Opinion

Portland Oregonian
02/16/04

A major problem with the public discussion of global climate is the tendency of environmental activists to distort the facts and exaggerate consequences. Christine Hagerbaumer did both in her Jan. 23 essay in The Oregonian, "It's 'global climate change,' actually."

Hagerbaumer states that extreme weather patterns are "expected" because of rises in carbon dioxide; the World Health Organization "estimates" global warming is currently responsible for 150,000 deaths each year; and, temperature increases also "appear" to help the spread of mercury. Finally, she goes over the top by equating global warming with cancer.

None of these claims has ever been validated by empirical research. They are merely assertions, clearly intended to scare people. Hagerbaumer could have just as easily predicted catastrophic scenarios based on "global cooling" if she had used different assumptions.

In fact, 30 years ago forecasts for global cooling represented the conventional wisdom. For example, a feature story in the April 28, 1975, edition of Newsweek described "ominous signs" that the climate had started "to change dramatically." According to the magazine:

England's growing season had shortened by two weeks, thereby reducing the yield of grain crops.

A year earlier "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded . . . killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states."

Pessimists feared that "famines could be catastrophic," while government officials predicted a return to the "Little Ice Age" because of global cooling.

Global climate has fluctuated widely for millennia, but Hagerbaumer insists we can control these changes by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Fossil fuel combustion is a primary source of CO2, and she claims that we can derive our power from "clean, renewable sources instead of dirty fossil fuels."

If this were economically feasible, renewable energy would already be in widespread use. However, most renewable sources are not cost-effective and will only be minor sources of power in the near term. They are also running into political opposition by the very environmental groups who claim to be renewable energy supporters.

For example, large-scale hydroelectric projects have become politically unacceptable due to concerns about fish passage. Many advocates want to tear out hydro projects, not build more.

Wind energy is being challenged on the basis of noise, visual impact, and wildlife mortality. On Jan. 12 the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against one prominent wind energy facility in order to halt the "illegal ongoing killing of tens of thousands of protected birds" by wind turbines. The Center claims that each year, the 5,400 wind turbines at Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area near San Francisco kill up to 60 or more golden eagles and hundreds of other hawks, owls, and other protected raptors.

Such lawsuits will undoubtedly make investors think twice before planning additional wind energy projects.

Given the scientific uncertainty surrounding climate change, we should avoid costly mandates (such as restrictions on fossil fuels) and pursue only those renewable resource projects that are likely to be profitable. That way, regardless of which climate change scenario turns out to be accurate, we will not regret the investment decisions we make today.

John A. Charles is environmental policy director at Cascade Policy Institute, a Portland think tank. Fred W. Decker, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University.

RETURN TO CENTER FOR THE DEFENSE OF FREE ENTERPRISE HOME PAGE