Keith Lockitch — VOICES for REASON

Next week, the Heartland Institute will host its Third International Conference on Climate Change; June 2nd in Washington, DC. The Ayn Rand Institute is a co-sponsor.

The event follows closely on the heels of a previous conference, which took place in New York City in March (see here and here)–but the new conference couldn’t be more timely. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce just approved a comprehensive climate and energy bill, the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act,” which would impose energy impoverishment in a variety of ways: forced energy conservation programs, a cap-and-trade system rationing U.S. carbon emissions, a renewable energy mandate forcing us to use expensive, impractical forms of energy, and more.

The event is intended to acquaint Congressional staff with the views of scientists and economists who oppose green climate and energy policies. Hopefully, it will help inject a measure of reason into the Congressional debate before the bill comes up for a vote.

In any event, I will be there and will have lots to report after the conference. Stay tuned.

Green and moldy, that is. Canada’s National Post, in a story about reusable fabric grocery bags, reports that:

A microbiological study–a first in North America–of the popular, eco-friendly bags has uncovered some unsettling facts. Swab-testing by two independent laboratories found unacceptably high levels of bacterial, yeast, mold and coliform counts in the reusable bags…. 

The study found that 64% of the reusable bags tested were contaminated with some level of bacteria and close to 30% had elevated bacterial counts higher than what’s considered safe for drinking water.

Further, 40% of the bags had yeast or mold, and some of the bags had an unacceptable presence of coliforms, faecal intestinal bacteria, when there should have been 0.

Recall that reusable bags were supposed to be the green, “eco-friendly” solution to the alleged paper-or-plastic conundrum–the fact that paper bag manufacturing kills trees, while plastic bags clog landfills. But now the solution apparently needs a solution.

Read the rest of this entry »

We’re constantly told that one of the “catastrophic” impacts of global warming will be a rising sea level. But geology can be rather complex. Here is a story about sea levels actually falling around Juneau, Alaska. Apparently, the loss of “billions of tons” of ice that have melted away from retreating glaciers is causing the land to rise faster than the sea.

So is this good news? At least this region will be spared the supposedly catastrophic impacts we hear so much about–flooding, increased coastal erosion, salt water infiltration, and so on–right?

Read the rest of this entry »

For years, scientists critical of the claims of catastrophic, man-made climate change have pointed out that even if the earth were warming–whether from human causes or not–there would be many positive benefits. For instance, warmer climate conditions combined with higher atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide–a.k.a. plant food–would dramatically promote plant growth. (See here for evidence this has already occurred, due to today’s CO2 levels and the slight temperature increase since the ’80s.)

The response from climate change alarmists has been either to completely ignore or dismiss such evidence–or, more recently, to trot out all manner of studies asserting that higher CO2 levels would primarily benefit harmful, pollen-spewing villains such as ragweed. And the media, of course, dutifully chimes in with gloomy headlines such as “Allergies Getting Worse Due to Global Warming” or “Climate Change: Something to Sneeze At.”

Well, here are some other “inconvenient truths” you won’t hear from Al Gore.

Read the rest of this entry »

My speaking event with Willie Soon went off well. This is the third panel event we have done together and I expect we’ll continue to do them as opportunities arise.

Willie gave an excellent presentation that focused on debunking the claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the dominant driver of changes to the Earth’s climate.

I argued that the real threat we face is not the threat of becoming increasingly vulnerable to climate disasters, but the threat of coercive political policies aimed at cutting off our access to cheap, abundant energy. I also presented some basic facts concerning current energy consumption and the inadequacies of so-called green energy sources to supply our energy needs.

During the Q&A, I was challenged on the latter point by a student claiming that by covering the land area adjacent to American’s freeways with solar cells, one could produce enough electricity to meet America’s current demand.

Read the rest of this entry »

Next Monday I will be speaking about the destructiveness of policies aimed at cutting off fossil fuels and promoting “green energy.” I will be on a panel discussion at UCLA with Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Here is the description:

 It is now widely believed that man-made greenhouse gases are causing an unnatural warming of the earth that will have devastating consequences for human life. Environmentalists and politicians are pressing for severe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent climate change. But what does the scientific evidence actually support regarding the causes of climate variability and the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Are the predictions of catastrophic changes supported by scientific fact? Are governmental economic intervention and restrictions on emissions an appropriate policy response? Drs. Keith Lockitch and Willie Soon will address these critical issues in a lively panel discussion and afterward take your questions.

I’ve had the pleasure of appearing on several panels with Dr. Soon over the last year. He has excellent knowledge of the science at the center of the climate change debate. If you’re in Southern California, come check it out!

I mentioned a few weeks ago that Yaron Brook and I were invited to speak at the International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by the Heartland Institute. I, unfortunately, had to cancel at the last minute, but Yaron was there and gave an outstanding presentation.

Free recordings of the conference proceedings are now available online. If you’re interested in educating yourself on the facts of the climate change debate, you’ll find a lot worth listening to (and there’s much more on the Heartland website).

Here’s a direct link to Yaron’s talk, in which he discusses the moral factors that explain why environmentalism continues to grow in power despite its record of failure and destructiveness.

Whenever I make the point–in speaking and writing on climate policy–that green restrictions on carbon emissions would require a massive and economically devastating reduction in our use of energy, I am always confronted by the objection that I am ignoring “alternative energy.”

Environmentalists aren’t against energy, I am told, just fossil fuel energy; their goal is not to deprive us of energy but to replace carbon-based energy with “green energy,” to meet the world’s energy needs using “environmentally-friendly” sources such as wind and solar.

Yeah, right.

Read the rest of this entry »

There has been a lot of commentary recently on the relevance of Atlas Shrugged to our economic woes and our government’s response. But the novel’s relevance to current issues extends far beyond the financial crisis.

Consider the phenomenon of Earth Hour, which takes place this Saturday (March 28), and which I criticized in a recent op-ed. During Earth Hour, participating cities turn off the lights of major skylines and landmarks to signal a commitment to fighting climate change. In my article I discuss why I think this is a travesty.

So how does this relate to Atlas Shrugged?

Read the rest of this entry »

President Obama has finally done something good! On Monday, he signed an executive order rescinding the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The order reverses a policy imposed by President Bush in 2001, forbidding scientists receiving federal research funds from creating and studying new lines of embryonic stem cells.

The Bush ban was driven by religious opposition to this crucial area of medical research, and has been a major obstacle to progress toward cures for diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Bush even used his first presidential veto a few years ago to block Congress from removing his funding restrictions. Obama’s decision defangs this faith-based assault on science.

Now just to be perfectly clear, I am not praising the use of federal tax dollars to fund scientific research. (I think all research should be privately funded.) What I’m praising is the fact that this crucial area of research will no longer be hampered by state-enforced religious dogmas. As Yaron Brook said at the time of the Bush veto:

Read the rest of this entry »