|
(The following is based on an article by Sallie Baliunas, PhD,
Astrophysicist)
We have recently seen the imposition of a carbon dioxide restriction on
vehicles in California due to the Legislature's concern about carbon
dioxide's effect on the environment, particularly global warming. On
the international front, a similar limitation was proposed in the Kyoto
Protocol of 1997. This protocol called for the United States to
reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 5% from 1990 levels. To meet
the carbon dioxide emission cuts by 2012, the United States would have to
cut its projected 2012
energy use by 25%!
However, all of this concern about carbon dioxide on the environment has
not been substantiated by scientific research. The best computer
simulations show that the temperature increase due to carbon dioxide would
amount to 1 degree centigrade over the next 50 years, even if there were
no limits on fossil fuel use. And, if the Kyoto Protocol limits were
imposed, the same simulations show that the rise in temperature would be
0.94 degrees Centigrade. Thus, the United States would have to cut
its energy use by 25% to prevent an additional rise of 0.06 degrees
Centigrade!
Clearly, the best current science offers little justification for the
profound cuts in carbon dioxide mandated by the Kyoto Protocol. In
fact, any global warming noticed in the twentieth century shows a strong
correlation to the sun's changing energy output. So why all the
concern? Probably because of the "precautionary principle"
in environmental regulation which disallows any action that MIGHT harm the
environment unless that action can be positively shown to be harmless.
Guilty until proven innocent is not good science!
So what does this have to do with the prolife theme of these articles?
There are some who say that, by reducing population, we reduce the need
for the use of so much fossil fuel energy and thereby prevent global
warming. This is based on the very bad assumption that human fossil
fuel use is actually the cause of global warming, which cannot currently
be demonstrated by science. Thus, limiting population to prevent
global warming is not a defendable cause.
|