Posted by
woody on Sunday, November 11, 2007 2:26:32 PM
The bandwagon is filling up. Despite the growing evidence that maybe Global Warming isn’t all the result of capitalism’s insatiable appetite for oil and our desire to read at night under Edison’s great invention, the number of politicians who take the “Inconvenient Truths” of Global Warming as gospel—the start of some catastrophic forgone conclusion—continues to grow. The situation—at least politically—looks eerily like 2002-2003 and the buildup to the war in Iraq. Like those political opportunists-turned hawks (John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Hagel) who voted for the war against Iraq based on the intelligence of impending national security doom, many politicians who know nothing about the chemistry of the environment have become converts to the faith of imminent ecological doom. Their conversion, like those hawkish opportunists of the Iraq war, may soon find that the importance of ridding the world of incandescent light bulbs is about as relevant as the WMD threat of Iraq. Let us consider the similarities:
Both the WMD justification for war and the ‘certified data’ that humans have caused global warming is/was based on a number of facts, quite a few assumptions, and expectations based on both. Iraq had previously used chemical weapons, had an active nuclear weapons program, and continuously defied UN inspectors’ demands for information or access. When inspectors found facts which hinted at any WMD program, Saddam kicked them out. Also, intelligence from many nations concluded that Saddam’s weapons program was alive and well. Global warming experts point to recession of glaciers, a .6 degree increase in average temperatures over the past year, and the corresponding increase in CO2 as evidence of global warming.
The Iraq war and the need for urgent action on global warming were based on official statements and actions of the United Nations. The UN passed seventeen resolutions threatening Iraq with forceful action if they did not change their ways. Likewise, the UN board of scientists stated that Global Warming was probably due to human activity and urged the nations of the world to act.
Both the Iraq War and the push for carbon emissions reductions were/are considered moral imperatives. Those who oppose either one do not love freedom, the world, and the life we live.
Despite the assurances of either party of advocates, neither outcome is sure, nor does course of action guarantees happiness, security
There were many reasons for ridding the world of Saddam’s regime, not the least of which was WMD. His support for terrorists, is blatant violations of the UN-imposed cease-fire agreement, the murderous nature of Saddam and his cronies, and the oppression felt by the Iraqi people were all valid arguments for removing him from power (all of which were espoused by the opportunity hawks). Similarly, there are many (and better) arguments for changing how we consume energy and take care of the environment. Energy independence will take power away from belligerent regimes. Increasing population and more crowded areas require that we re-think how we dispose of waste, network our power, and manage our resources. Our economy relies on a readily-available source of energy not subject to the whims of other nations who dislike us, and the options are limitless.
As we progress with the Iraq war towards a situation that leaves that nation much better than it was under Saddam, one of the great differences between Iraq and Global Warming becomes apparent. While the supporters of Saddam’s removal from power have stumbled towards a resolution of the conflict, the Global Warming supporters have yet to offer any type of solution to the problem. Most Ecological prophets speak of the impending world demise, and man’s involvement in the problem, but almost none propose any solution that does more than slow down the march of warmer temperatures. These Global Warming sirens have given us not a single solution regarding how to live in a world a degree or two warmer, and they admit that their draconian actions may very well do little to change the warming trend on earth. So while the Hawks of Iraq presented a solution to the problem in Iraq, the carbon-haters of the world have no solution, only hysteria to match their gloomy outlook.
The biggest danger the Global Warming crowd faces will be if their predictions of heat and dying baby seals turns out to be yet another portion of the cycle of the earth’s ever-changing environment. Then, not only will they look foolish, but any future calamity will be met with disbelief and disdain. If we think George Bush took it on the chin for his stance on Iraq, just wait for the spears that Al Gore and his friends will take in the chest for their chicken little cries for a non-existent problem.