 |
 |
||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Sunny, But Very Expensive Dreams New Jersey has a multi-millionaire Governor, Jon Corzine, whose monthly energy bill is not a problem. That leaves the rest of the State’s citizens out in the cold because, as the largest daily newspaper recently noted, "New Jersey already is one of the most expensive states for business" and, may I add, for auto insurance, property taxes, and a sales tax. So naturally, the Governor is all for a mandate to require more solar power with the aim of having at least two percent of the electricity consumed in New Jersey coming from solar panels by 2030. The New Jersey Governor is not alone in his support for these sunny, but very Just to make sure you understand what the governors want, another policy they advocate would "promote non-petroleum based fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel." This policy ignores the way the mandated use of federally subsidized production of ethanol is driving up the price of corn and thus of food and countless other products for all of us. The governors also want to "take reasonable steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" when the so-called science behind the global warming hoax continues to be debunked to the point where most people understand that the earth’s climate is largely driven by the activity of the Sun. Requiring the installation of solar panels will not change this, but for the average home in New Jersey, it costs an average of between $48,000 and $60,000. Lastly, the governors want to "accelerate the research and development of advanced, clean energy technologies." We already have "clean" energy. It’s called nuclear energy. The use of nuclear and other energy resources is the reason the United States is an economic superpower. An example of how dense the National Governors Association is was a letter signed by thirteen governors sent to automotive corporations asking them to support the governors’ commitment to address climate change. American cars are already miracles of technology. Fighting "climate change", code words for "global warming," is the least of their problems in the marketplace. The largest circulation New Jersey daily newspaper published an editorial urging "Caution on solar plan." The Star-Ledger noted that "A healthy economy and a clean environment are both crucial to the quality of life in New Jersey…Unfortunately, not only is it not easy being green, it is also expensive." For a multi-millionaire Governor, that is not a problem. "The problem is that the solar program is founded on a complex web of economic assumptions that may or may not prove realistic," opined the newspaper’s editorial. "Solar costs will have to drop sharply to become more competitive." No kidding! The State has already spent $4.6 million in rebates designed to promote solar power. The mandate for increased use of solar power by 2030 is estimated to cost electric ratepayers "an estimated $11 billion, according to the state Office of Clean Energy." The new plan "would scale back a current rebate program that provides homeowners and businesses grants to cover up to 70 percent of solar installations. The grants are funded by a small surcharge on every utility customer’s bill. So, if you live in New Jersey, you’re paying for solar energy whether you use it or want it. So far no one has stepped forward to say this is yet another idiotic Green proposal that will raise the cost of living and doing business in New Jersey with no economic benefit to anyone except those who manufacture and install solar panels. Indeed, as the managing director of one solar installer, said, "The industry can start selling again in New Jersey. It has been virtually shut down." I wonder why? Could it be the high cost of solar panels and their use as opposed to the cost of inexpensive alternatives that already provide abundant electricity? Could it be the only way the solar panel industry can survive in the capitalist, competitive business environment is to find ways for government to require its use? Could it be just another Green pipedream and program to deny access to the abundant resources of coal, oil, and natural gas known to exist in the United States and its continental offshore areas? If this moronic mandate is not removed from the backs of homeowners and businesses in New Jersey, I am going to start sending my monthly utilities bill to Governor Corzine. He can afford it even if New Jersey cannot. The only way Americans can protect themselves against these Green schemes is if the Center and other think tanks can continue to inform them of the costs they impose. That is why your donation to the Center is absolutely vital to this effort. Please give what you can. Thank you! Journalists, Global Warming, and the Truth Being skeptical used to be a badge of honor for journalists, but if one reads any newspaper these days, most reporters casually refer to "global warming" without any hint that it is anything other than a done deal. Too many reporters have completely bought into the notion that humans and their use of fossil fuels are destroying the atmosphere and "causing" global warming. Of course, what makes this easier is the constant stream of environmental propaganda that attributes everything to "global warming." The list is vast and generally idiotic. Humans must now take responsibility for both droughts and severe storms. Winter blizzards are said to be the result of "global warming." Hurricanes that have been around for eons before the "global warming" theory are now to be attributed to it. We are expected to believe that the ice at the poles is melting at a dramatic pace and that oceans, any minute now, will begin to rise and swamp all the cities that ring the oceans of the world. In recent weeks I have written to a number of journalists who referenced "global warming" in their articles to point out that the mounting body of new peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly suggest that previous claims, frequently based on flawed computer models, are without merit. Is the Earth warming? Yes, it