Comments about ‘On climate change, let sense rule’

I had not realized how old Senator Bennett had become. Old because he can talk with real scientists. Old because he can look at science in a balanced way. Old because he believes in science as a necessary tool of analysis. Old because he believes in doing what makes sense.

Someday, I hope to be old as well. I hope my children and grandchildren will become old and that this nation and this planet will be good places for them.

"Do what makes sense anyway." It should be our unofficial national motto.

Coal makes up about 43 percent of America's electricity generation, down from about 50 percent from a fews years ago. Coal use is destined to dwindle due to its heavy pollution and states' mandates to include more clean energy (called "Renewable Energy Standards"), regardless of U.S. adoption of climate policy.

Utah will face a dramatic drop in coal production in 2027 when California's IPP contracts expire. As an exporter of electricity, Utah has to conform to the demands of its export customers, and California is demanding more clean energy. First Wind near Milford has created one of the largest wind farms in the nation to replace IPP's coal-fired power for California.

Some analysts say that coal producers will switch to exporting coal to China and other nations allowing coal pollution. This is myopic, however, as the cost to ship heavy coal by rail and ship will become uneconomical as oil prices skyrocket and the railroad oligopoly drives up cost to haul heavy coal from mines to ports.

Clean energy from wind, solar, and geothermal eliminates all those costs and risks and eliminates pollution as well. Utah must diversify its electricity sources to remain cost competitive in the near future.

And Bob wonders why he was replaced?

Does Bob realize that Cap-and-Trade will increase the cost virtually everything, and that the way that Cap-and-Trade works it often makes it more profitiable for Farmers to NOT produce food but to sell carbon credits?

I don't think that Bob know that if Cap-and-Trade were to be implemented that Al Gore would become the first environmental billionaire, thanks to his business ventures.

Cap-and-trade in Europe has proven to be a waste and a tax, as shown by the Kyoto protocols.

If they want to cut emissions, make nuclear power the wave of the future. The US is sitting on 300 years worth of fuel.

Robert Bennett, For the Deseret News and University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics. Let's all let common sense rule. Climate change is occurring, it's really going to heat up in Washington DC, and humans are contributing to it. How our economic crisis has been brought about by deliberate fraud on the part of banks involved in real estate loans. The household losses in this crisis are estimated at a staggering 11 trillion dollars, he reported (by comparison, the S & L crisis of the 1980s was contained at $150 billion, he noted). Accounting fraud was carried out by mortgage bankers and affiliates of banks that weren't subject to governmental regulation. They issued what he called "liar's loans" that were guaranteed to provide huge bonuses for executives, while setting up home owners to certain failure when the real estate bubble burst. Many predatory mortgage brokers targeted poor people and minorities, inflating appraisals, and debt-to-income ratios in order to qualify them for the loans, he continued. By 2006, there were over two million cases of this type of fraud a year, and banks were selling their problematic loans to Wall St. under false pretenses. This heat is on Bennett.

Are we still talking about "global warming"? I thought even the kookiest of kooks had dropped the subject after the East Anglia debacle. I guess the few "bitter clingers" to the religion of global warming are having a little get together for old time's sake in Durban.
Senator Bennett shows in his column though that it's still important for the big government think tankers to keep the dream alive. How else do you control the citizenry?
Hey Bob- did you really mean to write that "we have been doing some things that make sense ....like imposing higher mileage requirements on cars". Obviously you believe in the rule of man as opposed to the rule of law. In an allegedly "free" country shouldn't the consumer make the decision about the mileage requirement they prefer? GM and Chrysler arguably went bankrupt because of mileage requirements imposed by the "wise decision makers" and how much did that end up costing us?

@red state pride
"I thought even the kookiest of kooks had dropped the subject after the East Anglia debacle."

A few emails grossly taken out of context does nothing to change the fact that Arctic sea ice extent minimum is declining faster than the IPCC projections. (Of course if the IPCC projection was off in the other direction then it'd be a Fox News "expose".)

"did you really mean to write that "we have been doing some things that make sense ....like imposing higher mileage requirements on cars"."

Probably. Also getting off of nonrenewable energy so that we don't have to deal with the inevitable peak oil and rising fuel costs that would come with it. We could actually manufacture something for a change if we develop efficient and cost effective solar panels.

"GM and Chrysler arguably went bankrupt because of mileage requirements imposed by the "wise decision makers" and how much did that end up costing us? "

Definitely not true. Their vehicles have lower gas mileage than practically all alternative companies.

@ RedShirt: Bennett explicitly opposes cap and trade in his article. More careful reading would help.

@ red state pride. Apparently, you are unaware of the Koch-funded climate-data review (led by noted global-warming skeptic Dr. Richard Miller) that was supposed to definitively disprove global warming. Turns out the science is solid, and global warming is real. The only question is how much humans have to do with it. You might want to read Muller's analysis (not that science will change anyone's opinion).

As for Senator Bennett's article, he's absolutely right. Even if global warming were not an issue, it makes sense to move away from coal and other heavily polluting (and inefficient) energy sources in favor of what works. His position is hardly controversial.

@atl134- How many people in this country have died in this country because they were driving in unsafe cars made of plastic because of mileage standards? Are you cool with that? Just a little collateral damage?
Most Americans don't want to drive tiny "fuel efficient" cars because they don't want their kids killed in a fender bender. And why would auto companies want to make cars people don't want to buy other than that they were forced to because of regulations and hence the mandated red ink on their bottom line.
Don't you understand that sea ice in the Arctic is beside the point? It doesn't matter if humans are contributing to "climate change". You don't solve it by having a top-down command and control economy where you give failing companies like Solyndra millions in loan guarantees and regulate profitable companies out of business.
And peak oil? Do you know how much recoverable oil has been identified in the last few years? Do you know how much natural gas has been discovered? I wouldn't lose sleep worrying about running out.

