Agriculture, timber, and logging interests should demand emission reductions |Opinion

Guest Opinion by Alan Journet in Salem Statesman Journal, Sunday March 1st

Several decades ago, I was teaching an ecology course when ecological theory and climate reality collided.

As I was discussing how temperature and precipitation determine the distribution of natural biological systems (forests, grasslands, deserts, etc.) across the planet, I realized that current climate projections would destroy these natural systems.


Questions and answer threads following appearance of this column:

Bruce Hansen:

I just finished reading your opinion piece in Sunday’s Statesman Journal newspaper.

We know that the earth’s climate is constantly changing and that there are many factors that influence this change that have nothing to do with the activities of mankind; such as … volcanic activity, variations in solar activity, naturally occurring wildfires and forest fires, natural climate cycles, variations in the earth’s polarity, perhaps even meteor activity, to name a few of the known factors.

With that in mind, there are questions that I have not been able to find the answers to.  For example:

  1. What percentage of the change to the earth’s climate is due to man-made carbon emissions? Is it 50%? 10%? 1%? 0.01%?
  2. Is our current worldwide climate optimal?
  3. Is any change to our climate necessarily a bad thing?
  4. If any climate change is bad, and the earth were in a natural cooling cycle, should we try to increase carbon emissions, if we thought it could reverse the trend?

For over 20 years, I commuted to work 8 miles in each direction by bicycle.

25 years ago, my wife and I installed 5000 feet of underground tubing for our geothermal heat pump, and a little over 10 years ago we installed a 4-kilowatt system of photo-voltaic solar panels on our roof.

I tell you this to show our commitment to the environment.

However, I have serious doubts about mankind’s ability to significantly change the climate by controlling carbon emissions.

As a high school math teacher, I’m used to having numbers, figures and justification to answer student questions.  But I’ve never seen answers to the four questions I raised; … and without science-based answers, it would seem difficult to logically justify “carbon emissions” legislation.

Response: Statesman Journal Query – Bruce Hansen

Robert Sorensen:
If the weather man said the next 10 days were going to be 80 degrees and but all we got was rain. Would you ever believe him again? For the past 50 years we have been told of climate crisis after another starting with that we wouldn’t last through the 80s . Why should I believe anything that so called climate scientists say? Maybe if you can come up with solutions that don’t tax us more or control us more bu limiting choices like plastic bags or straws. Why not come up with a business solution to recycling egg cartons then there would be more credibility.  Its easy to just tax and control others when you manufacture a crisis. As a personal sacrifice give up your clothes dryer and prove it to me that you did then you might be credible 
Alan thanks for the reply I will admit that you were more civil than I was. I will admit to my anger because I feel I am losing freedoms and being forced to pay more for everything in the name of the environment.
if you look at the competitive enterprise institute they compiled a list of failed climate predictions of the last 50 years. furthermore none of al gore’s predictions from his movie came true but he did use the money to buy a house in the beachfront that should be underwater soon. barack Obama bought a whole island that should be underwater as well if the seas rise.
when cylvia hayes emails were released to the public she had a 5 year plan to become a millionaire from jobs, speeches and books about climate change. I will bet money that you know more about the subject than she does. it does bring up red flags if people want to get rich off of activism. I myself have had a green job since 1994 I make windows energy efficient. however I would never want to force anyone to buy my product they buy it because it saves them money and we do it better than our competition.
even if they have developed sb 1530 for 10 years democrats know they may not have the supermajority in the next session to pass it. they also know if they put it to a vote of the people they would loose. politicians know how the political winds blow and they know its do or die time.
yes you can use our civil discussion to show others that it is possible to have civil discourse. what I see now is the opposite.
if you have any questions I would love to answer them
Response amended following the above input.Statesman Journal Query – Robert Sorensen – 2
Frank Schiedler
RE: Your article in the Statesman Journal, dated March 1, 2020
In your article you state “Unless Oregon joins jurisdictions addressing this problem, we have no credibility in urging others to reduce emissions.”
I agree completely.  But what are our leaders doing on a personal level?
A couple months ago I ran into Peter Courtney, and I asked him if he was driving an EV.  Answer  — NO.  I asked him if he had solar panels on
his roof.  Answer — NO.  I asked him if he was a vegan.  (You know that animal agriculture contributes about 50% of the greenhouse gases.)
Answer — NO.  So my question is:  What is our leader doing, on a personal level, to reduce greenhouse gases?  Nothing!  How can he expect
everyone in Oregon to do what he is not doing? And where is Peter’s credibility on this issue?  I would say non-existent!
Respectfully yours,  Frank Schiedler
PS:  I am a republican, and I have solar panels on my roof.  I have an electric lawnmower, which I love.  And I am a vegan; actually, I try to eat a
plant-based, whole food diet.  So on a personal level, I am doing more than the leader of the Democrats in the OR Legislature. That’s sad.
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *