Why "Saving the Earth" is stupid

Yes, climate change exists. And, yes, most climate scientists and environmental scientists believe it is primarily caused by human activity. And, yes, we should try to do something about it. But environmentalists are prone to exaggerated language. One of those exaggerations is the idea that preventing further global warming is "Saving the Earth."

The Earth has been around for a long time. During that time it has been through quite a lot. It has been struck by multiple asteroids. It was once struck so violently that it changed its name to Rihanna a huge chunk of the Earth tore off. That chunk of the Earth is what we now call "the moon." In its early years, the Earth was so hot that rock and metal boiled.

Even during times when life existed, the Earth has been far warmer than it is today. The global climate was much warmer when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth than it is now. It was the global cooling that occurred after another asteroid strike around 65.5 million years ago that gave rise to warm-blooded mammals.

This graph shows estimated global temperatures during the Phanerozoic Eon, the period during which abundant animal life has existed on Earth. Notice that we are in one of the cooler periods.

Global warming is primarily a threat to mammals. (Remember, humans are mammals.) Under global warming, vegetation will thrive. So will cold-blooded animals such as insects and reptiles. Rising ocean levels will benefit fish as well. It is us, the mammals, who are at risk. As far as humans are concerned, it is primarily a risk to people in poor countries. Therefore, the environmentalist message shouldn't be "Save the Earth," it should be "Save the Mammals."

Minimizing global climate change may save many mammals, perhaps even humans. But fear not for the Earth! Regardless of its climate, it will continue to happily orbit the sun for billions of years to come.

2010 is one of the warmest years on record so far

The first eleven months of 2010 are leading it to be one of the warmest years on record:

This year is on track to enter the almanac as one of the three warmest years on record globally, along with 1998 and 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by the World Meteorological Organization.

Not only that, but 2010 stands a decent chance of capturing the record, depending on temperature data from November and December, according to Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the WMO. Global average temperatures for the first 10 months of the year are running slightly ahead of those for the same period in '98 and '05...

Preliminary temperature data for November are comparable to temperatures seen in November 2005, indicating they have remained near record levels as the year winds down.

Even if 2010 fails to capture the top spot, the first decade of the 21st century already has gone into the books as the warmest since 1850, when the instrument record began. ...

Some climate scientists caution that any one year's worth of events is driven more by natural variability than by long-term warming triggered by the released of carbon dioxide from burning fossils fuel. But when 2010's extreme events are seen in that broader context, they appear to fit long-term patterns the climate models have generally projected for a climate system responding to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

A range of studies have documented an increase in extreme heat events, a decrease in extreme cold events, and an increase in rainfall and snowfall intensity globally during the past 50 years...

The public debate about climate change is so intertwined with politics that I try to avoid politically-motivated arguments on the subject. I've never watched Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, because he's an environmental activist, not a climate scientist. I prefer to get my information from reputable scientific sources such as the National Academy of Science. Instead of An Inconvenient Truth, I watched the Teaching Company DVD series Earth's Changing Climate by Prof. Richard Wolfson of Middlebury College, available at your local library. These sources concur with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but are not as alarmist as environmental activists.

Republicans attack the IPCC as biased, but the IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. As Science Magazine, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, once stated:

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. ... Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

Here's a graph of global temperatures from 1850-2008:

Knowing that anthropological climate change exists and doing something productive about it are two different issues. Harvard economist Greg Mankiw has a simple solution. Raise carbon taxes, and then reduce other taxes so that the overall tax burden on the American economy doesn't change.

Daylight savings time wastes energy

A national policy to conserve energy backfires. Doh!

Home buyer tax credit = more global warming

According to Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, Congress and the White House are intent on harming the planet:

ENVIRONMENTALISTS who are worried about global warming should pay attention to the congressional debate about extending the home buyers tax credit. Federal tax policies toward housing have long encouraged Americans to emit more carbon. President Obama could do the country, and the planet, a service by either refusing to sign the extension of the $8,000 credit or by insisting that it be accompanied by offsetting reductions in the home mortgage interest deduction.

According to the Residential Energy Consumption Survey, per person energy use in owner-occupied housing is 39 percent higher than in rental units. Energy use, per household member, is 49 percent higher in single-family detached houses than in apartments in buildings with more than five units. These differences reflect the strong connection between home size and energy use. The average four-bedroom house consumes 72 percent more electricity than the average two-bedroom house.

Yet the tax code encourages Americans to live in big, energy-guzzling homes, instead of thrifty apartments, and Congress seems intent on further unbalancing the federal budget to egg on home buyers.

5 physics lessons for politicians

Foreign Policy lists five physics lessons for politicians and policymakers:

• Terrorism — Making a nuclear bomb is excruciatingly difficult. ... Many people may worry most about the drama of nuclear terrorism, but as 9/11 showed, it’s far easier for terrorists to inflict massive damage with commercially available explosives such as jet fuel or gasoline.
• Energy — The biggest source of clean, cheap energy is energy not used. And conservation doesn’t have to be uncomfortable. Tell people they can turn up their thermostats to any temperature they like, but encourage them to make sure there is some good (and it can be cheap) insulation in the walls of their homes.
• Nuclear Energy — Politicians believe the problem with nuclear waste is technical in nature. The scientists and engineers believe the problem is political. ... Nuclear waste storage really is a solved problem.
• Space — Manned space flight might be a great adventure, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that the presence of humans helps advance science. The greatest scientific achievements of the space program have been the unmanned missions to the planets and the use of remotely controlled instruments to measure the cosmos. All of our greatest space science has come from robots.
• Global Warming — Yes, it is true that the United States is responsible for one fourth of past global warming. However, U.S. emissions are growing relatively slowly today. So why are we so worried? It’s the rapidly growing greenhouse gas emissions of the developing world. China has already surpassed the United States in annual emissions. ... Soon it will far outpace the United States as a contributor to global warming. The rest of the developing world is following. ... If we want to stop global warming, then our focus must be on the developing world. Wealthy countries could start by financing clean coal in China.

