Free-Market Environmentalism

This was originally published 3/30/07 at 5:18 PM, which was Friday evening, so I bumped it up to the top of the blog.

I want to talk about the environment. This is one of those issues that really shouldn't be partisan, so I want to explore why, I think, it is.

I think there are a couple of factors at work here. The most obvious is that the people who tend to be active in the environmental movement also tend to have other views that are at odds with the conservative movement. Many conservatives, this blogger included, tend to eye the environmental movement with a great deal of suspicion that it is a front for imposing anti-business, anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, and anti-progress legislation, among other things. (Funny how those folks are often called progressive.)

I am personally much more environmentally conscience than most conservatives that I know, including my own husband. I will have to admit, though, that most of it started out with my own benefit in mind, not the collect good of the environment.

I use all natural dish soap, laundry soap, cosmetics, shampoos, household cleaners, even bug repellent (Burt's Bees. It works awesome and smells like herbal tea). I garden organically, buy organically raised, hormone-free meats, rBST-free milk (since way before it was popular), and stuff like that. Those things are for my health, though. I am, as my sister calls it, freakishly sensitive to environmental contaminants.

When I started living like that, though, I started to realize how harmful chemicals, pesticides, and cleaners are to the environment. I also started to realize how important it is to be aware of not only what we put into our bodies, but also what we put into our environment.

It has raised my level of awareness about how anything I do will affect the planet.

Since everyone is affected by what others do to the environment, I think this is more than just a personal issue, but I do not think is warrants a heavy-handed government solution.

As people are becoming more environmentally aware and more people are calling for environmentally friendly products, the market is providing solutions. That is what the left does not seem to get about the free-market - we control it with our buying power.

The anti-business brigade always says that all big corporations care about is money, but they never seem to stop and think about where that money comes from - consumers.

If we all put our money where our mouths are, so to speak, and buy environmentally friendly products, we will see strange things start to happen. Before we know it, every grocery store will have a natural foods section - wait, that already happened. Kellogg's will start making organic cereal - wait, that already happened, too. Okay, well, before you know it, I will be able to buy organic cotton pajamas for my kids at Wal-Mart - oh, man! That already happened, too.

The key is educating people and convincing them to buy "green" products, not for the government to legislate personal behavior. (Now, why does that phrase sound familiar?)

To be continued...

PS, that Wal-Mart link is a great read.

Note: I just Googled "Free-Market Environmentalism" after I published this and found that it has a whole Wikipedia page! (I haven't read it yet.) Can I ever coin a new phrase? Sheesh!

Okay, it's a book, too. Man, I really need to read more!

Singer at UVM

Updated.

Last night was the night that the global warming "denier" S. Fred Singer spoke at UVM. The Free Press has an article about it.

I was not able to attend. I was hoping to go and blog about it, but that didn't work out.

Here's a quote from the article (emphasis mine):

In an interview before the discussion, Singer said his organization, the Science & Environmental Policy Project -- whose mission it is to "clarify the diverse problems facing the planet and, where necessary, arrive at effective, cost-conscious solutions," according to its Web site -- has received a one-time grant of $10,000 from the Exxon Foundation, which he said was unsolicited, and wishes had been more. He said it came after he started researching and writing skeptical pieces about global warming and called the accusations about him on the Web lies.

If anyone went, be sure to leave your comments, for or against.

Blog note: I will be out most of the day, so I will not be able to reply to comments until later.

Addendum: I was thinking after I posted this that I really need to do a post that clears up my views on environmental issues. On the one hand, I am a "Crunchy Con" of sorts, but on the other hand, I am not a member of the Church of Global Warming. I will explain why in a post tonight or tomorrow. I mean it. This is not just one of those times that I say I will post something and never do it. Really.

FYI

Speaking of global warming, I received this e-mail yesterday:

Great Spirits Seminar Series
presents

S. Fred Singer, PhD

1500-Year Natural Cycle or Disaster Of Our Own Doing?

