Climate change and hot air

It’s official: Climate change has left the realm of science and is now a full-blown political ideology. That’s unfortunate because climate change is real, and there are some commonsense solutions that are likely to get lost in the political hysteria.

Climate scientists have been making alarmist predictions for decades and most have been spectacularly wrong. Now the same folks (at least the ones appointed by politicians to government and U.N. panels) now connect manmade climate change with virtually every weather extreme: rainstorms and drought, decreasing and increasing icecaps, cold snaps and heat waves. What’s next, locusts?

I’m suspicious of the claim that debate is over because there’s a scientific consensus. This sounds more like a religion than a science, but even theologians debate. I suspect there still is a lot we do not know about the causes of weather. But if the Einstein of climate science shows up, could he or she get a research grant without conforming to political orthodoxy?

In any case, science is irrelevant because the politicians have taken over. Sen. Harry Reid, predictably, blames climate change on the Koch brothers. And I’m sure it’s a coincidence that President Obama declared climate change an urgent priority after hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer pledged to donate $100 million to politicians who support stringent environmental regulation. Does hot air cause climate change?

The political climate-change campaign sidesteps some inconvenient truths. Global warming has increased since 1970 but has remained flat for the past 17 years. Greenhouse gas emissions of most developed nations, led by the U.S., have been reduced to below 1990 levels. The biggest driver of this environmental success is the increasing use of cheap, abundant natural gas from hydraulic fracking. Perhaps the politicians are silent about this because the natural-gas revolution is a result of private enterprise and not government regulation.

Climate change remains a global problem, however, because increasing emissions from China, India and other growing economies far outweigh reductions in the U.S. and Europe. So adding new U.S. environmental regulations is a symbolic gesture that will reduce our standard of living, but will have zero impact on climate change so long as the rest of the world continues to burn more coal. All we’ll get out of it is skyrocketing electricity rates, higher gasoline prices, an even slower economy and the same crappy weather.

If we really want to do something about climate change – and not merely increase government control over the economy – there are some possible solutions that do not require economic suicide:

• Step up production of natural gas and export it overseas, then work with energy companies and foreign governments to expand fracking technology to growing countries that now depend on coal.
• Poverty kills more people than climate change. So let’s help poor countries develop cheap energy so that people can heat their houses, purify their water and cook their food. Solar and wind energy can play a big role here, but even fossil fuels will be an improvement over burning camel dung and cutting down rain forests for fuel.
• Develop storage and smart power grid technologies that can distribute solar and wind power to places where the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
• Dump ethanol. It causes more environmental damage than it prevents. Expand the use of natural gas as motor fuel instead.
• Expand nuclear power, perhaps by developing small-scale, manufactured reactors (like the ones on submarines) as backup generators for wind and solar systems.

It would be great to see a constructive discussion on how best to harness American innovation to continue environmental progress in the U.S. and drive global solutions. But don’t expect that to happen until after the election, if ever.