Canadian economists urge action on climate change

Canada's economists have written An Open Letter to the Leaders of Canada’s Federal Political Parties regarding climate change policy.

Here is a summary of their letter:

What Needs to be Done

1. Canada needs to act on climate change now.
2. Any substantive action will involve economic costs.
3. These economic impacts cannot be an excuse for inaction.
4. Pricing carbon is the best approach from an economic perspective.
   
   1. Pricing allows each business and family to choose the response that is best and most efficient for them.
   2. Pricing induces innovation.
   3. Carbon is almost certainly under-priced right now.
5. Regulation tends to be the most expensive way to meet a given climate change goal.
6. A carbon tax has the advantage of providing certainty in the price of carbon.
7. A cap and trade system provides certainty on the quantity of carbon emitted, but not on the price of carbon and can be a highly complex policy to implement.
8. Policies that impose costs on producers (big or small) affect consumers.
9. Price mechanisms can be regressive and our policy should address this.
10. A pricing mechanism can allow other taxes to be reduced and provide an opportunity to improve the tax system.

A discussion about nuclear energy as a solution to global warming

The German magazine Spiegel Online interviews David Crane, the CEO of NRG Energy about nuclear energy:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Republican presidential candidate John McCain has proposed building 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 with a longer term goal of 55 more. His Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is also in favor of more atomic energy. Is the US experiencing a nuclear power renaissance?

David Crane: It's still in the early stages. Clearly, the defining incident when it comes to the acceptance of nuclear energy in Europe was Chernobyl in 1986. But in this country, it was Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which was seven years earlier than Chernobyl and a much less serious incident. You basically have to be 45 or 50 years old in the US to remember Three Mile Island.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You mean to say that people are beginning to forget about the dangers of nuclear power?

Crane: There is a perception that the American public is ready for nuclear. It's a combination of things, and one of them is generational change. The overriding concern in this country, just like in Europe, is global warming. The recognition by most pragmatic people is that nuclear is the only advanced technology that exists to replace coal-fired power plants on a significant scale. This has jump-started the renaissance. ...

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What should the energy mix of the future look like?

Crane: Obviously, we Americans are the most wasteful people on Earth. Right now, coal produces 50 percent of our power and nuclear 20 percent in the US. It would be nice over time — by 2050, the year most global warming legislation is aimed at — to have these percentages reversed. Right now, the US consumes 4.5 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity. Maybe you can get that down to 4 trillion, but that would demand a huge push towards conservation, which will be very difficult. If you turn all 240 million cars and light trucks in the US to electric-powered vehicles while boosting the share of nuclear power, the amount of carbon emissions that would be saved overall would be enormous.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Imagining for a moment that so many new nuclear reactors do go on line, what is to be done with all of the radioactive waste? Even after years of debate on the issue, there is still no solution regarding final disposal.

Crane: A lot of people talk about a final solution, and we do need one. But this solution of on-site waste storage is deemed to be safe for a long time. Global warming is an immediate issue that nuclear energy can help solve. We should solve this issue now and solve the nuclear waste issue over the next 200 years.

Cap and trade, energy prices, and the environment

This comes from an interview about the economy in Fortune.

Fortune: You've been an enthusiastic supporter of climate-change legislation that would have the effect of essentially putting a penalty price on the use of fossil fuel in order to encourage clean energy. Should consumers and businesses be prepared to pay higher prices for electricity and gasoline? Is that pain inevitably in our future?

McCain: I have a fundamental difference with the opponents of cap and trade. History shows me that every time there's been technological advances, it has been beneficial to the economy and the American people. Every time we invent a quicker, a more advanced technology chip, then it's been an increase in productivity of economic benefit. I believe that green technologies — whether it be nuclear power, whether it be wind, solar or tide — can be beneficial to our economy and increase productivity, and improve the lives of American citizens in every aspect. And I'm sorry for the long answer. But the fundamental philosophical difference I have with the opponents of cap and trade is that they believe it will require greater sacrifice on the part of American citizens. I think innovation and advanced technology is beneficial to the lives of American citizens and to our economy. And I know that there's strong disagreement with that.

Barack Obama also supports cap and trade.

How to fight pollution and global warming

Via Greg Mankiw: Irwin Stelzer suggests how to fight global warming without an overall increase in taxes:

McCain should spend ten minutes with his adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who I would guess is still recovering from his embarrassment at McCain's call for a cut in gasoline taxes, to discuss the opposite: a tax on oil products, especially gasoline and heating oil. This doesn't mean abandoning his opposition to higher taxes. Indeed, the point is not to raise federal revenues. Every dollar that comes in should be rebated, perhaps by reducing the payroll taxes of everyone earning less than, say, $50,000 per year, the group Obama intends to benefit by raising taxes on those energetic small-business owners. The beneficiaries of the McCain shift in taxes from work to polluting, imported gasoline would see the reduction in taxes immediately--when they received their first salary check after the new regime was in place. But the main point is this: The money that the Saudis and other supporters of jihadists would otherwise get would be reducing the taxes of hard-pressed Middle America. Take that, Barack Obama. It's called straight talk.

High oil prices are good

The EconoSpeak blog speaks the truth:

The strategy of choice right now seems to be “blame the speculators”, and Obama has jumped on this bandwagon. Not a good idea, in my opinion, for two reasons. First, there’s not much evidence that speculators are the cause of this price runup. Second, high oil prices—in fact, much higher oil prices—are good. They will combat climate change...