It’s Not Too Late to Save America from the Deadening Hand of Green Ideology
By James P. Pinkerton
Contributing Editor and columnist American Conservative magazine/FOX News Contributor
On the issue of “global warming,” conservatives are starting to look beyond the loyalty label—and look instead to the economic substance. That’s good news. Let’s just hope that it’s not too late to save America from being crushed by the deadening hand of Green ideology.
Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president this year, seems to think that he is obligated to endorse Green legislation as part of his bargain with the liberal media establishment (he doesn’t seem to realize that the MSM will drop him for Barack Obama). And so McCain has endorsed the Lieberman-Warner “cap and trade” global warming legislation, now being considered by the US Senate. Of course McCain supports the bill, because it was once known as “Lieberman-McCain,” before McCain dropped his overt support, in favor of more covert support—McCain had to clinch the GOP nomination.
But by any name, the Lieberman-Warner proposal is a $1.2 trillion tax increase, according to the Congressional Budget Office—and the true costs are likely to be much more than that.
But leading conservatives are starting to read the fine print—and starting to react in print. Here’s Charles Krauthammer, writing in the The Washington Post on Friday, making fun of the pseudo-religion of the Greens: Under the headline, “Carbon Chastity: The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment,” Krauthammer explains how environmentalism was a lifeline to leftists dispirited over the collapse of communism: “Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but—even better—in the name of Earth itself.”
Krauthammer goes on to cite a hero to free-market conservatives, a man who lived under communism for most of his life, Czech President Vaclav Klaus: “Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. ‘The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity,’ warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, ‘is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.’”
Klaus, by the way, has co-authored an important book entitled, “Blue Planet, Green Shackles,” which everyone ought to read, lest we descend back into a Dark Age of techno-regression.
Next up: conservative columnist George Will, who takes on McCain directly: “Regarding McCain’s ‘central facts,’ the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, which helped establish the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — co-winner, with Al Gore, of the Nobel Peace Prize — says global temperatures have not risen in a decade. So Congress might be arriving late at the save-the-planet party. Better late than never? No. When government, ever eager to expand its grip on the governed and their wealth, manufactures hysteria as an excuse for doing so, then: better never.”
OK, that’s conservatives, making their voices heard. But what’s really interesting is that now liberals, too, are speaking out. One such is Freeman Dyson, the Princeton physicist, who took to the pages of the trendy-lefty New York Review of Books to make much the same point as Krauthammer — environmentalism is a religion: “There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world. Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion.”
Dyson went on to take note of an important new book, “A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies,” by Yale economist William Nordhaus, an alumni of the Carter White House. But Nordhaus’ Democratic pedigree notwithstanding, his academic rigor forces him to speak bluntly about the catastrophic cost of the “remedies” to “global warming.”
Here’s Dyson reviewing radical green proposals by Sir Nicholas Stern of the United Kingdom and former Vice President Al Gore: “The main conclusion of the Nordhaus analysis is that the ambitious proposals, “Stern” and “Gore,” are disastrously expensive, the “low-cost backstop” is enormously advantageous if it can be achieved, and the other policies including business-as-usual and Kyoto are only moderately worse than the optimal policy. The practical consequence for global-warming policy is that we should pursue the following objectives in order of priority. (1) Avoid the ambitious proposals. (2) Develop the science and technology for a low-cost backstop. (3) Negotiate an international treaty coming as close as possible to the optimal policy, in case the low-cost backstop fails. (4) Avoid an international treaty making the Kyoto Protocol policy permanent. These objectives are valid for economic reasons, independent of the scientific details of global warming. (emphasis added)
So liberals are starting to wake up, too. Let’s just hope that it’s not too late.
I have been bugged by the “Green” movement for a long long time, as one of the scientists who sees no basis for the global warming argument, all I see is the left using it as their political issue of fear… Vote Democrat to save the planet, they say (albeit indirectly) and will say it strongly this fall. But who is going to save the economy and the future from their baseless movements?
Keep shouting it out, global warming is scientifically unfounded, and simply a theory that was bought for whatever reason, and now threatens much more than rising oceans, but our very way of life!
Good article, sir, and I hope that people do not dismiss it as conservative speak, because this is WAY TOO important to go that way…
-ESR
The materialists love to endorse quasi-scientific theories (climate change, origin of life, human evolution, etc.) because those types of theories lie just outside the realm of conventional science — observability, testability, and repeatability — which conveniently allows the lazy storytellers to push their agendas from the comfort of their sofas without ever having to be held accountable.
Mr. Pinkerton
Thank you, that was a good read.
However, I would appreciate it if you would slow down a bit on this topic. I see tremendous business opportunity in catering to the fashionable “Greens” who need to maintain the appearance of “Saving the Planet”.
The market for “Green Stuff” will be huge unless you and those like you continue to unmask the environmentalist movement.
I plan to package some of those CFL light bulbs in recycled paper and sell them for $20 each! For only $5.00 per bulb, I’ll ship them Next Day Air so that you can impress your “Green Friends” sooner!!
Please give me a chance to make a fast buck before you write the next article on this subject.
