BILL SCHILLING
Perspective
Until the recent economic upheaval, climate change was the popular topic of discussion across the nation. No matter where you turned, there were doom and gloom commentaries on an imminent tipping point.
The environmental side has strong proponents -- scientists, politicians, and the media. But, before the U.S. -- and the world -- launch into full-scale prescriptions the other, less talked about, side of the story should be presented as well. Hence, the theme of this Wyoming Heritage forum in Casper Nov. 20-21: "Climate Change: Politics and Economic Realities."
-- At the national level, 27 states have renewable portfolios; 23 have cap-and-trade legislation; and 18 have greenhouse gas emission standards. Yet how many of these states factor in the loss of 3-4 million jobs nationally by 2030 due to carbon cap-and-trade legislation like the Lieberman/Warner bill, supported by both presidential candidate aspirants.
-- While green jobs could very well be the wave of the future, should the movement to green be by way of private sector initiatives or government-mandated regulations? The cost/benefits of dealing with CO2 emissions -- reportedly 5 percent of which are caused by mankind -- are important to consider. Reducing emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels will result in around $538 less U.S. family disposable income, gasoline and electricity increases of 100 percent, and $669 billion yearly declines in the gross national product.
The economic costs of dealing effectively with climate change are real and documentable. Here in Wyoming, according to the American Council for Capital Formation, there will be about 7,300 job losses, $5,200 in less household disposable income, gasoline and electricity increases in the order of 107 percent to 114 percent, and the decline of $1.4 billion in the state's gross state product, some 5 percent by current standards.
Obviously, coal production in Wyoming -- the nation's number-one producer accounting for 38 percent of the nation's electricity -- is on the hit list. The stakes are huge for our state. By my calculations, a 40 percent decline in coal production -- well within economic forecasts based on legislation proposed -- would amount to $360 million yearly of revenue losses to the state and local governments, including schools. Quite a reality test in terms of tax revenue for services -- about $685 for every Wyoming resident.
Whether or not climate change exists is not in dispute. Some 600 scientists across the globe say it is unequivocal. What increasingly is in dispute is whether reductions can or will take place worldwide, not just in the U.S., but in rapidly developing economies such as China and India; and whether global warming is more natural than mankind induced, based on emerging and more frequent research that pinpoints a 1,500-year event linked to solar activity.
Not withstanding the science, there are the real-world practicalities. Is it really practical to expect solar generation to increase 4,000 times, subsidized wind power 75 times, the doubling of U.S. natural gas production, 50 additional hydro plants the size of Hoover Dam, and the construction of 250 nuclear plants to take place in order to replace coal production in the U.S.?
Realism versus idealism is really the heart of the climate change debate. The foot path of human activity is real, driven by the foreboding fact that electricity usage will increase by 30 percent over the next 20 years But, so too, are nature's forces -- forces which led to farming in Greenland and grape vineyards in England a thousand years ago. The climate change debate will continue and likely increase long after America's current economic meltdown. What legislation and mandates spring forth will have significant and economic impacts on Main Street and households across America.
For all of the above reasons, I invite Wyoming citizens to attend this year's provocative and challenging forum, "Climate Change: Politics and Economic Realities" on Nov. 20-21 at the Parkway Plaza in Casper. It will feature for the first time ever in Wyoming three leading world climate change experts: Dennis Avery, Eileen Claussen, and Bjorn Lomborg. More information about their impressive backgrounds can be found on the Internet.
Bill Schilling is president of the Wyoming Business Alliance/Wyoming Heritage Foundation.
Reader Comments
Comments to this story.
Dismayed wrote on Oct 18, 2008 6:36 AM:
Is climate change the abrupt end of fall last weekend when we got a lot of snow dumped on us, or is it the slow warm afterward? Is it the very late spring that gave us a very short growing season, or the hurricanes in LA an Texas? Is it the Arctic ice sheet that is GROWING this year or is it a warm breeze in Hawaii? Is it the change from winter to summer, bypassing spring or the change from a very short summer to winter, by passing fall?
Before we spend uncounted money that we do not have and throw our country into further economic distress, let's have the scientists provide an exact criteria for "climate change".
Remember it changed from global warming to climate change when more and more studies have shown that the earth has not warmed now for over 10 years. Are we trying to make it cool more or are we trying to make it warm more or is someone trying to get big money grants to study whey it is not changing enough or too much.
Our parents who never saw a computer or heard the term computer model may have had it right, "you can talk about the weather, but you can't change it!" "
Inky wrote on Oct 18, 2008 7:00 PM:
This so-called forum is a fraud and a two-day spin zone for Big Energy. There's no objectivity here.
Look at the prominent speakers. You've got Avery, a hired-gun for Big Energy and Big Ag, telling the world that global warming is natural and due to sun-spots, so there's no need to get excited and DO anything about pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Then there's the engaging and charismatic Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish academic who says the environment is getting better and casts doubt that doing anything NOW about CO2 will be ineffective and costly.
Finally there's Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Two-to-one odds. Nice work, Bill.
Not surprising given the list of sponsors -- a Who's Who of Big Energy in Wyoming.
Go ahead and look up Avery and Lomberg via sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.com. "
Dewd wrote on Oct 18, 2008 7:16 PM:
Conversely , no matter how you dress up Bjorn Lomborg , he's still Bjorn Lomborg, a thoroughly discredited scientist. Ditto Dennis Avery , whose rabid campaigns against organic or "natural" agricultural practices in favor of hi-tech industrial agriculture and wide use of chemicals and genetic manipulation are also regarded as fringe. His peers disown him. Two strikes.
Eileen Claussen's credentials are stellar, however. But can anyone form the Pew think tank ever have street cred in Wyoming's brainwashed business community ?. Your other two experts , Lomborg and Avery , cause me to believe your little symposium is mainly for propaganda purposes. You are using them to build towards an agenda that climate change is not anthropogenic and Wyoming should still sell as much hydrocarbon as fast as it can get it out of the ground and into the shipping channels before the rest of the World wises up and quits buying the stuff.
Nice try. But your little November symposium is already hereby debunked. I know the smell of Junk Science . "
LOL wrote on Oct 18, 2008 11:53 PM:
There are arguments on both sides of the issue and both are biased. So I will never listen to dud or the post turtle and no one has ever proved to me either of the two have climatology degrees.
Give me one non biased study, just one, can you find one. I do not think so. In the 60's it was global cooling now it is global warming and both are unbelievable as presented when foisted by the rabid radical.
Alphonse Gore will continue to make a huge profit off of the carbon credit scam as he travels in his private jet and Michael Bore will keep making farfetched fantasies calling them documentaries.
Dud and the post turtle will keep on typing away giving the indication that the average Wyoming resident has the cognitive skills of a trained monkey and thanks for that dud and post turtle for the lowered expectations. "
Inky wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:33 AM:
Could it be that Big Energy is following the steps of Big Tobacco? For year, the paid shills of Big Tobacco worked overtime to muddy the waters and deny, deny, deny that tobacco use can hurt people.
Now many of the same people and groups that worked for Big Tobacco now work for Big Energy. Say Bill, next time invite a first string denier like Steve Milloy of Faux Noise -- he's been working for tobbaco and energy for decades. "
Tipi wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:08 PM:
Submit a Comment