Climate Alarmism Meets Common Sense
Let’s kick off what will likely be a controversial article with the statement that I am pro-environment. Much of my free time enjoying the outdoors: sleeping under the stars, flyfishing lakes and rivers, running whitewater and hiking mountain trails. I love the outdoors and am passionate about keeping our air, land and waterways clean.
I believe our climate changes. There have been seasons of flood and drought, heat and cold, tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes and regional variations since time began. Even over my six-decade lifespan, I’ve experienced the impact of weather – good and bad. For example, I’m a farm kid. We had wet seasons. Dry seasons. Hot seasons and frigid seasons. I’m sure that will continue, and I believe we should have contingency plans to care for ourselves and our communities based on the inevitability of weather and natural events that can threaten life and property. We should, however, be very cautious about drawing sweeping conclusions about the state of global environmental health from observing short term and regional fluctuations. We should be even more deliberate about mandating radical changes in societal behavior on the basis of such assumptions
|
I believe we should have contingency plans to care for ourselves and our communities based on the inevitability of weather and natural events that can threaten life and property. We should, however, be very cautious about drawing sweeping conclusions about the state of global environmental health from observing short term and regional fluctuations. We should be even more deliberate about mandating radical changes in societal behavior on the basis of such assumptions |
For the last few years, there has been much talk about global warming, which became climate change and now “climate chaos” as an “existential” threat to mankind that we are bringing on ourselves by the irresponsible way we live upon the earth. Apparently credible scientists argue the case that humankind is doomed unless we transition quickly away from petroleum products, drive electric vehicles and heat, cool and power our society all electrically using only “renewable” energy sources like solar and windfarms. Equally credible scientists argue that the climate change fears are overblown and that the alternative paths proposed and the pace of moving down “Green New Deal” paths bears much more risk to us than death from climatic variations.
Although I’ve read a lot about this topic, I’m no climate scientist. I’m just a commonsense guy who’s lived through a lot of “end of life as we’ve known it” scares over the last few decades. Here’s my current position: Of course, we have to pay attention to climate change, on both practical and strategic levels, but I’m much more concerned about taking radical, hasty action based on climate alarmism.
My position on this is undoubtedly controversial. The climate change debate is very contentious. As with any contentious issue, before we begin to make life changing decisions, we must examine the potential motives of the ones making doom and gloom climate change allegations. Eloquent and passionate arguments may be persuasive (as intended) but they may not be valid, and they most certainly are driven by underlying motives. Here are some:
Climate Alarm Motivations.
Although I’ve read a lot about this topic, I’m no climate scientist. I’m just a commonsense guy who’s lived through a lot of “end of life as we’ve known it” scares over the last few decades. Here’s my current position: Of course, we have to pay attention to climate change, on both practical and strategic levels, but I’m much more concerned about taking radical, hasty action based on climate alarmism.
My position on this is undoubtedly controversial. The climate change debate is very contentious. As with any contentious issue, before we begin to make life changing decisions, we must examine the potential motives of the ones making doom and gloom climate change allegations. Eloquent and passionate arguments may be persuasive (as intended) but they may not be valid, and they most certainly are driven by underlying motives. Here are some:
Climate Alarm Motivations.
- Genuine Care. Oregonians genuinely care about our environment. I’m one of them. Consequently, we are well-known as one of the cleanest places to live in the world. Clearly, that’s a great thing and, like most people in our state, I favor rational steps to steward our natural resources. Our knee jerk reaction whenever presented with an environment-protecting argument is likely, “Well, yes! Of course!” Because of this, we need to be especially cautious about making major decisions based on an emotional response without examining all the ramifications.
- Political Gain. “Climate change” is a brilliant political issue. Passionate and scary (even terrifying) claims abound. However, no one can actually prove the claims one way or another. That makes for a perfect political opportunity to get elected, raise money and wield power by playing on people’s legitimate care for the environment by introducing a liberal dose of fear, doubt and uncertainty. This opportunity is clearly being exploited to great effect by the left, because no one wants to argue against a “clean environment.” Of course, we all want a clean environment. The unasked and unanswered questions however are: “How clean is clean enough?” “What are the ramifications and unintended consequences of making hasty, ill-considered, radical and politically driven changes? What are the cultural and economic costs of making such changes…especially when making them at an accelerated pace?”