PT
Good article, but how do we stop the madness? How do you convince the American people that it’s the Socialist/Marxist faction that is using this false issue to radically change America’s culture and turn the population into regulated servants of the state? I battle the public education system, which might as well teach directly from Big Al’s (pun intended) book as though it were gospel and the mass media (cartoons loaded with environmental propaganda and movies like the Golden Compass) for my nine and eleven year old sons’ souls by “re-re-educating” them on a weekly basis. My sons will know the truth, but who’s re-re-educating the rest of the Chicken Little Lemmings of the nanny state. I’m afraid it will be too late when they realize the sky was not falling after all, but that while they were watching for falling polar bears the remaining manufacturing jobs, to include theirs, moved to India or China. Will they understand what happened when they can’t drive from Arlington to Frog Level this weekend to see Aunt Millie because although they saved a few rationed gasoline credits, they’ve already expended their carbon emissions allotment for the month? There is no public transportation anywhere near Frog Level. Will they regret their hysteria and abdication of freedom when their high emission, low MPG, but highly crash worthy and roomy family truckster is banned from the road? Will they regret it even more when they can’t afford the outrageous cost a new CAFE standard meeting micromini-subcompact? Will they regret it when the only way their children will ever see the fall foliage along the Blue Ridge Parkway is in a photo or from a government sponsored tour bus? Maybe it’ll dawn on them after the government’s new secret carbon police (the “Green Shirts”), knock on their door and demand to see what kind of light bulbs they’re burning or measure the actual water use of their old toilet for low flush compliance. Maybe, when they have their unused, but already paid for, energy credits confiscated for redistribution to the highest bidder. Will they remember what they had before they gave up their freedom for the Cult of Green or will Snowball have already rewritten the history? Are we too late? Is the America walking, Constitution in hand, the Green Mile?
HB
Global warming……what a crock. Liberals think they can save everything with more government, which means more of our money in their pockets.
If global warming is such a threat to us all why aren’t the greatest causes of auto emissions, that being toll booths in the middle of highways which are mostly located in the northeast and Illinois, and unsynchronized stop lights which are all over, ever addressed or legislated against? Is it because the toll booths mean huge revenue to mostly liberal states and stop and go traffic at the mercy of traffic lights achieves big government’s goal of stopping the masses?
Well again we have sheep like voters considering the rantings of LIBTARDS as if they were somehow factual…
When was the last time a LIBTARD, any LIBTARD was heard to tell the truth on ANYTHING?
We’ve now had the internet as a practical environment to at least get an idea of what the facts might be yet for reasons I can’t figure out, people don’t use them…
So now much to our personal and collective costs the propaganda of the LIBTARD will go uncontested and we’ll either be stuck with a a neo-pinko socialist parasite in the Oval Office or a Manchurian Candidate…
Yeah, I never could buy into the global warming church. I mean when the great plains have laternately found themselves at the bottom of the ocean or a glacier it’s kind of hard to believe that my car is causing climate change.
I do however support breathing clean air and drinking clean water (personal pet peeve of mine) but apparently the left doesn’t think that point is important. Silly me.
Wow did not one liberal actually respond to this story? I guess they saw something saying they were wrong and turned and ran so they wouldn’t have to be confronted with the truth.
You know I hate CO2, we should just get rid of it entirely. Better idea let’s kill every living thing that breathes oxygen and expels CO2 that way we can finally get rid of all that nasty CO2 and save the planet.
Now leave me alone I’m going to go re-re-define marriage so I can marry my goat.
I have been driving a hybrid car since 2003. I was taught from childhood to turn off lights when you leave a room, don’t waste water, don’t litter, don’t use more than you need and recycle. But the global warming frenzy is still scientifically unproven. It was warmer in the 1930’s and 1940’s than it is now. Yes, we should try and minimize the pollution released into the air as common sense would dictate. But “the sky is falling” hysteria has been generated by Al Gore to satisfy his vanity and research scientists looking for grant money.
Its all about mother earth and the greens…false science is the order of the day…global warming, evolution, and embreonic stem cell research…havent we made such great strides educating ourselves into imbasility? When will it end? America as we know it, lying in waste…..bankrupt and weak….STOP THE MADNESSS!!! Let’s take this country back, and send the liberals, and every other God hating, truth twisting people to a country of their own….Al Gore 1st!!!
thanks
well i for one do not believe that we can have a significant and lasting impact on the “planet”. we MAY have an impact on the planet’s ability to sustain human life in the way to which we have become accostomed but, that is debatable.
i also feel that public policy in the form of “disincentives” to produce carbon (i.e. tax) is NOT the answer.
however, i do feel that there is a role for public policy in moving us toward, for example, modes of transportation (2/3 of our fossil consumption) not reliant on the highly imaginative solution of a series of controlled explosions of a volatile liquid. I think that we can and should do better than that but, it is almost as though we lost our ability to imagine new solutions or were lulled to sleep as long as we had an “unlimited” supply of a liquid which was cheaper than milk. well, we dont have that unlimited supply and normal everyday people are being badly hurt as we speak by this unprecedented surge in price. EVERY adminstration/congress from the present moving back in time has failed the american people in not doing everything within their power to tap into the best engineering talent in the country to come up with the alternative vehicle technology that is now coming to the table too late.
i always believed, young as i was, that when i started driving in the late 70’s that by the year 2000, we would have alternative fuel vehicles so that we would never be put into the position that we were by the embargos and related supply shocks.
well…nothing was done other than building vehicles of obcene size and cosnuming ever larger supplies while our leaders watched (cha-ching).
so by government inaction we are left with a world energy market stressed by the “hard to forsee” events of larger consumption by other countries and a supply that cannot keep pace…wow, never saw that coming.
oh…by the way…making the right changes in this regard would be good “green” policy whether we really need it our not.
