Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Roy isn't coy, he's 'Blunt"

I’m not a huge environmentalist and not a particurlarly large fan of nature… my idea of ‘roughing it’ is a 3-star hotel.

Having said that, it’s clear the environmental lobby has a new nemesis; House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO).

In an article appearing in today’s Energy and Environment Daily (you can click on the link if you want, but you have to have a subscription to read the article, so it may be a moot point) Blunt states that if he stays “in power” (who does he think he is? Fidel Castro?) after the mid-term elections in November, there will not be any action on global warming… ever… for the entire 110th Congress… as long as ‘he’s in charge.’


What that means is that there will not be ANY global warming mandates.


His reasoning? He thinks “the information (about global warming) is not adequate yet for us to do anything meaningful.”

Uh… yeah… sure…

Let’s review some things about Global Warming;

  • thousands of scientists agree that global warming is actually real and is a serious threat to our planet.
  • Humans ARE responsible for much of it
  • If steps to combat it aren’t taken to lessen greenhouse emissions, there will be consequences… extremely serious consequences

But Sen. Blunt (who may have smoken some ‘blunts’) doesn’t believe any of the “hype.” He thinks it’s all posturing by the environmental lobby and things aren nowhere near as bad as some people say.

Ok… how about the fact that sixty-one members of the House, including Iowa’s Jim Leach – who is a Republican – gasp!, comprehend the threat of global warming and have co-sponsored the Safe Climate Act designed by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA).

That bill is a practical attempt aimed at the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (see more about the Safe Climate Act HERE)

I’m a smart man… but can someone explain something to me that I just don’t get?

There is nothing in the Bible about Global Warming (unless it’s the missing commandment; 'Thou shall not interfere with the emission of greenhouse gases') , and there is nothing about global warming that empowers terrorism.

So why do republicans and conservatives have such a lax view of global warming?

Is their primary objection the fact that it might cost a lot of money? If you consider risk and do a modest cost benefit analysis (whoo-hoo! CBA’s!!) and include the risks, this doesn’t appear to be the case.

Screw it; maybe instead of building a bombshelter and wait for the mid-term elections, I should just build a rocket…

No comments: