Thousands of landlords who rent out homes in Boulder will be forced to invest a combined millions of dollars in upgrades — costs that could be passed on through higher rent — if the city approves new energy-efficiency standards.

On Thursday, the Boulder Planning Board will take up “SmartRegs,” a proposed point-based system designed to get rental properties — which make up about half of the city’s housing stock — to reduce their carbon footprint.

Read the rest of the article. The Camera published my comments on this in the April 24 edition:

“SmartRegs” is corporate welfare to finance a wasteful solution to a problem with debatable significance and causes.

“What happened to global warming?” asked a BBC headline last year. “One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over,” the article concluded.

Warming aside, there are still problems to address. In “Breaking the Global Warming Gridlock,” CU Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. explains that instead of endlessly debating the science, “practical steps to reduce our vulnerability to today’s weather … would go a long way toward solving the problem of tomorrow’s climate.”

The most ethical step is to promote prosperity though economic liberty and free markets. Wealthy populations are less vulnerable to climate-related threats than poor ones.  As economist Indur Goklany observes, more people will die from hunger, unsafe drinking water, and malaria because of poverty than global warming.  In terms of human well-being, it’s better to be wealthier in a slightly warmer climate than poorer in a cooler one.

If you support actions to mitigate climate change, mandatory emissions reductions is not the best method. “Freakonomics” author Steven Levitt prefers geoengineering solutions. Unlike emission reductions, they take immediate effect. They are also reversible, and the cost is “literally thousands of times cheaper” than reducing carbon emissions, says Levitt.

Solutions promoting innovation and wealth probably offend religious strains of environmentalism as sinful hubris. After all, it celebrates human accomplishment rather than promoting self-denial, guilt for driving, and subservience to Gaia and big government.

Some useful references I either used or did not have room to mention given the word limit:

• ClimateDebateDaily.com: A log of essay and research from two perspectives:
  1. “…supporting the idea that global warming poses a clear threat to humanity, that it is largely caused by human activity, and that solutions to the problems of climate change lie within human reach.”
  2. “…challenging the view that the world warming that began around 1880 is caused by human activity, that it poses a serious threat, or that the vagaries of earth’s climate are within human control.”
• Ari Armstrong, Radical Environmentalists Undermine Human Progress.
• From Science Daily: “In contradiction to some recent studies, [Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol] finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.”
• The Times of London reports: “The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.”
• Studies and commentary by Cato Institute scholars.
• From David Thoreaux at the Independent Institute:
  

As reported in the London Daily Mail, Phil Jones, the scientist at the center of the Climategate scandal in which leaked email documents reveal that IPCC scientists were manipulating data, has now made a series of major admissions, including the following:

* Data for the IPCC’s vital “hockey stick graph” used by climate alarmists has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before, such as the Medieval Warm Period—but NOT due to man-made changes”

In response to Nub’s comment below, I found the BBC interview with Phil Jones. The relevant section shows that it’s not accurate to say, as the Daily Mail did, that  “there has been no global warming since 1995.”  Here’s the section:

B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Boulder’s Sacred Heart of Jesus school has decided that two schoolchildren cannot return to their private, Catholic school after this year because their parents are a lesbian couple. … What do you think?

My response, published in the Camera on March 14:

The Sacred Heart school teaches that “gay marriage is against the will of God,” writes the school’s pastor Bill Breslin. “Why would good parents want their children to learn something they don’t believe in?” he asks. Good question. Parents consider many factors when choosing a school. Maybe other factors outweighed this one — especially since the two children are in preschool and kindergarten. What would Sacred Heart teachers do, present a puppet show about human sexuality?

Puppets or not, parish schools like Sacred Heart seek to, in Breslin’s words, “to assist children in becoming disciples of Christ and to stand as a light shining in the darkness that has rejected Christianity and the truth of being human, including the meaning of human sexuality.”

To distinguish light from darkness, students must learn about, discuss, and debate both “dark” and “light” ideas.  Imagine a “Defense Against the Dark Arts” class from the Harry Potter novels – without the physical danger, of course. Not that school officials would approve the title. The syllabus could include the Wikipedia entry on “biology and sexual orientation.”  Students could debate the documentary “For the Bible Tells Me So,” which shows how gays suffer from religious moralizing and presents tolerant interpretations of relevant Biblical passages. Advanced students could view the South Park episode that mocks “conversion therapy” aimed at “correcting” a homosexual’s sexual orientation.

In such a class students might become critical and independent thinkers, and not substitute their own judgments with those of scripture or authority figures.

*          *          *
Scene from the South Park episode:

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:155505

Watch the whole episode.

In races across the country, voters face terrible choices, with theocrats on one side, socialists on the other.

Nearly a year ago, I sent a letter to various candidates asking them to endorse the separation of church and state. While I never got around to sending the letter to the state senate candidates,  Szabo has made it clear that she strongly endorses faith-based politics. Which is why I strongly oppose her.

I have been arguing for months that a major reason Republicans have killed themselves in Colorado is their unflagging commitment to faith-based politics. …

Maybe someday Colorado Republicans will learn that the Interior West leans toward liberty and away from faith-based politics. There are some hopeful signs. Until then, I guess I’m a Democrat by default, as much as that sickens me.

Read the whole post here.

Browsing around YouTube, I found Derren Brown’s “Instant Conversion” videos where, apparently, he “converts” non-believers into believers (in some kind of religious belief.) Quite impressive, intriguing, and well, creepy! [watch part 1, part 2].

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

I just might read his novel. It’s nice to see a main stream author take on controversial positions.

More then 50,000 (& counting) people died because of the earthquake in Indonesia. Now that is a climate issue worth considering: how do people deal with more common occurances? OK, this was the largest earthquake in forty years, but still, its effects, and those of hurricanes and tornadoes, are much more concrete than “climate change.” Perhaps the resources should be spent addressing these issues. Roger Pielke addresses this in “Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock”, Atlantic Monthly, July 2000. (Their on-line policy has changed so only subscribers can access it, or those with the subscriber ID. Clever. I expect other magazines will follow. )

In other news, I’m again optimistic about my research progress. I asked a professor for some guidance, and I got it!