Remember the stimulus package that had to pass immediately or we would face economic catastrophe?  Recently released data from the Commerce Department show that the economy was recovering before the stimulus went into effect.  Unemployment has risen above what the Obama administration said it would if the stimulus passed, but oh well, Congress approved and the president signed the legislation to spend $787 billion of your money.

The Next Boondoggle

Now President Obama is trying to ramrod through the Cap and Trade legislation that will put another enormous burden on taxpayers and we have to do this now, immediately, imperatively, or south Florida will be under water and polar bears will be extinct.

A 98 page report from a veteran in the EPA garnered this response from his boss, Al McGartland:

“‘The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision,” he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. “I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.’ ”

Who is the EPA working for?  Is this a government of the people or of the statists?  So because they won the election, the policies of their most extreme supporters must be put in place, no matter how large the bill or how effective the policy.  If it is a sham, too bad, they want it…they shall have it and you get stuck with the bill, the loss of liberty, and them telling you how to live your life.

The Problematic Report

Here is the essence of the report , written by EPA scientist Alan Carlin,  that the EPA finds so damning:

Carlin compiled a 98 page report that pointed to some inconvenient facts that call the connection between CO2 emissions and global temperature into doubt, at a time when the President is pushing “urgent” carbon emissions regulation through the Congress. From FOXNews.com:”Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been ‘greatly diminished.’ ”

But hey, on the other side of the ledger you have Al Gore and he has a Nobel prize and an Academy Award, so who are you going to believe?

The global warming threat may be in the process of being debunked but the fiscal threat from the Obama Administration will cause far more damage if we don’t take urgent steps to stop them.

Democrats Lining Up to Vote for Cap and Trade

The tide is turning against the case for man-made global warming.  An article in today’s Wall Street Journal has the following:

“Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.” — The Climate Change Climate Change, WSJ, June 26, 2009

So if the case for controlling CO2 emissions is gaining skeptics, what would a reasonable person do?  They would probably pause and listen to see if they should alter their position based on this new information.  What do the statists do?  Double their efforts to jam this gargantuan tax bill through Congress, again without reading it because it’s too big, before the American people find out just how monumentally stupid it is.

Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Ed Markey are the lead lemmings jumping into the sea and expecting all of us to follow.  You see, if they can slam this thing in they will have enormously increased their power and make it very difficult to unwind this monstrosity.  Their disdain for what is right for this country and what is best for the American people is truly astounding.  Their arrogance and sense of empowerment knows no limits.

Scientists Speak Out

Far from Al Gore’s pejorative and dismissive label of “deniers”, some real scientists weigh in:

“The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)”  — The Climate Change Climate Change, WSJ, June 26, 2009

Can you feel your liberties slipping away as those in power do what they want rather than representing us.  Sounds like it’s about time for a tea party.

In 1962 Rachel Carson wrote a book called Silent Spring, about which some have credited the beginning of the environmental movement.  It also led to the subsequent ban of DDT in 1972.  DDT was accused of causing cancer and in damaging wildlife, particularly birds by causing eggshells to thin.

Prior to this DDT was believed to be a miracle, and the scientist who discovered it, Dr. Paul Muller, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948.  During WWII, GIs would cover themselves liberally with the substance before heading into the jungles for protection against malaria.  It is also believed that its use eradicated malaria in the U.S. and other developed countries.

Flawed Science

A 1969 study found a higher incidence of tumors in mice that were fed DDT.  Let’s think about that.  A single study found an increase in cancer in mice fed DDT.  However over 20 years of widespread use among humans did not show any increase in the cancer rate among those populations that used them.  Upon closer examination of the study they found that both the subject and control groups had increased levels of tumors. Oops.  It appears that both groups were fed moldy food that contained a carcinogen.  When the test was repeated, neither group had any tumors.

The studies of birds whose eggshells were thin, were also given closer scrutiny.  It was determined that the cause was due to a calcium deficiency, not DDT.  Actually during the period of greatest DDT use in the U.S. many of the bird species under study grew in numbers rather than fell.

Don’t Let Science Stand in the Way of Politics

In 1971, authority for pesticides was transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency.  What better way to kick off a new government bureaucracy that some bold action:

“In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that ‘DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. . . . The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. . . . The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.’” — Sweeney EM. EPA Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings. 25 April 1972 (40 CFR 164.32)

However, two months later, the new head of the EPA, William Ruckleshaus, instituted the ban on DDT.  This was done without him attending a single hearing on the matter as it was discussed over a seven month period or reading the transcripts.

