Property Rights Foundation of America®
Founded 1994

Carbon Dioxide-The Breath of Life and Conference Wrap-Up

Jay H. Lehr, Ph. D.
Science Director, The Heartland Institute
Arlington Heights, Illinois

Twenty-first Annual National Conference on
Private Property Rights
October 21, 2017
The Century House, Latham, N.Y

I promise not to keep you overtime. I carry a large watch right here in front of me. I have two roles: 1. Carol asked me to wrap up so I've kind of taken notes on all the other speakers all day. I'm always amazed at the phenomenal job that she and Peter do in putting together the program because I find myself on the edge of the seat for every word. I attend an awful lot of conferences. At many of them it's hard to stay awake. I didn't find that true here for a single minute. There's been a lot of negative stuff here. Everything I'm going to say is going to be optimistic and upbeat. And the first piece of advice I want to give every one of you to change every day in your life. Wake up every morning with a smile saying, "The Wicked Witch is dead." This country would have been toast if Mr. Trump had not won. Celebrate that every day and be optimistic and upbeat with regard to the role that you play in promoting the undoing of the negatives that we've heard here today.

Part I

Yes. I've been very fortunate working with Mr. Trump from nine days after his election. I was contacted by his people to present him with solid scientific information to support his opinion that man-caused global warming is a hoax. I did that and had contact with them for the ensuing months. He also adopted a plan I wrote two years ago to eliminate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is clearly a rogue agency. You've been hearing all kinds of stuff about that. And while it may not be eliminated, there was a good piece of news that came down this week that EPA plans to open an office in every state capital. The idea being to work in concert with the state EPAs. Now, I know you've a terrible state EPA here in New York. They're terrible in many states but not in the majority of states. The vast majority of states have hard-working people in the state EPAs that do all the work, but fifteen thousand EPA employees do nothing more than look over the shoulders and make life difficult for the state people who do the work. So, that was a piece of good news.

I always say the two most exciting days of my life: The first day was marrying my wife twenty-six and a half years ago. The second day was June first, I think it was first or June second, at exactly one o'clock in the afternoon when I got a telephone call from the White House. I don't imagine many of you have had telephone calls from the White House. That was pretty exciting for me. The person on the other end of the phone, his name was Paul Teller. His message to me was that I had won. What had I won? Well, he announced to me that in two hours at three o'clock that afternoon the president was going to announce in the Rose Garden that he was going to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord. Paul immediately sent me the text of his speech, which he gave. Actually, he didn't come out of the Oval Office, he was scheduled to speak at three and he didn't come out of the Oval Office until 3:20. I was getting very nervous thinking, "Uh oh, he might have changed his mind because his daughter, who is a Democrat green liberal, clearly didn't want him to pull out." Rex Tillerson, who isn't a hell of a lot better as Secretary of State, didn't want him to pull out. But he did. It's a first step as Bonner [Cohen] said. Clearly there's more to be done.

But in the last few months I've had conference calls with the White House or EPA just about every week. And a lot of good things have happened. First of all, they're canceling the Clean Power Plan that was intended to eliminate the coal industry in this country.

Last week on a conference call with EPA they had decided to alter the executive order or to create an executive order on an issue that you're probably familiar with called "sue and settle." Most of everything in the U.S. EPA is directed by the radical environmental groups, of which there are a few dozen that sue EPA and force them to do something that they didn't intend to do. An executive order came out last week that requires that before EPA can settle any of these suits it has to go to the states. And the states have a comment period. This is going to cause tremendous transparency, a great deal of time, and I think it is going to dramatically alter the concept of "sue and settle," which the radical environmental groups have been managing now for a very long time. So, there's a lot of good news.

Part II - Conference Overview

Carol opened up by saying that we're pulling out of UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization], a tremendously good thing.

Has anyone here seen the play "Hamilton"? Who could afford it? But you don't want to see it. It's pretty horrible. They turn Hamilton into a liberal icon, basically. He was generally thought of as quite conservative in his day, though there are some pretty wise people that feel he wanted the federal government to be in charge of everything, which would lead to really not having important state's rights. So, it's questionable how good or bad he is. But Hamilton, the play… question?

