Jim Satterfield Says:

May 27th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
The U.S. approach would be correct if the encouragements for this new technology was somewhat stronger than being the equivalent of pushing a one ton boulder with your pinky.

Then why not start helping to push the boulder instead of decrying those who are trying to do so?

Dave Shuler is right- I think it was he, in another thread here, who called the European approach a shell game.

The Moderate Voice quoted the New York Times earlier this week: In unusually harsh language, Bush administration negotiators took issue with the German draft of the communiqué for the meeting of the Group of 8 industrialized nations, complaining t

I believe that global warming exists and that human activity contributes to it. The question is what’s the right way to deal with it?

Practically all of the real reductions in carbon emissions in the U. S. and Europe over the last ten years have come as a consequence of exporting manufacturing to China. Is that a winning strategy? That’s what would happen, at least at the margins, in the Germany approach. I’m skeptical.

I suspect that this strategy will result in even more carbon emission in China rather than in Europe or the U. S. and, once it’s moved to China, the problem becomes intractable.

The US may be the #1 polluter but

- it accounts for about 20% of the world’s GDP. That said, if you use per capita figures, my own country Canada comes out ahead. And Canada signed the Kyoto crap back in the 90s under the supposedly ecofriendly Liberals. They did absolutely nothing for the entire time they were in power. Nothing but cheap rhetoric. Only when they were thrown out did they become ecowarriors again, under the tutelage of the Goracle’s Canadian apostle Stephane Dion. Why did they do nothing? Because it would have been economic suicide and for what? For a theory, a “science” that has NOT really been settled quite yet.

- China, within a couple of years will overtake the US and probably India within a decade or so assuming their economic growth continues. And I’m willing to bet that they will most likely be more inefficient than the US ie heavier polluters. And you know what, they don’t give a shit what the Followers of Global Warming and their Prophet the Goracle have to say. Can you imagine if most of the developing world starts to achieve the kinds of economic growth and development that we have become so accustomed to? Who do you think will be “killing Mother Earth” then?

Look, I’m not against producing technologies that will make us more “environmentally responsible”. And I’m certainly for technology that will make us as independent of Middle Eastern oil as is possible and as soon as possible. But let’s be reasonable. Let’s leave aside all the gloom and doom and all the environmental evangelicism. Global Warming is not a religion, nor should it be a political ideology; it’s a scientific theory that may or may not be wrong. For instance, taking care of the environment is a worthy cause even without Global Warming, err, Climate Change.

And you know what else, there is such unbelievable self-absorbed, self-centered arrogance and hubris on the part of Global Warming Believers. It’s nauseating. To wit, one of the goals is an “agreement to slow the rise in average temperatures this century to 2C”. I’m sorry, but do the Earth and the Sun get a vote on this? Cause, you know, they have their own internal cycles independent of what we little gods on Earth do or do not do. I’m not saying that we have no effect whatsoever, but a little humble perspective would be nice and a honest acknowledgment of our limitations. A bunch of feel good nonsense. As if we would ever be able to manipulate and control the Earth’s environment like that. And would we really want to anyway?