Your email address:

Send To (enter comma-sperated email addresses):

Note to Recipient:




Entry:
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. Essential to this whole do nothing approach is the modeling of environmental harm as having no monetary value. The only relevant piece of the equation is, apparently, the cost to business. Of course, we aren't just talking about trees and animals dying this time, we're talking about catastrophic climate change resulting in significant societal displacement and presumably large-scale loss of life. But, of course, there is no reason to believe that this will happen any time soon, so why endanger short-term profits to do anything about it? This is perfectly consistent with our willingness to let corporations poison our air, water, food, etc. all in the name of efficiency. After all, those troublesome governmental regulations are just a burden on businesses making a profit. Another piece of the puzzle that somehow seems to be completely absent from the public discourse is the benefits of achieving energy independence. First there is the obvious saving in energy costs if we are addressing our energy needs through efficiency rather than increasingly expensive oil exploration. Then there is the obvious societal benefit of not needing to be militarily involved in the fate of middle-eastern countries. Along with the collateral effect of those same middle eastern countries no longer having massive oil revenues to prop up their repressive regimes. This is more likely to lead to democratic reform in the middle east than any sort of military action we might take. If Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. are overtaken by populist movements, they might finally get their economies in order, and start breeding scientists and entrepreneurs instead of terrorists. When looked at with this long-term view, doesn't it seem insane, if not criminal, to not aggressively pursue energy reform? And does there really seem to be any reason why we, as a nation, should continue to accept the argument that it is bad to cause harm to the very companies that are responsible for so much of the current mess we are in? Sure retooling the economy would lead to the downfall of some companies, but certainly if laying people off can be good for the economy, losing some corporations that don't fit with our future is also a good thing. Let us envision a better future for America, one in which the skies are clearer and the water more pure; one in which energy efficiency is a matter of national pride; one in which a company's political clout is related to their ability to improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans, not just give big contributions to a few; one in which our foreign policy is driven by real ideals, not cynical masking of our energy dependence; and one in which we are seen as a good global citizen, not a hated imperialist. Clearly working towards that future is ultimately what is best for national security. If protecting our economy is key to national security, than we must take a longer term view of things: selling out our future to help a small elite group today is surely bringing us one step closer to al Qaeda's dream of the destruction of America. Thanks George. Hail to the Uncumbent.