I really want to try and defeat Barbara Boxer in 2010. She, along with my friend’s adorable Boxer are both full of $%@*. Please do not infer from this statement that I think Barbara “Ma’m” Boxer is adorable.
Chuck’s web site lists his position on issues, and I agree with them all, especially on the Constitutional issues (1st and 2nd Amendments) and his opposition to Boxer’s cap and trade scheme. That said, I have some reservation on his unstated position on Global Warming.
He has written a report that admits his belief in Global Warming. Here it is right from his site:
Chuck’s opinion pieces have appeared in the Investors’ Business Daily, Human Events, the Orange County Register, the Los Angeles Daily News, the Asian Wall Street Journal, the Taipei Times, the Jamestown Review, the U.S. Army’s Red Thrust Star, and many others. In 2008, he authored a scholarly piece entitled, “Relative Risk: Global Warming and Imported Fossil Fuels vs. Nuclear Power,” for the UC Berkeley School of Law’s inaugural edition of Ecology Law Currents.
If you go to his report, you will find the following:
All energy comes with risks. Coal mining is a deadly occupation – burning coal emits thousands of tons of radioactive particles, damages the lungs of tens of thousands of people a year, and releases billions of tons of carbon dioxide. Natural gas presents somewhat less of a carbon problem than coal, but it is highly explosive.
First of all, coal burning electric power plants are not anything like what Chuck describes. We have very clean power plants in the United States. He states the “billions of tons of carbon dioxide” in the same sentence as “thousands of tons of radioactive particles”.
You burn any carbon-based fuel and you get radioactive particles. How do you think carbon dating works? For all of you out there that are thinking of being cremated, even your body will give off radioactive carbon particles.
You are living with those radioactive particles inside you with no ill effects, and mankind and animal-kind have been progressing just fine, thank you.
I wonder if Chuck has changed his mind on this in the nearly two year old report.
This inquiring mind wants to know.
It’s not the carbon-14 that’s radioactive in coal, in fact coal, by it’s nature, has virtually no carbon-14. Rather, coal has many other radioactive particles in it (uranium, barium, thorium and potassium), as well as the heavy metals mercury and cadmium. The point of the piece, rather, was “relative risk” in that burning coal puts more radioactivity into the environment than does nuclear power.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
Candidate, U.S. Senate, 2010
[...] Is Chuck DeVore A Global Warming Enthusiast?Is Chuck DeVore A Global Warming Enthusiast? February 8, 2010, By Fred Hoot in Global Warming. I really want to try and defeat Barbara Boxer in 2010. She, along with my friend’s adorable Boxer are both full of $%@*. … Read more [...]