Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed

Opinion
Nov. 08, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: 'A wholesale transformation'

Global warming doomsayers would radically alter our economy

Most Americans consider themselves friends of the environment. They don't litter; they try to conserve. Given the chance, they'll sort their trash in an effort to contribute to recycling.

Told that Earth is in a warming trend and the results could be bad, they show an admirable participatory spirit. They want to do something.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: Tight-fisted casinos need to loosen up
  • LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program
  • LETTERS: Trickle-down economics is dead
  • EDITORIAL: Tip jar
  • FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?
  • EDITORIAL: A tiny bit of good news?
  • EDITORIAL: Cut spending during lean times
  • LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste
  • EDITORIAL: Sending the right message



    • But just as the advocates of big government are past masters at harnessing Americans' charitable instincts, so does a new generation of bureaucrats and politicians now aim to use Americans' warm feelings about "environmentalism" to consolidate even more power in Washington.

    "Something must be done!" shriek those who insist that the warming of the Earth at the rate of 1 or 2 degrees per century is responsible for every current bad outcome, from droughts to hurricanes to forest fires -- and that it's somehow in our power to reverse this trend.

    But what? What is it they want done?

    "All of the leading Democratic contenders for the presidency are committed to a set of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that would change the way Americans light their homes, fuel their automobiles and do their jobs, costing billions of dollars in the short term," The Washington Post reported this week.

    And all this will "require a wholesale transformation of the nation's economy and society."

    What will this look like? What will it cost, and who will pay?

    According to energy expert Tracy Terry's analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, under the scenario of an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes, and even more for electricity, The Post reports. "At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel."

    That means gasoline at well over $4 per gallon, and a likely doubling of your electric bill. And these are the low-ball estimates of those who favor these heavy-handed, job-slashing industrial cutbacks.

    Democrats "have promised to ease the pain by taking the money that would come from putting a price on carbon, whether through a tax or auctioning off pollution credits, and investing it in technological research, job training, tax credits for consumers who buy cleaner vehicles and subsidies for those hit hardest by rising electric bills," the Post reports.

    Just how much "pain" -- how hard a "hit" -- are we talking about?

    Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the one Democrat so far to come out in public for a direct carbon tax, "has vowed to use the $50 billion that would be generated each year to fast-track research, development and deployment of renewable and energy-efficient technologies," The Post reports

    Now, if someone wanted to raise $50 billion to build more coal-fired power plants or emission-free nuclear power plants to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, that would be one thing. If someone wanted to see $50 billion invested in exploring for and developing new oil fields in Alaska or in the Gulf of Mexico to decrease our dependence on imported oil, that would be another.

    But Democrats are not proposing to "invest" all these additional funds to give us faster growth with cheaper energy. No. Their long-term goal is to make us survive on less energy, and pay a lot more for what little our ration cards will still allow us to use.

    "Democrats' boldness ... could carry a political price," the Post warns. "The eventual GOP presidential nominee is almost certain to attack Democrats over the huge costs associated with limiting emissions."

    Claiming to be green and donating a few thousand dollars to pay some outfit to plant trees to "compensate" for the amounts of kerosene their campaign planes burn as they fly around the country is all very nice.

    But as the brownouts become more frequent, as our electric bills climb along with highway death tolls in the little tin-foil cars Detroit has to build -- as our economic well-being continues to decline in contrast to the booming economies of India and China, which continue to burn all the dirty coal they please -- is "Turn out the lights, we're the Democrats!" really likely to prove a winning campaign slogan in the early 21st century?



    Leave Your Comment 66 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Wayne Pickette wrote on November 13, 2007 04:07 PM: Do not you people read? Did I not say that an interim solution has been created? In 2008 we can start eliminating the internal combustion engine and it's oil gluttony from our world!
    The components will be available from a new company on the horizon.
    22ndCenturyProducts


    emadaj wrote on November 13, 2007 06:11 AM: Who's the doomsayer here? Answer: you are! You are the one predicting the "pain" and the "hits" and of course other disasters associated with...averting a bigger disaster! How exactly do you know? Answer: You don't and can't know.

    What you, and others like you, really mean is that your pride has been hurt by the fact that you are dead wrong, both morally and intellectually, on the issue. So now you have to save face, by, what else, doomsaying!

    Well there is no face for you to save. You and your ilk have managed to stall this issue for at least a couple decades now, to the detriment of all of us. Your time is up. You have no more to say.


    Jim G. wrote on November 12, 2007 06:49 PM: 80% reductions would come by 2050 - not 2015. And another $24 in per barrel oil prices (big deal). Oil prices will be that high in another year or two even without carbon reduction policies. The goal of all proposals that I see (including a carbon tax) is to incentivize the private sector to solve this problem. If we do not the impact on the economy will be far worse then the cost of the investment we need to make today to harness the renewable energy technologies that can support sustainable economic growth. Re: big government. We already have it and it is not going away. Railing against big government has empowered folks that have given us, in effect, no government (see the labotamization of FEMA) and incompetent government (see the "tell me what I want to hear" approach to pre Irag war intelligence). We should expect government (big or small) to be an effective instrument of the public will and not an instrument of the campaign paying class - that you will find is the root cause of most no government or bad government outcomes.


    carl wrote on November 12, 2007 05:18 PM: p.s. Garret, CO2 has been well (over ten times) higher than it is today several tens of millions of years ago. Humans live in climates like Siberia as well as the jungles of southeast asia as well as the middle east. You are putting a bit too much faith into the scaremongerers who warn of "the end of creation" (quoting James Hansen, head of NASAs "climate division" GISS, principal author of the IPCC reports on global warming)... it's quite frankly ridiculous.


