Email This to a Friend
Will Obama ‘Betray’ Environmentalists?
For the president-elect, preserving the planet may play second fiddle to preserving his political viability.
The way out is certainly not, as Team Obama has already acknowledged, to immediately and punitively raise Social Security and other taxes on the wealthiest 5% of Americans for the purpose of handing out money to millions of others. It is not to reimpose just-lifted bans on offshore drilling and other oil and natural gas exploration. And finally, it is not to enact a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system that Obama himself said during the primary season would “bankrupt” attempts at building new coal plants.
Obama will have an unexpected excuse if, as I expect (and hope), he abandons economy-crippling environmental aggressiveness in his first term. It is that the European Union has all but abandoned the radical climate change agenda. It is a development that has been virtually ignored by traditional media outlets in the U.S. But it’s happening with a vengeance, and you don’t have to look very hard to find it. Vehement objections are coming from Germany, Poland, Italy, and other EU countries.
What’s more, world opinion is turning against green extremism. The most significant finding at the linked article is that only 27% of those polled in 11 countries, including the U.S., “wanted their governments to participate in Kyoto-style international agreements to reduce emissions.” This explains why, thank goodness if true, the related December 1-12 United Nations-sponsored talks taking place in Poland “probably won’t yield concrete results.”
And in case there’s thought of slouching into such a treaty, the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Klaus will be there to frequently and strenuously object. In wonderfully serendipitous timing, Klaus, who has stated that “global warming alarmism is unacceptable and should be confronted,” will assume the rotating presidency and, if necessary, the bully pulpit of the European Union in 2009.
The worldwide economic slowdown is causing a long-overdue reevaluation of global warming (if such warming even exists):
As the global financial crisis takes hold, perhaps people are starting to wonder whether the so-called precautionary principle, which would have us accept enormous new taxes in the guise of an emissions trading scheme and curtail economic growth, is justified, based on what we actually know about climate.
The “precautionary principle,” in essence, says the following: “Okay, maybe we’re not really, really sure that global warming is occurring. And even if it is, we’re not really, really sure that human activity is causing it. But shouldn’t we err on the safe side, thereby formulating and enforcing strict emissions limits, just in case?” Such an outlook, taken to the extreme, would close the door on any and all future human progress. World opinion, which Obama and leftists love to claim should hold so much sway, isn’t answering “No.” It’s screaming “Heck no!”
Will a President Obama and the people he nominates for the EPA, Interior, and Energy really want to go it alone and put our economy in a choke hold, while the rest of the world, including top polluter China and India, continue to chug merrily along? I doubt it, at least not while the economy is where it is. But watch out if the economy recovers, or if there is a second Obama term.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Tom Blumer owns a training and development company based in Mason, Ohio, outside of Cincinnati. He presents personal finance-related workshops and speeches at companies, and runs BizzyBlog.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
75 Comments
1. Gozer the Carpathian:Let me add another “heck no!” to that call against insane environmental regulations. They are excessive and unnecessary. Especially since we already know for a fact that the earth warms and cools naturally on it’s own. If you want to do something about “global climate change” why not plan for adjusted climates more than trying to restrict CO2 emitions?
Dec 2, 2008 - 11:29 pm 2. David Thomson:A sizable percentage of Americans naively believe that the policies of the environmental extremists will only cost them personally a few cents per week. The proverbial crap hits the fan once they realize that it will literally push them into dire poverty! Polling data suggesting that “only 27% of those polled in 11 countries, including the U.S., “wanted their governments to participate in Kyoto-style international agreements to reduce emissions,” greatly discourages elected officials from acting foolish.
Dec 2, 2008 - 11:58 pm 3. cedarford:The great thing the liberal environmentalists in Western nations agreed to not discuss (as bad politics as leaders of the Sierra Club demanded of other groups) was the impact of human overpopulation and immigration into America on energy use, and NET CO2 generation (if that does get confirmed as the civilization-threatening thing the Gorebots scream it is).
There were 1.2 billion people on the planet in 1900. Now there are 6.8 billion. Focus on “evil white people with their SUvs” ignores that if the West drives only PC hybrids and builds “exciting” new but marginal in effect Green windmills and small solar farms, we still would use more carbon fuel and spew more CO2 than the gas-guzzling, coal burning Americans of the 50s – simply because there are so many more of us. 160 million in the 50s, 300 million now, 438 million projected by the US Census in 2050.
The population of Africans has gone up 8-fold since 1900. Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Indian subcontinent, 10-fold.
As Thompson said, we will impoverish ourselves in America pursuing marginal CO2 reductions. And do so, while unchecked overpopulation practices & industrialization elsewhere drives CO2 generation higher and higher so the American citizen sacrifice has no effect? It is nonsensical, and Democrats like Pelosi had best watch it, or a huge backlash will form.
Pay 8-15 times more for “beautiful, exciting Green energy” while the coal & oil we save is then exported to China, India, other developing nations for cheap energy to grow their civilization and make stuff? That is crazy.
Dec 3, 2008 - 4:12 am 4. Ursa Major:Obama has one thing and one thing only on his mind: Getting reelected in 2012. I do not believe he will knuckle under to the enviro crazies. Their “solutions” will only bring misery and will do noting to “save” the planet which for the last several billion years as been taking pretty good care of itself without any help from the likes of Algore and his disciples.
Dec 3, 2008 - 6:27 am 5. Economics 500:Blumer and the rest of you just don’t get it do you? It is the lack of regulation that has gotten us into our current economic problems. You Von Hayakean extremists, who will believe in unregulated markets even as the house crashes down around you need to every now and then supplement your ideology with analysis and thought. We are in for and in need of a good Keynsian shot of both stimulus and regulation (this is not AGAINST the market by the way – it says that government has a role to play and in this case it is global not just the US). What yu call environmental insanity is hopefully the beginning of a new industrial and economic revolution in the US and globally. This will require huge investments in new types of technology and infrastructure. But if you would take time to actually look at economic history you would understand that this has always been the way forward. Has it ever occurred to that, in the words of Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, we can do “well” (financially) at the same time we do “good” (environmentally and socially). What do you think our options are: go back to business as usual. Is the US economy going to be based on old industrial manufacturing? Of What? Servie? How do we make that work for the middle class (look at wealth redistribution figures over the last couple of decades). This is a time about the future – not about us and our immediate needs but about our children and leaving them with an economy and an environment that are healthy. Take some time to look at what is out there, what our options are rather than only taking refuge in old ideologies which serve only to absolve you from having to do the hard work of considering where we actually are and where we might go.
