Over the summer, Cavalier Daily Columnist Ben Rudgley wrote, “the biggest public policy challenge facing our generation is climate change.” Fair enough — this is an opinion that many on the both sides of the political aisle share. In particular, the environmental faction within the political left is gaining momentum, both ideologically and financially: Tom Steyer, a San Francisco hedge fund mogul who topped the list of individual donors in the 2013-2014 election cycle by more than $10 million gave largely to a slate of environmentally-conscious Democrats. Recently, he has been hard at work getting other wealthy Democrats to join his crusade.
Human beings can undoubtedly wreak havoc on the environment. Dumping toxic chemicals into streams and rivers is bad for our planet, and indiscriminately chopping down South American rain forests is detrimental to our environmental health. Moreover, an international climate treaty — maybe not the Kyoto Protocol, but certainly a deal that includes the United States, China, India, Brazil, and other big-time polluters — would go a long way towards solving our generation’s environmental woes.
But I am nevertheless wary of some facets of the movement to legislate our environmental activity, particularly on national, state and local levels (essentially, anything except international treaties). I do not hesitate, as I stated earlier, to accept that polluting our environment is undesirable, but I am hesitant to accept all of the policy recommendations of the climate change movement.
I am hesitant to do so because the logic of some environmental activists is fundamentally flawed. The movement tends to label certain events or trends as products of man-made global warming, when in fact there is no evidence to suggest this is so. For instance, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson gleefully attributed the storm to global warming. The kicker: Robinson even acknowledged the obvious point that, in his words, “no single weather event can definitively be attributed to global warming.” His response? “If something looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.” Unfortunately for Robinson, this is not how science works. Hard-core environmentalists would probably gain much more credence if they stopped shouting, “global warming caused this!” at every opportunity.
Even more egregious than commentators such as Robinson are the global warming projections that are the bible of the environmental left. It’s easy to look back and state facts in retrospect (along the lines of stating facts, maybe it is worth mentioning that global temperatures have been essentially flat over the last 15 years), but it is impossible — and irresponsible — to look expectantly into the future and declare with certainty that something is going to happen. The mid-troposphere has warmed at a rate of 0.7 degrees Celsius per 100 years since 1978, according to instruments aboard NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association satellites. In the same time, an average of 102 climate change “projections” gives a rate of 2.1 degrees Celsius, a 200 percent overstatement. Should we take climate change models seriously? In spite of their inaccuracy, we probably should, as a precaution. But should we really take these models as given fact, and use them to justify sweeping public policy changes and regulations that would harm the livelihoods of millions of Americans? I would hesitate to say yes.
For argument’s sake, let’s say Congress and the President decide, in light of practically apocalyptic environmental projections, to pass a bill banning coal excavation in the United States. What happens? Aside from throwing Appalachia into abject poverty (albeit, parts of it are already there) and devastating the larger American economy, nothing happens. In just 5 years (2005-2009), China added “the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants.” That’s not to mention rapid industrialization in India and Brazil and unhealthy energy consumption in Russia. While we pat ourselves on the back, the rest of the world drives ahead undeterred.
This is simply to say that true environmental action will only come on an international scale. In that sense, it is the defining public policy challenge of our generation, for it requires international cooperation on a level rarely seen in today’s turbulent and divided world. Is global warming real? I’m not sure — to quote Charles Krauthammer, I’m an agnostic. I’m not opposed to a healthy amount of environmental regulation. But before we throw everything else aside to regulate our use of the environment, let’s be sure to stick to the facts.
John Connolly is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.connolly@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 7 hours agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