    Carl G wrote on November 12, 2007 05:14 PM: This is a very nice article which shows the final piece of the global warming debate. First, it was a question of whether or not the Earth was warming (it is, but only in the northern hemisphere). Then, it was whether or not it was unprecedented in the past 1000 years (probably not, see the Hockey Stick, ice core and G bulloides comments at www.climateaudit.org). The least important scientific venture, but the far more important to our lives, is the economic side of this. Even if the earth is warming, even if we are to blame, even if temperatures will rise 5 degrees fahrenheit by 2100... it is incredibly unlikely that it will be cheaper to virtually halt use of the best energy source on the planet, crippling economies worldwide, than to merely deal with the consequences. What were those (projected) consequences going to be, anyway? Sea levels rising two feet (check the IPCC report!)? 3 degrees of extra warmth? Unknown positive and negative changes to some climates? Big fucking deal, I fail to see how any respectable economist can assume the present value of these changes to be up a trillion dollars, not to mention the human misery of a worldwide economic depression and crushing of developing third world peoples (by taking away the only source of energy they can afford).

    I don't believe the science is settled... a couple hundred people who's entire fields of research depend on these predictions is not an insurmountable wall of proof, as McIntyre and the growing number of skeptics are proving with every piece of the theory that gets chipped away. I give the IPCC credit for considering a chapter on the limitations of their report.


    T.W. wrote on November 12, 2007 03:17 PM: We as Humans have never had the capacity to do away with greed and hate...therefor we as humans shall get what we deserve...period....


    TAM wrote on November 12, 2007 02:18 PM: Like it or not there is growing, but not irrefutable evidence that there is some truth to global warming. Our economy will suffer an wholesale transformation if that is true as will "our" lives or the lives of future Americans and others. Like it or not transformation would come. I would rather try to surf that wave than be pounded by it. Also like it or not renewable energy sources and conservation (yes conservation) are the two best options to start with. New technology will be needed and can be driven by the government and with encouragement be manufactured here, that would be a transformation! Using less is also a strategic move and putting high targets and goals is needed not being at the whim of the major oil producing countries. This country should have had an energy policy with big goals 10 years ago, it still doesn't. It makes us weaker and less able to contend with a growing demand worldwide. We should become leaders in more efficient technologies. Sooner or later things will transform I would like to start now and have some control. I get the impression the writer sees shorterm doom and can't understand long-term strategy.


    jg wrote on November 12, 2007 01:36 PM: Wow, all the doomsdayers are piping in with their GREENSPEAK. Please people. You all are making this WAY more complicated than it has to be. Politics aside, the earth is warming, but it's not necessarily caused by Humans. To me, it really doesn't matter anyways, we need to do everything we can to reduce pollution. US is bad when it comes to carbon emmissions because of the amount of cars we have here. But the MAJOR polluters and where our concern should be focused is on CHINA and INDIA. They can't even swim in their rivers or beaches there. We can here no problem. Many of the US inland waterways are LESS polluted than they were 20 years ago. We are doing a good job with that. Other countries, particularly in Asia and Africa are the opposite. They are polluting the earth in horrible ways, and because of the weakness of Europe and liberals in this country, KYOTO gives the worst polluters a free pass.
    We need to step up pressures on those countries and at the same time, reduce our dependency on foreign oil. This is critical and has nothing to do with your political affiliation.


    Stephen Davis wrote on November 12, 2007 11:38 AM: Opinions like this reveal a uniquely republican contempt for scientific consensus about our environment. Republicans are beginning to resemble the Los Angeles jury in the OJ Simpson murder trial. It appears that no mountain of evidence can convince them of what virtually all climate scientists know: we're running out of time to head off another mass extinction or (at the very least) ruinous economic costs to be paid by our children.

    I am a 46-year-old independent. Republican presidential hopefuls should know that I (and many like me) view this issue as trumping all others in this presidential race. The costs of doing nothing will dwarf the costs recommended by the IPCC to try avoid the point of no return.

    I believe in unleashing the power of the free market to solve this. But for the free market to work efficiently, externalities (costs associated with a behavior that are not imposed by the behavior) must be addressed. The buyer of a gas-guzzling SUV currently gets a great deal because they only pay for their gasoline. If they paid for the full cost of their behavior (via a carbon tax) they might just decide to walk a bit more or consider a more economical vehicle.

    The question for Americans in the 2008 election is one for the ages: Are we willing to sacrifice anything anymore for something greater than ourselves? Do we bear any resemblance to our founding fathers who pledged and risked "our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor?" Future generations will know the answer and judge us accordingly.


    Courtney wrote on November 12, 2007 11:28 AM: This is just getting ridiculous! I know that everyone wants to save the environment so that we can still exist on this planet but in turn trying to make all these changes in tail is going to cost US as middle class americans everything we have just to make it by week to week. How is that right for politions to raise the cost of living by 100% and then lower the wages of american jobs? Of course thats probably not on their minds considering they don't have to worry about money, there politions! Believe me I'm all for saving the planet but at the same time I am all about being able to live affordably and not have to sturggle just to be able to put $5 per gallon of gas in my small car. So what I'm getting at is this, they want to save the planet by sky-rocketing the cost to do so and in the end they (politions) will end up killing most lower- middle class americans by putting them out on there asses because they can't afford to pay the gas bill and electric bills that have increased by 100% to save the plant. So what the end result will be eliminating most of the population of this planet not just in america (the land of opportunity! BS). Those people who can't afford to even have a house or a car anymore will end up on the streets and dying of starvation if they haven't already before all these so called new helpfully bills will take place. So maybe thats what the underlinded goal of these new bills and new ways to save the planet. They will just kill off the weak ones by making it impossible to live. Only the rich survive!! Gee Thanks!


    Read All Comments