they should apply that same caution to policy
proposals. Whether they seek to limit carbon emissions through EPA regulations,
cap-and-trade or carbon tax, they must ask whether they are creating problems
far greater than they hope - emphasis on hope - to solve.
Even that question is premature, though.
First, they should tell us what they consider to be an
appropriate global average temperature. I suppose a compelling case could be
made for a similar temperature to the earlier 1940s, which was before the “grim
reality” of global cooling. Or perhaps temperatures in the 1850s, before the
Pennsylvania “oil rush,” are preferable.
Regardless of what the experts decide, they then have to
tell us what atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (co2) is necessary to
achieve their temperature goal. The disgraced Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) wants to keep the atmospheric concentration of co2 under
550 parts per million (ppm), and various literature cites 450 ppm as necessary
to “stabilize” the climate.
Yet, neither number directly addresses the temperature
question - and for good reason.
A 2009 analysis found even aggressive action by the
United States - an 83% reduction in co2 emissions by 2050 - would result in a
“temperature reduction” of 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. That is a far cry from
Stewart’s vision of Al Gore’s America. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson
confirmation that “U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels”
essentially renders the next question - how do you achieve the goal -
meaningless.
So, when it comes to global temperatures, any U.S. plan
to reduce carbon emissions is meaningless; and therefore there must be an
ulterior motive. Remember that the next time you hear someone talking about a
carbon tax.
No comments:
Post a Comment