Editor: The EPA needs redemption—more real science and less ideology.
It is not easy to say that there is too much environmentalism going on, but there is. Yes, the environment needed cleaning up and needs monitoring. It has, unfortunately, become a global political movement, one unkind to the United States and infecting the EPA. CO2, plant food and 0.04 percent of the environment is a victim of global warming disease.
A reporter asked Gina McCarthy, then head of the EPA, how much cooler temperatures would be if our country implemented CO2 reduction rules. Her answer, the temperature would not really change. She explained that we need the rules for symbolic reasons. Rep. Lamar Smith reportedly said that climate regulations could cost up to $176 billion per year, but estimated global warming would be reduced only 0.03 percent of a degree celsius. Cheap coal and natural gas generate about 66 percent of our energy use; costly wind and solar, 6 percent, both requiring lots of land.
Is symbolism worth $176 billion—in a country heavily in debt and in need of energy-dependent economic growth to pay the bills?
A market solution to CO2 reduction would be to stop paying billions of dollars in its abatement that would tie up our economy in knots with coercive and expensive “renewable” energy generation. The proposed carbon tax would become unnecessary. Money is our scarcest resource. Wasting it means that real challenges, like hunger, shelter, disease cures, economic empowerment, electrification are underfunded.
Recently, whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a retired National Climatic Data Center top scientist, alleged that his agency, NOAA, manipulated scientific data to discredit the almost 20-year pause in global warming. Other scientists have complained that raw data are not available to replicate the outcomes of studies that indicate global warming. It has also been reported that climate models employing actual data do not yield actual known outcomes.
There is not a consensus among scientists to man-induced global warming. (Why was the use of “warming” replaced by “change”?) Scientists agree to climate change, of course, because the climate has always changed. In what direction, warmer or cooler, depends on the starting and ending dates that are used. Some climatologists are even predicting a cooling period. Nothing under the sun is new—like adverse weather events but hysterically correlated to “climate change” but does not prove cause and effect.
CO2 has never been proven to increase temperature; it is a theory at best and heavily politicized at that. To answer why, you would have to start decades ago at UNESCO, include the UN’s climate protocol of 1992 and the global ideological environmental movement. It is unfortunate that so many Americans believe that human-induced global climate change is a fact. Because it is not. Our economic future hangs in the balance.
The EPA needs to get back to science.
Rose Ellen Ray, Leesburg