Focus on Energy
Focus on Energy is a state-initiated program to work with eligible Wisconsin residents and businesses to install cost effective energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Its efforts helps these entities manage rising energy costs, promote in-state economic development, protect our environment and control the state's growing demand for electricity and natural gas. According to the Focus on Energy Web site, it derives its funding as follows:
n Funds that investor-owned utilities collected through rates established by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
n Fees added to electric bills starting in October 2000 that participating utilities collected and remitted to the state.
n Funds contributed by participating municipal electric utilities and electric cooperatives.
n Federal funds provided for low-income energy assistance and weatherization programs.
n Voluntary contributions.
LA CROSSE - An Associated Press item caught my attention recently about a study the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Geological Survey are conducting to determine the effects of climate change on the Common Loon.
Entitled, "Potential effects of climate change on inland glacial lakes and implications for lake-dependent biota in Wisconsin," the effort is a two-year project at a cost of $100,000, funded in part by Wisconsin's Focus on Energy program. The project seeks to determine whether rising temperatures are making water more cloudy, which would interfere with the loons' ability to find fish.
That we would want to study the impact of climatic conditions on loons or any other species of Wisconsin wildlife is not surprising. However, it was the comment from USGS biologist Kevin Kenow in La Crosse that "loons used to nest as far south as northern Illinois" that left me baffled.
Having grown up in southern Wisconsin I can vouch for the fact that loons have not inhabited this area for at least several decades. Kenow agreed, noting that loons were last observed here between 100 and 150 years ago. He adds to this puzzle by mentioning that the loon population actually is increasing in Wisconsin.
So, should we be concerned about the survival status of loons? And what is the justification for using public funds to deal with a problem that may not exist?
The rationale, it would appear, is similar to that offered by a host of other entities engaged in the fight against global warming - namely that the phenomenon is real and the effects will be devastating.
According to the loon project abstract, "The inevitability of continued climate warming makes it imperative that natural resource managers are provided the information and tools needed to develop adaptive management strategies for expected changes in climate."
Let's be clear, there is no consensus regarding the causes, effects or actuality of global warming that its proponents proclaim. To the contrary, hundreds of scientists have refuted such claims.
Perhaps more importantly, can we afford these somewhat fanciful save-the-planet dalliances? The American Farm Bureau Federation, for one, says no.
John Stallman, speaking on behalf of the Farm Bureau at a congressional hearing on the federal cap and trade climate change bill, warned of increased costs to farmers and the bill's limited impact on emissions.
"Unilateral cap and trade legislation will have little or no impact on the climate because (reducing) green house gas emissions requires a global response," he said.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent visit to India is a prime indicator of our go-it-alone dilemma. The Indian government balked at her suggestion that India should shrink its carbon footprint for the sake of the planet. Indian officials made it clear they have no intention of undermining India's potential for economic growth by setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
The message was unmistakable. The United States can go ahead and de-industrialize if it wants, but leave India out of the master plan. While quick to voice their concerns about global warming, other nations have taken a similar stance.
The Farm Bureau also wants to know what energy sources would plug the hole left by reductions in the use of fossil fuels as the legislation proposes, which could lead to energy shortages and much higher energy prices.
Global warming proponents may be correct in their assessment, but the evidence is far from irrefutable. Questions abound:
Does the disappearance of loons from southern Wisconsin 100 to 150 years ago suggest that global warming has its roots in the period prior to 1900?
Are current high temperatures actually setting records when compared to the dust bowl years of the 1930s or the blistering heat of the summer of 1978? Living in Kansas at the time, I recall experiencing more than 20 days of temperatures above the 100-degree mark. Several surpassed 110 degrees.
Do higher winter temperatures recently suggest a long-term trend? Perhaps, but do a few years have millennial potential? Keep in mind the frigid temperatures of the mid-1990s when winter severity indexes in northern Wisconsin set all-time highs.
At present, global warming is a "celebrity" among environmental causes. Despite its popularity, perhaps it is time to re-examine its direction and refocus on how best to use scarce resources to help our economy recover and make America energy independent.
-Lee Fahrney is the Monroe Times outdoors writer and can be reached at (608) 967-2208 or fiveoaks@mhtc.net.
Entitled, "Potential effects of climate change on inland glacial lakes and implications for lake-dependent biota in Wisconsin," the effort is a two-year project at a cost of $100,000, funded in part by Wisconsin's Focus on Energy program. The project seeks to determine whether rising temperatures are making water more cloudy, which would interfere with the loons' ability to find fish.
That we would want to study the impact of climatic conditions on loons or any other species of Wisconsin wildlife is not surprising. However, it was the comment from USGS biologist Kevin Kenow in La Crosse that "loons used to nest as far south as northern Illinois" that left me baffled.
Having grown up in southern Wisconsin I can vouch for the fact that loons have not inhabited this area for at least several decades. Kenow agreed, noting that loons were last observed here between 100 and 150 years ago. He adds to this puzzle by mentioning that the loon population actually is increasing in Wisconsin.
So, should we be concerned about the survival status of loons? And what is the justification for using public funds to deal with a problem that may not exist?
The rationale, it would appear, is similar to that offered by a host of other entities engaged in the fight against global warming - namely that the phenomenon is real and the effects will be devastating.
According to the loon project abstract, "The inevitability of continued climate warming makes it imperative that natural resource managers are provided the information and tools needed to develop adaptive management strategies for expected changes in climate."
Let's be clear, there is no consensus regarding the causes, effects or actuality of global warming that its proponents proclaim. To the contrary, hundreds of scientists have refuted such claims.
Perhaps more importantly, can we afford these somewhat fanciful save-the-planet dalliances? The American Farm Bureau Federation, for one, says no.
John Stallman, speaking on behalf of the Farm Bureau at a congressional hearing on the federal cap and trade climate change bill, warned of increased costs to farmers and the bill's limited impact on emissions.
"Unilateral cap and trade legislation will have little or no impact on the climate because (reducing) green house gas emissions requires a global response," he said.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent visit to India is a prime indicator of our go-it-alone dilemma. The Indian government balked at her suggestion that India should shrink its carbon footprint for the sake of the planet. Indian officials made it clear they have no intention of undermining India's potential for economic growth by setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
The message was unmistakable. The United States can go ahead and de-industrialize if it wants, but leave India out of the master plan. While quick to voice their concerns about global warming, other nations have taken a similar stance.
The Farm Bureau also wants to know what energy sources would plug the hole left by reductions in the use of fossil fuels as the legislation proposes, which could lead to energy shortages and much higher energy prices.
Global warming proponents may be correct in their assessment, but the evidence is far from irrefutable. Questions abound:
Does the disappearance of loons from southern Wisconsin 100 to 150 years ago suggest that global warming has its roots in the period prior to 1900?
Are current high temperatures actually setting records when compared to the dust bowl years of the 1930s or the blistering heat of the summer of 1978? Living in Kansas at the time, I recall experiencing more than 20 days of temperatures above the 100-degree mark. Several surpassed 110 degrees.
Do higher winter temperatures recently suggest a long-term trend? Perhaps, but do a few years have millennial potential? Keep in mind the frigid temperatures of the mid-1990s when winter severity indexes in northern Wisconsin set all-time highs.
At present, global warming is a "celebrity" among environmental causes. Despite its popularity, perhaps it is time to re-examine its direction and refocus on how best to use scarce resources to help our economy recover and make America energy independent.
-Lee Fahrney is the Monroe Times outdoors writer and can be reached at (608) 967-2208 or fiveoaks@mhtc.net.
