Heres what I said at tonights council meeting about climate change (authorizing the mayor to to sign a letter of support for the King County-CIties Climate Collaboration (K4C), kingcounty.gov/environment/climate/other-governments/climate-pledge.aspx): I would like to preface my remarks with an apology. Over the weekend I made a post on Facebook to let people know that this item was on the agenda tonight and inviting them to contact councilmembers and share their opinions on the topic. A number of people commented on that post. Some of those comments were less than civil, and I didn’t do a very good job of guiding that discussion in a positive direction. I hope you’ll forgive me, and I promise to do better at that in the future. We have a diversity of viewpoints on this council. We pride ourselves on working together with collegiality and civility, and not questioning each other’s motives or sincerely held beliefs. We just see some things differently. This is one of those areas where we apparently disagree. This is the first opportunity since I joined the council that the issue of climate change has been squarely before us, and so I apologize once again for taking a few minutes to share my view. I want to start by sharing what I believe I know based on years of study of the issue. The only thing constant about Earth’s climate is that it changes. Climate change has always occurred and always will. There have been many times in earths history, documented by ice cores and other temperature proxies, when it has been much warmer than it is today. That same evidence shows that increased carbon dioxide generally lags behind increased temperature, rather than leading it. There have been many times in the past when CO2 levels have been much higher than today -- even ten times higher -- while temperatures have been significantly lower. We simply do not yet adequately understand the connection between CO2 and temperature. Our current warming trend started in the mid-1800s as we emerged from the Little Ice Age, long before significant human emissions of CO2 occured. Warming did NOT start in the mid-1900s when human emissions of CO2 became significant as a result of widespread availability of affordable cars. The current warming period is not at all unusual compared to historical climate trends; similar periods of warming, both in terms of scale and rate of change, have occurred many times in the past with no human involvement whatsoever. It is well known that the greenhouse effect of CO2 cannot be solely or even primarily responsible for the warming that has recently occurred. It is possible that the greenhouse effect could be amplified through various feedback mechanisms. However, those feedback mechanisms are not well understood by scientists. We dont even know yet whether those feedbacks are primarily positive or negative. Existing climate models do not adequately model these feedback mechanisms -- not even things as common and important as clouds. As a result, current models greatly over-estimate the level of warming. Those models have predicted accelerating warming in recent years, but actual measurements show there has been no significant change in global average surface temperatures for the past 18 years, to the point where now virtually all of the model projections are well above the actual temperature. Despite these problems, this council is being asked to commit to support a number of policy initiatives based on the flawed projections of these models. We should not make major decisions that have potential to impact very negatively on our economy and quality of life based on inconclusive data. I cannot support a policy statement that assumes as fact that climate change is primarily caused by human activity, that all climate change is bad, or that we must take drastic immediate action to reverse it. I support planning for how we would respond to whatever climate change comes in the future, as it inevitably will. Whether it be warming or cooling, more precipitation or less, it is prudent for us to understand the possibilities and prepare to respond. But I do not support undertaking extraordinary efforts to try to influence the climate by restricting or changing human behavior or activities. I will not address every point raised in the K4C document we are being asked to support, but I do want to address a few specific points. I do not agree with the idea that CO2 is pollution. Even though carbon dioxide is only about four one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere, it is the very foundation of life on earth. If we eliminated CO2 today, we would all quickly starve to death. CO2 is not a pollutant, and we should not sign onto a statement that calls it one. We do not know the optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and should not assume that the level in 1940 is the level we should strive to maintain forever. CO2 is plant food. Higher levels of CO2 will improve agricultural production and help feed the hungry worldwide. Cutting CO2 would reduce farm output and could increase hunger. I do not agree with the statement in the document that climate change is the paramount challenge of our generation. We have many greater and more immediate challenges facing us, such as poverty and hunger, sanitation and clean water, public health and epidemics, and the lack of cheap and plentiful energy without which prosperity is impossible. All of these are much greater proven and immediate risks to human life than climate change. We must prioritize and use what resources we have to the greatest benefit to the most people. I do not agree that spending billions or trillions of dollars to try to stop climate change is the best use of limited resources. I oppose laws that would artificially raise the price of carbon-based fuels through cap and trade, a carbon tax, or any similar mechanism. Signing this statement would commit us to supporting these at the state and federal level. I disagree with the idea that we need to convert a significant portion of our electrical supply to wind, solar, or other methods that are unstable and expensive. The foundation of our economy is cheap, plentiful, and stable sources of electricity and motor fuel. Wind and solar are neither cheap nor stable and may, when total life cycle costs are considered, be more expensive and even more environmentally damaging than traditional energy sources. There are many things in this action plan that I DO support. I support improving energy efficiency of public buildings and vehicles, as part of our commitment to use public resources as efficiently as possible. I support reducing the waste stream, and increasing recycling. If we were making a commitment to be efficient with our resources, I would be all for it, but this policy goes far beyond that. I do not share the vision of the document proposed to be signed, and therefore will vote No on authorizing the mayor to sign it on behalf of the city.
Posted on: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 05:13:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015