I'm all for using "greener" energy sources for many reasons, both environmental and political. I love nature and have lived in rural areas all my life. But what I am wholeheartedly against is the use of environmental politics to control our lives "for the greater good." In this argument, the left is guilty of the same offences that they claim the right is with the war on terror. "An Inconvenient Truth" follows the poor example of Michael Moore: it takes a considerable topic with valid points and then exagerrates them to the point that it alienates those that are reasonable ignore your argument all-together. Remember the vision of New York under 20 feet of water? Yeah, try at most 2-3 feet if that. Gore even admitted to the exagerration.
This isn't about saving the world. Its about Al Gore screaming and banging on the door try to get out of his cage of obscurity (ooooh, I like that!). He's been doing this same presentation, which used to be a literal slide show, for 20 years. Its about the government dictating to us what cars we can drive, what fuel we use to heat our house and most importantly its about telling us all how bad everything is and is going to be unless THEY run things. Just like the far right does with terrorism, and we actually have real tangible evidence for that at least.
Most importantly, this is a veiled attack on capitalism. Why? What do you think is going to happen if those like Al Gore get their way? They are going to regulate fuel and energy until only those that are "green" (translated to "chosen by them") will be allowed to sell to the public. Like all regulated industry, it will fall into corruption filled with kick-backs and sweetheart deals. Its an attempt to convert us to a semi-socialist state, and socialism is NOT a destination... it is a toll booth.
Right now we are already seeing change, and it has nothing to do with Al Gore or government regulation. The powers of capitalism are already giving us the ends that Gore wishes for. High oil prices are pushing industry to greener fuel alternatives and the hybrid cars and industry. Increased regulation would most likely only increase the conversion process and limit our choices.
I'll leave you with a quote from Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT:
Quote:
“So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
“First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a ‘moral’ crusade.
“Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.”
|