As a concerned California resident and a recent political science grad at San Jose State University, I’ve been monitoring the implementation of the historic West Coast Governor’s Global Warming Initiative. Recently I’ve become encouraged by the “cutting edge” approach taken by West Coast policymakers.
On the other hand, I was very unimpressed with a recent article written by John A. Charles Jr. (“UO report on global warming had flaws”) that was published in several Oregon newspapers last week.
I immediately wondered (after reading the article): Why would someone attack a University report as though it were raw meet in a shark tank?
It sounds like Mr. Charles is part of a dwindling number of global warming skeptics. I find it interesting that these skeptics invariably write on behalf of “think tanks” that appear very content with the status quo. I’ve yet to read a “peer reviewed” scientific report claiming greenhouse gas reductions are unnecessary.
Top economists from around the world agree (with Oregon economists) that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent while still increasing employment and prosperity. (See International Panel on Climate Change Web site).
If you read the UO report (“The Economic Impacts of Climate Change in Oregon”) and the accompanying open letter from economists (to Oregon policymakers), you may conclude (as I have) that Mr. Charles’ attack lacks merit.
For example, he states that the report had “cautionary disclaimers;” however, I believe that if the authors had not included cautionary language, he would have attacked it for creating hysteria.
I also found his attack on the economists’ open letter (adding weight to the report’s recommendations) to be insulting and crass.
And his call to assess the entire carbon cycle, before greenhouse gas reductions can be accurately measured is absurd.
The University of Oregon report wisely advised policymakers on the “real costs” of inaction. The report compared the needed actions as “insurance” against probable impacts. How many of us are convinced that we need car insurance because auto accidents are unavoidable?
The economists backed up the report by debunking the notion (emanating from the White House) that taking needed action will “break” the economy. In fact, (as reported) the opposite is true if managed diligently.
The overwhelming amount of data, from almost every corner of the world, supports the report’s thesis that “now is the time to act.” I commend the authors for a thoughtful and compelling report.
The state of Oregon should be proud of its commitment (and leadership) in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and I suggest that Mr. Charles’ article be treated like water off a duck’s back.
Marc Boyd lives in San Jose, Calif.