Of Lemmings and Men

By Richard N. Baldwin T. /HispanicVista.com

Such is the case in what is called Global Warming, or as I prefer to call it more properly, Climate Change.

Now, at the start, let's get some things clear. Is the climate changing? Has it changed in the past? Will it change in the future? The answer to all three is absolutely yes.

Is mankind responsible for these climate changes? I am sure that mankind is having his effect in recent world climate change, but as to how much, there is a lot of room to debate. Remembering that the earth has been here for around 4 billion years and has undertaken many great climate changes before man or the Industrial Revolution was around, one gets to wonder how much man is responsible for. On the other hand, I am strongly in favor for continuing scientifically (not politically) accurate research on this subject.

Consider this: In slightly more than 10 thousand years, the earth was ending an ice age that extended polar caps more than a mile deep down to southern Illinois. And the earth there is still rising in southern Illinois after that great weight burden in what is known as the New Madrid fault line, which produced an earthquake in about 1812 that rang church bells in Washington, DC. If we go back much further, we find that in Illinois, there are coal deposits that exceed all of the known oil deposits (in BTUs) that exist in Saudi Arabia. In fact, there are coal deposits to be found in Antarctica. The fact that there are great coal deposits in many parts of the world would indicate that there was once a much warmer global climate and a far greater carbon dioxide content to the atmosphere. The latter is necessary to account for the extreme (by today's standards) lush plant growth needed for that amount of coal, along with a much warmer climate.

Let's also remember that carbon dioxide is not the only or the worst greenhouse gas. Both methane and water vapor are ahead of carbon dioxide. Where is the screaming about these two gasses?

As far as rainfall goes, there have been great changes over time here also. In the history of man, not that long ago (a few thousand years ago) we read in our Bible about "making the desert bloom". In fact, extensive irrigation systems have been uncovered in what is now a vast region of sand dunes that transported water for farming in the mid east. We also see areas in Africa, southern México, and Australia that have had severe droughts lasting hundreds of years in even more recent times (over the last few thousand years). It was such a period that ended the Mayan civilization. That drought lasted over twenty years. They could not feed themselves and many simply migrated away. But there were enough Mayans left to leave people that still speak in the Mayan dialects today in México. But note that all of this happened before the Industrial Revolution. Man caused carbon in the atmosphere was not the cause.

Also, there is a history of changes in the "desert belt" worldwide that still continues. As of right now, those belts are moving away from the equator.

My point in all of this history is to show that climate change is something that has always been with the earth and will certainly be with us in the future. But to draw exciting conclusions as to what is happening over the last few centuries and project this into the future is an absurdity. The cycles of climate occur over many thousands of years and these cycles are still just being understood by modern science.

And if you don't believe that ocean levels change over time, look off the East Coast of the US, and note underwater canyons off the rivers under the sea that are hundreds of feet deep. Erosion canyons do not form under the sea; they form in dry land. And how did those Indians walk across the Bering Strait from Asia to the New World? And, in turn, there are many points of evidence to show that the reverse (higher sea levels) have occurred from time to time. All before any effect by man.

Now, let's take a peek at what the econuts are proposing for us. Take the carbon "cap and trade" for an example. The US government is getting ready to regulate carbon dioxide as a toxic drug. This will enable the federal government to directly regulate almost every human activity in the country.

Let's consider electric power regulation. As it stands now, generation (not including distribution) for powdered coal costs about $0.41 per kWh. Gas fired and nuclear is the lowest at about $0.33 per kWh, followed by solar thermal at $0.38, wave powered at $0.53, and wind at $0.11 and solar electric at $0.90. Now, let's add a suggested (by EU) carbon tax on fired electric costs per kWh: $0.03 for coal fired and around for $0.02 for gas fired. In other words, you will have around $0.06 per kWh for all fired power generation with the added carbon tax.

Oops! We forgot one more alternative, one that would not have any carbon tax: Nuclear. This is an existing and refined generation alternative and the cost by kWh is $0.03, but no one wants to talk about it. It is not "politically correct". The fuel comes right from mother earth and is only refined and processed for use. Where do you think the high internal heat comes from deep in the earth? The interior of the earth would have cooled down long ago without natural radioactivity in play.

The objection is what to do with the waste. Why not return it to the earth from where it came . . . deep? But we are faced by a "NIMBY" attitude (Not In My Back Yard). And the one reactor that had a bad accident (in the former USSR) was made from a design that was never used outside of the USSR and not used today at all.

France

, an ecology correct European country, generates most of its power with nuclear.

Further, wind and solar generation is not constant. When the sun goes down or the wind falls off, you have to have backup sources. Add another $0.02 to those costs. And over the near long-term state of development of storage batteries, there is nothing feasible on the horizon. And remember that present best technology looses about 30% of what power is stored and what you will get back.

But it would seem that the econuts are not that interested in saving the planet. More to the point is to get total direct government control for almost every economic activity in the world, and the cost be damned.