Voice For Liberty

Tag: Environment

  • ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’ filmmaker tells of harms of radical environmentalists

    Update: for my review of the film, click on “Not Evil Just Wrong” a powerful refutation of Al Gore, environmental extremism.

    Watching the film she made, I became angry. After talking with her, I feel better, but I’m still angry.

    She’s Ann McElhinney. The film she made is Not Evil Just Wrong. It’s a very powerful antidote to former vice president Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth and the extremism it has generated.

    McElhinney was in Wichita yesterday to speak to a civic group. I attended her talk, and then spoke with her afterwards.

    So why am I angry? Over and over, Gore and other radical environmentalists disregard facts and science, while at the same time proclaiming that the scientific debate is over. And it’s not just an academic debate. As Not Evil Just Wrong illustrates, millions of lives are at stake, as well as our standard of living.

    An important episode in the film isn’t directly related to the global warming debate, but it serves to illustrate the ways we’ve been wrong before, and it gives us insight into one of the most visible personalities driving global warming extremism.

    “Who here has played in the fog behind DDT trucks,” McElhinney asked the audience in Wichita. The widespread use of DDT led to the eradication of malaria in America and large parts of the world. But then a book — Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring — made a connection between DDT and danger to animal and human life. A worldwide ban on DDT followed, and malaria returned, especially to parts of Africa. Millions have died of malaria since then. In Uganda alone, 370 children per day die from malaria. She asked: if this was happening in Kansas, wouldn’t we do anything to stop it?

    Everyone believed Carson’s story about DDT. But it was based more on speculation than good science.

    In 2006, the World Health Organization said that Carson was wrong. But Gore still defends Carson. He wrote the introduction to an edition of her book. He visited her homestead.

    So when Gore says that carbon dioxide is going to ruin the planet, should we pay him much attention? His film An Inconvenient Truth has received a lot of attention, including winning an Oscar. But McElhinney played a clip from Not Evil Just Wrong that showed how the British High Court found that the film contains nine significant exaggerations or scientific errors.

    One of these exaggerations is Gore’s claim that sea levels will rise by 20 feet in the near future. The IPCC says this might happen over thousands of years. But schoolchildren in Ireland still get Gore’s erroneous message, and they fear that they will drown.

    McElhinney says that “it’s an extraordinary position for Al Gore to take — as a Nobel Laureate, Oscar winner, Emmy winner — to not go back and re-edit the film and take out the errors.”

    One of the loudest things we hear from the left, McElhinney says, is that “the discussion is over.” Greens say that global warming is settled scientific fact, humans are at fault, and we have to change the way we live. Her film, she says, shows that this is not conclusive. The scientific method calls for continued checking and debate, and those who call for an end to the debate are anti-scientific.

    Energy, especially inexpensive energy, is a wonderful thing, she said. “People in America are very lucky to have the energy that you have. … People get to live long, and get to do really exciting things and make loads of choices, and this doesn’t happen everywhere. … The freedom that people have in America is because of energy. The idea that we would take away energy is, that we would reduce the amount of energy is the most crazy thing I’ve ever heard.” She cautioned us to be careful not to throw away our advantage of inexpensive energy.

    Responding to a question from the audience, McElhinney reminded the audience of the existence of radical environmentalists who are opposed to chemicals and pesticides because they want everything to be “natural.” But disease and short life, she said, is the natural state of man.

    After her talk, I asked McElhinney about the motivations of people like Al Gore. Does he know the facts, that the famous hockey stick graph is wrong and that the DDT ban has cost millions of lives? Does he know these things and decides to ignore them, or is he just innocently mistaken? She said she thinks that he does know the truth, but he is ideologically driven. Those who are so ideologically blinkered have to stay with their story, even though the facts disagree with them.

    Also, Greens (radical environmentalists) think that animals are more important then people. Being elitists, too, the harmful effects of a misplaced war on carbon dioxide won’t affect them on a personal level as it will the masses of people.

    I’ve seen Not Evil Just Wrong, and it uses a powerful technique of putting a face, a person, on the issues. McElhinney said that while it’s hard to comprehend of millions of children dying of malaria, “it’s very easy to understand the death of one child.”

    Responding to another question, she said that the war against carbon emissions also a war against capitalism, and is also anti-American, with many initiatives directed against America. The wealth generated by capitalism allows people to cultivate gardens, for example, instead of doing whatever is necessary — including damaging the environment — to stay alive.

