Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, September 14, 2007
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Wouldn't It Be Nice?
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Sarah Palin make a run at the GOP Nomination in 2012?


For years, supporters of global warming alarmism have repeated an odd refrain: Even if we're wrong, we're right.

Sen. Timothy E. Wirth, D-Colo., said it in 1988, as the National Journal reported. "What we've got to do in energy conservation is (to) try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

I regularly receive e-mails with similar arguments. Or, as one reader put it: "If global warming is not real, and we spend money trying to fight it, what harm will come of our mistake? Cleaner air? If global warming is real, and we do nothing, what harm will come of our laxity? On which side should we err?"

Savor, if you will, the lack of science in that argument. The global warming contingent loves to don the Mantle of Science as the reason to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But its backup argument is: It's OK if we're wrong, because we mean well.

What will come of the mistake of changing policies because of global warming alarmism?

The very question presupposes that the sacrifices that Americans will have to make are small.

Viewers of Al Gore's flick "An Inconvenient Truth" were warned of the dire changes on this planet and then were referred to a Website that tells people to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs, properly inflate their tires, drive less and turn off electronic devices when not in use. As if those changes would stop the predicted catastrophe.

Some of the most well-known global warming promoters are big-time energy guzzlers. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed landmark state global-warming legislation, has his Hummers and leases a private jet. A conservative think-tank, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, reported that, despite their signature issue, the Gores burned 221,000 kilowatt hours last year, or 20 times the national average, in one of their three homes.

To global warming glitterati, the noble approach to the issue is to push for treaties, laws and regulations that make other people and other industries do the heavy lifting on energy conservation.

Last month, a United Nations conference in Vienna approved a nonbinding agreement directing industrialized nations to cut their emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2020. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Wirth said more
Note that Congressman Wirth (2nd paragraph) said more than that cutting emissions wouldn't hurt so much. He said that energy conservation is the right thing to do both economically and environmentally, even if global warming isn't true.

In other words, Wirth is anti-energy, and hence anti-industrial, period. He wants to turn back economic progress because he thinks it's bad. He would prefer that we live in a more primitive society.

Someone should point out to him that more primitive societies, such as the Brazil of today, wreak total havoc on their environments in an effort to feed their people. Brazil has torn down vast expanses of the Amazon jungle for simple farming. Modern high energy, high tech society is much more environmentally friendly than Brazil, provided one doesn't go to the excesses practiced by China. Simple antipollution laws (against real pollutants, not carbon dioxide) work wonders.

Carbon dioxide is natural to this planet. Burning fossil fuels just returns carbon dioxide to the ecosystem that was originally derived from organic materials! Burning fossil fuels is recycling organic carbon!

My Opine
You may be on to something there!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.