Audience member: I just want to point out Alexander Hamilton broke the leases that created the patroons estate tenancy in the 1790's early 1800's that created the quit-rents and all the system of feudal landownership that was later abolished in the New York State Constitution. He wrote he was very much property rights oriented and he worked with the patroons. He broke their leases…

Mr. Lehr: There's a book that just came out written by a phenomenal historian who's decided to make a career of destroying dead people. I fully expect his next books to be on JFK and Martin Luther King. He is a terrific scholar but it's a little unfair attacking people that can't fight back. And in the book he mentions exactly what you said; so, he tries to be a little fair but he comes out in the end. But anyway, we know how terrible the World Heritage Foundation is, those people they want to block progress.

Mark Miller was just awesome. All the things that he brought up. The fact the Pacific Legal Foundation is working on 156 cases. Have I got the number right? Just amazing what they do and their ability to win nine cases in front of the Supreme Court is terrific.

Your mention of Kimberley Strassel's editorial when she talked about are all the judges he's appointing really is phenomenal. She is doing a terrific job.

I think it was Mark [Miller] who used the phrase "in Trump's first term." Does that sound right? I'm a cockeyed optimist if you read my resumé in there. I hold a world skydiving record. I actually jumped in the middle of Ohio every single month for 34 years and eleven months. That's 35 winters. If that doesn't support optimism, I don't know what does. I broke my hip in a bicycle accident. I haven't really been hurt skydiving and I had to miss three months. I'm back at jumping every month. Somebody asked me how have I jumped recently? And I love to answer this way. I said, "Oh, gosh, I probably haven't jumped in two weeks." I think people really want me to give it up but I'm back on a new streak and I can beat my record of 34 years and eleven months if I live to be 114. Why not try?

Mark also mentioned that appointing Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was a terrific move and there are going to be lots and lots of other tremendous judges. I think it was Larry [Kogan] who told me that Trump has 4,100 appointments to make. I mean, it's mind boggling. They can't all be great. You know, he has to take other people's advice but he's doing the best he can. I actually had contact with Neil Gorsuch's mother. She, if you don't remember, was the head of EPA. She came from a prominent family in Colorado. She had a little bit to do with the environment in Colorado but mostly was a political appointment. But she interviewed me long ago to be the head of research at EPA. The interview didn't go well because she didn't know much about what she was talking and I wasn't too shy to tell her. So, I walked out of the office knowing that I was not going to be the head of research for EPA.

But I will go further than Mark talking about Trump's first term. I'm totally confident he's going to win in a landslide in his second term. And I'm quite confident that Mr. Pence will take over for another eight years and that at the end of that time the Democratic Party will be dead. I really think that if you read the newspapers you don't understand. I'm somewhere every week of the year crossing the country. Not in New York and not in California. I'm in the middle where real people are. And they're flocking to Mr. Trump. I mean, they are pretty thrilled with what is going on. I think Mr. Pence is beyond reproach and will take over. Democrats are digging a hole for themselves. The media and the Democrats…

Now, Bonner mentioned this terrible climate change report that's coming out. It will be horrible but I'm beginning to think that people are beginning to realize what a joke it all is. No matter what happens — and Bonner mentioned it — it's climate change. You know, people are not as dumb as the media thinks they are and things are really getting better in that regard.

One thing I want to say for you to remember, kind of like waking up with a smile because the Wicked Witch is gone. Actually, she's digging a bigger hole. Her book, oh my God, it's not selling. It's disgusting. And what happened is, she says, that everybody screwed her. It had nothing to do with herself. That's the story of her book called What Happened. One of favorite terms is "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step." And so, judge things that way.

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Trump has exceeded my expectations. I just think he's done a tremendous job. I'm not thrilled with Scott Pruitt but he's doing a good job at EPA. Not as good as I'd like him to do. I can tell you right now how he's going to run for the Senate, so I don't know how long he's going to be there. So, he's really playing two roles. I'm kind of inside of all this thing. One is as administrator of EPA and one is as a candidate.

We've heard other terrific talks. Robert LoScalzo's Willets Point story — absolutely phenomenal. Everybody involved in it has just been fabulous. The talk on the Raquette Lake situation was equal. A lot of good things going on.

I love the oil patch report. I connected to a lot of it. When Tom Miller talked about the pipeline from Olean [New York] to Bayonne [New Jersey], I related to that because I was born in Bayonne. Then he talked about the Bradford Oil Field. When I was a freshman at Princeton, our first summer project was to work in the Bradford Oil Field. So, it was enjoyable to hear all about that.