has warmed naturally since the last mini-Ice Age ended in the 1800s. The Earth has for millions of years always gone through warming and cooling cycles. To say that something is occurring today because of "climate change" is to say that change is what climate does! The weather every year is subject to the seasons. The climate responds to solar activity. Ancient Mayan astronomers understood this. The folks that built Stonehenge understood it too. One would expect reporters would make some effort to familiarize themselves with these simple concepts, but many of today’s reporters literally grew up hearing about "global warming" to such an extent they do not question it. It has been part of the curriculum in the nation’s schools since around the 1970s. Teachers have been urged to be "change agents" for all that time as well, using their power in the classroom to bring about social changes such as "earth friendly" attitudes, the acceptance of gay marriages or a "multicultural" acceptance of the notion that all cultures and civilizations have equal merit despite the obvious fact that Western civilization has advanced all manner of scientific knowledge, technological advances, democracy, and the advocacy of human rights. What I found troubling recently was an August 28 commentary in the primary trade magazine of the newspaper industry, Editor & Publisher. In a column titled "Climate Change: Get Over Objectivity, Newspapers" by Steve Outing, I was appalled by its recommendations, but also aware that they are already at work in the newsrooms of America. Outing Commentary: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/stopthepresses "I’ve also been thinking about the newspaper industry and global warming," wrote Outing. "And, frankly, I don’t think newspapers are doing enough. Indeed, newspapers’ fabled commitment to ‘objectivity’ has been a detriment to efforts to combat global warming." Outing assumes (1) that "global warming" as meaning a dramatic rise in Earth’s overall temperatures is actually occurring, (2) humans are to blame, and (3) journalists have an obligation to influence readers to do something about it. Indeed, he says, "How about if newspapers abandon their old way of doing things when it comes to the issue of global warming, and turn their influence to good? Editors, he wrote, "are shirking their responsibility to improve our world, in my view, so let’s change that." This is the first demand of all totalitarian governments. I began my working life as a journalist on weeklies, on a daily newspaper, and then as a freelancer contributing to news syndicates, until I realized there was a lot more money to be made in public relations. People understand that the role of public relations is the intentional effort to influence opinion and policy. PR operates in the arena of ideas and facts. Propaganda is the deliberate distortion of the truth. Journalists are expected to dispassionately report what is happening and to get out of the way so the reader can make up their mind based on the facts. Want opinion? Read the editorial page. Read the letters to the editor. Read specifically identified opinion commentaries by dueling experts. There’s nothing wrong with a mix of news and opinion, but putting aside journalistic standards of accuracy and objectivity in order to "do good" in the rest of the newspaper is a very bad idea. "There’s clearly scientific consensus that humans are altering the planet’s climate," said Outing. There is no such consensus. He’s not only wrong, but to put forth this opinion as fact is inexcusable. Even the reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, created by the United Nations to push the "global warming" theory, have been seriously challenged and disputed. When the IPCC recently released expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change, literally thousands of comments criticized the report. Many of the IPCC lead authors rejected the assessment. "The few critics of the consensus are a small and shrinking group, who to most observers seem irrelevant. To the mainstream, they may as well be flat-earthers," said Outing. Wrong again. There is no consensus—science operates on the basis of reproducible fact, not general agreement—and the critics are, in fact, a growing number of scientists and others who have come to regard "global warming" as a hoax. "As long as news organizations keep alive the idea that there’s still a ‘debate’ about whether human-induced climate change is real or not," wrote Outing, "people have an excuse for not changing their behavior." And if that change involves a full-scale assault on a vast array of modern, life-enhancing technologies, Outing has no problem with that. His mind is made up and journalists should abandon presenting an opposing point of view. That such a commentary should appear in a major journalism trade publication is an offense to the right of people to receive the best, fact-driven, accurate information about an alleged "global warming" as can be provided each and every day. And if it is a hoax, they have a right to know that too. Have you told a friend about the Center’s website? Use our "Referral Blast" option to share the information provided every week. Do you blog? Would you like to receive the weekly "Warning Signs" commentaries when major online news and opinion websites do? If so, contact the Center. It’s an opportunity to select and share those that interest you. For the most up-to-date commentary on events and issues, visit the Center’s daily blog by linking from this page.
©
2007 Alan Caruba. |
||||||||||||||||||||
expensive solar and other energy-related dreams. In early September, the National Governors Association committed itself to "promoting clean energy policies across the nation." Among its goals were to "use our existing energy resources more wisely through efficiency and conservation." Let me translate this for you. This is Green talk for not permitting the extraction of oil, the mining of coal, or the exploration and use of natural gas to warm people’s homes and keep the engines of the economy functioning smoothly and affordably.