Global Warring?
Whenever the subject of global warming comes up, the two most persistent responses from conservatives are specious claims that there is no proof yet that global warming is real; and some high-toned rhetoric about the damage it could do to our economy were we to seriously address this issue. Their misuse of science is very much in line with Bush's faith-based logic: if it's something we don't like, the radical fringe should be granted as much, or more, credibility than the top scientists working in a field; if it's something we do like, anyone who has even a slightly different opinion from ours is a quack. Be assured that there is overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that global warming is real and strongly affected by human activity. Had we responded to the threat twenty years ago we would have been able to prevent climate change, now we can only hope to limit the damage it does. Today's topic, however, is the economy.
The basic gist of the economic argument against addressing global warming is that the cost to American businesses to address emissions problem would be so high that it would damage our national security. Remember this point: damage to the American economy is, according to the conservatives, damage to our national security. This means that if George W. Bush's policies are damaging to the long-term health of the US economy, then he is a threat to national security.
/war_and_terrorism | permanent link | ( ) | edit | trackbacks ()