There's too much to absorb in this topic if you're someone like me who likes to decide for himself about the issues of the day by researching the underlying data, finding out what "experts" think, listening to arguments pro and con, then making an informed decision.
With the topic of global warming, it's impossible. Based on all the information I've been able to gather, I'm close to concluding the "experts" don't really have a definitive answer either.
The unanswered questions about this topic are legion, but here are the important ones:
1. Is global warming really happening?
2. If so, is it caused by human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, other natural causes, or just normal climate cycles?
3. If it is cause by human invention, is it possible to reverse by some aggressive "green" policies that significantly reduce human-generated greenhouse emissions?
I can see how a resident of Los Angeles can go outside and look at the brown haze covering the valley and believe that humans are destroying the earth with their cars, trucks and suv's. Maybe they don't escape that smog bowl often enough to see that the rest of the country isn't really all that bad.
The most overwrought of greenies predicted global calamities, such as coastal cities under water. But they also predicted those events would occur several years ago, if I remember correctly. And that didn't happen.
We had a heavy hurricane season last year. Who can forget Katrina? Plenty of green alarmists are still screaming that it was caused by global warming. But the guys at the National Hurricane center, who I assume to be the leading experts on hurricanes, have been adamant and authoritative in stating that global warming had nothing to do with it. Hurricane seasons go in cycles, they say, and we're in a peak cycle.
Other seemingly sane scientists, according to what I've read, have said those who predict doom for the planet based on rising temperatures just don't know their climate history very well. If I understood correctly, as recently as 1930 we had a nearly identical melting of arctic glaciers. And global temperatures got colder than usual in the 60's and 70's. I've even come across alarmists in the 70's who were claiming catastrophic global cooling that was certain to lead to a new ice age.
So what to believe? Who to believe?
Here's my thought for now. Look at the loudest proponents of one side or the other, and think about what they might have to gain.
Al Gore: The self-anointed global climatologist who wants to be President. Hmm, the core Democrat base are greens, which means he could grab the extra votes from radical greens away from Ralph Nader and maybe get just enough from them to put him over the top against whoever the Republicans run. Yeah, I'd say he has ulterior motives. And I also think he's a nutcase.
Radical Environmentalists: They come from all sorts of places, like the Green Party and Earth First and The Sierra Club and PETA. All of those organizations are not only radical environmental groups that worship Mother Earth like pagans; they also are uniformly communist in their political philosophy. So their agenda may include a pristine environment, but it also includes the overthrow of our Republic in favor of Soviet-style communism.
Bush, Cheney, et al: They come from Texas and the oil industry. Therefore, the assumption is made that they will be happy to sacrifice the well-being of the planet to keep their beloved oil industry fat and wealthy. The evidence? Why, the war in Iraq, their political enemies will say.
"Blood for Oil". Trying to get approval to drill in the ANWR.
Honestly, I would have to say that Bush does appear to be overly friendly to Corporate interests. His position on illegal immigration is strong and visible proof of that. But from what I see, it's not focused just on the oil industry; he's obsequious to Corporate America in general. If there's evidence that some cheap alternative to gasoline is actually being suppressed by the government in order to keep us addicted to oil, show me. But people have had those conspiracy theories since the oil crisis in the 70's, and nobody ever found evidence to support them. Besides, suppose somebody came up with a fuel that burned clean and cost a fraction of gasoline to power vehicles. Does anybody really believe that any government on the planet could suppress such a breakthrough in technology, especially in a free market system such as ours?
If the Iraq war really was a simple grab for oil, why didn't we just take the oil when we ousted Saddam? Why are we helping a new government stand up there and helping them rebuild their own oil revenues without even asking for reimbursement for the heavy costs of the war?
And objecting to drilling for oil in ANWR doesn't make any sense to me. The environmental impact is negligible, including to the most highly publicized caribou herds. So why do the greens and their congressional lackeys continue to fight it? I suspect the reasons have little or nothing to do with environmental concerns, and everything to do with harming the economy and by extension the President.
Bottom line, I'm all in favor of reasonable steps to protect the environment. Interesting that even though the US refused to sign on to Kyoto, reports say we're actually closer to compliance with its goals than almost any other country that did sign. And it exempted the world's largest polluters, China and India, who just happen to be the biggest commercial competitors of the US these days because of their cheap labor and lax environmental laws.
You can't say "alternative fuels" and simply declare the problems of oil dependence solved. You can't declare that every car made has to get 50 miles to the gallon if the technology doesn't exist to meet that standard. You can't outlaw coal and nuclear power plants and expect the lights to stay on in everyone's homes for a price people can afford. You can't be a rich liberal proudly driving a Prius to the airport to get on your private jet to fly to your next concert or movie set while sneering at the poor slobs driving 10-year-old gas-guzzlers they can't afford to fill with $3 gas.
No comments:
Post a Comment