    Coverage from Kansas Watchdog is at “Not Evil, Just Wrong” Counters Environmental Extremism.

    Not Evil Just Wrong will be shown in Wichita on Sunday, October 18, as part of its nationwide premier. This free event will be at the CAC Theater at Wichita State University. It starts at 6:00 pm, with meteorologist Mike Smith presenting “An Atmospheric Scientist’s View of Global Warming” at 6:15. The movie will start at 7:00 pm. It runs 85 minutes. I’ll have my review of the movie next week.

  • Cap-and-trade admitted to be tax

    Thinking people have known this all along, and now we know that the Treasury Department believes that proposed cap-and-trade legislation — the Waxman-Markey bill — is really a tax in disguise.

    A Washington Times article gives more detail. It’s based on the work of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that’s done some great work on the issue of global warming alarmism.

    The memo that CEI received indicates that a cap-and-trade program could generate revenues to the federal government of $100 to $200 billion annually.

    The memo, captioned “Domestic Climate Policy” contains this sentence, referring to President Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade program: “While such a program can yield environmental benefits that justify its costs, it will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of xxx dollars.”

    “xxx” is a placeholder to represent a number that was redacted or withheld from the CEI — and by extension the American public — in this document that was obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act. We have to wonder why someone thinks it’s necessary to keep this number secret. I think this is an indication that such a program would be terribly expensive. At the same time, the program would produce negligible benefit, as far as reducing or slowing the growth of global temperatures.

    Earlier this year, CEI uncovered evidence of science taking a back seat to politics in the global warming debate. Its site GlobalWarming.Org is a good place to keep up-to-date on the latest information in this field. Now CEI has launched Freedom Action, a site designed to help citizens take action by communication with elected officials.

  • Not all birds are equal, it seems

    Recently ExxonMobil plead guilty to killing 85 birds. It paid $600,000 in fines and fees. An Oregon electric utility paid $1.4 million in fines for killing 232 eagles that had come into contact with poorly-designed power lines.

    Wind energy producers, however, can kill with impunity. That’s the message of the story Windmills Are Killing Our Birds by Robert Bryce.

    A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds — nearly all protected by the migratory bird act — are being whacked every year at Altamont.

    Altamont’s turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon’s tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.

    Political correctness gone wild? Of course.

  • Waxman-Markey costly, ineffective

    The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation that is working its way through Congress is ineffective in its stated goal, and will harm the American economy.

    The goal of this bill is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, thereby reducing the threat of global warming. The amount of temperature reduction Waxman-Markey might produce is a matter of dispute, but most sources cite a decrease so small that it will be difficult to measure it. Its effect could easily be overwhelmed by something else over which we have no control.

    As bad as this is, the economic effects of this bill are certain, and they are devastating. The Science Applications International Corporation, at the request of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), has produced an analysis of the effects of this legislation on the United States as a whole, and on each state. The reports may be read by clicking on Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act.

    At the national level, the economic effect of the Waxman-Markey bill would be to reduce employment by around two million jobs by 2030. Household income would go down, and energy prices would go up. From 2010 to 2030, the nation would lose from two to three trillion dollars of national income.

    For Kansas, the report notes that transportation manufacturing will show decreases in output of 8.0% to 8.4% by 2030. That’s a larger decline that what general manufacturing will experience. Transportation manufacturing, of course, includes the aircraft industry that Wichita depends on.

    This legislation is so bad that even global warming alarmists are necessarily fans of Waxman-Markey. The liberal magazine Mother Jones says this: “First, Waxman-Markey is a kludge of a bill. It’s possible that its cost-benefit is negative, and it’s almost certain that, by itself, its cost benefit is quite small even if it is positive. Second, W-M’s carbon caps by themselves will probably have only a tiny effect on rising temperatures. Third, global warming is a hopeless problem if we don’t get the rest of the world to address it too. If China and India and the rest of the developing world don’t play along, nothing the U.S. and Europe do by themselves will be enough to halt it.”

  • If this is recycling profit, let’s skip it

    A letter-writer to the Wichita Eagle states “In Washington state, we participate in a nearly effortless, profitable and environmentally important recycling program.”

    A paragraph later she writes “The cost of recycling is $5 a month on our refuse bill.”

    I don’t know: Do these statements contradict each other?