I think that Tom West did really an amazing job with his report on fracking. But there's one thing he didn't get across quite as clearly as I would have liked. In fact, he kind of used his hand and drew a diagram that went like this. The well goes down vertically and then it goes off horizontally. He later talked about the fact that the steel pipe will bend six degrees and that it actually is a long curve. Actually, ninety percent of the steel pipe being used in hydraulic fracturing will only bend three degrees per hundred feet. Three degrees per hundred feet. Somebody tell me how deep you have to go before you can get the pipe to go horizontal. Any arithmetic people in the audience? On your fingers? Three thousand feet. I heard it. Three thousand feet. You can't have any ground water pollution. You can't have any problems at all. And he described the casing going down absolutely perfectly. There is some research on some steel pipe with a six degree bend in a hundred feet. If that comes into use in coming years then you could get to horizontal in fifteen hundred feet after you've cased vertically as far down as you need to. But there are zero problems with hydraulic fracking.

I sat on a well in Texas in 1961, a vertical well we were hydraulically fracturing. It goes back actually, the first hydraulically fractured well was in 1947. The technology was been around a long time. What Tom mentioned correctly, is we now can control the drilling bit with GPS and we can make that bit swivel and go any direction we want. As he pointed out that doesn't really go out a straight horizontal. It's moving up and down controlled by a joy stick at the surface depending on the samples of the rock and the gas and oil in the rock as it moves. So, the bit can go up and down. However, the drill itself cannot turn in a ninety-degree angle. It takes, right now, three thousand feet to go from vertical to horizontal.

I thought it was terrific to point out the whole idea of stopping pipelines is to stop hydraulic fracturing and stop gas production. It's really crazy that you have these people that basically want to eliminate fossil fuel and have us move to wind and solar that would be dead if we stopped the government subsidies. But it just goes on and on. They will lose. We will win. If there's one thing Trump is for, it is developing our energy making us the richest energy country in the world, which we will be.

One of the points that was not clearly made, and I think Larry Kogan pointed to it and I think somebody else did also when you were talking about severance between the mineral rights and the surface rights, and things of that nature. What wasn't said is something that you — it may have been inferred — that you need to understand, is that we are the only country in the world where if you own the surface rights, you own the mineral rights. The only country in the world. Now, you can sell the mineral rights. You heard all the different things that were said by Larry and others about the severance. By and large, however, Larry pointed out that a lot of states want to change that. They want to take those rights away. They will not succeed. But the reason we're so far ahead in shale gas production is that in every other country if the government owns the mineral rights there's no incentive for landowners to want people to come on and drill their land.

Bottom line here is there's a lot of good stuff going on. A lot of good stuff. I think you'll all be more successful if you start each day with an optimistic viewpoint to try to further our causes in property rights and environment in general.

So, I'm now going to try to recruit you to do something for me and for yourselves. I'm going to show you a slide show that I developed for high school science teachers. I was asked to give a program last June fifth. I started off creating a slide show, which I did for Mr. Trump. He loved it and that certainly led to him pulling out of the Paris Accord. But when I took it I was asked on June fifteenth to give a seminar to high school science teachers. You know, they take these summer courses to get points to keep their certifications on. I was asked to do one on global warming and carbon dioxide. And so, I took what I had done for Mr. Trump and I really brought it to a level that absolutely everybody can understand it and promote it. I do this with college classes and I do it in about three hours. I'm going to do it for you in twenty-two minutes. That would be roughly thirty seconds per slide. But what I'm really doing is, I'm going to hope that all of you will ask me for the slide show. If, at the end of it, you would like to have it, all you have to do is write your e-mail down on and give it to me before you leave here and probably by later this evening I will send you the entire forty-five slide show. What you're going to like about it is there's nothing complicated. There are no graphs. There are no equations. It's all common sense.

In the class I taught in Indiana University on June fifteenth, the first time I did it, there were twenty high school science teachers in the class. Five of them were convinced that man controlled the climate of the planet. Five of them were convinced that man did not control the climate of the planet and ten of them were undecided. That was my poll before the class began. Two and a half hours later I polled them and it was nineteen people who were absolutely sure man did not control the climate and that carbon dioxide was a wonderful thing. Only one remained in opposition to my point of view. I thought that was a pretty good job.

