Montana legislature thinks global warming is a good thing

HB 549, introduced by Rep. Joe Reed, has been referred to the state legislature's Natural Resources comittee:



NEW SECTION. Section 1. Public policy concerning global warming. (1) The legislature finds that to ensure economic development in Montana and the appropriate management of Montana's natural resources it is necessary to adopt a public policy regarding global warming.

(2) The legislature finds:

(a) global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana;

(b) reasonable amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere have no verifiable impacts on the environment; and

(c) global warming is a natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it.

(3) (a) For the purposes of this section, "global warming" relates to an increase in the average temperature of the earth's surface.

(b) It does not include a one-time, catastrophic release of carbon dioxide.

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Codification instruction. [Section 1] is intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 75, chapter 2, and the provisions of Title 75, chapter 2, apply to [section 1].

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Effective date. [This act] is effective on passage and approval.

Presumably Mr. Reed is not aware that global warming is already destroying the namesakes of Montana's Glacier National Park, and that global warming-induced infestations of bark beetles are already destroying Montana's forests. How destroying the timber industry and wilderness tourism would benefit the state economy is not quite clear.

Nor, for that matter, is it clear what basis Mr. Reed has for his "findings." He seems to have simply made them up from whole cloth, without even realizing that he's simultaneously arguing for three incompatible position: that global warming isn't happening and can't happen, that it's happening but not because of human-produced carbon dioxide, and that it's happening because of carbon dioxide but that's OK.

At least he isn't talking about astrological causes of global warming.

More like this

Bring on a Technocracy where idiots like this don't get a say.

By Vince whirlwind (not verified) on 16 Feb 2011 #permalink

2a and 2b contradict each other. GW cannot be beneficial and have no impact.

And then there is this:
Two seminal Nature papers join growing body of evidence that human emissions fuel extreme weather, flooding that harm humans and the environment…

and... news/ press/ 20110216_permafrost.html
16 February 2011
Thawing permafrost will accelerate global warming in decades to come, says new study

One- to two-thirds of Earthâs permafrost will disappear by 2200, unleashing vast quantities of carbon into the atmosphere, says a study by researchers at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

âThe amount of carbon released is equivalent to half the amount of carbon that has been released into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age,â said NSIDC scientist Kevin Schaefer. âThat is a lot of carbon.â

The carbon from permanently frozen groundâknown as permafrost âwill make its impact, not only on the climate, but also on international strategies to reduce climate change Schaefer said. âIf we want to hit a target carbon concentration, then we have to reduce fossil fuel emissions that much lower than previously calculated to account for this additional carbon from the permafrost,â Schaefer said. âOtherwise we will end up with a warmer Earth than we want.â

This is like Ukraine railing against regulations on nuclear power. Talk about backwoods stupid. We give these territories two senators, people. Thanks to the Tea Party, these flashes of ignorance get the time of day whenever they want.

By The Molitor Lizard (not verified) on 16 Feb 2011 #permalink

Science is soooooooooo much easier when you just pass a law saying that "This is how things are, because that is the law". So, that is an end to all the controversy then!

Sadly, there is no law against human stupidity.

Don't forget the increase occurrence and severity of wildfires...

By Jay Stevens (not verified) on 17 Feb 2011 #permalink

This is pretty typical of what our Montana legislature is doing these days. Self-contradictions do not bother Montana Republicans one little bit. I think the idea is that if Florida goes under water while Montana's forests vanish, leaving a lot of open ground, we might get Disney World.

It doesnt contradict anything.

2a-2b. It says carbon dioxide has no impact.

Montana has done well keeping its debts managable and country beautiful. I am sure it will continue to do so.

Been -0 here for 3 months.

Montana's Republican held house and senate are cashing in on their perceived mandate, and ramrodding through a slew of outrageously misinformed legislation, some of which directly contradict recently passed ballot initiatives and/or scientific understanding and/or sound economic practices. We have but one check...our Governor. Hopefully he will veto this garbage. For a good synopsis of the circus here in Montana, check out the Missoula Independent's coverage at

I think we're missing a big opportunity. Perhaps we should get congress to legislatively declare disease beneficial. We could then entirely eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. Next, we could declare terrorism to be beneficial, thus making the Department of Homeland Security unnecessary. And all that money we're wasting on education? Just declare ignorance beneficial. It would be an instant solution the the budget deficit.

"How destroying the timber industry and wilderness tourism would benefit the state economy is not quite clear."

Ummm, really? You can't think of a single reason how Montana being warmer could improve its economy? Has it occurred to you that a large part of the reason the north central United States has a tiny population is because it's too cold for most people to want to live there? Cold climates cost more to live in as well - that's a loss to the economy. You do realize that the warmer climates on earth have more life, both plant and animal, right? Montana is one of the states that would almost certainly be better off with a warmer climate.