Finding the Middle Ground on Environmental Policy

By Andrew at July 24th, 2009.

On Wednesday in Seattle, Climatologist Patrick Michaels discussed the science and the politics of Climate Change at the Washington Policy Center’s 7th Annual Environmental Policy Luncheon and Conference. His qualifications include being a “research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” He knows his stuff and recently has published a book entitled “Climate of Extremes.”

He claims to operate in the middle ground of those in the ongoing debate over Climate Change and the policies that organizations around the world and in the United States that are currently determining. In his presentation, he pointed out the flaws from what the left would call “global warming deniers,” and also those who are sounding the alarm because of what they perceive as a crash course for planetary destruction. As a result, he angers both extremes.

He also angers Joel Connelly, who was present at the event. His recap can be found here. Joel was granted the first question at the end of the presentation, where he asked about recent satellite photos that showed ice melting in the Arctic.

Michaels responded by saying that ice in other areas is increasing and that fluctuations are natural and cyclical. For example, during his presentation he talked about a New York Times article that described the discovery of an island (The Warming Island) of Greenland that was thought by some to be a part of the mainland, but as ice melted it was clearly an island that was not connected. This “discovery” proved that ice was melting, the earth was warming, and that drastic action needed to be taken to fight this. However, a book published in 1957 by Ernst Hofer described this island, not connected to the mainland. This means that during the 1950s, the ice shelf did not cover this island, but the ice shelf grew in subsequent years, and then retreated following that. This was a false alarm.

Michaels talked about the research that he and others have done, research that looks at the facts. He stated that there can be a disconnect between fact based research and the political arena, because many credible scientists would prefer to stay out of the policy debate. As a result, the debate over policy is left to politicians who are not qualified to be experts on the issue, yet have the most power in determining what will actually happen.

Cap and Trade is a dangerous example of this. When China and India refuse to enact the same type of regulation and taxation on energy that the United States does, it hurts Americans. When energy prices will go up because of Cap and Trade, the consumers will be affected by paying more for energy, but what will the return be? Will it be more cost-effective to do business in another country?

Also, because China and India are obviously located on the same planet that we are, we are going to bear the burden of increased energy prices yet these two countries will continue to use carbon producing energy. They will continue to create these greenhouse gases, so what will the overall effect be on the composition of carbon in the atmosphere?

What we will see with Cap and Trade, as some predict , is a net loss in jobs that will overtake the predicted “green jobs” that will be created. Before the Senate can pass a bill, and the President can sign Cap and Trade into law, people need to look hard at the scientific reasoning, the cost-benefit analysis of this action, and take a realistic look at the expected outcomes before we tie one hand behind our backs for what may be too small of a return. To effectively fight this legislation the key will be to offer a viable alternative that will address the problem of taking care of the environment without hurting Americans.

Tags: cap and trade, energy, Environment, Joel Connelly, Patrick Michael, WPC