Over the years, I've learned that some people will say anything to advance their pet causes. To them, the ends justify the means.

That most certainly has been the case with various camps in the environmental movement. So, I thoroughly enjoy when grand declarations made by such groups are exposed as being without basis in the real world.

That's what is done in a new study jointly published by United for Jobs (a project of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Neighborhoods), The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, The John Locke Foundation and the Pacific Research Institute. The report - "Air Quality False Alarm: An Analysis of the Natural Resources Defense Council's ‘Heat Advisory' Report" - was written by Joel Schwarz, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and George Taylor, a certified consulting meteorologist, the state climatologist for Oregon and a faculty member at Oregon State University's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences.

The National Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) "Heat Advisory" report proclaimed that global warming would boost ozone smog levels and therefore harm the health of Americans. Schwarz and Taylor, however, pull apart the NRDC's study, and show that it is faulty.

"Air Quality False Alarm" turns out to be a devastating critique. Among the important points, Schwarz and Taylor point out: "NRDC created the appearance that ozone will increase in the future by assuming that ozone-forming emissions 50 years from now will be the same as they were eight years ago." Is this realistic? The authors of "Air Quality False Alarm" note that 1996 ozone levels have no relation to future ozone levels. In fact, "ozone-forming emissions are already well below the 1996 levels assumed by the NRDC, and will only continue to decline."

Ah, but it doesn't stop there. Schwarz and Taylor go on to point out that higher temperatures actually would reduce fine particulate matter more than ozone might increase. Since fine particulate matter "is more strongly associated with health effects than ozone in epidemiological studies," then "increased temperature would be a net benefit for air pollution and health."

Wow!

Alas, though, there's still more to straighten out here. It turns out that the NRDC also assumes a radically high increase in global temperatures over the coming century - nearly 7 degrees Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2100. Of course, no one has a clue as to what will happen with future temperatures. But far more reasonable assumptions, according to Schwarz and Taylor, guess that average global temperatures might rise by 0.7 degrees F between 2000 and 2100.

In the end, the authors of "Air Quality False Alarm" conclude that both ozone and fine particulate matter will decline in coming decades "with or without a warming climate."

So, what are we to think about this case study?

In a statement, Taylor observed: "NRDC's report exaggerates future warming, it exaggerates future smog levels and tries to assert a link between warming and air quality - these two are completely separate issues that really can't be linked scientifically."

Harry Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce and United for Jobs co-chair, laid matters out this way: "This is another example of radical environmentalists using scare tactics to push their legislative agenda. They told people that global warming caused the tsunami tragedy and the hurricanes in Florida - scientists know that there is no link."

Indeed, here is another example of some mistakenly believing that the ends justify the means.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This column may be reprinted with appropriate credit.
 

__________
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.