Dec 3, 2008 - 6:48 am 6. Valerie:“Blumer and the rest of you just don’t get it do you? It is the lack of regulation that has gotten us into our current economic problems.”
I call BS. Pick two examples of industries in trouble right now, say our mortgage industry and the auto industry. The root problem with the mortgage industry is Congress’ insistence on cramming toxic mortgages down the throats of otherwise prudent decision-makers. The US auto industry has been treated like a quasi-governmental entity, and the Democratic Party’s personal vote-bank, for many decades. The problem in both cases has not been lack of regulation, but interference by the government in the operation of otherwise viable businesses.
With respect to that “new industrial and economic revolution” the immediate question is, why should the government be involved in selecting the direction of new technologies, when private investment is so much more efficient? And, to follow up, why should we allow legislators to spend our money chasing phantoms?
The opposition to the proponents of proposals to stop global warming is not primarily economic: it is scientists who are throwing the red flags. Global warming theory is unscientific at its core, and anybody with a technical background can poke holes in it.
There are environmental and scientific goals worthy our attention, and those goals should not be starved so that a bunch of confirmed non-math-majors can say they Did Something.
Further, there is no need for Congress to get involved in deciding most investment issues. We can use our tax policy to encourage businesses to hire more people, and to return manufacturing to this country, and we can do it without sacrificing our environment. This is not rocket science. We know how to build and run clean plants. And, we have the signal advantage of being the best place on earth to get things done. China’s current troubles could be an opportunity, for example, for medicinal manufacturers in particular. And it wouldn’t even be difficult. All it would take is an announcement that the Bush Tax Cuts (actually the repeal of the Clinton tax increases) will be made permanent, and a reduction of the business income tax to something more on par with the rest of the world.
Dec 3, 2008 - 7:33 am 7. robertgrove:You can add Waxman to this list of economic terrorosts. In his new chairman post this extreme environmentalist will cause chaos, with the help and support of POR.
Dec 3, 2008 - 7:46 am 8. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:But…but…the green collar jobs are going to get us out of the economic badlands, remember?
All we need to get the economy humming is more hoodlums throwing bricks through windows.
Dec 3, 2008 - 8:09 am 9. keithacita:keep an eye on ecojihadist sf mayor abu newsome. not to be alarmist or anything but he’s showing pictures of a photoshopped submerged sf airport on his 7 hour youtubed state of the city.
Dec 3, 2008 - 8:43 am 10. Paul From Hamburg:I don’t know what the fuss is all about. There is an easy way to help the environment and get the auto industry moving again. All we need to do is ban the use of road salt this winter. Eliminating road salt is obviously good for the environment. In addition, no salt plus snow equals more car crashes. More car crashes means more purchases of new cars. QED.
Dec 3, 2008 - 8:52 am 11. Thinking Person:keithacita…..I’d hasten to guess that SF Mayor Newsome has lost credibility with 99.7% of the country already (not that he cares). He’s the type that gets some sick thrill out of pushing through legislation of shock value whatever the ramifications. Gay rights, illegal immigrant rights, weed rights, whatever, he’ll serve up a heaping portion for your pleasure or disgust. He doesn’t care. He just enjoys wearing the progressive crown. For some sick reason I now want to watch the youtube video you mentioned. Sort of like driving by a car wreck and trying not to look.
Dec 3, 2008 - 9:19 am 12. Eliram:It is evident that we are at the mercy of the extreme eco-terrorist. How many of us are afraid of turning the thermostat up just slightly for fear of seeing the bill? Global warming hasn’t come to my address. And I would prefer to move forward with the times instead of wasting time trying to turn the clock back to the stone age. Wake up liberals. Think of others instead of yourselves, and get a life.
Dec 3, 2008 - 9:31 am 13. Amy:Ecoterrorists & ecojihadist! If we had been taking small steps since the 60s, then we wouldnt have to be taking such extreme measures today. A failed, worthless generation that has done nothing but accumulate debt and promote unsafe business and humanitarian practices. Now my generation gets to inherit your big fat ugly mess, but it is all our fault for being naive mass consumers just the way you raised us!
Eliram! YOu dont know what you are talking about. Global warming is everywhere; if you arent literally feeling an increase in temperature then maybe you are one of the regions that will experience extended droughts, floods or even lower temperatures. And BTW, I maybe selfish because I am worried that increased drought in my area-whose financial stability relies heavily on the cotton season-would have devastating effects on my local economy, but I am also thinking of environmental refugees, other agricultural regions that supply industrial regions, and stretching already scarce food supplies and benevolence. Louisiana still hasnt recovered from a bad hurricane, what will the nations-still-standing do in the face of millions of starving, diseased and dying people trying to flee homelands that can no longer support them?
Guess what! Your do nothing, accumulate all, greedy generation is on its way out, and global thinkers-raised in the society you created- are taking over. We have chosen an intellectual over a soldier, commonsense over ideologies and we will face the problems you have been turning your back on for decades. Times have changed and you are living in the past.
I know its a little freaky and overwhelming to think of everything we have to overcome. There is sweeping change; change can be scary, but it will be very beneficial. Once this country was almost entirely agricultural, but 100 years later we are industrial-that’s scary too. Once the constitution only protected white men that owned land, but we all have those same rights now. OUr country is no stranger to sacrifice and we are ready to start in. If we want to retain our quality of life, if we want to be safe and succesful, then we have an obligation to sacrifice for the greater good.
I have inherited a ridiculous debt and a long list of failed policies, but I am ready to put my country back on track so my kids will inherit a different world. Please dont hinder me-us.
Dec 3, 2008 - 10:58 am 14. Ted Gemberling:I think it’s kind of a stretch to say that Paul Volcker is “associated with Reaganomics.” Yes, he did serve during part of Reagan’s term, but as far as I know, his activities were not connected at all with Reagan’s tax cuts or moves towards deregulation. Alan Greenspan is the Fed chairman who can really be “associated” with Reagan’s ideas. He’s the one who was chosen by Reagan.
