LETTER: Reader disagrees with opinion piece

Staff Writer
Gonzales Weekly Citizen

I feel compelled to take issue with your editorial opinion column the April 21, 2009 issue.

In short, you agreed with the EPA’s declaration that a half dozen gases, including CO2, are causing global warming and they are controllable by man who is generating them.

You then took issue with 3 members of the Public Service Commission who have doubts about the EPA position. It seemed you implied they are seeking “profit and gain.”

First, I’d suggest you take time to study the information on the Web site,  www.heartland.org. Their March conference in NYC brought 800 delegates to listen to a hundred or so respected and esteemed scientists offer papers disputing man-caused climate change. The papers are available for your perusal on the site. The speakers and facts are persuasive.

Second, I'd suggest you “Google” the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The official site has the majority opinions led by Chairperson Barbara Boxer listed in great detail as well as the minority opinions  expounded by Jim Inhofe, ranking minority member. This is a “neutral” forum for readers to read for themselves the opposing political  views on this critical subject.

Third, consider that neither China nor India  (2.6 billion combined populations) have any intention of reducing their CO2 output. Each country is reported to be building coal-fired power plants at a rate of new one every 4-6 days.  China is now the leading global  producer of GHG's (green house gases) and India is close behind. From a global environment perspective, then, how much good does it do for the U.S. to “unilaterally disarm” ourselves in an economic sense by adding high energy costs at a time when our competitors are not following suit? Seems the net result will be an

even faster transfer of even more manufacturing jobs to the places with cheap energy.

The EPA derives it’s funding from a national/political sense of it's importance. The same applies to many academic and third party research institutions. If there is no perceived impending crisis, other branches of government or areas of research will obtain more funding. Of course, they will pursue their own self-interest and declare an emergency.

In summary, there is little valid  scientific peer-reviewed data to support man-made climate change theories. There are severe economic consequences, however, for acting as though the theories are correct. It is way too soon to begin curbing our economic engine and the wrong time with a recession in place. Certainly, alternative energy sources need to be developed, but the free market will do that as needed.

By the way, any thoughts about a major push for a non-polluting source like nuclear? We can already do that without a multi-billion dollar development effort.

William M. Liehe