September 2010 Letters

(Note to readers: Beginning this month, we will be posting "Letters" to the website. Because of limited space in the print version, some letters have been heavily edited. Though we maintain the right to edit letters for grammar and content, we hope to run most letters in full from Indiana electric cooperative members who wish to add their thoughtful opinions and comments to the ongoing issues facing America's electricity industry and Indiana's electric cooperatives.)

Reader refutes letter writer's assertions on climate change

As with many things in our lives, there is often a choice of which road to take. Unlike John R. Boyd (letter in the August issue), I prefer the opinion of the majority of atmospheric scientists. Without challenging Mr. Boyd’s scientific credentials, I need to point out some significant statements and conclusions I don’t believe he can support.

First of all, his statement of how Greenland got its name is not correct.  Yes, there was very limited “farming” a thousand years ago.  It consisted of dairy cattle operations that had to occur in sheltered fiords along the Southwest coast, which was kept above freezing by ocean currents from the Atlantic Ocean. A limited supply of barley and grasses were grown, but they were not adequate to sustain the dairy operations. The industry failed rapidly because the climate could not support annual growth of feed.  The vast majority of Greenland is and always has been ice covered.  Eric Röde (Eric the Red) is credited for naming  it Greenland in hopes that such an attractive name would draw settlers.

Mr. Boyd is correct, there have been numerous periods of warming and cooling on our planet, but ice core samples and other scientific evidence have proven that since the introduction of fossil fuel use in the world for everyday power, heat, and light, the dynamics of our atmosphere are changing at a pace that has never been matched in all determined history. True, we have had warming in the past, the significant factor is that high levels of carbon dioxide were always present during those warming periods.

I don’t care if warming is caused by nature or man, the results will be the same. At the rate the world is spewing carbon dioxide into the air the effects will become more significant each year. As far as the myth that the earth has been cooling for the last decade, we have all heard that statistics can be made to show whatever we want, Mr. Boyd’s source is using just such a “trick” to make that statement. The following comes from an article written by Bob Carter on April 9, 2006 in the Telegraph (a UK news organization):

"Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)."
 
I will give some credit to Bob Carter, he was at least honest enough to point out that even the cherry picked evidence did not differ from zero significantly.

To become informed, just Google “Global warming stopped in 1998.” The numerous articles you find will show how one can make such a claim by cherry picking evidence and ignoring some reality, but the fact is the climate is warming at an alarming rate. The myth that it stopped in 1998 is just not true.

The letter mentions conditions on earth in the past.  He makes the statement that “none” of the items alarmists want to blame for global warming existed. I suggest a little research beyond the surface will show that the “items” have almost always existed, the cause of those “items” have changed (cars instead of forest fires perhaps).
 
He is correct about studies showing that some plants grow bigger and  faster in heavy concentrations of carbon dioxide, but if plants are so starved for carbon dioxide, why are the levels in our atmosphere increasing every year?
 
As my final point, I appreciate Mr. Boyd pointing out how tiny a part per million is because it should make us realize that if 1 part per million can do damage and is so insignificant, imagine what 1.25 or 2 parts per million is going to do and how easy it will be to reach.

I am not suggesting we stop using fossil fuels, but we need to use them more wisely. If you are unhappy about the cost of electricity now, wait until there is no more coal available for power plants because it is being used for some other energy purpose or being sold to the highest international bidder.

Even if global warming is not the fear in your heart, wouldn’t you like to see your children and grandchildren enjoy reasonable electric rates?  I have lived in many parts of the United States and even Europe, I will tell you as a point of fact, Indiana is one of the energy bargain centers of the nation.

Now is the time to harness the wind and the sun for renewable energy and we just might prolong the life of humans on our planet, and keep our rates among the lowest in the world.  I think it is worth the risk.

Jim Barnard, Corydon, Ind.

(Note from editor: National Geographic just featured Greenland in a recent issue. Here's a link to that story.)

We need to be 'fixing the lifeboats'

We can argue until we’re blue in the face about the causes of CO₂ increase, about whether mankind is responsible for climate change, or about whether cow farts matter more than car exhaust.

What we can’t argue about is the fact that the earth’s climate IS dynamic, it DOES change, it HAS changed radically in the past, and it IS changing now. The data is unequivocal. It’s getting warmer. As much as we may or may not have had to do with the cause, it’s likely there’s nothing we can do to reverse it.

The real question is whether we can live with the change. This summer is probably a taste of what’s to come. Our primitive ancestors migrated all around the world as the climate drove their needs. Vikings farmed Greenland, and then left when it got colder. But the size of today’s population means we don’t really have that option.

We will become more and more dependent on our electrically-created artificial environments indoors. And we will become more dependent on the electricity that creates those environments. Presently, something like 47 percent of generated electricity is lost in transmission, due to an aging grid infrastructure. We lose huge amount of electricity in inefficient housing. Most of our means of generating electricity are problematic at best.

If we don’t start seriously addressing those issues, we are due for a hot sweaty future. Arguing about cap and trade or taxing carbon is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Nice thought, good intentions, but we need to be fixing the lifeboats.

Nancy P. McIntosh, Depauw, Ind.

Electric Consumer invites signed letters from readers commenting on editorial content.
Click here to send us an e-mail.