Cutting carbon

To The Editor:

It is difficult to carry on a discussion of a technical nature such as climate change, when the second party offers no facts to discuss.

Letter writer John Fehlauer challenged my last letter, “Horse and Buggy Days,” by simply claiming “they are not scientifically sound.” But he offered no data to support his position, while I offered a number of specific references to back up mine. He simply said, “I strongly disagree.”

Fehlauer claimed “We need to stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere as soon as possible,” but did not express a reason why, just looked to changes in future “governmental policies” to accomplish it.

In an article published just last week, M.J. Kelly, a University of Cambridge engineering professor, wrote that the push to restrict carbon “is set to fail comprehensively in meeting its avowed target, and a new debate is needed.”

In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the “immense benefits” of a technically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world’s quality of life that could usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife.

Removal of all excessive carbon from the atmosphere “is simply impossible over the next 20 years unless the trend of a growing number who succeed to improve their lot is stalled by rich and middle class people downgrading their standard of living”

The problem with renewable energy forms such as wind and solar is that users of such technology have to keep fossil fuel power generation units on call, idling, for when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.

As I suggested in a previous letter, the folks in Maine could better spend their time finding suitable ways to store energy produced by wind and solar for those days when the wind and sun aren’t active.

Alan Carlin stated on June 16 of this year: “There is no scientifically valid evidence that CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming] will occur regardless of what is done or not done and considerable evidence that higher atmospheric levels of CO2 and slightly higher global temperatures would be beneficial, not harmful.”


Tom Rolfes


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.