My column on global warming in this past Tuesday's Diamondback uses several threads I've discussed on this blog in the past (the lack of scientific literacy surrounding the subject, pitfalls of alarmism). I expanded on those ideas to also address the fallacies of specific alternative energy proposals.
...before wholeheartedly embracing ethanol as the fuel of the future, we should consider whether large-scale production of ethanol is feasible or if it even reduces net greenhouse gas emissions. (A recent, much discussed article in Science suggests it would not.) We have already seen how the ethanol-driven demand for corn has created an across-the-board rise in food and fertilizer prices, an unintended but serious economic consequence.
Columnist Ali Adler ("Path to Our Future," Feb. 12) advocates solar and wind power, but she fails to consider neither measure feasibly matches our country's energy needs. We should resist the urge to throw millions of dollars in government subsidies to ideas that won't work. (Personally, I think nuclear power is the way to go, but I will save that argument for another time.)
When it comes to tackling global warming, we should not, like the people of Emerald City, be blinded by "green" glasses. Some ideas are good, but most are over-reactionary or counter-productive, often both. Restraint may be our best option.
Click here to read the entire column. Then be sure to check out a rebuttal by a Ms. Rachel Bergstein, who says that "the current climate crisis is...a question of justice and equity" which "necessitates immediate action".