Well, the other side of the global warming story. Really, it's about carbon dioxide. So, I'll start off by telling you that the more carbon dioxide we pump into the air the better. There's no down side to carbon dioxide. I usually carry a carbon dioxide meter with me and I left it home. I have enough experience with this. Anyone want to take a guess what the carbon dioxide content is in this room in parts per million? It's 400 ppm outdoors. What do you think it is in here? I'm going to guess. It's probably 800 to 1,000 ppm because you're all pumping carbon dioxide into the air. On an atomic submarine that stays underwater for months at a time, what do you think the average carbon dioxide level is? 5,000. There are no downsides to carbon dioxide. Nobody's ever gotten sick. In fact, on the submarines they do try to keep it below 8,000 but it averages 5,000. The point is there are no downsides to carbon dioxide. It is plant fertilizer. As Bonner said, the more, the better. Richard Feynman, another Princeton graduate and kind of a hero of most of us in physics, says it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are, if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. And there are no experiments to show that man is causing global warming.

Now, I ask four questions. Has the Earth warmed since 1950? Yes. Bonner told you that. How much will it warm this century? We have no clue. Probably not much. Is warming dangerous? Wow! Where do you all go to for vacation in the winter, Florida? Can we afford to radically reduce CO2? Absolutely not. My God, we have absolutely no control on reducing CO2.

The media has promoted unwarranted fear, unmitigated arrogance as to man's impact on the climate. You've heard that over and over again. Bonner certainly made that clear.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was chartered to find man's impact on our climate. It does not vote by science members but by country. A political body, not a scientific body. Virtually every single one of their reports is just a total fraud, which we've talked a lot about. The temperatures have fluctuated — this may be the only graph I'll show — have fluctuated over the last 5,000 years and our current temperature is below the average of the last 5,000 years. Temperature fluctuations during the current 300-year recovery from the Little Ice Age, which was in the Thirteenth Century, ended, and all of you know enough about history and poor soldiers at Valley Forge. That was the end of, really, the Little Ice Age. We started warming after Valley Forge.

Greenland is named green because it was green. The archeologists know its inhabitants grew corn, barley, and oats there around 1,100 - 1,000 A.D.

This is one of my favorites. The National Aeronautics, Space… well, you can read it. During the time the Earth was warming in the past century, so were Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, and the largest moon of Neptune. Now, what does that tell you? What do you think controls the temperature of a planet, by and large? The sun. Do you know the sun is not one of the variables included in any of the climate models? None. They don't consider the sun as having anything to do with it. I mean, it's insane. It's absolutely insane.

We also know that two hundred million years ago when the dinosaurs walked the Earth the average carbon dioxide concentration was 1,800 ppm. More than four times what it is today. Nobody argues that point.

Water vapor accounts for 95 percent of greenhouse gases. Now, you all know what a greenhouse gas is. Basically, they're gases in the atmosphere that absorb heat from the Earth and so it acts like a greenhouse. I don't know that I put it on here but the carbon dioxide in the air already is totally full. It can't hold any more heat. So, if we just double the amount of carbon dioxide, which I imagine we will some day, it will have absolutely no effect on warming the Earth. Next slide.

If greenhouse gases were responsible for the increase in global temperature then atmosphere physics predicts high levels of our atmosphere should show greater warming than lower levels. This was not found to be true during the time that Bonner mentioned that we were warming from '78 to '98. We warmed about three degrees Centigrade during that period. Something I just read yesterday, I want to share with you. [It was] about climate models, in a sense. When we finally had the iWatch, I had realized a childhood dream. Who can guess what my childhood dream was? Dick Tracy. Dick Tracy had the wrist radio and I thought, wow! Was that the coolest thing? But that was fiction. That was science fiction. Or in the physics sense it was theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is fiction.

Physicists sit around and think up ideas. And you think they're real. They're not. They're just fiction. But Steven Jobs and the iWatch that's real physics. That's applied physics. All the mathematical models about climate change are fiction. They're just fiction but because there's so many of them and there's so much money poured into them, they want you to think they're real. They're not. Do you know there are more variables involved in figuring out the climate that any computer on Earth can handle. And a fellow named Willie Soon at Harvard figured out if we had a computer that could handle all the variables, of which there are thousands, it would take thirty-four years for the computer to do a single run and come out with one answer. It's absolutely a joke.

Carbon dioxide is a tiny [amount] compared to the other gases in the atmosphere. It's less than four-tenths of a percent. 380 ppm is the carbon dioxide. Well, now it's up to 400. But it's just absolutely tiny considering that oxygen is 21 percent, nitrogen is 78 percent, argon is almost a percent. It's insignificant and yet the models claim it's all about carbon dioxide. It's just stupid. Next.