Yes…let’s not forget that concensus science has also told us the great truths…the world is flat, we are at the center of the universe…I’m sure there’s others…it’s all a scam…let’s just hope there’s enough people in power who are intelligent, ethical, and brave enough to defeat this lunacy before it is truly out of control.
wow…i wrote my first comment without reading all of the other comments. this truly is the “age of american unreason”.
i do not subscribe to most aspects of the green agenda but there are some comments here that make them look like champions of reason. one poster categorizes evolution as quasi science because it lies outside the realm of “real” science as it cannot be “tested”. what?! what exactly WOULD you call real science?
another says that toll booths and traffic lights are a liberal conspiracy.
and finally…that we have educated ourselves into “imbasility” (your spelling).
we are bankrupt because we invaded a soveriegn nation to fill our gas tanks. we are weak because we have lost our desire for innovation and education (real education).
Green “shackles” is an optimistic viewpoint. The Cap and Trade legislation will bury what’s left of our economy.
This whole energy situation can be compared to the logging industry. The logging industry logged off a lot of trees before they realized resources were running a little short. They changed their practices so they didn’t log themselves right out of business. Logging industries I think are the ultimate conservationists. The same thing will happen with the oil industry, when or if we run short of oil the oil companies will develope new ways to produce energy or else they will be out of business. We need to start drilling right here at home right now and let the market make the changes. I also believe there is not enough oil on this earth to ruin the evironment. There is no doubt in my mind the left and the Democrats are trying to bring down the country.
Environmentalism, the new Socialism, all wrapped up in a pretty green package. What a sad place our country has come to, to believe that moving in the direction of old Europe is in our best interests.
WOW! I have just read a few of the replies to Mr. Pinkerton’s article and am amazed by the articulate and thoughtful responses. Finally, people who think like me! I have been disgusted and disheartened by the “greenies” and have been able to see the coming catastrophes for a while. I thought I was alone. Some of my family and friends have have already begun bowing down to the false “god of green” and it’s prophet, Al Gore. Thank you so much for making me feel less alone. Keep the truth flowing like the clear, clean rivers of the Rockies.
PT, I have to disagree with you totally. Do you really think the Greens are doing what they preach? They would never give up their AC houses, big SUVs and hot showers but they expect us to! Case in point, the greenest of them all, Al Gore his own self, with an electric bill equivalent to TWO YEARS of mine. But that’s ok because he drives a Prius and buys carbon credits while he expects me to sweat my butt off and take cold showers to be green!
You forgot one important option - the best option –
Quit pretending that any of this junk science is based on anything remotely “real”, and ignore it entirely.
LONG LIVE THE 5.7 L V-8!!!
Bart
hey sc
yes we did. our posts just never make it through the fox gestapo
What exactly is the purpose of this laughably misguided article other than to reiterate the modern conservative agenda of cutting costs above bettering the quality of human life? Gotta love that “compassion.” Then again, what Fox News article would be complete without attempting (and failing) to vilify science?
God forbid we start taking care of the environment, though.
The comparisons to communism/socialism are hilarious. They would be dangerous or negligible if they weren’t so absurdly uninformed and preposterous. Roughly equal to those in the hysterical propaganda film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, which compares science to Nazism. Seriously.
But really, let’s just continue cutting taxes for the super-rich while we ignore the poor, allow essential domestic institutions to collapse so we may continue fighting a war against ideas that can never be won, persecute gays (and minorities) for as long as possible before the world inevitably demands the expulsion of hatred from our public policy, provide less money in aid to disaster-stricken foreign nations than on inauguration ball(s) for our arrogant caricature of a president, and ignore the health-care crisis and unfathomably massive class divide. But most of all, paint anyone who has any issue with any of the above as an uneducated Anti-American terrorist, because we all know how outdated freedom of speech is.
wow!! I cannot believe the comments on here. I love being “green”. I recently just visited Portland, Oregon, and i will have to say that i have never been to such a happy laid back place in my life. And there buisneses cannot survive unless they are “green”. It is a way of life. And you know what? the best part is nobody runs around screaming “bad science is going to send all you communist/ environmentalist’s to hell”. And another awesome thing is the government interferes less with there lives then they do where i currently live in Las Vegas where “green/communists” are nowhere to be found. There economy is thriving as well. So when you say that these global warming threats are our way of sending fear it’s not. it is more of our way of helping you live longer more satisfying, rewarding lives.