The Tragic Results

In Ceylon, modern day Sri Lanka, widespread use of DDT cut the number of malaria cases from 2.8 million in 1948 to 17, that’s right, seventeen in 1963.  Spraying was stopped in 1964 and by 1969 the number of cases had risen again to 2.5 million.

It is estimated that in the last ten years alone the number of deaths worldwide from malaria is over 27 million.

There is an aggressive program today to raise money to buy bed nets to protect children in Africa and other parts of the world where malaria is still rampant.  Billions of dollars are estimated to be needed to buy and deliver these nets.  One of the positive factors about DDT was that it was inexpensive, around seventeen cents per pound.

If only had cooler heads prevailed, and the “science” looked at with a reasonable dose of skepticism, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and malaria, perhaps eradicated.  But when some in the environmental movement latch onto a position it soon moves into the realm of settled or consensus science.

The Next Blunder

So before we drive the world over the next environmental cliff, perhaps it’s time to tune out Al Gore, take a cleansing breath, and take a closer look at the science with clear eyes.  What the global warming, er, global climate change crowd is proposing would cost in the trillions. Let’s ask if what some scientists are saying that global temperature peaked about ten years ago, why is the earth cooling if we continue to pour more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?  Why are we calling carbon dioxide, which is essential to life…we exhale it, trees take it in and give off oxygen…a pollutant?  What if we eradicate the pollutant, carbon dioxide like we did DDT?

Will there be anyone around to count the damage?

As I continue to read the book I mentioned in my last post, I become more wary of the politics surrounding it.  Man’s contribution to global warming is “settled science”, or in other words, no more debate folks the discussion is closed.  The suggestion from a politician in Australia that any Australian that doesn’t believe in man made global warming should be stripped of their citizenship until the are re-educated.  Does that kind of talk scare you?  It scares me.  The American Meteorological Society (AMS) has issued a statement on climate change that reads:

“There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change.”

Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel’s climatologist believes that any meteorologist who carries an AMS certification should lose that certification if they do not toe the company line.  If their science and their logic are so convincing, why resort to the threats and coercion?

There is an alternate theory that is not even addressed in the book and that is that the temperature increase that we are seeing is caused by solar activity.  In the book the author touches on the effect of the sun, but only with regard to the position of the earth relative to the sun, not solar activity and since the position hasn’t changed that much, he says it is not a factor.  But it is not the position of the sun that is the factor, it is the amount of solar activity.  There have been very high levels of solar activity between 1940 and 2000.  That activity has since decreased and has been low for several years now.  If you listen carefully you will hear news stories that global warming peaked about ten years ago.

The book states that from 1990 to 1999 global CO2 emissions increased at a rate of 1.1 percent per year.  In the years 2000 to 2006, the rate tripled to over 3 percent per year.  So with such a dramatic increase of CO2 being released into the atmosphere and it being “settled science” that CO2 causes global warming, why did the temperature peak in 1998, and begin falling while the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere accelerated?  Another study concludes, “if you shut down all the world’s power plants and factories, ‘there would not be much effect on temperatures.’”

My concern is that we have a rush to solve a problem that may no longer exist, or worse may be going in the opposite direction, and our “leaders” are clamoring for massive spending and changes to our economy.  But what about all the proof of CO2 emissions leading to increases in temperature?  The question should be what is the cause and what is the effect?  Has the increase in CO2 caused the increase in temperature or has the increase in temperature, caused by solar activity, led to an increase in CO2?

The author unintentionally makes this point when he mentions that increasing temperature in the oceans caused CO2 to bubble up and be released into the atmosphere.  He also mentions that if the arctic tundra should start to thaw then methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 will be released into the atmosphere.  I think he was trying to say that an acceleration effect would occur where CO2 warms the earth and thereby releases more CO2, but if this was the case we would have baked long ago.  There is a study that indicates that based on past data going back 250,000 years that CO2 concentrations actually lag temperature change, meaning the temperature increase caused the CO2 increase and not the other way around.

With this in mind, any proposal to immediately change to renewable fuels on a massive scale could actually have the opposite effect.  I believe we should convert to renewable fuels when and as they become economically viable.  We recently saw a dramatic climb in the price of a barrel of oil.  With that there came an economic incentive to switch to hybrid cars, build wind farms, install solar systems, etc.  With the housing bubble and the subsequent fall off in economic activity, the price of a barrel of oil has decreased just as dramatically.  Sales of hybrids have sharply curtailed.

So if we artificially push to change from oil to renewable energy now: 1) it will be disruptive to the economy; 2) if the Indians and Chinese do not increase their consumption as fast or faster than we would wean ourselves off, the price of a barrel of oil will continue to fall.  As the price of a barrel of oil falls, the economics of renewable energy will get worse not better, and therefore more coercion would be required through tax incentives and regulations to continue the process.

