RUTHFULLY YOURS

Perhaps President Obama can explain exactly how his climate accord will prevent hurricanes.

Hurricanes, similar to tornados, volcanos, and earthquakes, are natural disasters which have plagued the planet long before humans drove gas guzzling SUVs or used air conditioning. The earliest recorded hurricane in Florida occurred in 1523. Note the word “recorded”, as 16th-century Florida was a bit less populated compared to today with accurate weather recording still centuries in the future.

Flash forward to 1900 when Floridians were more adept at recording their weather. By that time there had been 159 Florida hurricanes with 6500 fatalities. In 1900, William McKinley was president and not using his bully pulpit to fight climate change as is our current president. Did President McKinley ever utter these words? “No challenge poses a greater threat to our children, our planet, and future generations than climate change.”

As the 11-year-long Florida hurricane drought comes to an end, it seems newsworthy to ask why no hurricane has made landfall in Florida for over a decade. Until this week. What happened to the dire predictions of Al Gore and other global warming alarmists? Ten years ago we were facing a “true planetary emergency” requiring “drastic measures” to avoid a “point of no return.” Why aren’t intrepid reports asking the climate doomsday gang to explain themselves?

Instead, as predictable as sunrise and sunset — but not hurricanes — one such reporter, NBC’s Ron Allen has conveniently forgotten the last decade as if it never happened, resurrecting the global warming bogeyman in the face of Hurricane Matthew. Allen attempts to tie the current hurricane into the UN Climate Accord by saying that the hurricane threat is what, “this whole climate agreement signed by 190 nations and now ratified by 60 or so is designed to stop.”

Wow! So easy! Countries agreeing to a UN proposal can stop a hurricane. If I was living along the Florida coast, I would have wanted this agreement signed decades ago, avoiding hurricanes Camille, Katrina, and Andrew, and the death and destruction they brought.

If only it was that simple. Hurricanes, like weather and climate, are predicted based on computer models. How accurate are the models? Look at the models of Hurricane Matthew’s path. Some tracks have the hurricane heading harmlessly out into the Atlantic. Others have it crossing the state heading into the Gulf of Mexico. Most have it heading up the U.S. coast in some fashion, possibly making landfall anywhere between Florida and the Carolinas. Each of the myriad lines is generated by a computer model.

The New York Times had an article stating that vehicular deaths jumped 10% in the first half of 2016. The Times was very careful, however, not to speculate on the cause.

Traffic deaths in the United States rose 10.4 percent in the first half of this year compared with the same period in 2015, maintaining a steady climb … to 17,775 in the first six months of 2016 from 16,100 in the same period in 2015

The dire statistics were the latest bad news from the traffic safety administration. Beginning in the final months of 2014, the rate of fatalities has increased for seven consecutive quarters compared with the corresponding quarters of previous years.

Officials have not identified a specific cause for the most recent increase.

“It is too soon to attribute contributing factors or potential implications of any changes in deaths on our roadways,” the agency said.

No, it isn’t. It’s called CAFE standards. Automakers are under obligations to make cars more and more fuel-efficient. It sounds great, doesn’t it? Everyone wants his car to be more fuel-efficient – until he realizes that fuel-efficiency is achieved not with some kind of engine out of Star Trek, but simply by making cars lighter and lighter. Every year there are tighter and tighter targets, and cars have to become lighter and lighter.

When you are in a car crash, the less your car weighs, the less protection you have and the more likely you are to be injured or killed. Obama bullied car companies into agreeing to make cars less and less safe. Why?

Partially out of the erroneous fear that gasoline is a non-renewable resource, and we will run out of it. We actually have enough proven reserves of gasoline for several hundred more years, longer than we have been using gasoline as a source of fuel.

The other reason for fuel efficiency mandates is fear of imaginary global warming. The high priests of the imaginary global warming religion fear that car exhaust causes global warming. Even though it hasn’t been getting warmer in recent years. Even though most carbon dioxide emissions are produced naturally, not by cars or manufacturing.

I am a Conservationist. I am not an Environmentalist. What? Aren’t the two the same thing? No, they are not. In fact the two movements are diametrically opposed.

John Muir was a Conservationist, not an Environmentalist. He saw the wilderness as a “primary source for understanding God: The Book of Nature.” Muir did not worship Nature, as modern environmentalists do. Muir worshiped God, the Judeo-Christian God. So, here is the difference: Conservation derives from the Hebrew Bible. Mankind is to be Stewards of the Land. We are charged to husband God’s creation.

Environmentalists, for the most part, believe that the Earth’s biosphere is God. And, that human beings are destructive parasites, eating away at the life of their deity. In effect, most environmentalists are atheists searching for something larger than themselves to worship. But environmentalists see themselves as not being the riff-raff parasites that the rest of mankind are. Environmentalists believe they are the elect, the knowing, the superior beings, the priests, the Gnostics.

This notion that people are parasites really got started in the 1960’s. A couple of highly promoted bad actors started this environmental heresy. The first was Rachel Carson with her hysterical polemic about DDT and its purported harm to birds and other wild life. Her ideas proved to be, at best, problematic, but millions of people have died as a consequence of the resulting international banning of DDT. The second, and even more dangerous, problem child was Paul Ehrlich. This curmudgeon has even greater responsibility by amplifying environmental hysteria. Ehrlich should have known better. After all, he is a biology professional. But his mistakes suggest that he may not be all that professionally gifted.