And i don’t know where this liberals are suv drivers nonsense came from. What facts do you have to base that on? just a feeling you have when you drive around? because i would have to say that i see quite the opposite. but you know what who cares. I personally would never drive an suv but someone who combines there trips, car pools, take public transportation, and bikes however owns a gas guzzling SUV may consume less fuel then a guy driving a prius 120 miles round trip daily. It is how we use the resources we have that makes the difference.
Alright, global warming. apperantly the majority of the worlds top scientists are wrong, say you. fine dont believe in it. But dont ever get angry when someone does not believe in God. Because as a fellow Christian i know how far fetched our beliefs are. Moses split the red sea? not a scientist in the world would say that is physically possable. But you believe these things because it makes you a better person, or it is supposed to anyway. Well i believe in global warming not only because i trust the worlds top scientists but because it encourages me to use the worlds resources wisely. So sorry if i think that someone who feels having a grass yard in las vegas is more important then the Colorado River flowing all the way to the Pacific ocean is a bad person. At least i don’t crawl back into my home with a garbage full of reusable, and recyclable products and call everyone who doesnt think like me a communist, green scum, oh and retarted.
I think what i am really trying to get at here is that the comments on here are filled with hatred for your neighbors, your family, and coworkers who feel that taking a few moments out of there lives to make yours better is worthwhile. I would just like to see a little bit more talking rather then moaning. You guys decide if you are ready for it. For me i will continue to DISCUSS with my dad the pros and cons of being “Green” and the facts and lies of global warming.
I’m tired of having the interests of an animal, bug, or plant put ahead of my own interests or the interests of the citizens of this country. I’m tired of watching Congress sit there and do NOTHING while the majority of Americans languish under high fuel costs and the ramifications that will soon follow. LET US DRILL!!!! BUILD MORE REFINERIES !!! WHAT’S WRONG WITH NUCLEAR???!! China is drilling 50 miles off the coast of Florida for crying out loud, why won’t the liberal media pounce on this story?! We’re being held hostage by environmental nut jobs having too much power and feared by nearly every politician and media outlet in the country - we need leaders that will stand up to these people and quit worrying about getting re-elected. It’s about public service not personal ambition. Where are the patriots?? Where are the brave, courageous visionaries? America! Wake up! It’s time to clean house!
Comrade Green is God and Al-Gorehammered is his prophet! The leftist wackadoos take up the chant and the weak minded follow. The infidels who dare to enjoy any good things in life will be taken done by the Greenshirts. Meanwhile, the good life we have here will have moved, with our jobs, to India, China, Mexico, Russia etc.
The very angry dialogue presented here totally misses the two most important points. First, whether or not human induced global warming with catastrophic consequences if not revesred quickly is or is not occurring is the wrong question. Despite what all the fanatical ideologues think, the conclusions presented by both sides are actually based on actual facts. Believe it or not, objective reality does in fact exist. The fact that conservatives passionately want 2+2 to equal 3 and liberals base their entire world view on the rock-solid conviction that 2+2 equals 5 does not alter the fact that 2+2=4. Similarly, there is a set of raw data (satellite ocean surface temperature measurements, CO2 measurements, atmospheric water density profiles, etc.) on which these conclusions are based. What is in question is not the raw data, but the analyses that either support or refute global warming.
Unfortunately, these analyses are incredibly detailed, complex, and technical to the point that anyone who is not a practicing climate researcher or a specialist in a related field (I helped NASA build remote atmospheric sensors for 11 years) is unqualified to affirm or refute these conclusions. More unfortunate is the fact that all those who claim to present simplified, bottom line answers to these questions to the public are totally and hopelessly corrupted by their political agendas. This is inevitable because there is simply way too much money and power at stake for there to be the slightest hope that anyone will give us ‘just the facts, ma’am’.
I digress, however, because none of this matters in the least. What matters is that the science that shows that abrupt, catastrophic climate change has occurred over and over again when viewed on a geological time scale is irrefutable. The causes for these calamites have varied widely. One time it was an asteroid, another a comet, still another a series of particularly violent volcanoes. The point is that the one thing that climatologists keep telling us that is true is that our climate is very fragile. It is not robust in any way. This means that humans have been able to create civilization out of the sheer good luck of having a more or less stable climate for the past 10,000 years. While we should all be grateful that we have had this good fortune, we need to understand that it is by far the exception and not the norm.
In other words, charting the course of mankind based on assuming a stable climate is pure folly. We should not change one single thing about how we live, how we consume resources, how we regulate our ‘carbon footprint’, etc. based on the idea of attempting to stabilize the global climate. Even if we are causing drastic climate change now, what good will obliterating our economic output in the name of preventing this particular climate change event do when the next asteroid hits, which will happen in time ? Instead, our effort really needs to focus on adaptation. In short, we need to learn to live in a world in which a stable climate is not assumed and find ways of ensuring the viability of our civilization that do not depend on predictable patterns of weather. The fact that we have had climatic stability for the past 10,000 years was pure luck and we need to stop planning on this as the norm.
