Question Earthority!

And eight minutes away at the speed of light lies Earth, under constant bombardment by the rays that process generates.

Not that this is anything you don’t know, but it’s the starting point for two questions.

First, how can we harness all that energy to make our lives better?

Second, what can we do mitigate the consequences of global warming produced by the intersection of those rays and our atmosphere under certain conditions (conditions which many scientists believe obtain right now)?

The answers to those two questions look logically interrelated to me.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve actually had trouble finding a really comprehensive guide to preparing your home for summer in a way that keeps the utility bills down — AND keeps you comfortable. So, I guess I’m going into the tips business myself.

I love summer — I’m just a warm-weather guy. But there are limits, and of course one man’s “just right” is another man’s (or his mate’s or children’s) baking point. In any case, it’s possible to keep reasonably cool in the summer WITHOUT spending a lot of money. Here are some things that I’ve found help:

- Switch to those new-fangled Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs — really! The old-fashioned bulbs produce more heat than light — enough that I can tell the difference in a room. Yes, the CFLs cost more up front … but since converting, I’ve never had to replace a bulb, and they use less electricity, more than making up for their cost in savings. There’s been a bit of alarmism about the mercury content in CFLs, but I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Just be careful not to break them, and don’t eat the damn things, okay?

Read the rest of this entry »

Over the last couple of months, we’ve seen a number of stories about states (California) and countries (Australia) moving toward outlawing the traditional incandescent light bulb in favor of compact fluorescent varieties.

Naturally, these policy proposals have raised a few eyebrows among market environmentalists. Is government action required to achieve the transition? In a word, no.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the past, I’ve written about the problem with the “Precautionary Principle” as applied to politics — specifically, as applied to environmental issues. To briefly rehash:

The precautionary principle urges action — the adoption of policy, legislation, regulation — on the basis of a heightened appreciation of risk. It demands that we act not on what we know, but on what we fear.

But, as George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Unleashing the power of the state represents both known and unknown risks of its own, over the long term and immediately … and I oppose doing that almost always, and especially versus hypothetical future risks.

Now — if you follow this column, you know that I’ve signed on to Ronald Bailey’s statement: “We are all global warmers now.” I’ve even characterized some of those who’ve pitched their tents on the far side of the “skeptic” camp as the Luddites of the new millennium. Just as the weavers of France rioted against the introduction of the Jacquard Loom and the Industrial Revolution it represented, some of our “skeptics” seem less worried about the facts than about defending that Industrial Revolution from the factual conclusions that are ushering in its successor technologies.

Which brings me to my trip to Chicago last weekend, and a most enjoyable ambush.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s hard to say when the new era began, but I personally date it from August 11th, 2005 — the day that Reason’s Ronald Bailey declared “we are all global warmers now.”

Over the last 18-24 months, the fact of global warming, and of mankind’s active, significant role in climate change, has gained increasing acceptance among those who might previously have been classified as “bitter dead-enders.”

And, in a curious “what comes around goes around” phenomenon, the remaining dead-enders — it would be impossible to identify them all, but if a tornado hit the water cooler at the Competitive Enterprise Institute the local ER would be flooded with them — have essentially donned the mantle they once tried to hang on the shoulders of environmentalists: The cloak of Luddism.

Read the rest of this entry »

When I heard that the CLEAN Energy Act (the acronym stands for “Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation”) was on the agenda for the 110th Congress’s “first 100 hours” hype-fest, two knee-jerk reactions formed immediately in my mind:

First: They’re going to pass something that won’t pass in the Senate, and won’t be signed into law by the President — it’s just grandstanding.

Second: This isn’t going to be a corporate welfare cut. It’s going to be a corporate welfare transfer, and probably some tax hikes on the false premise that “not taxing”is the same as “subsidizing.”

I guess I’m just an incurable cynic. Unfortunately, that cynicism was justified.

Read the rest of this entry »

2006 will probably be remembered by environmentalists as the year that global warming went “mainstream.” After decades of suspicious skepticism, even most of the most suspicious skeptics — libertarians — seem to finally be accepting the scientific consensus: That the earth is warming, that it’s not all a matter of “cycle,” and that human activity is a factor.

There were other landmarks, too: Read the rest of this entry »

Time to applaud both George Phillies and Steve Kubby for being ahead of the gradient as Libertarian responders to environmental issues.

As recently as two years ago, it seemed that Libertarians didn’t want to hear the words “global warming.” It was easier just to plug our ears and scream “junk science” because that was seemingly the only alternative to accepting the statist Left’s program for draconian government measures versus climate change.

Sure, most of the “libertarian” responses smacked of corporate welfare and crony “capitalism” rather than real free market solutions, but that was the flow it was easy to go with. I recall the particularly bellicose reaction at the Libertarian Party’s 2004 national convention when nomination contender Aaron Russo had the gall and temerity to suggest that the answer to America’s energy problems might not be another corporate welfare program in the form of handing half of Alaska over to Exxon.

The dam broke in August, 2005 when Ronald Bailey, Reason’s science correspondent, proclaimed “We’re all global warmers now.” The science is becoming pretty damn clear … and libertarians need to come up with real answers instead of continuing to pretend the old ones work.

Read George Phillies’s position paper on energy and the environment here.

Steve Kubby’s latest blog entry — which I can confirm is also a position paper, or at least the backbone of one — is on the same subject.

Congratulations to George and Steve for leading from the front on this one.

Denial - “Global warming? Bah! Humbug! Just another excuse to make me keep my 1974 Oldsmobile in the garage!”

Anger — “Those damn greens! Can’t leave well enough alone, can they? Every time the stock market ticks up, they want to quibble about deforestation and sea level rises. Why should I care if the Ross Ice Shelf slides off of Antarctica? I sold the house in Pensacola years ago!”

Bargaining - “Alright, alright … let’s work this out. If I buy a Prius, will it shut you the hell up? Look, I just planted a mimosa in the front yard. That’s gotta be good for a degree or two, right?”

Depression - “Doomed. DOOMED! Why even bother? We had a good run, and when the aliens arrive they’ll see that we held out longer than Venus did before going under. I need a drink … a cold one.”

Acceptance - “You know, freedom has solved a lot of problems in the past. Now that I’m done denying the obvious, getting pissed off about it, trying to deal my way out of dealing with it, and having my little hissy, I’m thinking maybe we should move forward, ride this thing out. Let’s get out of the way and let the market do something about it.”

Amid continuing car problems, Tamara and I have been considering just going all out and purchasing a newer vehicle … and we have a hybrid in mind. We’ve borrowed a friend’s Toyota Prius a couple of times, and it seems to be a fine car.

Because we’ve been considering hybrids, it caught my attention when GM announced that it plans to introduce a “plug-in” hybrid in the near future. And within the announcement article, a particular claim caught my eye:

Environmentalists have become plug-in advocates, saying most motorists commute less than 50 miles to and from work each day and could do that on batteries alone without consuming any gas and without creating any emissions.

This is plainly incorrect.

Read the rest of this entry »