Ehrlich predicted the death of the oceans due to insecticides and other chemicals washing into the sea. He did not account, as he ought to have, for the rapid evolution of plankton to adapt to these foreign substances. (The smaller the organism the faster its evolution – witness antibiotic resistance.) It was a bonehead mistake that no competent evolutionary biologist should make. More famously, Ehrlich predicted mass famine and hundreds of millions of deaths within a few years because of the so-called “population bomb.” He completely ignored the 1960’s technological “Green Revolution” which today has China and India exporting food. And, he completely missed the natural reduction in birth rates, and the consequent leveling of population, as the standard of living of Third World countries increased. Again, that process was something that population experts already knew and understood.

And then came James Lovelock with his “Gaia Hypothesis.” This is the notion that the biosphere is an environment-regulating ensemble of living organisms. In the large, the biosphere, together with its non-organic matrix, could be considered an organism, itself. The idea is interesting. Indeed, it has proven to be scientifically fruitful.

But other people latched onto the biosphere and made Gaia a god. And, with it, made environmentalism a religion. A religion, which Lovelock himself rejects as misinformed – if not dangerous. Lovelock went through his hysteric period in the early years of the ecology mania, but he has since moderated his outlook now that his predictions of imminent environmental doom have proved unfounded.

Why do people do it? Why do they fall into these overblown quasi-religious enthusiasms? I speculate that there are three complementary reasons: Ignorance, Insecurity and Hubris.

Climate change landed in a Washington, D.C., court this week as Republican governors and business groups sued to block President Barack Obama’s sweeping regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

The lawsuit is only the latest example of how polarized politics have made it so difficult to reconcile two divergent priorities: climate change and economic growth.

Across the country, however, voters are being offered a plan that does just that.

In November, Washington state will vote on the country’s first revenue-neutral carbon tax. By embedding the cost of carbon dioxide emissions in the price consumers and businesses pay for energy, such a tax automatically encourages conservation and makes renewable energy more appealing, without regulations and subsidies that distort investment and undercut growth. Because the revenue is used to cut other taxes, it doesn’t crimp incomes or undermine business competitiveness.
ENLARGE

In environmentally conscientious Washington state, Initiative 732, as the ballot initiative is known, ought to be a slam-dunk. It isn’t—a poll shows voters roughly split. The reasons are a window into why climate policy is so polarizing.

The ​resistance comes not just from the usual opponents on the right, but even more strikingly from the left. The reason: Many environmentalists see climate change as an opportunity to remake the economic order. They want to use carbon taxes to fund renewable energy and green technology and bolster the incomes of workers and communities they say are most hurt by climate change. Whatever the merits of these goals, the effect is to equate climate policy with bigger government, which makes it harder to achieve broad-based support.

Nearly a century ago the British economist Arthur Pigou advanced the idea of stamping out socially destructive activity by taxing it.

Washington state’s proposed levy is a textbook “Pigouvian tax” which should come as no surprise since it’s the brainchild of an economist: Yoram Bauman, who previously taught economics at the University of Washington. He now makes his living doing stand-up comedy about economics (One liner: “You might be an economist if you refuse to sell your children because they’ll be worth more later.”).

Democratic Governor Jay Inslee had proposed a cap-and-trade plan modeled on California’s, but couldn’t get it passed through either the Democratic-controlled state House or the Republican-controlled Senate.

So Mr. Bauman’s group, Carbon Washington, put forth I-732 as an alternative. It would impose a $15 tax per ton of carbon dioxide in the first year, rising to $25 in the second, and thereafter by 3.5% after inflation annually to $100 in current dollars.

The tax would add 25 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline and boost the average monthly electric bill by about $8. All the revenue—roughly $2 billion a year—would be returned to taxpayers via a one-percentage point cut in the state sales tax, elimination of a business tax, and a tax rebate of up to $1,500 a year to 460,000 low-income workers.

The Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based environmental think tank, reckons the tax is just high enough to achieve the state’s statutory emissions reduction goal: 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.

I-732 is modeled on a similar levy introduced in British Columbia in 2008 that now stands at $23 per metric ton. A study by Werner Antweiler and Sumeet Gulati at the University of British Columbia found the tax has curbed the average person’s fuel consumption by 7% and boosted the average car’s fuel efficiency by 4%.

​Given all that, why don’t more environmentalists support it? In part, internal politics: Some groups are miffed they didn’t have more say in the design of I-732. Others think I-732 won’t pass and their energy is better devoted to politically more viable initiatives. Having failed to pass cap-and-trade legislation, Mr. Inslee has, like Mr. Obama, since moved to cap some emissions via regulation.

But the main reason is that I-732 sends its revenue back to taxpayers, whereas environmentalists would like the revenue for other priorities. The Washington Environmental Council, which doesn’t support I-732, says revenue from any climate initiative should be plowed into the “clean energy economy…infrastructure for clean, abundant water and healthy forests” and assistance for “the most vulnerable workers and communities.”

Rather than compromise, other climate activists have sought to oust their political opponents—usually Republicans. CONTINUE AT SITE