On December 2, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger unveiled a map showing the effect upon the California coast of sea level rising by 1.5 meters over the next century due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The press reported the unveiling, showing no skepticism whatsoever.
How is his prediction doing? The red line is accurate satellite data through September reported by the University of Colorado; the black line is Schwarzenegger's dramatic prediction:
It is true that sea levels have been rising. In fact, they have been rising for the last 15,000 years due to the melting of the glaciers from the last ice age. But the scare predictions of rapid sea level rise are clearly not supported by the actual data. Some of the world's best physicists have figured out that climate change is mainly due to extra-terrestrial forces, such as solar activity and cosmic rays, not carbon dioxide.
Meanwhile, based upon dramatic predictions like Schwarzenegger’s prediction, the Obama administration is going full steam ahead with its plans to reduce America's carbon dioxide emissions. On January 2, President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency will start requiring that American industries use the "best available control technologies" to reduce carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. This action will:
Hurt America's economic recovery because our exporting industries will face higher energy costs.
Hurt American households because their electricity bills will rise.
Hurt American workers who will lose jobs due to higher business costs.
Perhaps Congress could amend the Clean Air Act to specify that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. After all, the Clean Air Act was meant to regulate substances that are harmful to life, not carbon dioxide which is vital to life.
Comment by Doug Brockman, 12/28/2010:
It's interesting how bits and pieces of islands and coastline here and there are shown horribly drowning in seawater when an ancillary to this problem is that all seacoasts are either rising or dropping due to local tectonic effects and none stay stationary indefinitely.
[An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]
Journal of Economic Literature:
[Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....
Atlantic Economic Journal:
In Trading Away Our Future Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]