Don’t count the environmentalists out just yet…

A couple weeks back much hay was made about the Environmental Protection Agency suppressing a study compiled by Dr. Alan Carlin – a study which contradicted the EPA’s assertion that global climate change is man-made and can only be stopped through onerous restrictions on what Americans can drive, consume, and produce. An example of this hullabaloo comes from this post by Robert Romano on the Americans for Limited Government blogsite.

In reading through the report, however, I did find a loophole that may convince the anti-growth forces among the global warming fanatics that, indeed, there is cause for concern. Despite the fact that temperatures as a whole globally have declined over the last decade, there are pockets where temperatures have increased. The study defines it this way:

There appears that there is another major influence on global temperatures – but significantly only for surface temperature measurements. This is the effect of rapidly expanding urbanization worldwide and a number of other factors that appear to be corrupting surface measurements. Because most surface measurements are made in urban areas there is a high risk that the urban heat island will influence the measurements made. The UHI effect is well known and well documented.

In practice, cities do tend to be warmer than the surrounding countryside because of the amount of pavement found in most urban areas. Forested areas tend to be cooler, which is why the planting of trees is encouraged.

What worries me most about this particular conclusion is the opportunity it can provide for those who favor so-called “green” building to point out that even the global warming skeptics acknowledge that standard building and development practices will lead to climate change, even if it’s on a microscopic level. Naturally their proposed solution would lead to higher building costs and less possible suitability for a property’s highest and best use.

Whether knowingly or not, one offshoot of this theory will commence in Maryland this coming October. Senate Bill 666, passed this year, reduces the threshold for cutting forested land without state intervention from 40,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. (Originally the bill would have required forest conservation plans for grading or subdivision permits on parcels of 20,000 square feet or more, but that was scrapped before passage leaving the current 40,000 square foot threshold in place.) In essence the state is trying to force greenways onto the public, stifling needed economic development. If you take away a forested piece of land, the idea of current law is to replace it somewhere else or, if you cannot do so, you would pay the state 10 cents per square foot of affected area (the fee will triple to 30 cents once SB666 becomes law in October.)

Given the zealousness of the radical environmentalists in Maryland, there’s no need to give them further cause to make development more difficult yet I can see where this study – combined with those upcoming changes in the law – may hand them the wherewithal to do so. For them, every tiny incremental change is a step in their direction and a step away from either being able to do that with your property which you see fit or the enactment of sensible controls locally – the radical green faction prefers tarring all of Maryland with the same broad brush by having Annapolis govern by fiat.

With our economic turmoil the green side needs to take a time out and let the current restrictions run their course. (Needless to say, I think a rollback is in order but I’m not holding my breath on that prospect.) Giving them another chance to scream about global warming doesn’t help the cause of liberty and could prove counterproductive even in the success the Carlin study provides in the ongoing battle against Radical Green.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer. View all posts by Michael