A look at the science and politics of global warming

With Opening Remarks from William R. Sayre, Economist, formerly with the Federal Reserve

March 28, 2007
7 p.m.
University of Vermont
Ira Allen Chapel

Are we to blame for a changing climate? And if so, is there anything we can do that will make a difference? Professor Singer, a distinguished and decorated scientist, shares his 60 years of experience in the field of atmospheric physics and climatology in addressing those questions plus:

• The science of climate change
• How the scientific process works
• The politics of climate change, including the suppression of work outside "the learned consensus"
• Why some politicians, some fundraising groups and some corporations need certain conclusions
• Moving forward: Who to believe and what to do

Searching for Truth

You know, after reading about Rep. Stark coming out of the closet on his atheism, or at least lack of belief in a supreme being, I started thinking about courage. I mean, it must have taken a lot of courage to come out as an atheist in this day and age of atheism persecution in America, especially for a Democrat in the San Fransisco Bay area.

After being inspired by Stark's level of courage, I decided that it is time that I, too, come clean about the heretic that I am.

I do not believe in man-made global warming.

I was sort of on the fence, as it seemed the science really did back it up, but I had my reservations. Most of those reservations stemmed from the fact that any opposition to the Church of Global Warming is met with name-calling and death-threats, as opposed to rational debate. It's a little too fundamentalist for my taste. I had to set out on my own to seek the truth for myself.

Well, today, I finally had the chance. I have a little, and long overdue, break from mom/teacher/cook/housekeeper/nurse/referee duty today, so I decided to watch this UK documentary about global warming.

I was expecting mediocrity and, as a result, to be left still wondering what the real truth is.

What I found instead was real science that actually disproves man-made global warming.

The documentary is a little long (about an hour and 15 minutes), but I am glad I took the time.

I can't do a full run-down of the film because I have to prepare for my show this evening, but the most shocking revelation was about the science used in "An Inconvenient Truth."

The scientists in the film, one of which was the Arctic paleoclimatologist who performed the ice core survey used to support CO2-caused global warming, agreed that Al Gore was correct when he stated that there is a correlation historically between CO2 levels and global temperature. What was startling was what Gore did not say, that the rise in CO2 follows the rise in temperature (sometimes by several hundred years). Ergo, my dear readers, the CO2 cannot be causing the rise in temperature.

The film does not stop there. It explains why CO2 levels rise following temperature increase and, brace yourselves, it offers an alternative theory that is backed up using independently gathered scientific data.

There was a scientist that thought the periods of warming historically, because there have been periods of greater warming than this, way before industrialization, might be related to the solar activity.

See, clouds are formed when cosmic (non-solar) rays interact with water vapor in the atmosphere. Clouds keep the earth cooler. When the sun is more active, the solar winds push those cosmic rays away from the earth. The theory is: More solar activity => less cosmic rays come to earth => fewer clouds are formed => warmer temperatures.

To test this, they gathered the historical temperature data and charted that against the historical sun activity data. They found that the correlation was dead on.

Here is a screen shot of a graphic in the film showing historic temperature vs. CO2 levels compared to the temperature vs. sun activity.


There was so much more, but this was I think the most damning piece of information in the film.

I could not in good conscience stay silent about this information after I watched the end of the film, where they addressed the fact that the real victims of global warming hysteria are the people in poor, undeveloped areas, who do not even have electricity, but are being told that they cannot burn the fossil fuels that they have in abundance because we need to err on the side of caution on the issue of man-made global warming.

If you watch no other part of this film, I urge you to view the last 15 minutes.

I know, I know. How dare I question? How dare I speak such blasphemy? Put up the stake and start the fire.


(A very, very big hat-tip to the Chanman for the link to the documentary.)

The Inconvenient Truth about Gore

Let's dispense with the discussion about whether or not global warming is indeed caused by man and warranting of a political solution.

Let's, for the purpose of this post, assume that (1) the earth is indeed warming to the point that it will be disastrous to life as we know it, if it isn't stopped, and (2) said warming is being caused by man's mass-consumption of fossil fuels and the resulting carbon emissions.

If these two things are true, it follows that we must do something drastic to cut back on our carbon emissions, like, yesterday. Tomorrow is too late. Heck, even today might be too late, right?

That type of drastic measure will undoubtedly require some sacrifice. It will require us to do without things that we would rather have. Although we will feel some minor discomfort, maybe even some moderate discomfort, it will surely be better than the cataclysmic climate catastrophe that awaits us if we do nothing.

Surely, the leader of the global warming movement is setting the example of this sacrifice, right? Surely, he is going without such frivolities as a heated pool, right?

