By Bruce Robinson
DEAR EM,
I’m not surprised to hear that many of the other students in your AP government class are Democrats and like to get into “heated” discussions when your teacher asks an “open” question. I’m glad you’re smart enough to realize you can usually learn more from listening carefully to others than from getting into heated arguments.
You have a remarkably mature understanding of the political landscape where the “mainstream news media” is concerned. Even many people in their 30s and 40s today seem not to know the difference between MSNBC and Fox cable news.
Do you ever watch “The Five” or “Red Eye” on Fox? These are just freewheeling talk shows, but they’re much more fun than the monologue preaching of Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow.
There I go trying to influence you! Sorry!
You say the topic that interests you most is environmental protection and that, while you “agree with what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stands for,” you don’t like the many regulations the EPA is imposing on our economy. I can understand why you might think the EPA’s avowed mission to protect the environment is “important to our survival.” Probably both your AP environmental science instructor and your former Earth Science teacher have talked at great length about the damage done by “the big bad industries and factories.”
I’m glad you see the difference between the EPA’s mission and the tactics it uses to carry out that mission. That difference is important because this whole issue is much more about economics and politics than it is about environmental protection. I’ll try to explain what I mean, but feel free to challenge me if I leave something out or get something wrong.
Let’s begin with the theory that global warming causes environmental pollution. Even though former Vice President Al Gore made a feature film promoting this idea (“An Inconvenient Truth”), many well-known scientists disagree. In fact, a Dec. 11, 2012 Wall Street Journal report titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” explicitly states that “a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.”
Endorsed by 16 prominent scientists from a wide range of disciplines, this report explains that “the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.”
In fact, CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s the colorless gas we all exhale day and night — a normal and necessary part of the life cycle of every living creature. As the Journal report notes, “… greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth.” So why all the heated discussion about global warming?
Among the reasons the Journal report offers are these: “Alarmism over climate … offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes (and) taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system …”
I don’t know how closely you follow business news, Em, but maybe you’ve heard about a solar panel company named Solyndra. The chief officers of this company were big contributors to Obama’s 2008 election campaign. Not long after he took office, they got a $535 million government-backed loan for their solar panel factory and promptly went bankrupt — sticking the American taxpayer with the bad debt!
This was just one of many so-called “green energy” boondoggles promoted by the EPA during the president’s first term. As a Chicago Tribune reporter commented at the time, “When the government picks winners and losers, who’s the loser? Just look in the mirror, hold that thought, and tell me later.”
Obviously, Em, there’s much more for us to talk about on this topic. But now it’s your turn to steer the conversation.
Bruce Robinson is an author and former Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Dear Emily: Please be sure to read every paper Dr. Hansen of NASA has prepared on Global Warming and study it from the science reports of OTHER nations as well…Ask why US industrialists and lobbyists are dragging their feet on protective environmental change. One is either a part of the problem or a part of the solution. Listen to and read all voices, not just conservative talk show hosts and their ‘fixed in granite” self-protective dribble. As to solar and wind power renewables, how long did it take Edison to perfect the incandescent light bulb? And with it fortunately, whale oil lamps became “old technology”—Buggy whips are no longer an asset to transportation either…Try to stay ahead of the bell-shaped curve and not mediocrely being dragged behind or beneath it, denying science, kicking and screaming…Peter Bray, Benicia
Em,
Please also consider all the other aspects of environmental policy in which the EPA plays a role. Such as: the protection of groundwater and surface water so that we can all have safe drinking water; establishing controls on human and environmental exposures for numerous chemical substances (which includes, but is not limited, to determining permissible levels for pesticide residues in food); the regulation of industrial, and manufacturing solid and hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in order to help protect us from the numerous chemical hazards produced by industry;and to clean up chemicals which may have spilled, leaked or been disposed of improperly. establishing funds that help in cleaning up abandoned industrial sites; etc. Consider these items, and ask yourself whether you think they are important. In so doing, consider the fact the the EPA is not as one-dimensional as some might have you believe. Please also consider, that regardless of the opinions of your elders, the future belongs to you.