Now, there's a graph that I think really shows kind of well. That's obviously a picture of the Earth. There are ten thousand dots on that picture of the Earth. Ten thousand. The green ones are all water vapor. This is actually the CO2, but manmade CO2 is the little black spot down here. The amount of CO2 we put in is our power plants, our automobiles, and our factories. Where does all of the other CO2 come from?


By and large, it's decaying vegetation and the oceans. Ninety-seven percent of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from decaying vegetables and the oceans. Now, Bonner made it clear that they all have it backwards. First you have warming, then you have CO2 because cold oceans hold way more CO2 than warm oceans. So, as the air warms the oceans, they give up CO2. All of you have done a bit of an experiment with that. Every one of you here has experimented with carbon dioxide coming out of cold liquid. You've all opened a can of soda and you drank it bubbly and cold and you forgot it and you left it on the kitchen sink or a table. When you came back later it was flat. It had lost its carbon dioxide.

Now, it's not all due to the warming. It's also due to the pressurization that's gone. But cold liquid holds more carbon dioxide. Nine hundred thousand years of ice core temperature and carbon dioxide content records show that CO2 increases following rather than leading increases in temperature. Now, how do we know that? Just a little bit of science. There are bubbles in all of the ice we drill for. In the ice cores. We find gas bubbles and we can determine three things in those bubbles. There are various radioisotopes, relationships between decaying radioisotopes, that tell us what the temperature was, more or less, when that ice bubble was formed. We can measure the carbon dioxide actually in the ice bubble and we can age the ice bubble with what we call carbon-14 dating, which is the decay of carbon-14 to carbon-12. The decay is at a constant rate, so the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 tells us how long that air has been in the ice bubble, and no more carbon dioxide could get into once it was frozen. So, we get fairly accurate — I would say on fifty-year sequences. We can't tell you the exact year of the bubble forming but we can get it within fifty years. That's why we know what we know here.

The effect of additional CO2 is limited because it only absorbs a certain wavelength and that wavelength is already full. We add more carbon dioxide. It's already sucked up all the heat that the Earth gives off on a regular basis.

Glaciers. I was on a ship on a cruise up in Alaska. It's called Glacier Bay. A naturalist came aboard and gave a lecture. I wish I could have found where she was lecturing from because here's what she said. She pointed out three glaciers and she said two of them were melting because of global warming. One of them was increasing in size and they couldn't figure out why that was. I mean, think about that. Two were melting because of global warming. The other one was growing and she didn't know how. If I could have found her I would have wrung her neck but I never did find her.

Most of you are aware the polar bear is just thriving. It's a funny icon for global warming. We have really good records on polar bears. We track them all over and we knew in 1960 there were about 5,000 polar bears up in Canada and the Arctic. We know now there are 25,000. So, whatever's going on it's been wonderful for the polar bears. If you ever want to go on vacation in the North, there's a place called Churchill, Manitoba, where the polar bears come in to feed a certain time of the year and you can go and observe them. You don't want to get close to them. They really look warm and fuzzy. You want to hug them, but you don't want to. They're really ferocious.

I don't think that sea levels have been rising seven inches a century for the last eight centuries. We have very good records. Just really water levels on old buildings and things like that. That's just the way it is. But in some parts of the ocean, actually, the ocean's declining or maybe land is rising as Bonner pointed out. In the Mariana Islands off of New Zealand there are 87 islands and there are very good satellite photographs of them. And of the 87 islands, 64 of them have gotten larger in the last 50 years. It's very hard to figure out ocean levels. Before I describe this one, he mentioned the buoys and he said that someone at NOAA called a foul on NOAA for what they did to the ocean buoys. I'll tell you what they did. If I'm wrong about this, Bonner, just jump up and tell me. The story I heard was that they had recordings of ocean temperatures at the buoys that are out there in the middle of nowhere. But they also get temperatures by ships crossing the ocean. The ship temperatures were higher. What a surprise that is. Their motors are churning away and throwing out heat. So, they decided the ships must be more correct than the buoys and so they raised the temperature of all the buoys. Does that sound right, Bonner?

Mr. Cohen: Yes.

Mr. Lehr: They want to keep their jobs and they were told to do it. There's been no increase in extreme weather. This slide was a little better a month ago. Obviously, we had a whole bunch of hurricanes. I believe we went ten or twelve years without a hurricane reaching landfall in the United States until recently when we've had a few of them. But by and large, and Bonner pointed out, the hottest decade on record is in the '30s. In fact, you can go Google record temperatures in cities all over the United States and the '30s have most of the records. Next slide.

