HometownSource Blogs

On his legislative Web site, Rep. Jeremy Kalin has a response to my column “State’s energy plan will affect economy, but little else.” Although I’ll do my best not to dwell on what is, after all, a minor detail, it’s worth pointing out that he spelled my name wrong. A small thing I know, but also an easy to check thing and a courtesy thing as well.

Kalin opens his column this way:

Post Review columnist Patrick Teeporten and I have had many enjoyable conversations about politics and public policy, even though we rarely agree. Where we do agree is that the best public policies should be guided by facts - not emotion - and by a pragmatic approach rather than strict ideology. This is precisely why his column two weeks ago was so disappointing.

His suggestion, that I am arguing from “emotion” and “strict ideology” is not supported by a single example. Perhaps it’s just me, but it seems that when making such an allegation, it is incumbent upon the author to provide some basis for it. At the very least he could have provided a link to the column, allowing readers to judge for themselves. In fact, my column, itself a pragmatic look at emissions reductions, is as loaded with the numbers as I can make it, none of which are disputed by Kalin. So, he’s not off to a good start.

I wish Mr. Teeporten had cited the sources for his allegations about the causes of global warming. We’ll have to leave that discussion and the overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming and climate change for another day.

There’s that name thing again…but I digress. The fact is that I made no allegations as to the cause of global warming. No suggestion of global warming’s cause appears at any time. What I did do was correctly note that humans only produce around four percent of overall CO2 emissions, or even less. Find a helpful graph here.

In his column, Mr. Teeporten seemed to suggest that only a national effort to tackle energy independence is worth the effort.

Actually, I suggested no such thing. Energy independence is not even mentioned. My column was about the fallacy of reducing emissions by 80 percent without negatively affecting the economy, a completely separate issue. With China’s emissions growing exponentially, and population growth, even a national emission reduction plan is not likely to have any significant affect on overall emissions. Robert Samuelson will back me up on that:

Even if California achieved its 2020 goal (dubious) and the United States followed (more dubious), population and economic growth elsewhere would overwhelm any emission cuts. In 2050, global population is expected to hit 9.4 billion, up about 40 percent from today. At modest growth rates, the world economy will triple by midcentury.

The main point of my column is that Minnesota’s contribution to emissions, and therefore global warming, is all but insignificant. Furthermore, were the state to achieve its completely unrealistic reduction goals, the realized theoretical “cooling” would be all but immeasurable (assuming emissions did not increase elsewhere on the planet). Lastly, the idea of dramatically reducing emissions without negatively affecting an economy is not borne out by the Kyoto Accord, which is the only real life standard we have.

Kalin, while paying some lip service to modest reductions through energy efficiency, does not shed any light on how Minnesota plans to realize an 80 percent reduction in 43 years without negatively affecting the economy. And, while energy efficiency is something to look at in the short term, it does little to meet an ever-growing energy demand. How Minnesota plans to buck the trend established by Kyoto remains a complete mystery.

So, Kalin does not argue that my numbers are wrong or provide any concrete idea how draconian emissions cuts can be accomplished without economic damage, yet is comfortable concluding that I am making an emotional, ideological argument in the face of an overwhelming global warming consensus.

Go figure.