In the fight between the Christian Left and the Christian Right over man-made global warming, I suggest another Christian option: Look to the end game and just go nuclear.
No, I'm not talking about dropping bunker-busting tactical nuclear devices in Iran (at least not yet), but about pursuing an energy policy that would actually solve our energy problem rather than just postpone it.
Why aren’t we building any more nuclear reactors, especially now? Why do we--almost eagerly--fund our worst enemies? Why are we still so economically--and therefore militarily--vulnerable to Islamofascists like Ahmadinejad?
Answer: For the very same reason we aren’t doing more off-shore drilling or drilling in Anwar, or building more refineries. Because the very same people who are now screaming “The globe is warming! The globe is warming!” don’t want them. They’d prefer having their fear-mongering political wedge issue than actually solving the problem. And because the Democratic Party depends upon such malcontented special interest groups for its political power, we don’t have a solutions-oriented energy policy.
Something is terribly wrong when Brazil, who has achieved energy independence by growing and running its own ethanol, and France, who is getting 80% of their energy from nuclear power, are ahead of us.
Just think: Why do you never hear any real solutions from the Greens other than things like "cap greenhouse emissions" "ratify Kyoto," "institute a windfall profits tax on Big Oil," "use alternative energy," "flush less often," "use different light bulbs," "lower the thermostat," "take a bus to work" or some other proposal that will only end up raising gas to a Euro-pean $5.00 a gallon (or more), hurt the global economy, and leave the world’s poor in worse shape?
As with Iraq, I want to ask these people, "Where’s Your Plan?" I, like most Americans, am interested in solutions.
This is not to say the Greens could not serve some instrumental purpose to good ends. If they succeeded in allowing/persuading their Democratic Leadership to "go nuclear"” drill in Anwar, build more refineries, and offer more tax in-centives to venture capitalists in new technologies like hydrogen and fuel cells, then I wouldn’t mind their “The Globe is Warming” eco-terror mantra.
As Tony Soprano might say, "Deez people might be useful." I’d let them have their means as long as it achieved my political ends. Right now, I'm interested in results. The quicker we can become more independent and less reliant on foreign oil, the sooner we will be less likely blackmailed by some Islamofascist dictator, Kim Jung Il, or the victims of eco-nomic warfare from China, the EU, or India.
In the simplest terms, I support an ecological multiple modus ponens (see, I went to grad school):
If P, then Q "If global warming, then less fossil fuels."
If Q, then R "If less fossil fuels, then nuclear energy."
P "Global warming."
Therefore, R. "Therefore, nuclear energy."
Not surprisingly, though, this ain’t going to happen.
So, we have to challenge the mythology of man-made global warming, change minds and thereby votes, and one day pass legislation that would actually solve our energy problems rather than maintain the status quo and merely complain about them.
In that spirit, here’s my brief cheat-sheet on the issue of global warming.
(While I’m mentioning websites, Senator James Inhofe has an excellent pdf on the ruse of global warming here.)
So, here’s my point: If you think man-made global warming is happening, you’ve got environmental reasons to support building nuclear power plants. Others of us have primarily military, economic, and political reasons for doing so. We’re fellow travelers to the same destination; different paths, same goal. Either way, let’s go nuclear. The sooner the better.