    The writer also states: “Most important, we take pride in knowing that our recycled items do not end up in some community dump.”

    I say: “In Wichita, it’s nice that we aren’t yet required by government to spend our precious time handling dirty trash that has no profitable market just to save a little land in a state where we have more land than we know what to do with.”

  • The Cap and Tax Fiction

    There’s been a lot of joy among the radical environmentalists lately since the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came out with a report that seems to say that the costs of the pending cap and trade legislation — the Waxman-Markey bill — is small.

    At a annual cost of $175 per household, that shouldn’t be much to worry about, should it?

    Sure enough, the report does mention this figure, and if you’re willing to overlook some obvious facts, it’s good news. Here’s what the report states:

    “On that basis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household.”

    That’s what radical environmentalists are gleefully reporting. As a recent Wall Street Journal editorial explains “The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote.”

    Here’s the footnote the Journal article refers to: “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor.”

    There’s some other problems with the bill, and the Journal piece reports on them: “The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.”

    The piece reports that Democrats know that steep price increase in energy are coming: “Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.”

    Recently I attended a public information session regarding rate consolidation in Westar, the large electric utility in Kansas. Several speakers spoke of the hardship that higher electricity rates would case. Something tells me that some of the people are in favor of the Waxman-Markey bill and other “green” measures. Are they will to pay the higher energy costs associated with this bill?

  • Global warming testimony released

    In May, Wichita geophysicist Dennis Hedke traveled to Arlington, Virginia to deliver testimony at a public hearing conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. In June he delivered written testimony as part of the procedure for collecting public comment. You can read this document in its entirety at the end of this article. Here are some highlights.

    Regarding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, perhaps the main organization contributing to global warming alarmism, Hedke writes this:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as you know, actually has nothing whatsoever in place that would mimic actual “peer-reviewed” architecture. Instead, it operates in total vacuum, and when a real scientist actually raises a challenge, based on factual evidence, he or she is virtually shut out of the ongoing, ultimately published “findings.” … a multitude of highly regarded and internationally respected scientists have chosen to withdraw from the organization because they could no longer tolerate the ongoing wrongdoing that became ever so obvious.

    A major section of the document deals with comparison between EPA findings and the actual data. Hedke presents evidence that “human-induced factors related to the greenhouse effect are minimal.” That’s contrary to the EPA’s findings.

    What about the “hockey stick” graph made famous by Al Gore in his movie? Hedke writes:

    As I’m sure you are aware, [graph creator] Mann’s filtering of the real data was caught by astute researchers Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre, both Canadians who just happened to be in the right place at the right time to actually critically review the “science” that the IPCC was only too anxious and willing to share with the world. The eventual removal of the highly fabricated graph by the IPCC was a major source of embarrassment to that political body, proving that it was, indeed, junk science.

    One of the conclusions Hedke states is: “In the broadest sense, I would conclude that the political drivers behind the wheel of this “findings” vehicle have completely overwhelmed any sense of scientific support, or lack thereof, for the myriad of complex conclusions drawn and implied to “endanger” the citizens of this country.”

    The document contains many charts and graphs, along with many references to the sources Hedke uses.

    (This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)

  • Global warming to be examined in Wichita

    At this Friday’s meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club, Wichita geophysicist Dennis Hedke will present important information about the topics of global warming and climate change. His presentation includes information about the science behind these matters, and also about the politics. That’s important, as it appears now that the driving force behind the Obama administration’s energy and climate policy is politics as much as anything else.

    All are welcome to attend Pachyderm meetings. Lunch is $10, or you may attend the meeting only for $3.

    At Pachyderm meetings, there’s usually plenty of time for the speaker to take questions from the audience. The meeting starts at noon, although those wishing to order lunch are encouraged to arrive by 11:45. The location is Whiskey Creek Steakhouse at 233 N. Mosley in Old Town. You can view a map of this location by clicking on Google map of 233 N. Mosley.

  • In Obama administration, transparency and science take backseat to politics

    President Barack Obama has promised to make transparency the standard for his administration. He also pledged to base decisions such as our nation’s energy policy on science.

    As reported on this site, the Competitive Enterprise Institute uncovered a series of email messages within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that raise questions as to how seriously these goals are followed.

    What happened is that an EPA analyst prepared a report that challenged the orthodoxy of global warming. His report was suppressed — until CEI uncovered the emails.

    The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly A. Strassel explains all this very well in her article The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic.