Printed on 8/26/08
< Back to Global Warming
My Comments on the House Floor
Home / The Issues / Global Warming
In a political rush to stop "global warming", carbon dioxide has become public enemy number one. Here are some comments I made on this subject when debating a "carbon fund" license plate in the Colorado House in April of 2008.
For carbon to be the problem we must assume that:
1. Global warming is an established fact. This means that the earth is now on a certain path of unprecedented, cataclysmic proportions that will make life on this planet nearly impossible. It also assumes that this warming trend is not one of the cycles of warming and cooling which we have observed on our planet for thousands of years.
2. This global warming is due to the effect of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide comprises less than four hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere. Rather than water vapor, another greenhouse gas, which is from eight to over twenty-five times more abundant than carbon dioxide, the real problem is the tiny fraction of "green house" gasses that is carbon dioxide.
3. The carbon dioxide is anthropogenic: caused by human effort. This carbon dioxide which is proposed to be the problem that must be cured at all costs must have come from man-made sources. If we find that natural sources of carbon dioxide overwhelm the man-made sources, our limiting of anthropogenic carbon dioxide becomes meaningless.
4. We are capable of stopping global warming by restricting anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. What will really happen if we do manage to cut carbon dioxide emissions to a mere fraction of current outputs? Will it reverse any trends that may exist? Or will our best efforts prove futile?
The only thing we can really count on is that this rush to limit carbon dioxide output will severely compromise worldwide economic prosperity. Some who currently live at a subsistence level in developing nations will find their very lives in jeopardy. Basic necessities of food, refrigeration, simple medical care, transportation and housing will inevitably be less than what they could be without the strangle-hold of "carbon-lite" regulations.
As I stated earlier, I am all for developing renewable energy technologies and resources, but not on the backs of the poor and not in reaction to unproven theories.
A compassionate public policy cannot sacrifice the needs of the most needy to satisfy this political agenda. A prudent public policy does not rush to risky solutions before the facts are clearly understood.
Rep. Kevin Lundberg
For carbon to be the problem we must assume that:
1. Global warming is an established fact. This means that the earth is now on a certain path of unprecedented, cataclysmic proportions that will make life on this planet nearly impossible. It also assumes that this warming trend is not one of the cycles of warming and cooling which we have observed on our planet for thousands of years.
2. This global warming is due to the effect of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide comprises less than four hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere. Rather than water vapor, another greenhouse gas, which is from eight to over twenty-five times more abundant than carbon dioxide, the real problem is the tiny fraction of "green house" gasses that is carbon dioxide.
3. The carbon dioxide is anthropogenic: caused by human effort. This carbon dioxide which is proposed to be the problem that must be cured at all costs must have come from man-made sources. If we find that natural sources of carbon dioxide overwhelm the man-made sources, our limiting of anthropogenic carbon dioxide becomes meaningless.
4. We are capable of stopping global warming by restricting anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. What will really happen if we do manage to cut carbon dioxide emissions to a mere fraction of current outputs? Will it reverse any trends that may exist? Or will our best efforts prove futile?
The only thing we can really count on is that this rush to limit carbon dioxide output will severely compromise worldwide economic prosperity. Some who currently live at a subsistence level in developing nations will find their very lives in jeopardy. Basic necessities of food, refrigeration, simple medical care, transportation and housing will inevitably be less than what they could be without the strangle-hold of "carbon-lite" regulations.
As I stated earlier, I am all for developing renewable energy technologies and resources, but not on the backs of the poor and not in reaction to unproven theories.
A compassionate public policy cannot sacrifice the needs of the most needy to satisfy this political agenda. A prudent public policy does not rush to risky solutions before the facts are clearly understood.
Rep. Kevin Lundberg
< Back to Global Warming
