Second, since China is the largest emitter in the world, when do you expect them to start cutting? The answer is, of course, never. And should they? This is a country that pulled 100 MILLION out of poverty between 1990 and 2000; with millions more in the years since. It is, by all accounts, a developing country with most of the people poor.

The U.S. is second for emissions, but who is third? Why India, of course. They are in the same position as China, with a capitalist economy emerging from what was once socialism and pulling tens of millions out of poverty. Expect them to sign on soon?

Climate pledges are a waste of money. As Bjorn Lomborg once said, “Germany spent $156 billion to build hundreds of windmills. These will save enough emission to offset global warming in 100 years…by 1 hour.”

We live in a world of finite resources. And the cost is simply not worth the benefit and I have yet to read a report that suggests otherwise.

Second, since China is the largest emitter in the world, when do you expect them to start cutting? The answer is, of course, never. And should they? This is a country that pulled 100 MILLION out of poverty between 1990 and 2000; with millions more in the years since. It is, by all accounts, a developing country with most of the people poor.

The U.S. is second for emissions, but who is third? Why India, of course. They are in the same position as China, with a capitalist economy emerging from what was once socialism and pulling tens of millions out of poverty. Expect them to sign on soon?

Climate pledges are a waste of money. As Bjorn Lomborg once said, “Germany spent $156 billion to build hundreds of windmills. These will save enough emission to offset global warming in 100 years…by 1 hour.”

We live in a world of finite resources. And the cost is simply not worth the benefit and I have yet to read a report that suggests otherwise.

Second, since China is the largest emitter in the world, when do you expect them to start cutting? The answer is, of course, never. And should they? This is a country that pulled 100 MILLION out of poverty between 1990 and 2000; with millions more in the years since. It is, by all accounts, a developing country with most of the people poor.

The U.S. is second for emissions, but who is third? Why India, of course. They are in the same position as China, with a capitalist economy emerging from what was once socialism and pulling tens of millions out of poverty. Expect them to sign on soon?

Climate pledges are a waste of money. As Bjorn Lomborg once said, “Germany spent $156 billion to build hundreds of windmills. These will save enough emission to offset global warming in 100 years…by 1 hour.”

We live in a world of finite resources. And the cost is simply not worth the benefit and I have yet to read a report that suggests otherwise.

How did you drag Limbaugh into this? And why? And where, pray tell, did you come up with the claim that I think his listeners are stupid?

What I dislike, Witness, however you wish to word it, is your presumption that, because I am convinced that global warming/climate change is a real and imminent threat, I must therefore be a “liberal.” You don't know me; you are not familiar with my views on other topics. What gives you the knowledge that I must be “liberal”? (Whatever that is–and that's an issue too, since the word has become an epithet and has lost most of its political meaning, IMO. So have “conservative” and “socialist,” for that matter.) You might be surprised about my views on many topics. Some may indeed be “liberal” by your definition, but I doubt whether all of them are.

In fact, regarding climate change and environmental issues, I believe I’m actually a conservative. I’m using that term in its original meaning. The Latin conservare is the root for both “conservative” and “conservation.” (Tell that to the self-identified conservative “drill, baby, drill!” people.) I am convinced of climate change not only because of the scientific evidence but also because one singular characteristic of our industrial, consumerist, global economy age is wasteful profligacy. We have consumed the earth’s resources at an increasingly ravenous rate and are reaching a breaking point. Nobody can tell me that we can’t pump huge and increasing amounts of carbon, carbon that had been sequestered inside the earth for millions of years, at ever accelerating rates into the atmosphere without affecting something.

I have never been a fan of Al Gore; I never voted for him for any office. And, yes, he’s been rather less than a stellar role model in terms of practicing what he preaches. But that fact doesn’t invalidate any of his global warming arguments; only the scientific evidence could do that. Galileo, I understand, was an insufferable jerk who managed to offend just about everyone who got to know him. That fact didn’t nullify any of his observations or invalidate any of his arguments, either. Therefore, your ad hominem comments about him and other Hollywood “liberals” are invalid arguments against global warming.

I also think Gore’s proposed solutions to the problem (e.g., recycling, driving hybrids, swapping out incandescent bulbs for fluorescent ones) are lame and won’t work to solve the problem. Not that we shouldn’t be doing those things to save energy–of course we should. But Gore’s mistake, one shared by just about all our leaders, is that we can fix all these problems and still keep our profligate lifestyles intact. That won’t work. Climate change isn’t the only problem we face. Our wastefulness has resulted in resource shortages and depletions across the board—water, soil, and, yes, even fossil fuels. The fix will require major lifestyle changes and changes in expectations, and no politician is willing to announce that fact. But the changes will happen; the only question is whether we will make them voluntarily or be forced into them. Because nature bats last, as one blogger succinctly puts it. The global ecosystem will have the last word. (God normally doesn’t intervene in the natural processes he set up at creation, so when an imbalance occurs, God is usually content to let nature address and correct the imbalance. Plus, I don’t think he will intervene to bail us out of the consequences of our own foolishness. He’s given us plenty of warning through his prophets.)

The current economic recession, I believe, is only the beginning of a long period of economic contraction as globalism, corporate capitalism, and industrialism gradually find their way into history’s dumpster. Neither the current administration nor most of our politicians have a clue about what’s coming down the road.

I agree with you that a direct carbon tax would be more effective—and more honest—than this cap and trade proposal. And I agree that we need to fund public transport (e.g, Amtrak) more than new highways and auto industry subsides. (I don’t think the auto industry will survive the coming shortages and economic contractions anyway, and we will still need ways to get around.) But a cap and trade is still better than doing nothing. We ought to get used to higher energy prices and really learn to conserve. Finding ways to save energy could actually give us a genuine economic revival.

Peace,
Don

Truth? What is truth? It is what sets you free. The 'truth' of yesteryear was little more than a self-proclaimed grasp of certainty. Certainty is a state of mind where no more information is accepted and no more thinking is required; the one with the certain mind sets their self upon a pedestal for all to see.

If one follows Jesus closely, they may see that his was not a formulaic, one-size-fits-all philosophy. He confounded his followers and critics alike by seeming to play both sides against the middle by not giving clear, concise, expert answers.

I believe our state religion is not secularism, but nationalism with a sprinkling of Pauline phraseology with an undefined “under God” underpinning.

But this is beside the point.

The point is that without legislating benefits and protections for the poor of the world in any climate change action, they will be plowed under simply because there is no short-term benefit to the wealthy, powerful, and mighty.

To allow this to happen without taking a strong and vocal stand against it is to fail in an even more spectacular manner than did the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

One person reporting a comment won't normally get it removed, though; someone else must have taken offense to it as well.