- Financial Gain. There’s a lot of money to be made by changing the entire energy structure of a state or a country. Ponder that.
- Social Affirmation. We live in a time where people are obsessed with how they appear to others. We use social media and protest to posture, pose and signal our virtue on social, economic and environmental issues. Unfortunately, much of this posturing is simply ungrounded rhetoric based on how we ”feel,” and on what we heard or read from someone who is likely equally uniformed and motivated by one of the agendas noted above. Voting and making far-reaching decisions based on limited facts, strong emotion and in order to gain social affirmation is a deeply flawed approach that likely leads us down paths much more dangerous than the purported risks passionately argued by the uniformed on social media, on the streets and in the coffee shops of Oregon.
- Conflicting Private Agendas. One of the most interesting phenomena to observe is when environmental activism meets climate alarm. Then we see environmentalists “protecting” forests to save spotted owls, which then perish in wildfires fueled by forest management failures. Another example is the current legal battle between advocates of lithium mining for battery production and groups seeking to block the mine because it could potentially endanger snails. Conservationists are seeking Endangered Species Act protection for a tiny snail half the size of a pea that is known to exist only in high-desert springs near a huge lithium mine planned in Nevada along the Oregon state line. The Western Watersheds Project filed the listing petition last week with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Kings River pyrg, a springsnail found in 13 isolated springs around Thacker Pass 200 miles (321 kilometers) northeast of Reno. It says the biggest threat to the snail’s survival is disruption of groundwater flows as a result of the 370-foot-deep (113-meter), open-pit mine that the Bureau of Land Management approved last year and is currently being challenged in U.S. District Court in Reno. These conflicting private agendas illustrate the fact that we will always face environmental trade-offs and difficult choices as we live on and with the land.
These conflicting private agendas illustrate the fact that we will always face environmental trade-offs and difficult choices as we live on and with the land.
A Common Sense Perspective.
Most of Europe jumped off the Green Energy cliff and now millions of people face a loss of power and a very cold and killing winter due to the hasty and imprudent actions of their political leaders. More people die from exposure to extreme cold than exposure to heat. As Europeans scavenge the forest and cut down trees for wood to keep warm and stay alive, the situation is becoming quite medieval. We don’t want that here in Oregon. It’s time to slow down and apply a bit of common sense to this discussion, before we follow the tragic example of Europe and California and jeopardize the livelihoods and well-being of all Oregonians.
1. Environmental. Nearly every approach to producing energy has tradeoffs. Most approaches touted as “Green” have significant environmental downsides. Wind turbines are not only unsightly, they wear out and the blade disposal problem, in particular, is significant. Turbine blades spinning at 100-180 mph are devastating to birds, especially endangered species like eagles. Lithium mining is far from “Green,” as well as employing often exploitive labor practices. Used lithium battery disposal is a toxic nightmare. Lithium batteries are extremely flammable and burn very hot. Not only that, burning lithium batteries have been found to leak more than 100 toxic gases including carbon monoxide. The gases, which are potentially fatal, can cause strong irritation to the skin, eyes and nasal passages, and harm the wider environment. Finally, the electricity necessary to charge the batteries may not come from solar, wind or water power, and thus, even though an electric car won’t have emissions, that does not mean that there are not emissions from the upstream power generation. Everything has a tradeoff…including an environmental tradeoff.
Most of Europe jumped off the Green Energy cliff and now millions of people face a loss of power and a very cold and killing winter due to the hasty and imprudent actions of their political leaders. More people die from exposure to extreme cold than exposure to heat. As Europeans scavenge the forest and cut down trees for wood to keep warm and stay alive, the situation is becoming quite medieval. We don’t want that here in Oregon. It’s time to slow down and apply a bit of common sense to this discussion, before we follow the tragic example of Europe and California and jeopardize the livelihoods and well-being of all Oregonians.