Happy Holidays,
Tom
Well stated.Thanks–pb
“Let’s begin with the theory that global warming causes environmental pollution.”
Whose theory is this?
Global warming does cause environemntal pollution. Just remember, if the globe weren’t warm today humans would still be living in caves. Since the globe has warmed, humans have been allowed to prosper and pollute the globe. Ergo global waming causes environmental pollution. Simple.
Let’s begin with the theory that Bruce Robinson has not the slightest idea of what he is talking about. His “Letter to Emily” proves that theory, so let’s end with the conclusion that rants like his are a complete and utter waste of our time.
I don’t know, it sounds like he knows what he’s talking about to me.
Sad to say, Emily, your dad starts a false argument by assuming anyone thinks CO2 is a “pollutant.” The danger it poses is not pollution of the atmosphere but its capacity to retain solar heat, which increases in direct relation to CO2’s increasing presence in the atmosphere. I suspect him of heavy investment in oil. Moreover, he refers to a small number of doubtfully disinterested “experts,” many of whom work in some way for the carbon industries. Your dad’s head is tilted into error on the entire matter.
Emily, the important thing to remember is to do your own research, form your own opinions, look at both sides and then discern who is lying, no need to search for motives, as those who make blatantly false statements in a condescending manner, to so with our compunction as they feel they need to advance the cause, which they deem to be above reproach or questioning.
A quick search on CO2 and ‘Pollution’ results in numerous articles including ones from the NY Times, Seattle Times, Scientific American, the EPA as well as others, in which CO2 is termed a pollutant.
(note: for some reason I am not able to post the links)
Here is one such comment the NY Times printed in 2009:
The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.
Considering that the most significant greenhouse gas is water vaour, and that the earth produces 24,000 times more greenhouse gases than all of humanity combined EVERY DAY. Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that water vapour has been omitted as a greenhouse gas by the EPA?
Klem, It seems that a lot of what the EPA does would classify as “odd”, in my humble opinion.
I do believe Bruce Robinson opened up a very important topic for EM. She will gather the info and make her own decision. All the comments above are worthwhile. But remember guiding someone in the directions of open thinking is not a bad thing. Yes both the writer and the folks that comment have much different thoughts on the issue. I do believe that is healthy for EM. I have three grown children , six grandchildren {one is now a school teacher and one more about to graduate, also two great grandchildren. Believe me I know how they think. As a conservative I ask them to always take a good look at not only what they say in school but many other sources. It has worked with one of my daughters. Never was told or taught about an issue I mentioned it many times and one day ten years later she said it is now being mentioned . She is a high school teacher. So my advise is not selective learning. Go deeper then make a decision. I do believe that is what Bruce was telling EM.
Way back in April, Jerry Page demolished the WSJ oped cited here.
http://beniciaherald.me/2012/04/29/on-the-barricades-of-scientific-ignorance/
Dear Emily, too bad your friend Bruce only sees and hears that which collaborates his already made up opinion. Here’s a hint — anyone who mentions “Al Gore” when talking about global warming is sadly out of touch and really has nothing new to say.
Bruce’s rant is just so wrong in so many ways, I am surprised the Benicia Herald would print such an utterly clueless opinion piece. It is one thing to have different opinions, but those opinions should at least be somewhat informed. This piece is an embarrassment, an out-dated piece of rubbish pulled out of the late 1990s. Anyone seriously interested in the global warming/climate change conversation has moved way beyond such juvenile, uninformed writings.
This guy just sounds like a cranky old man too blind to see beyond his own archaic view of the world.
It is very gratifying to note that, so far, most of the responses to this letter are calm and reasonable. I will be copying both this letter and all responses to my granddaughter and encouraging her to show them to her parents, friends, classmates and teachers on the East Coast and beyond.Thus, all of us will have a broader and more youthful readership. Let us all begin the New Year, therefore, with respect for all. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
.. stop driving; and start walking. Commerce drives society; not survival.
“.. stop driving; and start walking.” Sell more shoes.