The second point that does matter is much simpler. We need to get rid of oil now-not reduce, not conserve, not gradually, but eliminate yesterday if not sooner-but not for the reasons touted by the Greens. Eliminating or almost eliminating our use of oil should be treated as a national emergency on a scale comparable to or even more dire than WWII, the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Project put together for one simple reason. Without the power over us afforded by oil, the Arabs, Venezuela, and Russia will once again become Third World toilets that pose no threat to us whatsoever, instead of being the daggers at our loins that they are today. In fact, if oil was no longer something we need, we could ship the maniacs in the Middle East arsenals of nuclear weapons with some sort of foolproof GPS interlocks that would only let them work in that part of the world, then let them nuke each other into oblivion with no consequences to our vital interests. If you think this is a bad idea, ask yourself if groceries would be more or less expensive with 500 million plus fewer people on the planet. At least then we would finally have peace in the Middle East. I would think this is the one thing that even Barrack Obama and John McCain should be able to agree on.
Our economy was doing great under President Bush’s leadership. Unfortunately, it hit the Great Green Roadblock. Growing economies need energy. After decades of environmental regulations, our country is not able produce enough energy to meet the demands of a growing economy. Now we are stuck with insanely high energy costs, and the public is so ill-informed that they actually blame Bush/Republicans for the cost hikes. Sadly, we have no Conservative leadership to preach from the rooftops of the lefts abysmal failures. We are left with a bunch of Republicans trying to save their jobs by nominating McCain who looks for the most part just like the enemy. What a disaster!
I am really glad to see that people are waking up and realizing that all of this so called “global-warming” stuff is a bunch of crap. As a geologist I can tell you that the earth warms up and cools off and then does it again and again, there’s nothing man can do to stop it, its just the natural order of things. Ruining our economy based on this “pseudo science” is a dangerous thing; only intended to control people, destroy our lives, and make others very rich in the process. This whole “green” movement is only intended to lower our standard of living, to match pace with the other third world countries. Its basically just another form of communism, just shaded green.
Wow Bob..what a smart and thoughtful response….like most people who have no knowledge of science…lets change the subject….Evolution is not science because the evidence does not support it. Science must be testable, observable and repeatable. Evolution doesnt fit any of these criteria. Not to mention even Charles Darwin himself, in the Origin of Species stated “If no transitional fossils are found within 100 years of the theory of evolution, then it needs to be thrown out”. From the authors own words, and since as you may know none have been found…Evolution is a load of bull!!
Thank you
CW…actually the flat earth/center of the universe conclusions were drawn from the bible by people with a literal interpretation of prehistoric text…the same people that today deny evolution and peer-reviewed research that conflicts with their personal opinions. Thanks to these fundamentalists and the absurd neocon movement, we will soon be rockin’ out - 3rd world-style.
[...] Most ‘green’ promotions actually end up costing the consumer more money. FOXNews.com Business has a piece, “Cavuto: It Takes Green to Go Green.” Even though there is solar power and CFL bulbs which pay for themselves over a long period of time, the point of the green agenda is not to save money for consumers or to save the planet. The point is two fold that I can see. First it is about controlling and suppressing western economies. Another take comes from the FOX Forum, “It’s Not Too Late to Save America from the Deadening Hand of Green Ideology.” [...]
Blackberries
What’s green when it’s red and red when it’s green.
Both are way to hate humanity and belive you are better than the masses.
This article relays nothing as to what it actually suggests in the title. Other than citing a supposed $1.2 trillion tax hike that would come with Lieberman-Warner proposal, it does nothing to explain how the “going green” trend is adversely effecting the economy. Instead, it just goes on to compare enviromentalism to socialism and a pseudo-religion? Please!
I am not completely sold on the whole global warming bit, but I do not totally disagree with it either. The fact of the matter is there is, the amount of so-called “junk” science which goes into proving global warming, is same amount which goes into disproving it also.
What’s more, corporations and manufacturers are now putting ever more “green” products on the shelves, (from cars, to food, to cleaning products, etc.) catering to this expanding segment of the population, which will, in turn, pump money back into the economy.
So, while agree the sky is not falling, our continued reliance on oil is proving to be a more “deadening” hand to the economy, then the environmentalism these days. Its stands at over $120 a barrel and only stands to increase over the summer, leading to higher transporation costs; ultimately leading to higher prices of consumer goods. This is why people are buying less, not because of concerns over the environment.
[...] not too late to save America from the deadening hand of green [...]
I’m part of the “green revolution” and it’s the right thing to do for the future of this planet, and the future for man-kind. There is this fear among non-believers of global warming that the economy is going to get bad if we take measures to increase alternative energy. After all, that’s what most people care about his money, or should I say greed. Well folks take a look at the current economy now! It’s a no brainer to go green. There will be many new jobs in this industry, the air quailty will improve and people’s health will get better. I could go on and on with the benifits.
Here are some facts for you. CFL’s are not what they say they are. To get the efficiency from them you need to keep them on 100% of the time and when used up they represent a huge toxic waste problem. Not only that but to manufacture them takes far more energy than a regular bulb. So, why would a government (UK) mandate these for everyone in the country? Talk about out of control. Is this where we are headed?