The coral reef thing is a lie. The whole idea of bleaching of coral reefs just has to do with the change of the animals and the little things that inhabit the reefs and when they leave all of a sudden the reefs get very white and then a new set of living things move in and they get less white. The whole thing about the Great Barrier Reef being in trouble off Australia is a total lie. Absolutely not true. I already mentioned this in New Zealand, the Marshall Islands.

Cheaper reliable energy is not going to come from wind and solar which must be subsidized, and, of course, it's not very steady. A terrible idea.

Okay. This is one of my favorites. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world's energy consumption was supplied by wind power?

Audience member: Zero?

Mr. Lehr: Ah, you know. None of the above. The nearest whole number is zero. Wind is 0.45 percent worldwide, less than half a percent. Solar is about 0.35 percent. Fourteen percent of the world's power is renewable but it's not wind or solar. It's wood and hydroelectric. I don't understand people pushing wind and solar. Bonner, you said…

Mr. Cohen: Subsidies.

Mr. Lehr: Well, it is subsidies but the ultimate situation is pushing us back into the Nineteenth Century as far as what life would be like if we have to have little power because eventually we'll run out of money to subsidize it. Were wind to supply all the two percent annual increase in world energy requirements from now on you'd need 350,000 wind turbines each year. At fifty acres per megawatt that would require the land area of the British Isles, including Ireland, each year and the landmass of Russia over fifty years. It's insane! But it was pointed out that people make money at it. And they're not green. They use two hundred times as much material per unit capacity of a modern gas turbine: cement, steel, rare earths, and coal to make the steel. A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs 250 tons of material. They're not green by any stretch of the imagination. Everybody thinks that Mount Kilimanjaro no longer has any glacier on it because of global warming. Can everyone read that from the back? Okay. It's lost ninety percent of its 14,000-year-old glacier over the past hundred years though the temperature at the top has never dropped below 32 degrees freezing. At 19,000 feet warm dry air rising up the deforested mountain caused the ice to sublimate. Sublimation is a physics term that means you go from ice to gas and not pass through water.

Audience member: Freezer burn or freeze dried.

Mr. Lehr: We budget six billion a year for climate research, mostly for model supports to academics. Climate change is not a scientific problem that found political support. It's about eco-activism and politicians who found a scientific issue they feel can leverage them into power and control. The environment is a great way to advance a political agenda that favors central planning and intrusive government. And that's what Larry Kogan was talking about entirely. It's Stalin's Russia. That's where they want us to be. Why? I don't know. I'm really not absolutely sure of God, buy I am sure of the Devil. There's no question. Evil lurks among us and everybody in this room is battling him. We know life is getting greener. We have accurate satellite record of the greening of Africa along the Equator.
Everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. No question. Carbon dioxide is wonderful. How did we allow people to convince the public that our exhalation is an evil thing? What makes plants grow is an evil thing. It's why we can live on this planet. We can only live here because of carbon dioxide.

They just figured out that thirty-six percent of Africa has become greener in the last twenty years, eleven percent less so. So, that's a twenty-five percent net gain in green on Africa and that's a satellite photo.

We know food is growing better. Our yields are up for a lot of reasons but one of which is that we've moved from 280 ppm carbon dioxide after World War II to 400 today. And I already pointed that out. I usually carry a monitor with me and it really is a simple thing. For 129 bucks you can get them at Amazon. We were in serious trouble even at 280. At 150 ppm everything dies. The plants die. The animals die. We die. We were perilously low and yet, all the drumbeat of bad carbon dioxide. One of the things that we haven't got Scott Pruitt to sign on to is to get rid of the endangerment thing, which Bonner told you about. Bonner, you did not use the words "Supreme Court."? You were constantly talking about EPA. EPA presented the Supreme Court with their fraudulent evidence that carbon dioxide was a bad thing and the Supreme Court decided 5-4 that carbon dioxide was a contaminant and that's why we're in this trouble. Somehow we have to reverse that and it's not an easy job.

It's also been pointed out that natural gas emits less of everything in terms of emissions and less carbon dioxide even though that's not an advantage to carbon dioxide, though a lot of people think so.

And we've talked about fracking endlessly. Scare stories, well, that's Al Gore. Al Gore should be in the cell next to Bernie Madoff. Question?