Dec 3, 2008 - 11:14 am 15. myth buster:I spent last winter in Ann Arbor, MI. It snowed almost every day. No warming or drought here. A little extra heat would be greatly appreciated, but it doesn’t happen here. Winter starts at the end of October here in Ann Arbor. This is also why, despite admonitions to the contrary, I often leave my TV on and I always leave my cell phone and laptop chargers plugged in, even when I’m not using them- because the heaters don’t make the room warm enough.
As for Keynesian economic stimulus, that worked so well in the Great Depression and the 1970’s (NOT!). What we need is a radical tax cut and tax simplification plan, like the Fair Tax (HR 25/S 1025). The only thing that is more important for the economy’s health than enacting the Fair Tax is for us to stop killing off the next generation.
Dec 3, 2008 - 11:21 am 16. myth buster:BTW, that bit about leaving appliances on was because they dissipate heat when turned on, not because I believe they contribute to global warming.
Dec 3, 2008 - 11:22 am 17. Air2air:Amy – I felt the same way as you as a teen also.
Then it was a lot easier to trash a society I didn’t yet understand.
Dec 3, 2008 - 11:23 am 18. WJ:Mr. Blumer: You are severely underestimating the continued power of the media. Truth and/or balance are not even close to being important now. They will repeat anything the left tells them to.
Any bad thing from now on is the fault of Republicans. No facts are necessary at all, just repeat and repeat.
Dec 3, 2008 - 11:33 am 19. Thinking Person:Amy, enjoy your dewy eyed opinion of what Obama will do for America and the world now while you can. Your generation is certainly the one that put him into office right? So idealistic about “change”. Unfortunately it’s those of us who have 401Ks to worry about, kids to put through college, mortgages, aging parents and other trivialities of real life that got in our way of seeing Obama’s glowing optimism as you did. As one matures, it’s only natural to go beyond just taking “change” at face value and wonder what “change”? Give it time Amy. I have faith that you like many others in your generation will mature just like we had to. Again, I’d advise you to find a diary and date it for future reference. Write into it how you feel right now about the world and how you’re going to change it for the better and how you feel your parents have screwed it all up for you. Go back and look at it in 10 or 15 years when you experience life for a bit. No need for an apology then though. We’ll all understand because we were young and naive once too.
Dec 3, 2008 - 11:35 am 20. Thinking Person:P.S…..Anyone remember in the 70’s when we were told that a major ice-age was coming? Now it’s global warming. Apparently every generation has it’s global disaster just over the horizon. What could possibly be next?
Dec 3, 2008 - 11:38 am 21. Kevin:Amy..Amy..Amy..
Dec 3, 2008 - 11:46 am 22. David:you are most likely in your late teens? early twenties? Of course. Been there, thought like that. Print this reply off, store it and then brush the dust off in fifteen years:
You will probably be married, probably have a couple kids; will have a mortgage and bills to pay. Will be balancing domestic duties with perhaps your third or fourth employer. Taxes to file, sick kids to shuffle off to the doctor, homework to inspect, etc etc. You will at that point ponder the naivety and arrogance of man-made global warming; the horrific cruelty of redistributionist policies; the ridiculousness of our public school system; the ponderousness of all in life that is over-regulated – from the 1.6 gal flush in the morning to the flourescent bulb you turn off at night. At that point you will never ever in your life vote again for the pure evil that is liberalism.
Pelosi, Obama, and Reid can crow all they want about reducing America’s “greenhouse gases”. But their plan had better not cause any of the following to happen:
- Increase energy prices.
- Restrict availability of energy.
- Restrict the growth of energy demand.
- Restrict anything else.
- Put anybody out of work.
If any of the above do happen, Republicans will quickly be back in control of the House, Senate, and eventually, the white house.
Dec 3, 2008 - 11:47 am 23. Paul From Hamburg:Kevin:
Dec 3, 2008 - 12:19 pm 24. Pat J:Very nice reply to Amy. I would add this:
Amy, whenever you start to feel really proud of yourself and your accomplishments, just remember this: There are over 1 billion Chinese people who are not the least bit impressed by you.
13. Amy:
——–
Way to go Amy. It’s obvious that most of the posters here either don’t have a clue about what’s going on around them, or don’t give a hoot. There is plenty of credible evidence that we are experiencing climate change due to global warming. There are more people on this planet than anytime else in human history, and our technology is growing. Sure some of us here have a great life. But we are fouling our own nest. And I mean ALL of us.
And yet people like Amy, who sincerely care about the planet are ridiculed. Scientists who are raising the red flags are censored. Or marginalized. Called “environmental wackos.” Sure, there are some crazies out who make environmentalists look bad. You see that everywhere. The bottom line of this rant is we are in trouble. Something has to be done and someone has to start fixing things. That someone is all of us.
Dec 3, 2008 - 1:06 pm 25. KO:mythbuster,
There is already over 300 million people in the U.S. Why are you being so paranoid about some conspiracy to kill off the next generation? Last time I checked, there were still plenty of babies being born.
Dec 3, 2008 - 1:17 pm 26. Jesus St. Jesus:WOW. This is su[[osed to be news?
… a cry by an economist for continued unchecked growth of the rich …. this speech could have been given (or written) by any oil company CEO at any point in the last five years.
How about actually blogging about some real ‘news’ at some point in time?
Dec 3, 2008 - 1:24 pm 27. cozmo:Sitting back watching your defeated rejected right wing kooks chase your tails and build a poorly constructed doom and gloom fantasy land is MOST amusing. Complete with flat earth global warming denial..how cute
Reality check..we are not feeling betrayed, worried of mislead. Obama is sticking to his promise of change, and you cant stand it
Dec 3, 2008 - 1:34 pm 28. KO:mythbuster,
Besides, there’s no point in creating another generation if we’re gonna end up leaving them with the lousy economy that we have now.
Dec 3, 2008 - 1:39 pm 29. Shawn:Wow, I know I’ve read in the past economists saying a US economy “belonged” to a president once he was in office 2 YEARS. In other words 2 year lag time between policies enacted and any result.
