by Bill Stone

Created on: March 05, 2009

The warnings are dire indeed. If we don't act now, we will melt the polar ice caps, flood coastal cities, or worse. We are killing the polar bears because we are melting their habitats. The Earth will become a barren desert wasteland, and survival of any species on the planet will be in jeopardy.

We tend to act on emotion in times like this. Instead of responding with reason and logic, we respond with fear and uncertainty, feeling that the cost of inaction will far exceed any cost associated with any action.

But will it? When a reasoned approach is taken, the following will be revealed:

* The threat of global warming is an alarmist position

* Man's influence on global climate change is much smaller than alarmist like to think

* The cost of action actually can be higher than the cost of inaction

* Tough economic times call for a very reasoned, conscious approach to issues such as this.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think we should hearken back to the days of coal-burning trains and acid rain. We all need to be proactive about protecting the environment, and many of the "green" initiatives of today are very beneficial. However, before we write new laws which will cost the economy billions more dollars, we need to look closely at what we'd be paying for, and what we'd actually get for our money.

Before we can decide how much money should be spent on new regulations to fight the threat of global warming, we need to first determine what we are dealing with. The truth of the matter is that the debate has not yet been settled on the "facts" surrounding global warming. Many scientists believe that man's influence on climate change is immense. However, just as many scientists feel that we have little impact on our overall climate.

Consider this: Carbon emissions are not the largest contributor to the "greenhouse effect" on the planet. The number one greenhouse gas? Water vapor. About 90% of the long wave radiant energy returning to space is slowed down by water vapor. Carbon-based gasses (CO, CO2, etc) make up only about 10%. Man is only responsible for 5% of the total carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Therefore, man is only responsible for 5% of 10% of the total gasses contributing to the "greenhouse effect." Doing the math, this means that man-made gasses are responsible for 0.5% of the total greenhouse gasses. So man's contribution to the overall warming of the planet is only one-half of one percent, not nearly enough to effect any significant change. Is that enough influence to spend billions on new regulations during an economic downturn?

Along with this, we need to understand how much of the current temperature variations on the planet are natural and normal, and how much is influenced. We know that the planet's temperature has risen and fallen many times during its existence, and much of this warming and cooling has occurred long before man ever inhabited the planet. How much of this warming is naturally occurring? How many billions of dollars would be be devoting to combating naturally occurring processes?

Based on this alone, do you think that the billions we'd be spending on new regulations, plus the increased cost of goods related to the new regulations on manufacturing, would really be worth it? We would hardly influence the temperatures of the planet at all (.5%) and we'd be fighting naturally-occurring processes. We should not rush headlong into new regulations before we really understand what we are regulating.

Learn more about this author, Bill Stone.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.