Posted on 06/29/2005 7:50:47 AM PDT by cogitator
Wish I could post the whole thing. Here's three excerpts to capture the flavor:
"Almost a decade ago I suggested that global warming would become a "gushing" source of political hypocrisy. So it has. Politicians and scientists constantly warn of the grim outlook, and the subject is on the agenda of the upcoming Group of Eight summit of world economic leaders. But all this sound and fury is mainly exhibitionism -- politicians pretending they're saving the planet. The truth is that, barring major technological advances, they can't (and won't) do much about global warming. It would be nice if they admitted that, though this seems unlikely."
...
"Naturally, poor countries haven't signed Kyoto; they won't sacrifice economic gains -- poverty reduction, bigger middle classes -- to combat global warming. By 2030, the IEA predicts, world energy demand and greenhouse gases will increase by roughly 60 percent; poor countries will account for about two-thirds of the growth."
...
"Second, we should acknowledge that global warming is an iffy proposition. Yes, it's happening; but, no, we don't know the consequences -- how much warming will occur, what the effects (good or bad) will be or where. If we can't predict the stock market and next year's weather, why does anyone think we can predict the global climate in 75 years? Global warming is not an automatic doomsday. In some regions, warmer weather may be a boon." Third, we should recognize that improved technology is the only practical way of curbing greenhouse gases.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Remember, the US Senate voted against Kyoto 95-0.
I'm presuming one of the 5 absent was Kerry. No doubt he was parking his wife's SUV.
I believe Kerry voted no.
Even better! :-)
This is just too tempting for unscrupulous politicians to resist. First, the menace is invisible, so it becomes a matter of faith. But best, there is no accountability. Scientists say it will be 100 years before anyone will be able to tell if their recomendations work. Global warming is made-to-order for demagogues.
The above remarks assume that human contributions to so-called greenhouse gasses in fact contribute significantly to global warming. I'm not convinced that's true. The above remarks also assume that any climate change that occurs will have deleterious effects overall. No one has any good idea about that, I'm confident.
Even with these two assumptions, though, curbing emissions through voluntary adopting poverty-- the green approach-- or through technology-- Samuelson's approach-- is not an option.
Strictly speaking, the Senate never voted on the Kyoto treaty itself. The 95-0 vote was in favor of a statement to the President not to submit the treaty for ratification. At least some of those voting in favor of the statement would have voted for the treaty had it been put in front of the Senate.
It was obvious to everyone that the treaty had no hope of passing, though. Rather than see the treaty the President had negotiated so publicly uncerimoniously dumped in the Senate, the Senate preferred not to be asked to vote on it.
From the left's point of view, this non-vote made sense. It was the best they could do. Even with the treaty not ratified the President is expected to treat its terms favorably, at least until the treaty is rejected. So, one can understand their votes among the 95.
What's puzzling is why any on the right voted not to vote on the treaty. It would have been much better to put the nails in the coffin immediately, and with many Democrats on record, to shut the Democrats up about this issue.
I politely disagree. Technology is need for curbing emissions (obliquely) for two reasons; one, fossil fuels will decline in importance for energy production, even if they can be used for decades, because extraction costs are going to rise significantly; two, there are a number of efficiency improvements that can be implemented right now given proper motivation. We have that motivation via security, environmental, and economic concerns.
The above remarks assume that human contributions to so-called greenhouse gasses in fact contribute significantly to global warming. I'm not convinced that's true.
Whether or not you're convinced, the science is becoming increasingly certain, and businesses in particular are paying close attention to the implications of that. You can't roll back thermodynamics; greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere, and that necessitates a change in the overall energy balance of the Earth.
The above remarks also assume that any climate change that occurs will have deleterious effects overall. No one has any good idea about that, I'm confident.
There is also pretty good scientific knowledge about the range of warming where the effects will be minimal and mitigable, and the range of warming where the effects will become consequential, mostly deleterious, and less amenable to mitigation.
Even with these two assumptions, though, curbing emissions through voluntary adopting poverty -- the green approach --
I agree that this won't work and is unacceptable on several grounds.
or through technology-- Samuelson's approach-- is not an option.
as explained above, I disagree here. One example not mentioned is biofuels (look up switchgrass and cellulosic ethanol). Taking any technological approach singly will not be the solution, but a combination of technologies can go a long, long way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.