I have read that there are 4 independent scientific groups who are not connected to each other who all had the same result. That 07 was the biggest drop in world temperature in the history of keeping records. One full degree worldwide. WOW, that totally negates the .75 degree rise since man has been on the planet according to Al Gore. From what I am hearing is that the earth is getting colder, not warmer and that we should be concerned with another mini ice age as was the case in the 1700’s.
As far as oil prices, when the weak kneed republicans stand up to the left in this country and take a stand to open up our resources the sooner we can stop relying on opec and the like. We have more oil in this country than Saudi Arabia! Why are we not using it? There are no good arguments against this. We can drill and maintain an environmental harmony.
Just my 2 pennies.
I guess short term economics are more important to conservatives than long term survival. After all, even if global warming is true it will likely be a long time before catastrophe occurs and in the mean time it’s much more important to make money. Of course if the conservatives are wrong we’re all screwed, but who cares about those that come after us? Let them work it out.
Robert Smith: Science can’t help it if you’re not smart enough to understand it. It’s not incumbent upon scientists to make sure the info gets through your thick skull. Darwin was not the last word on evolution. He wasn’t even the first word for that matter. Science has continued to study the theory and there is lots of evidence out there, but you do have to pick up a magazine occasionally and read about it. You won’t find it on FOXNews because it doesn’t play to their audience. Any credible population biologist will tell you biblical explanations don’t work either. But why inject logic into religion? It hasn’t needed any so far.
“I’m part of the “green revolution” and it’s the right thing to do for the future of this planet, and the future for man-kind. There is this fear among non-believers of global warming that the economy is going to get bad if we take measures to increase alternative energy. After all, that’s what most people care about his money, or should I say greed. Well folks take a look at the current economy now! It’s a no brainer to go green. There will be many new jobs in this industry, the air quailty will improve and people’s health will get better. I could go on and on with the benifits.”
You forgot “…and 2 plus 2 equals 4.” If George Orwell could only see us now.
Mike,
You forgot to add, “…and 2 plus 2 equals 5.” If George Orwell could see us, now.
Leading conservatives are starting to read the fine print—and starting to react in print. Here’s Charles Krauthammer, writing in the The Washington Post on Friday, making fun of the pseudo-religion of the Greens: Under the headline, “Carbon Chastity: The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment,” Krauthammer explains how environmentalism was a lifeline to leftists dispirited over the collapse of communism: “Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but—even better—in the name of Earth itself.”
Krauthammer goes on to cite a hero to free-market conservatives, a man who lived under communism for most of his life, Czech President Vaclav Klaus: “Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. ‘The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity,’ warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, ‘is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.’”
For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class — social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies — arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).
Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher’s England to Deng’s China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.
Environmentalists are Gaia’s priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment — carbon chastity — they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.
Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.
Klaus, by the way, has co-authored an important book entitled, “Blue Planet, Green Shackles,” which everyone ought to read, lest we descend back into a Dark Age of techno-regression.
It’s sad to say but I’m afraid I don’t have much optimism about the future. As I see it the US is headed toward a depression that will rival that of the 1930’s… and what will lead us there? A stranglehold on the economy by overactive environmentalists and their policies. What is truly unfortunate about this, is that a lot of people will be put through a lot of misery, on purpose and intentionally by our own doing.
Think of it… $5 to $10 a gallon gasoline and diesel… electricity rationing… sky high food prices… its all coming and will probably be here sooner than any of us could imagine. Why?
1. Environmentalist blockage of drilling for new oil sources in our own backyard. The amount of oil we have at our disposal is really quite staggering, though we have currently allowed ourselves to block, er, ourselves from accessing any of it. Believe me, this is celebrated by many including our enemies in the middle east and Venezuela we must purchase oil from at inflated prices, and even China who will develop the eastern gulf of Mexico in cooperation with Cuba - literally taking oil right from under our own noses! Its as if environmentalists somehow thought that if we didn’t drill in those waters nobody else ever would either… oh well, our loss I guess.
2. No building of new coal fired power plants. It is ludicrous that more coal power plants aren’t being built to satisfy increasing demand for electricity, especially since this is another energy source we have a lot of right here in the US. What is particularly worrisome is the increasing noise for closing exising coal power plants! That anyone could seriously propose such a thing given the electrical grid already being in a precarious situation, is beyond me. And truly amazing is the fact that this is being proposed before any alternative sources (nuclear or otherwise) are available for use to pick up the loss of generation capacity…
3. Absolute resistance to building of nuclear power plants. This is another absolutely absurd condition we are having to live under. American corporations can build perfectly safe and practically fool proof nuclear power plants abroad, but we cannot get one built anywhere in the US. Of all the energy sources currently available, this is the one that gives the most bang for the buck - electricity with practically no emissions, except for the spent nuclear fuel which needs to be stored securely. Oh wait… if no NIMBY type can tolerate a nuclear power plant, they’ll certainly never let a storage site be set up anywhere in this country either.