Well, one would think. Unfortunately, here in America, we have come to expect little of substance from our leaders.

The news was out today, just after Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar, that Gore is consuming energy in mass quantities, according to charges by a watchdog group in Tennessee.

Now, we conservatives already knew this, but today we were given the gift of Gore's response.

Spokeswoman for Gore, Kalee Kreider, did not deny the allegations, but assured us that Gore purchases "green power" to neutralize his carbon emissions.

Let me paint a picture of the rationale used by such hypocrites carbon neutral folks as Gore and Rep. Peter Welch.

See, according to this model, energy use is a fixed amount. What I mean is, we use roughly the same amount of energy every year. An example of this is, when I look at my electricity bill, the comparison between the kilowatt-hours used this month is usually the same as those used the same month last year.

So, imagine the energy is a pool. Perhaps it is a heated pool in back of Gore's mansion. Who knows? Just picture a pool.

This pool represents the amount of energy we will all use.

The logic behind carbon offsets is that it does not matter how much energy I draw out of this pool - even energy that is created by burning carbon-emitting fossil fuels - as long as I put back energy created by green sources via investing money in green energy development. Eventually, the theory goes, the pool will be completely filled with green energy.

It really makes sense, if you want it to.

But, see, I would rather take off my Gore-love blinders and think about this another way.

The energy I take out of the pool was generated by non-green sources. Let's call them "dirty sources." If I really want to stop global warming, my offsets will not do enough. I also need to stop drawing from the pool of dirty energy. At least until those green sources are up and running.

In this case, the case where I really care about stopping this global warming, I must make sacrifices - real sacrifices - to reduce my energy consumption, while continuing to give just as much of my money to the development of green sources. I need to take less out of the pool, while continuing to fill it with green energy.

What does the Gore spokeswoman have to say about all this?

Focusing on Gore's personal electricity consumption misses the point of "An Inconvenient Truth," Kreider said, which is that governments and the public can work together to reduce emissions.

It misses the point? Really!?! No. It hits the point just fine.

See, if Gore really believes his own documentary, if Gore really thinks that the end of the world is upon us if we do not make these changes now, he would cut his emissions, not just invest in green energy so he can pretend that those emissions that he caused don't exist.

And if all of his power came from green sources, even solar panels to be installed on his estate, he would still cut his consumption, so that his extra energy could be sold back to the power company for use by someone else who is currently relying on dirty sources.

But, he doesn't. He doesn't. So, what does that mean?

You figure it out.

Welch goes carbon neutral

Okay, this is my last post on Global Warming, or else I am going to have to make a category for it.

So, today, everyone was gushing over the announcement that Rep. Peter Welch is off-setting the carbon output of his DC office.

How?

A Vermont company allows you to compute the carbon footprint of your household based on energy use and travel. Then, you can pay a yearly or monthly fee based on the amount of carbon dioxide that you are responsible for. That money is used to create wind and/or methane power - you get to choose.

Here is my proposal. Every single American that is concerned about global warming needs to sign up for this. That way, not only can liberals be free from blame when they engage in their rants against Big Oil, but also, conservatives can claim another victory in the free-market versus government-regulation debate.

That's what I call win-win.

I might sign up for it myself. After all, $37/month is a small price to pay to be able to tell JD Ryan to kiss my carbon neutral behind!

More on Global Warming

Update (3:45 pm)

I came across this interesting piece on global warming today. I thought I would post it in honor of the anonymous commenter on this post yesterday.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

You can read the column here.

Remember, don't shoot the messenger. I didn't write it, nor am I a climatologist.

Update: JD Ryan submits his refutation of this column (and its author) in the first comment on this post.

Random Thought

Given that it is a whopping 5-degrees out right now (that's excluding the wind chill of as low as 20-below), I think this is a good opportunity to point out the folly in citing the unusually warm temperatures in December as "proof" of global warming.

I am not saying here that global warming is or is not happening, or that it is or is not caused by humans.

What I am saying is that for every person who said, when it was really warm out, "It global warming." There will be an equal number of people saying, now that it is dangerously frigid, "So much for global warming."

Note to those concerned about global warming: it does not help your case to cite the weather on any given day as proof.

Okay, I am going to go curl up with a blanket and a good book. It's cold out there!