Did "Global Warming" cause 50% Unemployment, 90% Stock Market Drop, 100% Inflation. The evidence is there. Or was it persons like Bennett?. Will the GOP slap a 25 percent tax on all U.S. imports from OPEC nations?. Start dealing with OPEC's "illegal cartel" and lowering oil prives is key to turning around the U.S. and global economy. A crisis is the unwillingness to investigate whether accounting control fraud was a major contributor to the crisis. The refusal to even consider a major role for fraud is facially bizarre. The S&L debacle led them to conclude that the S&L regulators were correct financial deregulation could be dangerously criminogenic. Neither the public nor economists foresaw that [S&L deregulation was] bound to produce looting. Will the GOP slap a 20 percent tax on all domestic companies that outsource their jobs overseas?. Will Utah follow in the same footsteps as Calif. Lawmakers that propose 'Sanctuary' for another 1 Million Illegals?. Who cares if Gingrich Leads, Romney in 3rd Place, they never said what they'll do about these problem's if elected. Just more fatigue, brain fog and headaches. YES this heat is on Bennett Utah.

My truthful views.

Re: red state pride - 10:52 a.m. Cottonwood Heights, UT
It doesn't matter if humans are contributing to "climate change". You don't solve it by having a top-down command and control economy where you give failing companies like Solyndra millions in loan guarantees and regulate profitable companies out of business. And peak oil? Do you know how much recoverable oil has been identified in the last few years? Do you know how much natural gas has been discovered?.

Reply: Perhaps you have some Koch Brother's blood in you, seeing it's them that caused this "Global Warming" in the first place, along with deregulation's, that, (for kick-backs) is still important for the big government think tankers to keep the dream alive. Will the GOP slap a 20 percent tax on all domestic companies that outsource their jobs overseas?. Will the GOP slap a 25 percent tax on all U.S. imports from OPEC nations?. Start dealing with OPEC's "illegal cartel" and lowering oil prives is key to turning around the U.S. and global economy. Then there's Utah's Coal that makes up about 43 percent of America's electricity generation and China's to.

Tell the truth.

My views.

Tp Red State Pride: Automobile fatality rates have been declining steadily for decades. The argument that fuel economy standards result in unsafe cars is totally spurious.

Defining what "makes sense" establishes a broad spectrum of possibilities.

To me, to do what "makes sense" would be to throw away the arrogant notion that we humans can somehow MEANINGFULLY affect the climate of this giant/complex planet.

To me, to do what "makes sense" would be to seek energy production from ALL available sources. Cheap/abundant energy allows for the prosperity we all enjoy.

To me, to do what "makes sense" would be to vote politicians out-of-office who want to legislate policies that are based on climate change premise.

It's not arrogant to accept scientific conclusions. It would be arrogant to say, without evidence, that we do or do not have any effect on the earth's climate.

"It appears the earth's atmosphere is more efficient in reflecting the sun's heat back into space than we orignally believed" So says a group of NASA scientists recently in a effort to explain why the climate in cooling instead of getting warmer, like their bogus computer models indicated.

There is a hard fact that doesn't seem to register here. Coal will run out. Oil will run out. Natural gas will run out.

Should we anticipate the consequence of a dwindling fossil fuel supply or just ignore it and leave it for our grandchildren to face?

What if Climate Change is all a hoax and we end up making the planet better anyhow??

There's money to be made in carbon-based energy production. That is the central thesis in the attack on global climate change. The fact that much of the recent change (since the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution) is from human behavior is irrelevant to those wanting to make the bucks. As for the others who say "it ain't so", there is the cost of dealing with the problem.

So there you have the discussion in a nutshell: (1) there's a lot of money yet to be made, and (2) no one wants to foot the bill to clean things up for future generations.

And the sequence of arguments begin with

(a) It's not true.

(b) Scientists are lying.

(c) It's happening but people are not contributing to it.

(d) It costs too much to fix.

(e) There's money to be made and the global warming mischief makers are against capitalism and the free market.

We'll just have to see how much money gets paid to congresspeople by lobbyists to keep anything from happening on the subject.

@Brother Chuck Schroeder:

"Let's all let common sense rule. Climate change is occurring..."

Climate change has occurred ever since climate was invented. So, trying to change the rate of change is an absolutely futile task. Furthermore, there ain't enough money in the entire world to do anything about it in a significant way.

red state pride | 10:52 "driving in unsafe cars made of plastic"

Google for a You Tube video called Crash test Chevrolet 1959 vs Chevrolet 2009 produced by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The big heavy 1959 Chevy really takes a beating from the 2009 Chevy.

I have worked in insurance for 23 years. Todays cars are much, much safer than even those from the 1980s or 90s..

@Roland Keyser 12:02 PM

Traffic fatality rates have decreased because vehicles, roads, and drivers have become safer. However, when you correct for these factors, you still find fatality rates for smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles are much higher than for larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles. Physics.

@my slc 8:06 PM

Newer vehicles are indeed safer than older vehicles. However, when you compare same year vehicles, you find that larger vehicles are much more crash-worthy than smaller ones. See "Status Report - Dying in a Crash" by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.