That would appear to have changed for some reason. I guess the 6 year spending spree and doubling of our debt with Republicans completely at the helm is thereby ruled inconsequential. Obama is not in office yet but seems already to blame for our economic malaise.
Not saying he’ll do well or not, I think we have intractable changes at work in our economy—it just seems odd to see the extremely blatant and premature finger pointing.
Dec 3, 2008 - 1:51 pm 30. Thinking Person:cozmo….Keep chanting your “reality check” over and over again to yourself and you just might start believing it. I, for one, will stick to the facts. Obama has yet to show any signs of a change. He’s already picked the Clinton cabinet as a starting point. Change? Laughable. You’ve been duped.
PatJ….See Pat, it’s people like you that feed the insecurities and fear in unsuspecting people like Amy. Do you only get your news from the Huffington Post? You talk of global warming scientists being “censored”. What???? I’m afraid that is total nonsense. They have been given the stage for years now totally unfettered to say whatever they want and back it up with shady at best science. The only thing being censored here is the truth! There have been scientists whom Gore included in his propaganda movie that have come out to say he misrepresented them and their data. Ever hear about that Pat or are you choosing to pick and choose your facts? Please, the world if full of fearmongers. Don’t add to the quota. We’ve all told Amy to take time to mature and with that will come knowledge based on FACTS not hysteria. I offer up the same plan for you.
Dec 3, 2008 - 1:53 pm 31. Tom Holsinger:I recall Jim Carville’s complaints about the bond market during the Clinton administration.
But I see no shame in Obama during nothing much on environmental issues until the economy gets better. Now is not the time to increase economic uncertainty.
That’s simple reality, not betrayal.
Dec 3, 2008 - 2:00 pm 32. always right:What has our education system turned out, besides ‘party-approved’ well-indoctrinated zombies?
Dec 3, 2008 - 2:08 pm 33. Wendy Knightly:While I can appreicate the fact that some out there are skeptical about our incoming President, I cannot believe that I am reading an anti-earth article! I do not understand how mortgaging our children’s health and well being is in anyone’s best interest! I am both an Obama and pro-earth supporter. Simple science kindergarten children can understand show the realities of what is happening to our habitat! The earth is our home, and we should respect and care for it on local, national, and international levels. Going “green” is not an Republican or Democratic issue. It is important we learn from our errors and teach our chidren how to care for the world, rather than the video games, big screen televisions, and gas guzzling vehicles we have come to depend on. For Kevin and David: I am not a teenager, I am a 38 year old mother of 3. I have a very middle class life, girl scout leader, swim practice, softball, and yes PARENT. It is part of my job to teach my children to turn the lights off, watch less television, recycle, and play a positive role in the world’s future. There are going to have be changes, and they are going to effect the economy, there are going ot be changes, in energy, in job creation and the sustainability in our economy. Our country has gone through several energy transformations. We are all the better for recognizing when progression is better for the economy, the environment, and yes, the preservation of our strength as a country.
Dec 3, 2008 - 2:12 pm 34. Amy:It’s easy to call me naive, and I am not too proud to say that I probably am atleast a little bit. And you wouldnt be the first person to tell me that I will grow out of optimism-I still hope that I never do.
However, I am not some idealistic teenager waiting for the harsh realities of life to teach me some stuff. I am infact, a young mother of 2 boys-one of which has a learning disability, if you want to talk about inadequacies in public schools. I am a full-time employee, student and mother. I am married, but I am the household earner. I have a retirement account that I contribute 4.5% of my gross monthly income into-luckily I do have the time to ride out the current storm. I have student loans and daycare costs, I have a father that is self-employed and thus has no health insurance options he can afford. No I dont have a mortgage, I am blessed because when HUD tried to “help” us get a loan for our first home we couldnt find one at the right price-thanks to the market of yesterday I dont have a variable rate loan today.
Most importantly, I am a good listener. While I have probably always been atleast mostly liberal, I didnt become political until the last year-actually you can thank Hillary for that one. Her work on universal health insurance and increased education spending inspired me to become involved. No Obama can’t make the kind of change I desire, but I think he can help start it. The easy example I look to is gas prices; gas prices were high because they have controlled supply and unending demand, but when the threat of reduced demand came from public outrage and green voting then prices went down-because they believe we will use less in the future instead of more. So much is affected by perception. If it takes my generation to make this kind of real change, then wont we need a motivating leader to get us started? Even if it is only perception?
Thank you for your kind words Pat J.
Dec 3, 2008 - 2:12 pm 35. RMM:Pat is a typical Liberal who delights in condemming those who don’t subscribe to this global warming nonsense. Wake up Pat, Amy and the rest of you condescending leftists. The only thing that the Lieberman-Warner act and others like it will accomplish is the collapse of our economic way of life, not to mention the free market system and capitalism in general.
Dec 3, 2008 - 2:30 pm 36. Salty Alaskan:I find it interesting how the eviros get ruffled whenever anyone questions global warming. Seems awful similar to Christians reacting to atheists professing a disbelief in God, neh?
Dec 3, 2008 - 2:45 pm 37. Thinking Person:I guess if people will follow Obama like a herd of zombies…What was his platform anyway??….it stands to reason that people will push science to the background and cling to the global warming madness. I do find it humorous that one can only claim to love the Earth if one buys into the myth that we’re killing it. Please. We recycle everything but kitchen sink, I drive a gas conscious car and take my groceries home in reusable bags. I STILL listen to the facts and know that the Earth is a cyclical beauty. Isn’t nature wonderful. I’m just glad that the econuts weren’t around when the Thames froze over enough that people could walk on it. My goodness they would have thought it was the second coming!
Dec 3, 2008 - 2:52 pm 38. Jim:I strongly believe that the main reason for Bush’s lack of popularity was that he did not stick to the conservative principles he espoused. Now Obama is doing a 180 on many of his key campaigning issues, and he hasn’t even taken office yet. So thaaats the “change” he was talking about- a change in platform! That buzzword makes so much more sense now.
In high school I was inspired by modern eco-liberalism. I read Naomi Klein and thought globalization was completely evil and destroying the environment; I thought mother nature was being raped and that big business was entirely to blame. I nodded in agreement when my friends proclaimed they were “moving to Canada” if Bush was elected.
