| Quick Takes
Are Hurricanes Really Getting Worse?
Joe D’Aleo, co-chief meteorologist at WeatherBELL Analytics, and Kevin Dayaratna, chief statistician at The Heritage Foundation, answer this question. They examine the data, and their findings are counterintuitive.
In a recent Daily Signal article, they state:
Since the start of the 20th century, America has seen an average of 17 hurricanes per decade, with slightly more than five hurricanes per decade exceeding Category 3 levels. That data also indicates that there were slightly more than two hurricanes at or exceeding Category 4 levels (exceeding 130 mph winds) per decade and thus relatively rare.
Myriad factors affect hurricanes, and the associated variation and unpredictability of such factors make it difficult to isolate trends. For example, oceanic temperature events such as El Nino and La Nina, as well longer-term cycles, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), may contribute greatly to the incidence and severity of hurricanes in particular localities.
After laying out the data, D’Aleo and Dayaratna propose a different approach to mitigating damage from storms:
However, after the active 2005 season and before the landfall of two major storms on the U.S. in 2017, the U.S. went 4,324 days (just short of 12 years) without a major hurricane landfall, exceeding the prior record eight-year lull in the 1860s.
Obviously, no one ever wants to deal with hurricanes or extreme weather. The reality is, however, such events are inevitable, and we need to be able to adapt to them.
But instead of advocating for damage-mitigation funds for a nonexistent increase in hurricanes, lawmakers should seek to promote, and not stifle, economic growth to enable Americans to have higher incomes.
These types of positive efforts will be the best way to equip people to deal with these and other adverse events that may come their way.
Read the full article here.
This Election Year, Your Energy and Appliance Prices Are on the Ballot
In her latest National Review article, CECE director Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote:
The election’s outcome will determine the amount people will pay for gasoline and electricity; what appliances they are allowed to buy, and their cost; what kind of new and used cars will be in dealer showrooms, and at what prices; and how much power China will wield over America’s supply chain.
Donald Trump’s ten-point plan includes permitting reform, allowing different sources of energy to compete on a level playing field, opening more lands to fossil-fuel development, reversing Biden’s climate agenda, expediting nuclear technology, and protecting the energy grid.
Nikki Haley is pictured in a hard hat on her website, just leaving an offshore oil rig. Her policy proposals are similar. If elected, she would stop “the demonization of the oil and gas industries,” speed up pipeline construction, and reverse Biden’s incentives for energy subsidies and regulations that favor alternative energy.
Ron DeSantis’s energy plan aims for $2-per-gallon gas by 2025 and would prioritize “Midland over Moscow,” “the Marcellus over the Mullahs,” and “the Bakken over Beijing” by increasing oil and natural-gas production.
A new Republican administration would reverse the Biden energy plan, resulting in an immediate decline in energy prices from baseline prices. With additional production, prices would go even lower. Producers would be able to access more areas for leases and drilling, leading to increased production.
As 2024 progresses, it’s not just Democrats and Republicans who are on the ballot. Your energy and appliance prices are also up for a vote.
Read the full National Review article here.
Cold Facts: Wisconsin Can’t Give Up Gasoline
Andrew Weiss, research assistant for domestic policy at The Heritage Foundation, recently visited his home state of Wisconsin to report on the status of electric vehicles (EVs):
The car salesman named Joe took us inside to see an electric sedan, a 2023 Ford Mach E. It was far more than I could afford, but I inquired about how it performs. Joe said it can take over 40 hours to charge with a standard 120V three-prong wall outlet. Upgrading to a faster charger, the 240V outlet, is costly and requires new electrical wiring to the garage in most cases. This can be difficult or impossible for people who have old homes, rent their homes, or simply can’t afford it.
The car’s advertised range of just 250 miles doesn’t account for driving with the heat on, which reduces the range. While the Midwest had a mild start to the winter season, evading the cold altogether is an elusive endeavor in Eau Claire. Temperatures are expected to struggle to rise above zero degrees Fahrenheit this week, and battery-powered vehicles lose up to 40% of their range in the cold. When the wind chill is 30 degrees below zero, you can bet every car has the heat on as hot as it goes. It’s no surprise that Joe hardly sells any EVs.
All of the car, truck, train, and plane emissions in America account for about 3.9% of global carbon emissions. Even if America abandoned all fossil fuels overnight, it would hardly affect our climate.
Kevin Dayaratna, chief statistician at The Heritage Foundation, used government models to show that completely eliminating all fossil fuels from the United States would yield less than a 0.2 degree Celsius reduction in temperature by the year 2100. There may be reasons to purchase an EV, but saving the environment is not a good one.
Read the full Daily Signal article here. |