Posted 3 months, 11 days ago in 
Loading ...
Now that the Pentagon has validated climate change as a security threat as stated in The Daily Sentinel article Aug. 9, perhaps the local disbelievers will accept the fact that global warming is not just fear mongering by a bunch of maundering green wackos. If a sober analysis by the Defense Department foresees the possibility that its military intervention may be required to deal with all kinds of natural catastrophes and ensuing human disasters, then it’s time for the stubborn and sometimes strident opposition to re-examine the grounds for its (non-)beliefs.
In that regard it would be helpful if our elected representatives showed responsible leadership, when the issues of reduction of greenhouse gases by curbing the use of fossil fuels arise, by at least acknowledging there is a problem even if they don’t know how to solve it. We recognize that politicians have to give equal weight to the economic consequences of any remedial measures proposed but they should at least start from accepted scientific bases. For example, critics of global warming often state that the computer models describing the effects are inaccurate and typified by
“garbage in, garbage out,” without realizing that there are experimental methods being used to distinguish between some natural and man-made pollutants in the atmosphere.
Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of the Central Command, wrote recently, “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives”.
Which price do we want to pay?
EARLE MULLEN
Grand Junction
7 Responses to “Global warming is going to cost us one way or another”
Posted August 12th, 2009 at 8:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I find it funny that most global warming advocates have never taken a geology class or a meterology class, but they are experts in both areas of global warming, global cooling and meterology. They also have an uncanny ability to extrapolate 100 years of climate data and 50 years of personal data into 4.5 billion years of earth’s existance. 12,000 years ago ice sheets covered Alaska and Canada, they melted….this has been due to a natural cycle of global warming, which, eventually will be followed by a natural cycle of global cooling.
Posted August 12th, 2009 at 8:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually, I think you;ll find that it is those who deny AGW that are assuming expertise where is does not exist. And those who claim there is no warming happening at all (and there are some out there) are just in their own world.
To say that any global warming advocate is promoting the idea that the earth has been warming continuously for 4.5 billion years is just wrong. I’d like to see a source for that. I’ve never seen anyone make that claim and I’ve never seen any global warming advocate deny that the earth has climate cycles as well.
The earth is warming. The shrinking polar ice and retreating glaciers attest to the fact that something is happening. Mankind’s contribution to that is still debatable, but the majority of the arguments against AGW I’ve seen boil down to arguments from incredulity, and incredulous arguments from those who have not studied the issued are not convincing.
Posted August 12th, 2009 at 9:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If India and CHina refuse to play in the global warming game, nothing we do is going to change the outcome.
To suggest that we should go ahead and tax our economy anyway, because “it’s the right thing to do”, is not going to fly given the huge problems our economy faces already and the deficits that we are now burdened with.
Going green is supported by most Americans as long as it costs them next to nothing to be green. Once the cost comes into play, fewer people want to play.
Posted August 12th, 2009 at 9:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No argument, but that has nothing to do with whether or not AGW is real or not.
Posted August 12th, 2009 at 9:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree. But until folks are convinced that AGW is the disaster that many claim it is, few will be willing to pay the price, either here or around the world.
Posted August 12th, 2009 at 9:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, when they’re standing knee deep in areas that used to be 20 feet above sea level, they might start listening.
Of course, then they will be complaining that no one warned them.
Posted August 12th, 2009 at 12:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From today’s WSJ:
“President Obama says his cap-and-trade energy tax won’t hurt the economy, but at least 10 Senate Democrats disagree. Last week they sent Mr. Obama a letter demanding that any bill taxing U.S. CO2 emissions must include a carbon tariff “to ensure that manufacturers do not bear the brunt of our climate change policy.”
Hmmm. This sure sounds like an explicit admission that cap and tax would add so much to the cost of doing business in the U.S. that it would drive factories and jobs overseas. The 10 mostly liberal Senators come from states like Ohio, Michigan and West Virginia whose economies rely heavily on manufacturing and coal. “We must not engage in a self-defeating effort that displaces greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them and displaces U.S. jobs rather than bolstering them,” wrote the Senators.
Thus their demand that “a longer-term border adjustment mechanism”—a euphemism for tariffs—”is a vital part of this package to prevent the relocation of carbon emissions and industries” to countries that aren’t as foolish as to impose a similar tax. Those countries include China and India, which have told Obama officials that they have no intention of signing on to the rich world’s growth-killing obsessions.
All of which puts the President in an economic policy bind. When the House passed its cap-and-tax bill in June, he warned against a carbon tariff by saying “I think we need to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals.” But these 10 Senate Democrats are saying explicitly that protectionism is the price of their support. So Mr. Obama can opt to impose a huge carbon tax and drive jobs overseas, or he can impose the tax along with a tariff, and kick off a trade war. Better to call the whole thing off.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.