As I went through college and swam in a sea of liberalism, I began to be jaded with its ideals. They sounded nice, but they began to lose their luster. The declaration “THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!” would lead to a deafening silence when faced with the question: “What is a feasable alternative?”
The shiny veneer of liberalism began to wear off as I took electives that rabidly endorsed eco-centric and socialist thinking. I took “Environmental Science” classes that told me the world was melting and greedy businessmen were to blame, but glanced over other contributing factors to pollution, like simple population growth. Sociology classes were platforms for teachers to endorse Marxist views of class warfare and the plight of the downtrodden.
I did learn from those classes though, and I am glad I took them. E. Science convinced me that off-grid living made me less dependent on top-down government policies. Sociology demonstrated to me the danger of taking statistics for face value, and showed me that our welfare system is a system of hand-outs that are so tied up with bureaucracy that they do very little to benefit their recipients.
I no longer share Amy’s enthusiasm for “change” for the sake of change. Such glittering generalities sound great and inspire hope- but they are no more than wishful thinking if you cannot implement them in an effective fashion. I’m not opposed to maintaining a healthy environment- work to curb pollution; punish companies who dump waste into the water table etc.- but what good are draconian regulations on everyday citizens that tax them into poverty? Encouraging self-sufficiency and rewarding responsible reduction and disposal of waste is much more productive than punishing people based on some arbitrary standard someone made up (read: carbon taxes).
Dec 3, 2008 - 3:16 pm 39. JED:Why would anybody ever give up on the greatest scam ever created; “off-set carbon credits.” The new money becomes based on a soon to be declared toxic waste, which is a naturally occuring molecule essential to life. Gold never was that. If that works, then what is to stop the off-set methane credit? Bloviating becomes inflation.
Dec 3, 2008 - 4:42 pm 40. steeple:The Jihadists and the Eco-Nazis have a common ideal in that the 7th century is the place to regress.
Amy, good luck to you in all that you are managing.
Let me echo the thoughts of others that you need to challenge the dogma that you are hearing. Unsafe busines and humanitarian practices? I’m originally from Louisiana too. I remember way too many salt mine disasters, oil & gas fires and industrial accidents from the 60’s that left workers maimed, burned or dead. These incidents are much less frequent now due to the improvements in worker safety since that time. Pollution? Ever read about Lake Erie catching fire back in the 60s/70s? Check it out today. Real progress unfortunately comes about in non-dramatic, continuous increments. A 1980’s version BMW isnt half the car that a current Nissan Altima is today for example. It takes a sense of history and experience to learn this.
Industry and markets, with the proper amount of regulation, create so much wealth and freedom for people who live in those countries vs. those who have little economic freedom. When you have 20 minutes, I urge you to watch the following video.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
Dec 3, 2008 - 6:38 pm 41. Pat J:Thinking Person:
I’ve yet to see Gore’s movie. But to me it’s old news. And I don’t get my news from Huffington Post either. I wake up with NPR which makes me more informed than the typical Fox News viewer and probably the majority of the people on this website.
I did take a course in 1979 called “Man and His Environment.” It taught me a lot about the cyclic nature of the earth’s environment. For instance, there is no such thing as throwing something “away.” I learned about things like acid rain and how the chemicals that contribute to it can cross international boundaries. I learned about things like nonbiodegradable substances. Chemicals such as arsenic, mercury and others that are not broken down in the body,accumulate in fat cells and move up the food chain. In other words, a lot of little fish get eaten by the bigger fish, then eaten by the biggest fish, which then eventually end up in us. These examples are caused by manmade pollution. Those are facts.
I was upset when Bush chose not to ratify the Kyoto Treaty saying it would “harm the economy.” What horseshit. The United States has the greatest economy and the most talented work force on the face of the earth. America has less than 5% of the planet’s population yet contributes 25% of the world’s carbon emmissions. We could have taken this issue head on, created new technologies and new jobs. And we could have lead by example. That’s what we do after all. You may not see global warming now but imagine what this world is going to be like 30 years from now if we don’t start changing our collective mindset.
Now we may have a chance to creat new technologies to combat some of the issues at hand and hopefully improve the economy in the short run and hopefully make the world a better place for our children and grand children. We live in a finite world with finite resources. Maybe some of you conservatives out there should try a little thing called conservation.
Dec 3, 2008 - 7:20 pm 42. Thom:RE: This is a time about the future – not about us and our immediate needs but about our children and leaving them with an economy and an environment that are healthy.
Sorry, unless you move to China or India, after all the green stuff gets passed here and coal industries ‘Obamba bankrupted’ your children’s future doesn’t look as good as the life you have now.
Dec 3, 2008 - 8:51 pm 43. Thom:LOL Sorry, just had to confess, I found Cozmo’s comment cute.
Dec 3, 2008 - 9:00 pm 44. Paul from Hamburg:Pat J:
“I was upset when Bush chose not to ratify the Kyoto Treaty saying it would ‘harm the economy.’”
Here is a little civics lesson that they must have failed to mention on NPR: Treaties are ratified by the Senate, not the President.
“You may not see global warming now but imagine what this world is going to be like 30 years from now if we don’t start changing our collective mindset.” EXACTLY!!! Thank you for admitting that global warming isn’t happening and that all of the dire predictions are really just a product of your imagination.
Dec 3, 2008 - 9:27 pm 45. robotech master:Hey Jim]
I just recently took sociology class and can attest to the fact that it hasn’t changed…. well maybe its got a dash of nazism mixed in then instead just straight marxism.
As for Pat J you do know they teach that in most high schools… and even some middle schools… the difference being they teach it. From the way you make your post you didn’t learn facts you were told ideology… much like other global warming and eco-fascists… along with a whole host of other issues…
Theirs a huge difference between learning facts and being told ideology. Hitler had facts when he blamed the jews… and many of those facts were as scientifically correct as the facts about things like global warming. In fact if you bother to review hitler’s research he had better facts… lets face it al gore and company just can’t complete with leftist group heros like Dr. Joseph Goebbels or Heinrich Himmler.
Dec 3, 2008 - 9:36 pm 46. mishu:We could have taken this issue head on, created new technologies and new jobs.
