Scientists Debunk Key Carbon Source Theory

Earth may be warming. The scientific record is clear that most parts of the earth have been through warming – and cooling – stages over the course of time. One theory – the Government is not acting on this one – is that this warming/cooling cycle over history will continue, likely because something about climate warming causes cooling, and something about climate cooling causes warming. The other theory – this is the one the Government has been spending a lot of money promoting – is that climate warming, underway globally at this time, has gotten hotter faster, so it will continue to get hotter faster until we burn up.

A key sub-theory of the Government’s current theory is that a warming climate will cause the release of massive amounts of carbon molecules (greenhouse gasses) from the tundra. New research says that doesn’t appear to be true:

The call to human action to stop infinite global warming is why city governments got in the business of attempting to regulate people’s carbon footprint, expanding municipal interest, for the first time, beyond the safety of human-constructed spaces and objects.

You would expect the call to action to be taken up by highly trained experts on energy consumption, generation, and transmission – engineers. Instead, the architects and designers jumped forward to claim ownership of this highly technical set of standards, and found the mandates a bonanza of enhanced fees.

Nor did municipal governments allocate big bucks to hire engineers and scientists to implement. They relied on their existing building and safety staffs to police the designers.

We all agree that sustainability is important. But differences of opinion arise between builders, owners, architects and city regulators as to what all that bureaucratic, technocratic language in the code actually means. The result is that the 2009 IECC Energy Code isn’t working. Advocates promise that the Energy Code won’t force anybody to spend money that they won’t get back through energy bill savings in longer than ten years. In fact, we now have stories about how it resulted in a rehabilitated business being forced to spend money that it will likely never recover through power bill savings.

2 thoughts on “Scientists Debunk Key Carbon Source Theory”

  1. I used less than $1 – that’s ONLY $1 – of natural gas last month, but I was taxed $8.95 on that useage. Next month I will use $0 as I have turned the gas off…but will still have to pay $8.95 in taxes. So tell me….just how ridiculous is this????

  2. I suppose if you were only sold on the up front costs of any energy saving strategy, you would have a difficult time doing anything different than what we have always done. How does one calculate the true costs of energy and energy savings? Are the savings only expereienced at a personal/owner level? Are the savings shared by a community who design efficient buildings and thereby reduces the need for costly infrastructure?

    Being a Libertarian is easy in theory but much more difficult in practice. Why should the government be allowed to tell me I need to provide anything to my building that I don’t specifically want myself? If I don’t have physically handicapped customers, who do I need to spend money to comply with ADA? If my customers desire to exercise in a tropical rainforest located smack-dab in the middle of the Las Vegas strip, who in the government could tell me I can’t have that water if I am willing to pay for it?

    You can argue global warming until you are blue in the face. You can find facts to say it’s not real and then listen as another “scientists” uses the same facts to prove that it IS real. Who is right?

    By spending your time arguing about the veracity of global warming, you are missing the point. By spending your time arguing about first cost analysis, you are missing the point. We live in the desert at the cost of limited natural resources. Whether generate power with coal, natural gas, water or hamsters running on a wheel; natural resources are required for power generation. We know that the resources are limited — we don’t konw to what extent, but many people would love to not need to find out the extent. As a species we alone are able to analyze our environment, our decisions and our way of life and to find ways to do things better. Why wouldn’t we seek to do things better?

    I’ve yet to hear any arguement for removing the energy codes other than first costs considerations. I understand financial times are tough, but is that the new slogan for the City of Las Vegas?

    NOTE: The author is an architect/designer in the Energy Code business.

Leave a Reply