Today I voted against the “Global Warming” bill which creates a climate study task force and directs them to return next year with a plan to reduce “greenhouse gases” by 80% of the 2005 base year, by 2050.
I find the goal to be arbitrary and unsupported by the science. But, that doesn’t mean that I oppose conservation, clean air, energy efficiency, and incentives to generate energy using less carbon based fuel.
Today Newt Gingrich wrote a great piece called “We Can Have Green Conservatism - And We Should“. The Article is Linked Here.
Gingrich argues that entrepreneurship, technological invention, free markets, and tax credits can achieve energy independence better than government regulation and bureaucracy. I agree. If the government were to set a goal today of making 150 mpg cars available by 2017, and gave a “reward” to whoever developed the new technology and made the technology available to the public, I believe that our scientists and inventors would rise to the challenge.
We can’t imagine the technological advances which will provide us with clean energy by the year 2050. But, if our country unleashes its genius and capacity for technological innovation, we will discover energy sources which will eliminate our dependence on foreign oil in 15 years. But, how can a State task force come up with such a plan within the next year, when they haven’t got a clue what the new technology will be. (I am pretty sure that the task force won’t recommend an increase in nuclear power plants, to replace coal power plants).
I have been “turned off” by the scare tactics used by many who advocate for a global warming “solution” such as carbon caps and credits. Two years ago, global warming was predicted to cause an increase in hurricanes. This year, global warming is being credited with reducing the number of hurricanes (Link Here) . Cheryl Crow thinks we can help stop global warming by using just one sheet of toilet paper (Link Here). Of course she is joking, but many people don’t think she is! I don’t call this science or common sense.
So, I remain a global warming skeptic. But I remain a conservative conservationist. It is also in the best interest for national security that we end our dependence on foreign oil. This may be the most compelling argument of all for encouraging energy conservation and new technology.
Tom:
You provide a link again to “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” and you claim it’s “the true scientific evidence.” How can you be so certain now to discern that this movie has “the true” take on the issue? It’s first spokesman, Fred singer, was among those associated with organizations financed by Exxon in their Global Warming disinformation campaign. How can you be so certain of his objectivity?
You describe some who advocate carbon caps and carbon credit trading, but not all who are concerned about Global Warming advocate this, and in fact such trading hasn’t been that successful in Europe.
You mention Sheryl Crow and others turning you off, but the variety on both sides of this issue is very wide. There are some who tend to agree with most of what Gore says, but disagree on some finer points. There are others who find many faults with Gore’s presentation, but still come down more on his side of the issue than on Fred Singer’s side, or than on the side of others financed by Exxon, such as the many “free market” groups you’ve quoted, all of which have been on the list receiving huge donations from Exxon.
To mention Sheryl Crow in this context seems to be a straw man argument; discrediting her call for “one sheet” when using “the loo” (as the BBC put it) is easy, but does not deal with the more credible scientific positions.