To: Chuck Frederick at
the Duluth News Tribune,
In
today’s 7-6-16 Tribune, you published an opinion letter from Tom Harris which
is either identical or very similar to one of his that I remember seeing in the
Tribune or the Telegram. The letter below is a copy of a letter I wrote that
was not intended for publication in the Tribune, and which was sent to you,
Shelley Nelson, and Citizen’s Representatives, Mike Lundstrom and Terese
Tomanek. In it I mention Harris’s emphasis on the superiority of Adaptive
measures instead of mitigation efforts used to minimize the effects of global
warming, and I explain that Climate Scientists do not dispute the value of
adaptive measures. However, I also point out that these scientists think
adaptation and mitigation efforts are BOTH needed to successfully combat global
warming.
About his
7-6-16 letter in today’s Tribune, let me add that once again Harris employed
some deceptive tactics which advocate his preference primarily for the use of
adaptive measures—a view that most fossil fuel producing companies would undoubtedly
be inclined to parrot. But, for example, Harris’s claim that that, “The real
issue is if relevant scientists agree our greenhouse gas emissions will cause
dangerous climate change.” And that, “Only if it is dangerous should this be a
public policy concern. And no one knows the answer to that question because
such a poll has never been conducted,” is an exercise in flawed reasoning on so
many levels. One being that today’s scientists absolutely DO KNOW that man’s
contributions to global warming definitely WILL affect our future environment
in many extremely harmful ways. And for Harris to dispute the clear proof
of this fact, with the idea that it has not yet been the subject of a publicly
conducted poll, is one of the most creative bits of erroneous reasoning I have
ever heard—and of the type that Harris is a master of.
By Harris’s
logic we might as well doubt the fact that jumping off the top floor of the Empire State
building, will result in a severe case of death, simply because no poll has ever
been conducted in which respondents confirm this fact? Or, we might as well
doubt that full scale nuclear war will be catastrophic to the planet just
because no one has taken a poll devoted to assessing that proposition? And
anyway, those polls that might be done without proper controls, are a poor way
to affirm the beliefs of a clear majority including only those who respond.
Where climate
science is concerned, we have literally mountains of evidence confirming the
extreme probability (of harmful future effects on the environment) due to
global warming, which has been gathered with proper scientific diligence. So,
just like the guy on the top of the Empire
State building, we know
that taking a terminal leap, will bring great harm to us, just as the fact that
if both adaptive and mitigating measures are not employed, our inactions
result in great harm to us, and to our planet. The notion that Climate
Scientists (even just the “relevant” ones) do not recognize the value of
adaptive measures is just not true—in fact a great deal of research and thought
has been put into both of those options and climate scientists truly recognize
the value of both:
Rather than
writing longer, please take the time to re-read this letter below which I wrote
about Harris before:
1/31/2016
To Chuck
Fredericks, Shelley Nelson, and both new Citizen's Representatives for the
Duluth News Tribune, Mike Lundstrom and Terese Tomanek,
Prominent
global warming denier Tom Harris executed a slick maneuver in the Jan. 31st
Tribune when claiming that climate adaptation to avoid global warming would be
much cheaper than climate mitigation, (taking steps to prevent the accumulation
of greenhouse gases) like reducing Co2 emissions, and investing in solar and
wind energy, to prevent run away global warming.
However, his
claim that adaptation, including measures like, building seawalls, relocating
buildings, finding ways to store and obtain sufficient water for crops,
supporting sustainable forestry, instituting the practice of recycling, and
using low energy appliances and devices to serve as deterrents to global warming—etc.,
are less expensive, or get more bang for the buck, is not true.
Some estimates
comparing the advantages between using mitigation and adaptation have produced
figures that at first seem to support Harris's claims. However, these estimate
compared the cost of taking measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions vs the
cost of making adaptations, but did not offset these amounts with the economic
benefits of mitigation, vs. the economic benefits of taking adaptive measures.
When the economic rewards of mitigation are examined this way they far exceed
any economic saving from using adaptation i.e. things like losses of property
and lives, droughts that destroy crop production, or flooding and storms that
do horrific damage etc., are all the result of global warming, and as Co2
levels are decreased, the costs associated with these disasters will also
decrease.
In actuality
the IPCC believes that both mitigation and adaptation are both valuable
strategies. However, if global warming is not gradually reduced by mitigation,
the amounts of Co2, will continue unchecked in the latter part of the century
and soar out of control, (regardless of adaptation policies)—so no attempts at
adaptation can solve the global warming issue unless mitigation is also used as
a primary strategy.
It is true that
the problems created by global warming will fall mostly on the poor, and that
wealthier countries will need to give them financial aid to adapt. In fact,
after the meetings of COP16 Cancun, donor countries offered to provide
undeveloped countries $100,000,000,000 by 2020, to help them adapt through the
Green Climate Fund. Pledges have not materialized as they should, but at least
much of the world now recognizes the need for adaptive strategies—especially if
unencumbered by political conflicts.
I should point
out one logical mistake in Mr. Harris's letter though—Harris points out that
the anticipated effects of climate change, may or may not happen, while failing
to mention that, adaptation measures also, may or may not work—especially if
extreme climate change happen sooner than expected. Without mitigation, efforts
to diminish global warming's impact by way of adaptation, will essentially and
eventually, be neutralized. In essence though, you can't have one without the
other, since, even if initially successful outcomes are achieved through the
use of adaptation, if greenhouse gasses continue to increase without
mitigation, they will eventually usher in catastrophic climate change anyway!
Although Harris
claims not to be a shill of big oil, he has spoken at several meetings of big
conservative think tanks and conservative organizations, (like the Heartland
Institute), which he is very complicit in and supportive of, when helping to
distribute the distorted messages they deliver. He has also had a position as
an Earth Science teacher, and taught a course entitled, “Climate change: An
Earth Sciences perspective,” and was found by climate scientists to have
included 140 factual errors in his teachings.
Let me just say
that Heartland Institute is well known for receiving and distributing huge
donation from the fossil fuel industry, as well as for being deeply involved in
discrediting esteemed climate scientists, and is also known to have received
over $67,000,000 from Exxon Mobil and other conservative donors. I don't know
if Harris has been legally proven to have received large amounts of money in
exchange for dissing climate scientists, but I think it’s safe to say that his
associations with conservative groups like these are enough to cast serious
doubts on the purity of his intentions.
At the end of
his letter to the tribune, Harris displays false virtue by noting the fact that
poor people are suffering disproportionately from global warming? Why does
Harris object to people who work for green industries, who are simply earning
honest money while helping create and develop clean alternatives—because by
financially profiting they may be part of a greedy corporation? —What kind of
company has been truly antagonistic to the idea of bringing relief to the
suffering masses? —certainly those which are already known for being big parts
of this problem already—big oil, and big coal!
What a lame
excuse Harris uses, when employing the old, turn the tables on your opponent’s
tactic, or, when trying to project his own culpability onto greedy Capitalists—Companies
like Exxon Mobil make billions in profits—sometimes in just one economic
quarter! They and others like them, are seeking to keep green companies at bay,
while using incredibly large sums of money to spread lies and misinformation
about man-made global warming! Even if Harris were not benefiting financially,
in this case we are perfectly justified to criticize the messenger!
As the valley
girls used to say—GAG ME WITH A SPOON!!
In the words of
economist Paul Krugman;
"So is the
climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology
is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that
stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice
and vested interests. What could go wrong?"
Sincerely,
Peter W. Johnson
Superior,
WI.
