Driessen goes on to make a point that I have been struggling to make with some of my friends. Let us assume that human carbon dioxide emissions will cause average global temperatures to rise a few degrees more than they have already since the Little Ice Age ended. The policies proposed to deal with it will harm minorities the most, in contrast to the position of the Black Congressional Caucus.
For another point, and this should be obvious, human activities have not replaced the complex natural forces that drove climate change throughout Earth’s history. I think it arrogant in the extreme to think otherwise. Still further, even if manmade greenhouse gases do contribute to planetary warming, slashing US emissions to zero would bring no benefit, because steadily rising emissions from China, India, Brazil and other rapidly growing economies would almost instantly replace whatever gases we cease emitting. Driessen goes on to point out that fossil fuels power the economic engine that ensures justice and opportunity in America today. Policies that make energy less reliable and affordable reduce business revenues and profits, shrink investment and innovation, imperil economic recovery, and hobble job creation, civil rights, and the pursuit of happiness and the American dream. Whether they take the form of cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, restrictions on drilling and coal mining, or EPA rules under its claim that carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare, anti-energy policies frustrate the natural desire of poor and minority Americans to improve their lives. As he puts it, "We cannot have justice without opportunity, or opportunity without energy. We cannot have justice by sharing scarcity, poverty and skyrocketing energy prices more equally – especially on the basis of erroneous, speculative or manipulated climate science."
After reading this article, I hope the reader can see where the policies that activists propose to deal with global warming (I would include the United Methodist Church as one of those activists) are a far greater threat to human justice than is global warming itself.
You may not have to worry, b/c I'm not sure that GW fears will rise any higher than they already have. Psychologists have pointed out humans have a limited "fear" capacity - they simply cannot worry about everything. Very strange indeed when we are living in the best age ever (according to most libertarian economists) and we are also the most anxious.
ReplyDeleteAside from GW, we had/have plenty of reasons enough to transition away from fossil fuels. My father-in-law points out that we started to do so during the energy crisis of his days, then lost all motivation when the Arabs opened the pipes. We would still be beholden to them, unfortunately, even if we drilled all over our territory. It is certainly not impossible, anymore than landing on the moon was for engineers with slide rules and less than a decade of time.
Where we needed GOP leadership was making any carbon tax revenue neutral by lowering some other tax, say payroll. Tax what you don't want, not what you want. We want employment, we don't want carbon, NOx, SOx, contaminated drinking water, etc. I don't understand why this isn't more mainstream. Perhaps b/c Al Gore floated the idea.
Adam, I am not so sure that the present Congress or President would want a revenue neutral bill. Remember, the Congress as presently constituted is thoroughly in control of Democrats. Further, many in the GOP, including McCain, would agree with your position that carbon emissions are something about which to "worry," as you put it. If something cannot get passed with the makeup of this Congress and with this President, maybe it will be because it is a bad idea. If an idea is a good one, it will pass, even if it did come from Al Gore.
ReplyDelete