- Consider Relative Size. Oregon is small. Our population is only 4.3 million people. Many cities in the US and the world are larger than our whole state. The world is big. The world’s population is about 8 billion people. The population of China is 1.4 billion. The population of India is 1.4 billion. The population of the African continent is 1.2 billion. Approximately half the world’s population lives in these three geographical regions, and they are by far the greatest emitters of pollutants into the air. None of these regions share the climate alarm concerns of the far left in Oregon. They are not going to be led or influenced by the philosophies and actions of the tiny state of Oregon. Oregon is already one of the cleanest places on the planet. Our carbon footprint is immaterial vs. that of China, India and Africa. Our tiny, clean state contributes such a miniscule amount of pollutants relative to the rest of the world that we could have zero emissions and it would make absolutely no material difference.
- Get Real. We are experiencing a drought in Oregon. We are experiencing terrible wildfires in Oregon. For the most part, these circumstances are beyond the control of political leaders and certainly beyond the control of individual citizens. However, we feel the pain, and thus are susceptible to the plea, “We have to do something!” The “something” proposed is to eliminate the use of petroleum products and go “all electric.” But let’s get real. Emissions from Oregonians do not stay hovering over Oregon causing isolated climate change in Oregon. They dissipate, just like the emissions from other countries dissipate. Your car did not cause a drought in Oregon. All the cars in Oregon cannot cause a drought. Diesel powered trucks and farm equipment did not cause our drought and they do not cause wildfires. If you think about it, the greatest emitters of pollutants in Oregon each year are wildfires, yet even the smoke from those does not linger long over Oregon. It dissipates around the world. One would think the political will of our state leaders would be focused on wildfire mitigation through responsible harvesting, thinning the state forests, clearing underbrush, creating defensible space and encouraging livestock grazing. But instead of investing in what would actually make a difference, our state leaders are focused on eliminating diesel fuel, dismantling the natural gas distribution system, tearing out the carbon free hydroelectric power producing Snake River Dams, and recklessly driving our state into going “all electric,” at enormous cost to Oregonians.
- Weigh the Cost. The cost to go all-electric is incalculable. It would be enormously disruptive to business and agriculture and would make Oregon businesses lose competitiveness in the domestic and international markets. It’s the perfect inflationary and recessionary one two punch for Oregon businesses already reeling from the last three years of government interference. At an individual level, the cost to transition will be exorbitant. Transitioning to electric vehicles will inevitably raise the cost and availability of gasoline and diesel fuel. This will be especially problematic for rural Oregonians. Selling an un-fuelable gasoline powered vehicle and buying a new electric vehicle will have a terrible impact on Oregon households. The cost to heat and cool businesses and homes will skyrocket. All this will cause price increases and wreak economic havoc on the citizens of Oregon. With all this talk of transition and “environmental leadership” we must remember that this will not be paid for by our state government. State government spending is with taxpayer money. Therefore, it is not the “state” that will fund the Green New Deal plans. It’s each one of us as individual citizens. And the burden will be greatest on those least economically able to carry it – the elderly, the disabled and those in the lower economic tiers of our economy.
- Horse Before the Cart. Government leaders are notorious for getting the cart before the horse. Just look at the horribly botched implementation of Measure 110 that decriminalized user quantities of hard drugs. The idea was sold on the basis of having treatment facilities available for all the new addicts. One would have thought perhaps the implementation of this would have called for building the treatment facilities before decriminalizing hard drugs. But instead we decriminalized first, and did nothing for years about treatment. Thus, we have some of the highest addiction and mental illness problems in the country and the lowest treatment resources in the country. It has been a complete disaster. We risk the same thing happening with Green New Deal implementation. If we are going to transition our energy infrastructure, it would make a great deal of sense to build out the grid BEFORE mandating practices that will inevitably overwhelm the existing grid, just as is happening in California and Europe. Finally, we are many years away from being able to implement electric vehicles in rural and agricultural parts of the state. Massive infrastructure and tremendous technological advances in electric power would be necessary to make transition even feasible, let alone practical and affordable.
- Assess the Risks. Let’s assume that you believe that going carbon neutral and eliminating so-called “greenhouse gas” emissions in Oregon will save the planet. By the way, many credible scientists are not of this opinion. But let’s assume it’s your position. In addition to the economic burden of the Green New Deal, there are at least three main risk areas associated with plunging down that path.
