Bagging on Roy Spencer
- It would be political suicide for McCain to ignore climate as his
state burns and whithers. Sadly, it is also political suicide for
you to reduce CO2 emissions and not take every drop of water that
flows down the Colorado River into the Gulf of California where
conductivities and the macrobiosphere there has been so impacted.
But for another day . . .
i Reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases significantly will be
extremely painful. It may sound to John Q. Public that getting
industry to "pollute less" is a good thing, until John realizes how
much it's going to cost him. Using terms like "market-driven"
and "tradable allowances," as supporters of these global warming
bills do, can make greenhouse-gas reductions sound almost attractive.
But it glosses over the fact that industries that happen to be
particularly profitable at the time can trade their right to pollute
with other industries. "Feel good" measures that might reduce global
emissions by 5% or 10% aren't going to have any measurable effect on
global temperatures in the next 50 years anyway - a fact the
supporters of these bills will acknowledge if you ask them.
Fortunately, many Americans can afford to both wring their hands over
environmental threats, and pay more for their energy needs. But what
about those who can't afford it?
What I wonder is how much the fossil fuel industry paid him for
this. Or how much the publication was paid. This is a decidely
fascist view and has nothing to do with climate science.
i Legislative punishment of the generation of affordable energy --
the lifeblood of free and growing economies -- will have huge winners
and losers. But until we either accept nuclear power as an
alternative, or develop new energy generation technologies, there is
little we can do to reduce our production of greenhouse gases by any
significant amount. The energy intensity of solar and wind are
insufficient to make much of a difference. So what's the point of
introducing legislation that will have relatively little positive
environmental effect, but will have negative economic consequences? I
can't believe that partisan politics would be involved in any way at
least not in an election year.
One of the interesting ideas about "affordable energy" is how the
fossil fuel industry hopes to transfer costs and risks and privitize
profits. Hence wars for oil and subsidizing an industry despite the
COSTS and RISKS of climate change. But, sadly, I would rather
stick to the science, and this is a purely political fascist barf bag
of writing by someone who has NO IDEA what the consequences of more
CO2 into the macrobiosphere are.
i Roy Spencer recently wrote for TCS about "Raining on the Global
- But what are the alternatives, Mike? To produce energy, and by that I
mean electricity, you have to spin a generator. To do that
consistently for years on end, you need high pressure steam spinning a
turbine. The only way you get that is by heating a very large volume
of water. To do that, you have to have either nuclear power or burn
something. Can you think of another way to do it?