Erm. Why do you need to have a punitive, eco-authoritarian government to create new technologies and jobs? If you have ideas that lead to better, more efficient technology, wouldn’t investors and customers naturally gravitate towards your products? Why do you need the duress of government to make people accept your ideas?
Dec 3, 2008 - 9:53 pm 47. cedarford:It may be a shock to the Christian Right railing on “all those Lefty scientist fellers..” but many people that are Conservative are also Conservationists. And many such Republicans DO care about the environment think GW (but not necessarily Anthropogentic Global Warming) is real. And they do want cleaner and better economic “green” solutions if possible. And they don’t want our public parks sold to developers to get the highest buck possible, or fisheries and streams damaged for the profit of a few. Or species exterminated or further endangered because “personal property rights” are more “sacred”.
The answer to Leftist environmental ideology is not to reject all environmentalism as bad. Not to denounce scientists and college grads with a “What do such scholars and experts know…Jesus will take care of the Planet” attitude. Or reject obvious things like there is global warming happening, there is overpopulation in lands from Egypt to Indonesia and less than 20% of the freshwater in those lands is reasonably free of pollution.
What Republican environmentalists can do is fight back against both the Christian Right and the Left.
1. Yes, renewable energy is good, but we must have it be reasonably economical and we must have some common sense about how widespread it can be and what environmental impacts certain sources like solar have that are not wholly benign themselves (all Cali solar farms are now tied up in environmental lawsuits).
2. It took us 100 years to develop a modern fossil fuel economy. It will take some time to transition if AGW is real, and even if it is, we have to increase our domestic production in the transition period, which may go 40-50 years.
3. Just saying money+research will guarantee plentiful, cheap green energy will not make it automatically happen.
4. It is senseless to burden 1 billion of the people on the Earth with extreme carbon use restrictions while saying the fast-breeding other 5.7 billion people are exempt. And that they are free to compete with us fueled by inexpensive energy like coal. And that somehow our useless sacrifice in the face of 3rd World exemption is supposed to somehow make us feel good about ourselves and our children’s diminished future.
5. Republicans would do well to begin demanding that repair of environmental problems as well as more regs be subject to cost benefit analysis. Does “recycling” certain items take more non-renewable energy than is saved? Is the reg that demands new, highly expensive, nearly impossible to achieve levels of a pollutant thought to have minimal if any health impact already – make any sense?
6. Push nuke power and more oil and natural gas drilling, but in an environmentally responsible fashion with little tolerance for Republican Yahoos that now proudly are out front saying “kill the whales for all I care” and “if I want to burn and pollute to my heart’s content – well, that is what our God-given Freedom!! is all about.”
Dec 3, 2008 - 10:43 pm 48. Rachel Peepers:To survive much less to thrive in law school like PE Obama did tells me Barack Obama plays every political angle possible, and invariably chooses the one that’s right for him. In Barack’s mind, what’s good for his country is only good if it’s best for Barack.
Furthermore, Barack’s swagger in front of an audience (the bigger the audience, the bigger the swagger) tells me the brown eyed handsome man not only is driven to financial success, but also posesses an unquenchable thirst for power, not to mention the desire for everyone within earshot to admit he’s the smartest thing since the political wheel and deal was invented.
All of which is why I believe Barack is going to prove to be a huge disappointment to the blame-america-first crowd. Most of these vile creatures are wanna-bees or has-beens who amounted to less than the price of a share of Sirius stock.
Jealous of the rest of us who work very hard and succeed in many different ways, they’re only hope to feel good about themselves is transference. They see Barack’s success and feel it somehow rubs off on them. And that’s the rub. In no way does it.
Environmentalists will curse every effort they made for Barack.
Gays will suffer suicidal sized depression, many will become so conflicted they will go straight.
Left wing loons, the dregs of society, will go off the deep end. I wouldn’t be surprised if some forced their heads into the bowl and flushed, torture, mafia style, but self inflicted.
TV, Hollywood and media types will go to their cocktail parties at Town Hall in New York and the Whisky Bar at the Sunset Marquis in West LA, and lament their misplaced belief that Barack really meant what he said. Until realizing that Barack said what he needed to say because he needed to get elected.
The acid test of my theories about the man with an IQ as great as his personal ambition will come when it’s time to appoint judges. If he appoints left loon judges I’ll be proved wrong.
My final thought is about the woman whose frowns are so wide they make the giant California redwoods look like toothpicks. Poor Michelle.
She is the Starter Wife the new TV series is about, a local Chicago girl with express desires who’s overdrawn on her personal attractiveness account, writing checks her looks can’t cash.
How much longer can Barack wait till he can’t stand waking up every morning to the frown that could sink a thousand ships and make a pirate who hasn’t seen a woman in three months seasick for two days?
For our President Elect waiting to make his trophy girl move, it must be like standing on a bone chilling cold, snowy Jamaica, NY train station platform on a Monday morning, and hearing that the 8:05 that takes you into Penn Station has been cancelled due to frozen switches.
I’m sure Barack looks at his starter waif and wonders why he didn’t wait for the next, sexier, train to pull into the Harvard Law dating station. Let’s face it, if there were a line of women, from pretty to pretty ugly, Michelle would be the caboose pulling up the rear.
What I’m, of course, leading up to is that, as sure as Barack’s favorite look every morning is in the mirror, President Erect Obama’s first affair is not a matter of if but when.
After all, when you get right down to basic human needs, isn’t that what hope and change, money and power are all about? Try blaming this one on Bush.
PS from Rachel
Dec 4, 2008 - 12:48 am 49. Pat J:The meanness and nastiness of my remarks aren’t because I just found out on pretty reliable information that my quarterback playing boyfriend cheated on me. It’s a result of all the Bill Mahar, Letterman, Joy Bahar, Rosie O’donnell, Olbermann etc. etc. etc. unending stream of vicious personal attacks for the last eight years on George Bush, the girls and Laura, and on Sarah Palin for the last few months. Until they stop, in various media I will be carving Michelle a new whatever, whenever I get the opportunity. What goes around comes around. Have a nice day.
“I was upset when Bush chose not to ratify the Kyoto Treaty saying it would ‘harm the economy.’”