4. Biofules are not the answer. I asked the question 3 or 4 years ago as the ethanol debate was just beginning of what did people think would happen to the price of food if we start making fuel out of it? Can I get a collective DUH please? The fact that anyone has the nerve to be surprised at the higher cost of food only demonstrates the narrow, short sighted, and uncomprehensive thinking of the environmentalist religion.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not for the wasteful use of energy resources by driving around Hummer’s either, and I certainly advocate using energy wisely like not leaving the water running, efficient lighting, recycling, etc. At the same time, I don’t believe we, as a collective world civiization, are smart enough to understand the nuances of changes and trends with the earth. Warm periods and ice ages occured long before people had any significant impact. It’s amazing that news stories have even been pointing out observed climate changes on other planets in our solar system - changes that I highly doubt are the result of human activity…
Is it a worthy goal to pursue new more efficient sources of energy? Of course! Should this be imposed and forced to happen by law and regulation, at the expense of the quality of life for people in the US and all over the world?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
The free market and innovation and inventiveness of people has always worked best when left to work on its own… and will continue to do so. In meantime, there is no reason we shouldn’t be pursuing conventional energy sources as new ones are being developed.
I took the oil embargo of the 70’s and the accompanying gas lines and gas station closures to finally overcome environmentalist resistance to developing the north slope in Alaska and build the Alaska pipeline… I can only hope things won’t have to get much worse than that before people wake up and are brought to their senses again.
We missed the call in the 70s, However we all must know our oil supplies will not last forever. Alternative energy MUST be developed at a quicker rate. What is wrong with putting a few billion dollars into the effort instead of subsidising farmers not to grow stuff? Put solar farms on all this unused land and harvest the power from the sunbelt. But NO! we can’t do that. In the meantime drill MORE OIL, OPEN ANWR!!
The neo-commies don’t want dams, nuclear, wind, geo thermal, oil, coal, tidal, or solar.
Their objective is to lower standards of living to the lowest common denominator and do it in the name of the Polar bear, spotted owl, blue segundo butterfly, ground owl, and clean water-stop mining initiatives. What a deal. Ther is no truth to be found in any of their tactics. Don’t trust them for a penny let alone the planet!
ATTN. ADMINISTRATOR:
Could you please change the last sentence in my first post to: “You forgot to add, “…and 2 plus 2 equals 5.” If George Orwell could see us, now.”
I made a typographical mistake. And could you delete the second post ?
Thanks.
Kenn
We have now had extremists from both sides, and moderate conservatives, are there no moderate liberals?
As to how reducing CO2 emissions will negatively impact the economy, that doesn’t require extensive scientific education…. With the noted exception of solar, geothermal, gravity based (Hydro, Tide and Wave), nuclear and wind, all energy generating mechanisms depend at some point on combustion. With the exception of hydrogen (which doesn’t occur naturally as a pure compound) all fuels currently in use for combustion are hydrocarbons. When you combust a hydrocarbon you get water and C02 (and associated nitrates, nitrides and such). Since the bulk of our mobile power (in the entire world) comes from burning hydrocarbons, reducing CO2 emisssions requires directly reducing use of fuel.
While increases in efficiency are wonderful, the best you are going to get from a Gasoline engine is 30%. The rest of the energy must be wasted. Diesel cycle engines are better, getting as high as 50% efficiency.
In short, to really “fix” this energy crisis we need massive construction of nuclear power plants, as no other power source is reliable enough and controllable enough. With Breeder reactors ( like France uses) we could have an infrastructure that could possibly support the electric cars you enviroweenies want us to use.
And apart from the epithet at the end, that’s all factual.
James,
Conservatives don’t think 2+2 = 3. We think something like x + y = 3. What are the values of x and y? Nobody knows! That’s the whole point. People need to forget the notion that if you think one way then you’re defined as an extremist, but if you think another then you’re a moderate. Who gets to define such things. Use common sense instead trying to put someone or their ideas onto some mental sliding-scale in your head.
OK let me get this straight: Paper grocery bags cost 4 times more energy to produce than their plastic counterparts and emit more toxic gas in decomposing. Ethanol costs 3 times the energy to produce than the energy it provides, and emits more toxic by-products than oil-based gasoline. Oil spills are almost exclusively caused in its transport (tankers), and even the drilling platforms spilled not a drop of oil during Hurricane Katrina. The caribou herds are thriving and indeed flourishing along the Alaska oil pipeline (no leaks). Tha polar bear population has INCREASED during the past thirty years. The area in ANWR for proposed oil drilling can be compared in relative terms as a postage stamp-sized area in a greater area the size of a football field. Twenty years ago the environmental mantra was “global-cooling.” The computer modeling utilized by the environmental movement contains no reference to the ever changing output of the sun. Nor does it address the greates impact on global warming namely water vapor. All of this taken together indicates to me that these folks while having a noble intent, have devolved into a hysteric-based chicken-little mindset which blasts any who disagree as uncaring of our planet happy to pollute at will. Seems to me that when a bunch of people who cannot prove ANYthing and rely on shouting down opponents, and twist so-called facts (read speculation) to suit their arguments, and then wonder why they reach a point where more and more people ignore them, they display the tantrums of a child who can’t get things THEIR way. Five years ago in of all places I saw a sticker on a min-van the neatly summed up my feelings: “Stop Global Whining” Enough said.