I believe we should put our energy in driving down the cost of the technolgy through manufacturing improvements and R&D, so that alternative energy can compete with fossil fuels without subsidies, and let the market determine the pace of the conversion.  We tried the massive government energy program with the Synfuels Project in the late 1970s and every one of those projects failed because they were not economically viable. An enormous amount of money was spent in that effort but it was shut down.  Command and control economies do not work, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the injection of capitalism in China have proved that.  Markets do work, if artificial constraints are not placed upon them by bureaucrats.

He looked nervous.  He curled up the corners of his two hole cards, aces.  He eased them back down on the table and scanned the other players.  Nancy Pelosi had a stack of chips totaling $25 billion and he wanted all of them.  No, he needed all of them.  Desperately.  The other three, all Japanese, sat expressionless behind their dark glasses.  At every hand all they said was “Call”.   No raise.  No drama.  Very cool.  Very dangerous.

He looks again at the four cards on the table.  Nothing to help him there.  He needs another ace. He needs the ace he calls the Volt. Pelosi turns to him. “So, what’s your plan?”  He swallows hard, trying hard not to show it and says, “All in,” and pushes his remaining chips into the center of the table.  The dealer burns another card and then peels off the “river.” And we’ll be right back for the final outcome of tonight’s game.

GM on the Precipice

That must be how Rick Wagoner feels.  It seems he’s betting everything on the Chevy Volt. If he draws that ace, he’s a hero.  If not, he’s history.  So what are his chances?

If that’s all he’s got, they’re pretty long odds.  The Volt is not due to hit the showroom floor until 2010, and at a whopping $40,000 per copy.  Not a bad price for a Cadillac, but for an untested electric car with a 40 mile range?  That’s a tough sell.  Even at that, the $40,000 might not be profitable, just break even.  But, there will be a tax credit of $7,500 to help take the sting out of it.

Without Bankruptcy

Without a major revamping of their cost structure that can probably only be achieved through the bankruptcy courts, GM is still carrying $2,000 per vehicle in labor costs that its competition doesn’t have.  And what about those three players to his right in the dark glasses, do you think they are standing pat?  Although very low key, it is reported that Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi are all planning to introduce electric cars in the same time frame.  If they do that and they also have the $2,000 per vehicle edge, it will be very bad for GM and any bailout will go down the drain.

The other factor is the way the Japanese do strategic planning.  They typically do not look to just the next quarter.  They are known for developing 50 and 100 year plans.  That is not a typo.  So if they introduce a vehicle they will do it for the long haul.  Believe it or not the Toyota Prius has been on the market for seven years already.  The Japanese are not afraid to introduce a pretty good model and then continuously improve it and if they believe the direction is right, they are willing to wait for the results.  The Big Three, on the other hand tend to have a shorter planning horizon.  Witness Ford’s announcement that it intended to build 250,000 hybrids and then did a market survey when gasoline was about $2.30 per gallon, and decided that they should not go forward.  When gas prices took off they were caught flatfooted while Toyota was selling Priuses at a premium and they couldn’t make them fast enough.

New Administration, New Congress, New Energy Policy

Then there is the energy issue.  Putting more and more electric cars on the road is a good idea and a way toward energy independence.  However, the new administration and the incoming Democratic Congress want to kill the coal industry.  Coal currently generates 49% of our country’s electricity and when it comes to coal reserves, the U.S. is to coal what Saudi Arabia is to oil.  But the new incoming chairman of the House Energy committee, Henry Waxman of Beverly Hills, California, is more determined than ever to implement a green agenda and kill coal.

So what do you replace the coal with?  Oil? Gas? Nuclear?  On the campaign trail, I heard Barack Obama and Joe Biden mumble some things about nuclear being okay, but it was hardly a ringing endorsement.  Do they think for a minute that wind or solar are anywhere near replacing coal?  So, they actually plan to reduce our electric generating capacity by 49% and then not only replace it but grow it to be able to handle all these electric cars.  Where’s that plan?

If you don’t have enough electricity, you can’t charge up your electric cars.  If good old supply and demand does its usual thing, the price of electricity should skyrocket and I can tell you first hand that in New York, it’s not cheap right now.  If electricity skyrockets, whatever manufacturing is left in New York and other rust belt areas will be pulling up stakes left and right and heading south.  If that population follows the jobs, does that mean more votes for the red states and a shift in Congressional seats as well?

The Democrats better re-think that plan if they want to stay in power.