Here is a little civics lesson that they must have failed to mention on NPR: Treaties are ratified by the Senate, not the President.
———————
Wrong. Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the “advice and consent” of two-thirds of the Senate.
—————
“You may not see global warming now but imagine what this world is going to be like 30 years from now if we don’t start changing our collective mindset.” EXACTLY!!! Thank you for admitting that global warming isn’t happening and that all of the dire predictions are really just a product of your imagination.
Dec 4, 2008 - 7:24 am 50. Thinking Person:—————–
You’re welcome *sshole. Now put your head back in the sand with the other ostriches.
Pat J….For someone who’s wanting us all to give ole Mother Earth a big hug, you’re pretty angry. We’re not putting our heads in the sand contrary to your belief. In fact, we’re doing the opposite. We’ve been told about global warming, our kids have been sold on global warming and now the world is hysterical about global warming and we’ve chose to do something that you haven’t….we’re listening to other voices on the subject. Pat, that’s all we’re saying here. Global warming is not a done deal. Open your mind to other scientists viewpoints. Do a little research before just letting yourself be spoonfed from the left. It’ll serve you well and probably give you a little bit of comfort knowing that humans are not evil as you’ve been led to believe.
Dec 4, 2008 - 7:47 am 51. Pat J:As for Pat J you do know they teach that in most high schools… and even some middle schools… the difference being they teach it. From the way you make your post you didn’t learn facts you were told ideology… much like other global warming and eco-fascists… along with a whole host of other issues…
———————
Hmm. Back then I was pursuing a degree in Aquatic Biology with a minor in Organic Chemistry. Ideology did not come into play. One thing I did learn is how every living thing is interconnected with its environment or environments.
The Nazis claimed they were ecologists. But they were more concerned with eugenics and ethnic cleansing to improve the human genome. This has nothing to do with promoting a sustainable planetary environment for all living things.
Dec 4, 2008 - 8:02 am 52. Pat J:50. Thinking Person:
Dec 4, 2008 - 8:11 am 53. Amy:———————
And who would some of those voices be? Glenn Beck?
Thinking person,
I am here because I truly enjoy exploring opposing view points. Sure I explore oppposing viewpoints to poke holes in them and build up my theories, but still I am very curious, what legitimate sources do you have to throw doubt on the man-made climate change theory?
Dec 4, 2008 - 9:04 am 54. Thinking Person:Amy and Pat J…. http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/06-21/global-warming-facts-article.htm….has a great easy-to-read line-by-line debunking of some of the most famous global warming myths for a start. A listing of 31,000 American scientists (many PhD’s) who have signed a petition calling for an end to the global warming hysteria is listed at http://www.petitionproject.org which is another eye-opener. Also, look up Denis Rancourt, Physics prof and Env. Science research at the University of Ottowa. He’s written some great stuff. That should be at least a starting point for you! Glad to see that you’re willing to at least look into other sources besides Al Gore! There are more out there by the way…..Just in case this isn’t convincing enough…
Dec 4, 2008 - 9:39 am 55. Thinking Person:Correction….The post above highlighte the word “has” at the end and isn’t working….Here’s the link corrected….
Dec 4, 2008 - 9:52 am 56. Thinking Person:http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/06-21/global-warming-facts-article.htm
More for Amy… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557374/The-REAL-inconvenient-truth-Zealotry-global-warming-damage-Earth-far-climate-change.html
Sorry, can’t help myself.
Dec 4, 2008 - 10:08 am 57. Thinking Person:Yet more for Amy…. http://globalwarmingtruth.net/
Dec 4, 2008 - 10:13 am 58. Thinking Person:Amy, last one unless you want more… http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/forget-global-warming-welcome-to-the-new-ice-age/
Dec 4, 2008 - 10:18 am 59. Thinking Person:I do think the most relevant and telling one if you’re just going to look at one Amy is http://www.petitionproject.org
A real eye-opener for those who thought all scientists were in agreement on the subject.
Dec 4, 2008 - 10:19 am 60. Pat J:Interesting. The first link you gave actually supports the concept of global climate change.
Dec 4, 2008 - 10:34 am 61. Thinking Person:I was pointing out the descrepencies in the global warming myth. Apparently you didn’t read the entire site. Did you look at any others perchance? I’m guessing you’d like to spend more time arguing that no other views exist? Typical. 30,000 scientists must be crazy right Pat?
Dec 4, 2008 - 11:06 am 62. Pat J:I did look at the others. Glad to see some in academia have an opposing viewpoint. Took the others to be less credible.
Dec 4, 2008 - 11:35 am 63. Amy:Sorry Thinking but the first link is definitely to a website that supports my side-I read several articles. You may be interested in reading about the skeptics, I thought they were good articles and fact driven.
The petition was interesting to see, and I will look into it further. It was contradictory to what I had read before about scientists not speaking out against global warming for fear of becoming a pariah.
I will visit the rest of the links as I have time. I do appreciate the information.
Dec 4, 2008 - 11:53 am 64. Amy:Thinking,
The article from the UK was interesting, but he seemed to talk in circles. All of his projections were based on statistics he doesnt believe in. Also, I noticed the UK is responsible for 2% not 25% like us, so their cost/benefit analysis would be different. This article, since it was written for/in the UK, it doesnt address the stability we will increase when we dont rely on foreign oil as much. Also, UK’s decreases of 60-80% are more ambitious than ours are.
It does say developing countries will suffer more, but it doesnt say anything about environmental refugees. It says increase aid to those countries, but not how much that increase or any disasters caused by climate change woudl cost.
Also, he stuck vehemently to global warming and its possible benefits, but this is about climate change which will entail some areas getting warmer, some drier, some wetter, etc. NY may be getting warmer, but my region-an ag region is getting drier and we cant fix that will more air conditioning as the article suggests.
Sorry, but I easily poked too many what ifs through this one to find it very credible.
Thanks.
Dec 4, 2008 - 12:21 pm 65. Thinking Person:Amy and Pat…..I tried. I do appreciate your both taking the time to glance over my offerings though. Truly. As I am not a scientist myself I can only put forth what I have read and perceive to be true. We are at a stalemate unfortunately. Again though, I appreciate you both taking the time to read what I found interesting on the topic.
