Unfortunately, ideological domination of the state Senate and House of Representatives by the right wing of the Republican Party make substantive legislative action on this issue unlikely without the exertion of enormous pressure from constituents.
Sound public policy should be based on fact and the best available science. So, what can be said with confidence about global warming?
We can conclude with considerable confidence the following: First, carbon dioxide and certain other gases indisputably trap heat.
Second, we know that the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from 280 to 380 parts per million in the atmosphere over the past 260 years or so. This is known from direct analysis of the atmosphere since the late 1950s and the study of ice cores for time periods prior to that.
Finally, this rise is, without question, primarily due to human activity. Numerous lines of evidence reveal this. Thus, the only logical conclusion to be reached is that we are warming the planet. "How fast" is the subject of current scientific research. "What to do about it" is a legitimate matter for public policy debate.
Last Dec. 8, Robert Pidgeon argued that climate varies naturally, which of course it does. However, the last time the planet saw a "rapid" natural rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide of similar magnitude was during the collapse of the last ice age.
This is wonderfully recorded in ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland. This event, however, took place over a span of 6,600 years rather than the mere 260 years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. These same ice cores also show that greenhouse gases rise and fall in step with temperature.
On Jan. 4, Clark Larsen questioned current climate forecasts of warming because some folks in the '70s (I wonder who they were? He doesn't tell us.) stated the planet was cooling. Logically, this is akin to questioning whether the Earth is really round just because it was previously thought to be flat.
His ignorance, whether willful or innocent, of the dramatic advances in climate science over the past three decades is telling. To compare the state of climate science 30-plus years ago with that of today is just plain silly.
Finally, in an op-ed piece on Jan. 6, Bill Johnson extolled the potential of the West's vast oil-shale deposits to meet our energy demands. This may be true enough. There is probably more oil in oil shale in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming than exists in all conventional oil deposits on the planet.
However, it was what Mr. Johnson did not say that most troubles me. Exploitation of these resources in any meaningful way will simply contribute to increases in greenhouse gases. Oil shale would be just more of the same.
The Legislature could lead on this issue in a number of ways. It could encourage the accelerated development of public transportation and provide tax incentives for the development or redevelopment of high-density housing within walking distance of it.
The Legislature could base registration fees and sales taxes, in part, on vehicle fuel economy. The possible incentives are numerous, but more of the same is not helpful.
---
* STEVE NELSON is a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at Brigham Young University.