Audience member: Didn't you mention a study that was published that quantified the benefit of using fossil carbon around humans or for human production of food. There's no regulations implementing this but essentially what it means is that in the atmosphere carbon-14 is produced by radiation from the sun and from outer space and this is a radioactive material that breaks down over thousands of years. That's how they're able to do carbon-14 dating.

Mr. Lehr: Right.

Audience member: But when you dig up carbon from millions of years ago, it's carbon-12. It's not radioactive. So what they found was along side of highways where plants are growing, they have a higher proportion of carbon-12, non-radioactive carbon and the reason it's significant is that we may be exposed to internal radiation from the food we eat because we're eating a lot of carbon-14. Now, I'm sure we have some resilience to it. If the federal government and Mr. Trump would like to make a difference, what they all really ought to do is spend some money on this issue because if we can build greenhouses next to coal plants and use carbon-12 to produce our food we just might be able to reduce cancer rates by some issue. So, using the carbon in our cars isn't as good as using it to produce our food. That's something that if you have access to Mr. Trump the EPA should be looking this.

Mr. Lehr: Well, I do and I'll bring that up. I was not aware of the study. But on that point let me just say in an aside, on average we're exposed to 400 to 500 millirems of radiation just by living on the Earth and there's nothing to worry about, really, with regard to any radiation even the rods that are no longer used in our power plants.

Fukushima Tsunami

I compiled an encyclopedia of nuclear energy in 2011 and when the Fukushima tsunami hit, CNN immediately went to Google to find somebody who could talk about what would happen and my book had come out and was advertised that month, March 11, 2011, something like that. I was on CNN within two hours of the tsunami hitting. They located me somewhere an hour away from the studio and they asked me if I would come in and talk and I did. I'm only as smart as all the people I know. So, I had an hour drive and my wife was with me. We drove to the CNN studio and while she was driving I called every really smart nuclear physicist I knew and I said my feeling is that there's not enough radiation that can escape from the four plants and last long enough to create any radiation illness or kill anybody. Everybody I called said you're exactly correct but I'm sure glad you're going to have to say it, not me. So, I went on CNN and said it and they were in a state of shock. In the next two weeks I did twenty-three network shows saying the same thing. Then I get death threats. Larry?

Mr. Kogan: Ed Calabrese's research proves that you're not wrong.

Mr. Lehr: Right. Ed Calabrese was the first one I called. Yes.

Audience member: The reason carbon-14 is an issue is because it goes into your cells. It becomes part of your body into to your DNA.

Mr. Lehr: So, It's more of a problem.

Audience member: So, as it breaks down, if it turns into nitrogen it will destroy your DNA. This may be why we age. We age in order to escape the effects of degradation of our cells and our DNA. But you really ought to look into it because the fossil fuels that we're burning can be a benefit to us if we…

Mr. Lehr: I'll contact Ed Calabrese tonight by email and check him out. And, of course, this is something that maybe you don't know but something you should promote: Five times more people die prematurely from cold than from heat. Larry again.

Mr. Kogan: Everyone's focusing on the endangerment finding. The endangerment finding under administrative procedure is a ruling. That rule making has previously been adjudicated to the negative because courts grant deference to federal agencies.

Mr. Lehr: Actually, Mark pointed that out a number of times courts just roll over and say you are the expert.

Mr. Kogan: When I met Justice Scalia before he passed away, at a Federalist Society convention, the one question we all thought to ask him was why did you create this doctrine and don't you believe it's obsolete?

Mr. Lehr: And he said?

Mr. Kogan: And then he said, "Hey, stupid. You want judges to make the decision?" We said yes, collectively. The issue is not necessarily an endangerment policy but it's the science that undergirds the endangerment finding and that is part of the natural climate…

Ms. LaGrasse: We have to stop.

Mr. Lehr: Okay. There are a few more slides in it but they just reiterate in many different ways. Again, I would love to send all of you the slide show. Not just for you. I want you to send it to everybody you know that cares about what we're talking about. I mean, it's just one touch on the keyboard. So, write your email down. Give it to me before we leave and you'll have it before the night is over as long as there's a slow break in the Yankee-Houston baseball game.

Back to:
PRFA Property Rights Conferences PRFA Home Page

© 2018 Property Rights Foundation of America ®
All rights reserved. This material may not be broadcast, published, rewritten or redistributed without written permission.