Move to alternative energy

On Aug. 11, the Journal Sentinel published a commentary by Scott Manley at Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce with the headline “EPA’s global warming rule will kill Wisconsin jobs” (Editorial).

I disagree with Manley. The costs of managing our carbon emissions will be offset by the benefits of a habitable planet for our descendants. Wisconsin relies on coal for approximately 62% of its electric power. Natural gas is an affordable alternative to coal to help reduce emissions, at least temporarily. Meanwhile, wind and solar energy are becoming increasingly cost-effective.

For those of us prepared to rely upon the 97% consensus among climate scientists, continuing our dependency on fossil fuels as the energy foundation for middle-class manufacturing jobs seems ill-advised. Manufacturing and energy CEOs have known about the greenhouse impact of emissions for decades. After all this time, is climate change denial still the only energy strategy they can come up with? Perhaps the EPA can help them find a better solution.

Climate change deniers like to ridicule the scientific process. However, the scientific community has been compiling evidence of the greenhouse impact of carbon emissions for about 150 years. Geological evidence assembled by climate scientists shows long term trends in greenhouse gas levels and temperature levels, together with changes in sea level due to the melting of land-based ice. This evidence provides a compelling picture of powerful factors that, in recent decades, are changing in directions that could be very difficult to deflect. The key driving factor, greenhouse emissions from human activity, has been under our control and is our responsibility.

Our fossil fuel reserves may be abundant, but the consumption of fossil fuel is dumping harmful garbage into the atmosphere. With the Earth’s climate beginning to destabilize as a result, we should curtail the use of these fuels and move to alternative energy sources.

For those who reject climate science, any law is helpful that obstructs agencies attempting to regulate carbon emissions. However, for those of us choosing to take heed from the 97% consensus among climate scientists, any law that enables polluters to damage our planet beyond repair is a law that needs to be changed.

Bruce D. Beck Madison