GLOBAL WARMING. HOW BAD IS IT?

There is No Way I Can Answer That Question. Despite 6 years of scientific education and 20 years of working for energy companies, I can't find the answer to that question. It's hard for me to believe that a divinity school drop out can state with certainty that he knows the answer to the extent that he can declare the debate to be over. Another thing I can't quite figure out is how a scientific issue has almost completely morphed into a political one. Polls show that the vast majority of liberal voters agree that global warming is a serious problem while a vast majority of conservative voters claim that the whole thing is a hoax.


One More Question Needs To Be Answered. To what extent do humans contribute to the problem? Climate cycles have existed since long before we appeared on this planet. Carbon dioxide, the supposed main culprit, has existed since prehistoric times. Without it neither plant nor animal life would exist. Proponents of the man-made nature of the problem state that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 25% since the use of fossil fuels became prevalent. This sounds significant until you become aware of the fact that, this increase means that there is one more molecule of CO2 out of 10,000 molecules of other gasses in our atmosphere. Is it possible that this low concentration substance could really be the culprit? I am skeptical.


So What Is The Next Step. 1. We could do nothing and take the risk that the problem is real and man made with potential disastrous consequences. 2. We could outlaw the use of fossil fuels and face a certain worldwide economic collapse. Of the two, option 1 is almost certainly preferable. Perhaps, the best option lies somewhere in between, which brings us to the point of this article: The cap and trade legislation passed by the House of Representatives involves an attempt by the government to encourage development of renewable energy resources by taxing fossil fuels and using the proceeds to subsidize development of alternative sources. Of course, in typical government fashion, the bill contains several additions. One of these is requiring energy audits on properties being sold (including single family houses) and requiring properties be brought up to some standard of energy efficiency before closing.

Why the Plan Won't Work. Consider our utility energy as an example. Virtually 90% of our utility energy comes from three sources. coal (48.5%), natural Gas (21.3%), and nuclear (19.6%). None of these is popular with the environmental crowd. The rest comes from renewable sources: hydroelectric (6%), other renewables (2.5%), miscellaneous (.5%). When we take hydroelectric out of the mix (we have virtually exhausted the potential for new dams) we are left with only 3% currently coming from renewable resources. Although some technologies like cellulostic ethanol, wind, geothermal, and solar have promise, they have had promise for 20 years now and still account for only a fraction of our energy production. I could never support a program that taxes 90% of our resources in order to fund research on the other 3%. If you think the government knows how to encourage new technology by subsidies, consider the huge sums of money thrown into the corn ethanol fiasco which added little or nothing to the availability of renewable energy and caused food prices to increase by large amounts. Finally, someone discovered that production of corn and converting it to ethanol burned up almost as much energy as it produced.

I Am In Favor Of Renewable Energy Research. But we must develop products that are economically feasible. Adopting a program to tax 90% of our energy sources will only make us less competitive with OPEC. As the availability of fossil fuels diminishes, renewable resources will become more usable. Until that point, attempts by government will only cost taxpayers money and produce minimal environmental benefits.