S.C. must be part of solution to global warming crisis

Mark Newgent's appeal to Gov. Mark Sanford to reject the Climate Energy and Commerce Advisory Committee climate report ("Climate proposals fail economic test," Oct. 13) and do nothing about the growing climate crisis fails the tests of logic and common sense.

It must be seen for what it is: a deliberately deceptive, one-sided attempt to protect the vested interests he represents. In the first place, he delivers a personal attack on the integrity of the Center for Climate Strategies, the consulting firm that prepared the report, accusing it of being a "global warming alarmist advocacy group."

In fact, CCS simply uses the best science and economics currently available to lay out possible trajectories toward achieving the kinds of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that, if adopted on a sufficiently wide basis, would, according to our best current scientific estimates, prevent dangerous, potentially catastrophic global warming.

Having worked as a volunteer with CCS staffers on a technical working group for nearly a year in the preparation of the committee's report, I can assure Post and Courier readers that a very considerable effort went into its preparation.

Mr. Newgent is particularly exercised over the recommendation that South Carolina's utilities achieve some of their future energy production by promoting energy efficiencies and renewable energy sources. He attempts to frighten readers by noting that this will cost something. Well, yes, any and all future increases in energy production will cost us something. Just wait until we see how much we'll soon be paying each month during the 10-year construction period for the new nuclear power plants that SCE&G and Santee-Cooper want to build.

In the interim, taking advantage of increased efficiencies and decreased energy waste is the cheapest and fastest way to reduce energy use and greenhouse emissions. It might turn out that increasing efficiency and renewables could make the construction of costly new power plants unnecessary.

Mr. Newgent argues that the future cost of not taking action now to reduce global warming will not be high. One wonders on just what planet Mr. Newgent lives. Uncontrolled global warming will cause around 20 feet of sea level rise due to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and possibly another 20 feet of rise due to melting of the West Antarctica ice sheet. The idea that there will be no cost to our children's children for them to relocate every coastal city in South Carolina to some high and dry location is, to say the least, very strange.

Finally, in a false argument, Mr. Newgent claims that there will be no cost associated with inaction because, even if South Carolina were to stop all greenhouse gas emissions, it would only decrease global temperatures by two-thousandths of a degree celsius.

Disregarding the fact that there is no relationship between the cost of inaction and South Carolina's contribution to the temperature of the entire world, the truth is that we are not alone in formulating a state energy plan. More than 20 other states in the United States and Canada have formulated such plans, and many of them call for greater reductions and greater improvements in energy efficiency and renewables than our plan.

As we in the United States ramp up our efforts to prevent dangerous global warming, we will be able to insist that the rest of the world follow suit, and soon, more and more areas around the world with emission levels similar to ours will begin reducing their emissions. To argue that we should do nothing because our state's contribution to global warming is small is like asking a starving man not to eat a rich meal placed in front of him because he can only take one bite at a time.

Gov. Sanford should accept the committee's report. The future of the Lowcountry and the economic health of the state as a whole are at stake.

S. DAVID STONEY, Jr., Ph.D.
Susan B Lane
McClellanville