1. Environmental. Nearly every approach to producing energy has tradeoffs. Most approaches touted as “Green” have significant environmental downsides. Wind turbines are not only unsightly, they wear out and the blade disposal problem, in particular, is significant. Turbine blades spinning at 100-180 mph are devastating to birds, especially endangered species like eagles. Lithium mining is far from “Green,” as well as employing often exploitive labor practices. Used lithium battery disposal is a toxic nightmare. Lithium batteries are extremely flammable and burn very hot. Not only that, burning lithium batteries have been found to leak more than 100 toxic gases including carbon monoxide. The gases, which are potentially fatal, can cause strong irritation to the skin, eyes and nasal passages, and harm the wider environment. Finally, the electricity necessary to charge the batteries may not come from solar, wind or water power, and thus, even though an electric car won’t have emissions, that does not mean that there are not emissions from the upstream power generation. Everything has a tradeoff…including an environmental tradeoff.
2. Dependency. Dependency on one single source of power is imprudent. Having a balanced mix of energy solutions can help prevent disastrous outcomes from the failure of one source. Even now, in Europe and California, the over-dependence on electricity and renewable energy is causing a desperate attempt to return to coal, nuclear and gas solutions. They moved too fast, and the citizens are paying the price for their leaders’ reckless abandonment of energy independence.
|
Even now, in Europe and California, the over-dependence on electricity and renewable energy is causing a desperate attempt to return to coal, nuclear and gas solutions. They moved too fast, and the citizens are paying the price for their leaders’ reckless abandonment of energy independence. |
3. Loss of Liberty. Consider the freedom and flexibility that is available to you, due to gas and diesel-powered vehicles. Contrast that to your loss of liberty if you only have an electric car and the power is shut off for an extended period of time. If you run out of charge in your electric car in a remote area far from a charging station, I bet you’ll long for the days of gas-powered vehicles. Also, have you considered the loss of time, flexibility and inconvenience of charging a car, which can take from 30 minutes to eight hours, vs a 5-minute fill-up of your gas-powered vehicle?
Wrap Up.
I’m in favor of making things better. I’m in favor of a clean environment. I’m in favor of energy progress. I’m in favor of technological advance. I’m in favor of common sense, well thought out approaches that consider the ramifications and consequences of the contemplated actions. What I’m not in favor of are costly, hasty, ill-conceived, politically and emotionally driven disruptions to the lives and livelihoods of Oregonians that expose us to unacceptable risk. I’m in favor of common sense over climate alarmism.
- National Security. We should not be naïve. We live in a world of terrorism and war. We must not forget the lessons of 9-11. Energy sources are a prime potential target, as evidence recently by many cyber-attacks this year on energy companies, including the ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline. For a company that transports roughly 2.5 million barrels of fuel daily and accounts for 45% of fuel supplies to the East Coast, having to shut down temporarily was also a crisis. The outage resulted in gasoline shortages, shutting down services, promoting panic buying among motorists and escalated gas costs. All of our national energy grid must be hardened and secured against attack and we cannot be entirely dependent and exposed to one form of energy or one primary source. Here’s an example. The Biden administration and the Oregon governor are touting the benefits of massive floating windmill farms off the Pacific coast, envisioned to produce enough power to electrify 5 million homes. Great idea, right? But there’s also a serious security exposure. One successful bombing attack and 5-million homes go dark, as well as every other industrial and governmental user. If our government officials are “successful” in transitioning us all to electrical power dependent on sources such as floating windfarms, what happens if those suddenly vaporize? As a former military officer, I say those who might assert that could never happen are terribly naïve.
Wrap Up.
I’m in favor of making things better. I’m in favor of a clean environment. I’m in favor of energy progress. I’m in favor of technological advance. I’m in favor of common sense, well thought out approaches that consider the ramifications and consequences of the contemplated actions. What I’m not in favor of are costly, hasty, ill-conceived, politically and emotionally driven disruptions to the lives and livelihoods of Oregonians that expose us to unacceptable risk. I’m in favor of common sense over climate alarmism.
(to help elect Michael Sipe, Republican Candidate for Oregon House District 53)