Fact and fiction: Why Glenn Beck and other conservatives are just wrong on 'cap-and-trade'

June 29, 3:57 AMPolitical Buzz ExaminerRyan Witt

Previous Next

6 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Political Buzz Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Glenn Beck recently gave his own "expert" opinion on the cap and trade bill now headed to the senate.  One one point I agree with Beck when he says that it is time for America to move on past the news of the Michael Jackson death and start focusing on this legislation.  I have already covered the important role spin will play in the climate change debate.  As to the arguments Beck makes, I could not disagree more and the rest of this article will provide a detailed response.

Beck Argument #1: Beck claims that temperatures have globally have remained flat since 2001.  

Response:  So what?  Eight years is a VERY small statistical sample when you are talking about a gradual climate change effect that occurs over hundreds and thousands of years.  Saying we should ignore climate change because of a small eight year sample is like saying I should bet my life savings on blackjack because I won seven deals in a row.  Overall studies have shown that CO2 levels along with temperature have increased dramatically over the last 100 years which is a much better sample size.

Beck Argument #2:  There is no scientific consensus on global warming.

Response:  It really depends on how you define consensus.  If you define consensus as 100% of people agreeing then you will never get consensus on anything.  You can still find people who deny the holocaust that does not mean it did not happen.  The fact is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change along with many other scientific associations have agreed that temperatures are rising and humans are causing it.  Even Federal Climate Change Science Program, a program commissioned by the ever liberal President Bush, concluded that temperatures have been rising for the last 50 years and humans are to blame. Beck also references some 700 scientists who are now skeptical over global warming.  First, lets be clear that being skeptic does not mean that they refute global warming altogether.  There are many skeptics of God but such people would still concede he may exist just that the proof is not there right now.  Secondly, we know nothing of who these scientists are more what there specialty is.  If they are all holding doctorates in environmental science that is one thing but if they are simply all retired constructional engineers that is quite another matter.  I have not seen the list, I assume it has some reputable figures and some not so reputable.  The question again becomes are they really authoritative enough the countervailing authority.  Republicans claim their skeptics outnumber the supporters by 13:1 but that is an unfair comparison since the "1" they are referring to was not a petition supporting global warming claims but instead the number of authors to a study printed by the IPCC.

Beck Argument #3:  This bill is about grabbing power and money for people like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi.

Response:  Beck is correct in saying that Pelosi and Gore stand to profit.  I will not deny Pelosi takes lobby money from green groups and that Gore benefits from global warming legislation.  However, Beck conveniently seems to leave out contributions taken by republican leaders and other opponents of the bill.  Big oil, coal companies, and other business groups have their fair share of contributions and I would be willing to bet that they too have given quite a bit in an attempt to defeat the bill.  In the past they have certainly done so as evidenced by Tom Delay's contributions taken in getting the Bush energy bill passed.  So lets not pretend that those opposing the current bill have nothing to gain in their pursuit.  

Beck Argument #4:  Energy prices will increase even Obama said so.

Response:  Obama did say that energy prices would sky rocket with cap and trade measures.  A quote he probably now regrets.  What Beck again conveniently leaves out is that the climate change bill passed by the house provides substantial rebates to companies who may suffer from these price increases.  Beck fails to mention that many groups feel price increases will be minimal given the ability of companies to increase efficiency and develop alternative energies.  Have cars really become too expensive because we now require them to be more efficient?  Absolutely not technology found a way.  Has energy become too expensive in the face of the current Clean Air Act which limits sulfur and nitrogen emissions?  No in fact the program has had a net benefit economically.  That according to EPA report released under the Bush administration.  Finally, in considering the cost of cap and trade we must also consider the cost of not doing anything.  What environmental cost will we endure if we do nothing?  What kind of security do we really have when we rely on fossil fuels for nearly all our energy?

Beck Argument #5:  Cap and trade has failed in other places and hurt their economies.

Response:  First, let us acknowledge that there are other reasons for the economic decline of such countries other than cap and trade.  Can we say global financial crisis?  Secondly, cap and trade takes a long time to actually produce the benefits. In the long term industries develop new technologies to increase efficiency and decrease energy costs.  It is far too soon to call the programs a failure in other countries after 5-10 years of development.  Third, as energy becomes a dominant commodity in the next century do we really wish to be the only industrialized country to bet on fossil fuels for our entire consumption?  Would it not be wise to develop other methods of energy at least as a backup plan?

Later I will provide a more comprehensive view of the climate change bill using resources from the leading think tanks (both liberal and conservative) on this issue.  With an issue as weighty as this it is necessary that we have the facts in voting yes or no.  Those who support the bill should not be afraid of debate, we should simply ask that the debate be straightforward and honest.