What scares me is that the religion of environmentalism has compromised scientific integrity.
Folks like Mr. Gore talk about “consensus”, as if a consensus of scientists somehow makes global warming a fact, indeed, an inconvenient truth. The real inconvenient truth is that consensus is irrelevant in this type of discussion. Scientific fact is not established by a vote. Historically, scientific consensus in one decade is most often fallacy in the next. Consensus is an opinion poll, but in no way represents fact.
If you were looking for consensus in science, you might think that Newton’s Laws, or General Relativity might be considered by consensus to be correct. But we have this experimental data known as the Pioneer effect. As the Pioneer spacecraft have left the solar system in opposite directions, they have veered off the predicted course by matching amounts. Reviews of other spacecraft have seen a similar effect. While no one knows what is causing the effect, now Newton and Einstein are in question. Consensus has nothing to do with it.
Regarding global warming, another inconvenient truth is that, the best ANY scientist can do is make a probability estimate. But that’s not what’s happening. Rather than deal with the issue with integrity, and try to provide a realistic estimate of the probability of the predicted outcomes, the forecasts of the computer models are presented as fact. It’s just not so. It’s a guess. One made by a computer. One made with the best science available.
We couldn’t predict the courses of the Pioneer spacecraft accurately - and that’s with science that has far fewer unknowns than climate science. What could make any scientist with integrity believe that the climate models are infallible? Polls. Political Pressure. Environmentalism as a religion.
The computer models, to my knowledge, don’t predict the cooling of the last decade. If that’s the case, then the models are at least somewhat in error. There is some factor (or possibly many factors) WE DO NOT YET UNDERSTAND that is causing the predicted outcome to diverge from reality. Just as the models that calculate the courses of the Pioneer spacecraft predict an outcome that diverges from reality.
So what do we do? Reducing carbon emissions would be a great thing, if for no reason than just to do it. Here’s an idea: Let’s willfully impose a $1.6T tax on our economy.
$1.6T to combat something that at best is a probability? That money has to come from somewhere, and it will the pockets of every American. Increase costs for energy, and everything else. I’ve seen statements from Senators talking about using the revenue to provide tax breaks for people to compensate. They must think we’re stupid. Take $1.6 trillion out of the economy, put it in the hands of the government, and give them the power to decide who gets it. Sounds like socialism to me.
How many Americans would consider such folly if the science community would simply act with integrity with regard to global warming? If they were to state that the models’ predictions are at best perhaps 60% accurate. My guess, less than 20%. That 20% would be those already converted to the religion of environmentalism.
To impose their Religion. To achieve their goals, the first thing that had to be eliminated was scientific integrity. The environmental priests have apparently achieved that goal, at least in the area of climate science.
Attention Dave B….where is your proof? By the way there are 10’s of thousand of biologists, geologists, physicists, etc., that support creation. The big guy upstairs can defend himself, i am talking about testable, observable, and repeatable evidence. Dave B., can you explain how something came from nothing? I have been challenging evolutionists to answer this question for 30 years, and not one has a good answer. Just excuses. How can a simple structure turn into a complex one, without a creative force behind it. Another unanswere question. Finally, how can the ammount of matter increase without a creative force behind it. Changing the subject, refusing to debate the facts, and changing the other sides position, wont get these questions that evolution cannot answer to go away..
Thank you!
I am allergic to green, refuse to buy any product that “advertises” being good for the planet or has green on it’s label. I try to do the same with products that have spanish translation but here in TX unfortunately, that’s getting more difficult.
I love my gas guzzling SUV and my AC and I turn it down to 75 degrees almost every day, mainly because it is hot as hell here and because I can. I don’t care if gas is almost $4 per gallon…I have adjusted my budget by eating out less and what do you know…I dropped 5 pounds.
You “greenies” and “whiners” can just shut up.
We must branch out into space to survive
WE MUST ESCAPE TO THE STARS
I felt my IQ drop several points just reading these comments.
Look, in the first place, would my fellow conservatives *please* stop dismissing science in favor of theology? If you don’t understand the theory of evolution, just say so, don’t attempt to spin it as “psuedo-science” on a tangled web of ignorance and superstition. I love Ben Stein’s work, but that movie of his was totally off the mark - evolution is science because it asks “how did life end up this way” and the theory is subject to review and change… intelligent design is philosophy, saying “life is very complicated, so God must have done it.” It’s not invalid, but it isn’t science. Some of you are really just playing into the Bible-thumping, conspiracy theorist image conservatives in this country seem to be labeled with.
With that being said, global warming is a theory that is twisting the facts to match it (if you don’t think so, watch Gore’s contortions as he tries to explain his reverse-labeled graph of estimated atmospheric CO2 and global temperature in his movie). This is also not science, and making public policy on that basis is dangerous and irresponsible. This is borne out by some of the idiocy that takes place in the name of fighting glob