Global warming turns me cold
    I feel compelled to weigh in on the divisive issue of global warming, especially in light of a recent Harris Poll concluding that a large majority of Americans now believe it to be a serious threat to humanity and that a kind-hearted US of A should step up to the plate and lead all sinful industrial nations, including China, India and itself, into an environmentally responsible Promise Land devoid of green house gases.
    From the survey results, gleaned from telephone conversations with 1,052 adults between October 16 and 23, Harris asserts: “This  poll leaves no doubt that the great majority of Americans believe that global warming is a real threat, that we are already experiencing its effects, and that this country should take the lead in doing more to address it. Clearly that has not been the position of the Bush administration.”
   As a former political campaign press guy whose job it was to shade and twist facts to fit the candidate -- Republican, Democrat and Independent -- I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that Harris’ so-called global warming survey is fundamentally flawed. But first, let’s take a look at the survey’s main findings:
   *Those who think we have too little government regulation (53%) “in the area of environmental protection” greatly outnumbers those who think we have too much (21%).
   *Those who now think we have too little regulation (53%) have increased from 47% in 2005 and 39% in 2000. However, they are far fewer than those who felt that way in the early 1990s.
   *Republicans are split more or less equally between those who believe we have too much (34%) and too little (36%) regulation. Most Democrats (68%) and half of Independents (51%) believe we have too little regulation.
   *A 71% to 23% majority believes that current trends will lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures. This substantial majority who believe in global warming has not changed much in the last ten years. In 1997, a 67% to 21% believed this to be true. The same proportion (71%) of the public believes that we are already experiencing global warming.
   *A very large majority (87%) of all adults agrees with the statement that “since emerging countries such as India and China will soon pass the United States as the largest contributor of greenhouse gases, whatever is done to control these gases should be undertaken by almost all industrial countries.”
   *At the same time, an almost equally large 81% majority believes that “the United States needs to set the lead when it comes to controlling greenhouse gases and pollution.”

    Harris’ conclusion: "As we get closer to the 2008 election, candidates will surely notice that over half of Republicans (and very large majorities of Democrats and Independents) believe we are experiencing global warming, and that more than a third of Republicans (36%) think there is too little environmental regulation. The Republican nominee next fall, whoever he is, will need to avoid being identified with President Bush’s
skepticism on global warming and his resistance to taking strong steps -- domestically or internationally -- to deal with it. If he does not, some Republicans may be reluctant to vote for him.”
   In my view, the entire Harris survey is based on the shaky assumption that fossil fuels and other air pollutants are the chief causes of global warming. Despite what Harris is suggesting, the actual cause of global warming and whether anything can be done to stop it are debatable. In fact, many scientists agree that we’re between ice ages and, therefore, anything we do in an effort to curb global warming, even if that  were possible, would be putting off the inevitable.
   Harris' questions seem fair and balanced, so I have no real objections with them per se. However, the entire line of  Harris' questioning and commentary appears designed to support its own beliefs and political agenda. For example, suggesting that “some” Republicans might not vote for the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, unless he separates himself from President Bush and his “skepticism” on global warming, is pure hogwash. With this comment alone, Harris already had  concluded that global warming likely would be an election-deciding issue in next year’s presidential showdown, an unlikely scenario in my opinion given all  the other pressing concerns facing our nation, including the war in Iraq and the continuing threat of terrorism.
   It seems to me that we’d all be better off figuring out how we're going to survive global warming, particularly if it worsens, rather than spending billions of taxpayer dollars trying to alter the climate. I prefer to look at the global warming glass as half full, rather than half empty. For example, if the Arctic ice cap melts away because of global warming, industry would have access to as much as 25% of the world’s remaining oil reserves. Whether Earth's average temperature decreases by five degrees or increases by five degrees, we still need the energy.

    What really bothers me, far more than global warming, is that world oil reserves are being consumed faster than they can be replaced through the discovery and production of new reserves. Over the past year, I have reported extensively on the results of numerous independent surveys and studies that support this  “peak oil” theory. Moreover, 2007 third-quarter earnings reports, particularly those of the oil majors, once again reflected on the reserve problem. Unfortunately, this predicament has been overshadowed by the rapid rise in world oil prices, which were pushing toward $100 per barrel in mid-November, and the seemingly unholy profits pocketed by industry over the past few years.
   Nevertheless, the world’s largest oil companies have seen their output decline, reportedly due to rising costs, aging oil fields and governments’ efforts to claim a greater stake of their resources. ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni and StatoilHydro all saw their production decline from 1% to 4% versus last year’s third quarter.

Return to Archives