The Relief Report ®


A newsletter covering regulatory reform efforts in Washington and across America, published by The National Center for Public Policy Research

501 Capitol Court, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 543-4110 * Fax (202) 543-5975
E-mail [email protected]
Web http://www.nationalcenter.org


Issue #93 * April 18, 2001 * David A. Ridenour, Editor

Contents:

Bush's Global Warming Decisions are Sound Science and Good Economics

Bush is Right on the Environment - But He Needs Help to Prove It

On the Lighter Side: Pity the Poor Environmentalists


Bush's Global Warming Decisions are Sound Science and Good Economics

President Bush's decisions to oppose the Kyoto global warming treaty and carbon dioxide regulation are victories for consumers and for sound science.

The most reliable scientific evidence lends no credence to warnings that carbon dioxide emissions are causing discernible global warming. NASA weather satellites, the most accurate barometers of global temperature, show that the Earth has cooled slightly since 1979. Absent proof that it causes dangerous warming, carbon dioxide is simply a benign, non-polluting substance that plants need to grow.

Carbon dioxide regulation runs completely counter to the President's promise to promote access to affordable energy. The U.S. Energy Information Administration says carbon dioxide regulation would add about $90 billion to the nation's electrical generating costs - with consumers ultimately picking up the tab. If Bush had decided to regulate CO2, electricity prices would have increased as much as 43% in 2010, with the average household having to divert an extra $200 from health care, housing and other vital necessities to pay the electric bill each year.

In a letter to concerned U.S. Senators, the President said "including caps on carbon dioxide emissions... would lead to... significantly higher energy prices [and] we must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers."

by John Carlisle

 

Bush is Right on the Environment - But He Needs Help to Prove It

Although you wouldn't know it from his critics, President Bush has so far taken the correct actions on environmental issues ­ including his controversial decisions to end U.S. consideration of the Kyoto global warming treaty and against regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Bush's environmental critics have been unjustifiably harsh. The Democratic National Committee, for instance, took a swipe at Bush's intelligence as well as his motives: "Realizing ­ perhaps for the first time ­ that America is a large country with a huge environment to destroy, George W. Bush is now releasing new anti-environmental initiatives at the alarming rate of almost one per day."

Bush has largely failed to defend himself on scientific grounds. If he does not tell Americans his Administration is not dangerously heating the planet, raping the countryside of trees, polluting water or driving species into extinction, Americans will believe those who make such claims.

Bush needs a high-profile science advisor who can explain Bush's positions and answer hysterical attacks, like those of DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who recently said "Bush's idea of cleaning up the environment is stripping it bare... Our environment is our legacy, and George W. Bush is intent on squandering it."

Someone like physicist Dr. Fred Singer, who devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone and who was the first scientist to predict that population growth would increase atmospheric methane ­ an important greenhouse gas. Or Dr. John Christy, one of the nation's 49 state climatologists, a lead author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and an ordained minister who aids the starving in Africa. Or Richard Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a leading investigator of the role of clouds in global warming.

The President is making sound decisions and deserves a robust scientific defense. The public deserves to hear one.

by Amy Ridenour

 

On the Lighter Side: Pity the Poor Environmentalists...

It seems the National Wildlife Federation's new $17.4 million suburban headquarters is everything sprawl fighters like the NWF normally denounce. Says the April 9 & 16 edition of the New Republic: "The new office has a 285-car parking lot: not even a tiered garage but a flat, mall-style lot whose construction required the clear-cutting of several acres of pines, poplars, and red maples. Staff members at the new National Wildlife Federation headquarters total 249, which means there is more than one parking place per person, ensuring that no National Wildlife Federation employee ever need carpool to a day's work of writing denouncements of fossil-fuel consumption or the wasteful cutting of trees."

According to NWF, development "planned around the needs of the automobile... leads to a bleak, dispiriting landscape of highways, parking lots and strip malls." So pity the poor NWF executives, forced to toil away in the "dispiriting landscape" of their brand-new $17.4 million facility.




Editorial correspondence to The Relief Report should be directed to: The National Center for Public Policy Research * 501 Capitol Court, N.E. * Washington, D.C. 20002 * (202) 543-4110 * Fax (202) 543-5975 * E-mail [email protected] * Web http://www.nationalcenter.org. Copyright 2001, The National Center for Public Policy Research. Coverage of meetings, activities or statements in the Relief Report does not imply endorsement by The National Center for Public Policy Research. Reprints of material in the Relief Report permitted provided source is credited. To receive all National Center newsletters free by e-mail, visit http://www.nationalcenter.org or send an e-mail to: mailing [email protected].


 Search this site.

 Return toRelief Report Index Page  Return to the National Center for Public Policy Research Home Page