Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Global Warming Debate

Recently, Justus gave his point of view on global warming and I thought that I would chime in with my particular take. I feel my insight into the situation, is fairly unique.

Naturally and without any real thought, I tend toward the environmentalism side of the argument. This tendency is based purely on the fact that I grew up in a very rural area and also enjoy hiking and backpacking, when I get a chance.

Most importantly, I feel that the entire topic of global warming and the environment has become a political football, which each side supporting the science it wants to hear. The few scientists who do not know the answer and are seeking the truth, don't get the airtime they deserve. Their voices are drowned out by the scientists, political activist, and media on both sides who have already made up their mind on the issue. In other words, the information you hear on global warming is devoid of objectivity and useless for making up your mind.

I also feel few key facts poke holes in the environmentalists and anti-global warming arguments For example, the air is cleaner than it was 20 years ago, which might actually cause more heating of the earth because more sunshine reaches the ground. Then on the environmentalists side, there is the correlation of CO2 gas with the estimated temperature of the earth.

So without a clear answer on Global warming, I am forced to decide that I am neither for or against polices that could stop, slow, or even reverse global warming, within reason.

Political maneuvering

On the way to Europe I watched Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". During this movie, it became apparent to me that the left has done a great job of spreading the faith of global warming to the American people. The right has attempted to fight back using science and other political means. The right, by putting science in the middle has done the debate a disservice. By trying to oppose environmental rules and regulations, they have made themselves easy to demonize. I am not proposing that they right should lay down and give the left what they want, that would be disastrous You would probably be forced by law to wipe your butt with recycled cardboard, spend a minimum of two years getting to know nature in North Dakota, and be forced to save all of your poop in a big plastic bag to avoid harming the environment. So what should the right's response be to the talk of Global warming?

Al Gore's Idea

Recently, Al Gore suggested replacing the income tax on American businesses with a tax on CO2 (it is there, I read until I found it then threw up.). As long as the tax was revenue neutral, the GOP should take the idea and run with it. I am sure other unique combinations could be created that achieved the environmentalists goals while reducing the tax burden, rolling back gun laws, privatizing social security, removing the personal income tax, removing the capital gains tax, removing the death tax, applying term limits on lawmakers, disbanding the ATF (all those goons could be made to work for the EPA), strengthening eminent domain, letting principals and other teachers carry guns, making sure every person has castle doctrine in their own home and the ability to enforce it, etc.

The environment is a loser for the republicans. The GOP could get some serious swing votes
with a few moves that make republicans and environmentalists happy.


No comments: