"too reasonable to be true"

from Kitsap Sun
Losing Freedoms for ‘Climate Change'

I should have known it was too reasonable to be true.

Last month I wrote about Senate Bill 5735, sponsored by Sen. Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge Island. The bill reaffirms the state's desire to curb greenhouse gases. In March it carried the following wording, "The legislature finds that the recent downturn in economic activity has reduced the rate of growth in greenhouse gas emissions and that it is unnecessary at this time to adopt new regulatory limits across significant sectors of the economy..." That language has been replaced with "...Despite the recent economic downturn, the output of greenhouse gas emissions continues..." That's not surprising since we still have people engaged in living.

The legislation seeks to implement a "multisector emissions reduction program", phase one of which would begin in 2012 starting with "electricity generated in the state or generated out-of-state..." Phase two starts in 2015 and targets emission reductions in "transportation fuel combustion and residential fuel combustion..." This legislation passed the Senate in March on a vote of 29 to 19. It was opposed by all Republicans. Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Shelton also voted against the bill while both Sen. Rockefeller and Sen. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor voted for passage.

It's since moved to the House where a public hearing was held last week. A companion bill, H.B. 1819 also seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by "implementing a cap on carbon emissions and developing strategies to achieve those reductions, including continuing Washington's participation in the design of a regional cap-and-trade program with the western climate initiative..." The bill is co-sponsored by Reps. Sherry Appleton, D-Poulsbo and Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island.


The president of a company specializing in solar panel installation recently testified in Olympia in support of capping carbon emissions. In his recent letter to the-editor he refers to this approach as "Cap and Invest." That's a catchy phrase which really translates into "Cap and Tax." There's nothing wrong with his advocacy and I certainly understand why he would encourage government mandates since his company would benefit.

Like many others caught up in sounding the alarm of an impending catastrophe because of "climate change" he employs numerous exaggerations. He describes our state and nation as "facing an economic crisis unprecedented in my lifetime..." Perhaps in his lifetime, but I'm sure anyone who lived through the Great Depression would find that statement incomprehensible. He writes of a "moral imperative" and describes the legislation as limiting global warming "pollution" while summarily dismissing any debate over "climate change".

Another recent letter, this time from a Bremerton High School student, exhorted us to turn off our lights on March 28 in recognition of Earth Hour. She described this activity as a "massive environmental act" where cities in solidarity across the globe darkened their lights for an hour. Unfortunately the organizers of Earth Hour couldn't measure how much energy the world saved.

Ban Ki-moon, United Nations Secretary, described Earth Hour as, "a way for the citizens of the world to send a clear message: They want action on climate change." The U.N. wants to take the lead on imposing elaborate worldwide "solutions" to climate change through carbon taxes and "energy policy reform." One idea in the preliminary U.N. document discusses a "climate change levy on aviation." It describes a "negative impact on exporters of goods that rely on air transport ... and tourism services." Oddly it's silent on any impact on the aerospace industry. Commercial airline revenues were $530 billion in 2008, $208 billion in the U.S. Imagine the effect of this "solution" on Boeing and Washington's exports.

Perhaps the U.N. should follow the lead of California's Air Resources Board which, in attempting to implement the state's "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006", is considering banning black cars. Maybe they'll adopt an EPA idea of taxing live-stock under the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases. Even inexpensive incandescent light bulbs are disappearing. They're being replaced with more expensive fluorescent ones in the name of energy efficiency.

All these "solutions" are being crafted against a background of increasing questions about the basic premise. In January, Pravda headlined an approaching "ice age." A recent Danish study finds climate may be more affected by the planet's magnetic field than carbon dioxide levels.

A study at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee found that "...changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural."

Loss of freedom and independence occurs gradually, like the death of the proverbial frog in the slowly warming pot of water. He's eventually boiled alive while never recognizing the danger. Imposing draconian requirements on individuals and businesses because of questionable "climate change" will severely damage our economy. Designing a global "carbon-tax" scheme with good intentions and disastrous results will not save the planet. But it will endanger our sovereignty and injure the earth's human inhabitants.