Dec 4, 2008 - 12:43 pm 66. The Whale:Cap and Trade == Crap On your Parade. Global Warming == Global Worming into your pocket book by hack pols. Its all just so craptacular. I for one hope Obama spends his whole timetrying to pass all these neo fascist left enviroMental laws. Then we can get a new congress in 2010 and new Prez IN 2012. Or he can do something smart, for once. It is so simple even that idiot harry reaid and his side kick nancy the red will understand it. You Retrofit every house in the USa with a SOLar hot water and heating system. Cost about 5 grand average. Charge everyone an extra 300 bucks in taxes till ist paid off or whenthe house is sold its paid off. Why would this help? Its simple. Solar hot water heaters heat hot water to 140 degrees or better even in the dead of winter. You preheat all your hot water for baths etc, but even more important you preheat all your hot water for heat. That is one of things driving up the price of oil. You can only sue heavy crude to make no#2 heating oil or diesel for cars and trucks. Its the same thing by the way. If you cut the demand for home heating oil in half, which this plan would, then the price will drop to about 75cents a gallon. the price of diesel will drop as well. If you then mix the diesel into bio diesel the price will drop even more. If you switch all the large trucks to natural gas it gets even better. Now thats a solution. Not Crap on your parade or idiots on tv making tiny compost boxes. if you want compost make a decent size box, and put everything in there, don’t know what it does for the enviro, but its great for the vegatable patch. By the By my grandmother taught me that 40 years ago. And she was a republican. Go Figure. This is The Whale Blogging from Blog Free Nazi Jersey, waiting for the knock at the door, papers Please……
Dec 4, 2008 - 2:01 pm 67. Amy:Stalemate or Surrender?
Dec 4, 2008 - 2:16 pm 68. Tailgunner:J/K
So often these discussions become futile. They teach us in Science 101 that conflicting paradigms can be supported by the exact same evidence because personal bias allows us to dismiss or rationalize any evidence that we need to. I am disappointed, but maybe someday someone researching what we have discussed will tune in and be convinced one way or the other. Or maybe someday all of this will convert from theory to fact or to debunked theory and one of us will get to feel very smart.
CO2 IS AIR!! What is wrong with us? We might as well regulate Nitrogen!
This climate change crap is being pushed WAY too far.
Dec 4, 2008 - 3:54 pm 69. Pat J:No worries T K. thanks for making this an interesting discussion.
Dec 4, 2008 - 6:21 pm 70. Jesus St. Jesus:Wow.
~Eight to nine far right extremeists repeatedly pumping themselves up on an out of the way blog, and through this groupthink puff themselves to state that they speak for 47.8% of the voters in the country.
This is the problem with the Republicans: the few have tried for too long to tell the many what to think…
Dec 4, 2008 - 10:16 pm 71. Liberty:Dear Amy
These 2 sites nail it.
James A. Peden convincingly demolishes arguments that CO2 causes global warming.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Canadian Free Press has good 11-part series on history and politics of the CO2.
Dec 4, 2008 - 11:04 pm 72. Liberty:http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3021
Dear Amy,
Dec 4, 2008 - 11:12 pm 73. jerryofva:You’re missing the point. The extremem environmental regulations are supposed to control CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is not causing global warming. Al Gore’s premise is
based on incompetent computer modeling. The “hockey stick” graph is not accurate. The “scientists” cooked the books. The peer review process has been subverted. CO2 follows warming, it does not lead it. The polar bear pictures were not the truth, they are fine; the Maldives are not sinking. It’s the sun.
This does not mean we should abandon efforts to control real pollutants, it does mean that EPA regulations of CO2 emissions from buildings, cows and chickens as well as cap and trade rules for industry are futile wastes of taxpayer money which will devastate our economy. This does not mean we should cease
our efforts to curtail our dependency on foreign oil or make efforts to find other forms of energy. It does however remove the necessity
for urgent action or destroying our economy.
A little late but here is some real data. Satellite measurements put the global temperature at the same level that it was when satellite measurement started. It shows that the temperature peaked in 1998 and remained relatively constant for a few a years before dropping like a rock. Global temperature is best modeled as an autoregressive integrated moving average process (ARIMA). An ARIMA process is expressed as function of signs and cosigns, i.e., cycles. The measured data on global temperatures exhibit these tendencies.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/say-it-aint-so-joe-world-global-temps.html
And here is a chart of the last ten years ending in April 08. Temperatures have cooled even more since then…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/rss-msu-monthly-anom-zoom_042008.png
Global warming is not science; it is a best modeling and simulation. At worst it is a religion. The data does not support global warming.
Dec 5, 2008 - 7:11 am 74. Ms Attitude:I’m not a scientist so I won’t even pretend to know the facts about the global warming theory. I only know what I’ve seen. I stood on a glacier, walked through a redwood tree, stood on the beaches of the Atlantic and Pacific Coast, stood over the Grand Canyon, white water rafted down the Ocoee, and I’ve been in the Everglades. I’ve stood on the top of Pike’s Peak and canooed on a lake in the Grand Teton’s. I would love for my children and grandchildren to have the ability to do all of these things and more.
I’m bothered by pollution…the smell of cars out in the wilderness (but it’s how I got there too), loud music on the beach, and not being able to see the stars because of all of the ground light (I use lights too). And the red tide on the Gulf of Mexico…so sad, all the dead sea animals and the stench!
We need to be careful on how we go about fixing the environment. Remember when the federal govt made more farm land in Florida by putting a canal through the swamps thus changing the Kissimmee River into C-38 canal? Disaster! Now they have torn down the canals and slowly but surely the swamp and river are repairing itself.
Dec 5, 2008 - 4:50 pm 75. BC:A word of advice to right wingers/conservatives about the topic of global warming: whenever you open your mouths about it, “Moron” balloons appear above your heads, and it’s impossible to take anything you say from that point on seriously. You don’t understand the science, you constantly confuse who are real climate researchers and who are fringe or oil company shills, and you constantly present your own laughable half-ass “research” usually by parsing out bits and pieces of info completely and worthlessly out of context. Just some friendly advice — it’s best you stay away from the topic altogether.
Dec 8, 2008 - 10:02 am