On global warming, it’s McCain v. GOP
Does this help or hurt McCain in 08?
Politico-John McCain’s tempestuous relationship with his own party will be on full display when the Senate dives into a major global warming debate next week.
The question facing Senate Republicans: Are they ready to embrace their presidential nominee’s more liberal ideas for climate change ideas like a cap-and-trade system, or will they stick to the conservative, hands-off approach to global warming backed by President Bush?
It’s a debate that may very well divide Senate Republicans and show voters yet another fissure in an already beleaguered party. Democrats don’t seem eager to offer a smooth path toward any bipartisan compromise that would give McCain political cover on the issue, and a key procedural vote has already been scheduled for June 2.
McCain will likely stay away from the debate by scheduling campaign events. But he has already established his position which is much closer to Harry Reid than conservative.
He will excuse his environmental position based on actions of his hero Teddy Roosevelt who was a “progressive”. Thus conservatives have no candidate in the November election.
What about Barr?
Do you think Barr is conservative after I posted his column on immigration reform?
What is McCain’s deal with global warming? The U.N.’s own computer just spat out some new figures saying that the earth will not increase in temperature for at least the next fifteen years.
McCain should change his tune to support CONSERVING the environment and preaching the virtues of being responsible; but, for every scientist who says that man is causing the earth to change, there is another who disputes that claim. Does he realize that the left is the political side who reacts with emotion instead of reason?
By the way, since I can remember, left-minded people have been trying to convince the right that evolution is the explanation to life’s mysteries. I happen to agree almost whole-heartedly. Why, then, do the same lefties think that a continued evolution in the earth is a bad thing? If a certain little bacteria dies from a changed climate, isn’t that just part of the evolutionary cycle?
Great post Aubrey, especially the last paragraph.
“Top down” solutions are about redistribution of wealth with plenty of bonuses for the inside crowd (politicians, bureaucrats, and a few select multinatinal corporations)
Here’s a great example of government regulation (keep in mind the politicians are in bed with the large corporations) vs. innovation, technology, and market oriented solutions to problems:
“…the government says it’s currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act—in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off—anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states.”
http://tinyurl.com/4p4k9q
I agree with some of your statement Aubrey. Evolution is on a course that is unknown to any of us. Hopefully the earth will evolve into a place that is still hospital to homo sapiens.
But I don’t think you really understand the mindset of MOST environmentalists.
The majority of environmentalists I know live in the environment and generally are opposed to development only because most of the development they’ve seen NEVER includes environmental degradation in any kind of cost/benefit analysis.
Environmental degradation is what economists refer to as an externality… a cost that isn’t factored. We citizens pay that cost over the long run, corporations don’t pay the cost, they reap the short term rewards.
With our regulatory structure, it’s cheaper to pay a fine for polluting than to actually clean up the pollution or prevent the pollution. This is a no-brainer for any business… pay the fine, and let Joe Q Public absorb the long term externalities.
I’m also not sure about your statement regarding “for every scientist…there is another scientist…”
That’s the nice thing about science (as opposed to religious belief systems)… they don’t require belief, only data.
The data doesn’t lie.
Humans emit “X” quantity of CO2 from our industrialized activities. This is not being disputed by anyone (that I know of).
The global CO2 levels have increased dramatically over the last century (as proven by ice core samples from around the globe).
Increased CO2 levels creates a greenhouse effect that causes temperatures to rise.
You can dispute the overall impact that CO2 emissions cause, but you can’t dispute the basic science.
Isn’t science nice? Even a skeptic like me can understand it, and form an educated point of view.
I don’t really feel like debating global warming, because 1)I’m not an evvironmental scientist and 2) I’ve heard (I should really start writing down sources when I hear them) that the CO2 that is affecting “climate change” now was the CO2 that was produced 100 years ago, among many other contradictory testimonies. Nowadays, the world produces less total harmful emissions than during England’s and America’s industrial revolutions. Does that mean we are about to begin a global cooling? What about the scientists who recently said that Antarctica has been increasing its ice cap in size?
Either way, there is an acceptable amount of give and take when it comes to our natural resources. There is also a certain amount of “abuse” that the earth can take without being any worse for wear. Sure, runaway capitalists would take advantage of the natural resources if they could, this is one area where a “limited” government comes into play. Not a wealth redistribution scheme that uses “carbon credits.”
Also, I don’t feel like digging out my science books, but I think you are missing a huge piece of the greenhouse effect puzzle. There is quite a bit more than is involved than just an exorbitant amount of CO2.