I've felt for awhile that the biggest problem the global warming advocates have is the prescriptions given for treating the problem. They expect enormous sums of money to be spent, on ideas that all to often fail, which in the end putting people out of work, the nation deeper into debt, lowering economic growth. Our President's administration is a good example of billions wasted for "green jobs".
You don't see him on the campaign trail highlighting his successful greens program helping the economy, because he is not able to. It doesn't help either that many leaders for the GW movement make over the top claims in hopes of frightening people to fork over billions.
Liked Michael Barone's article this morning on the global warming movement.
"Warming Cult Behaving Like Zealots Of Old"
excerpt from the article:
"Skepticism has been increased by the actions of believers. Passage of the House cap-and-trade bill in June 2009 focused politicians and voters on the costs of global-warming religion. And disclosure of the Climategate emails in November 2009 showed how the clerisy was willing to distort evidence and suppress dissenting views in the interest of propagation of the faith.
We have seen how the United Nations agency whose authority we are supposed to respect took an item from an environmental activist group predicting that the Himalayan glaciers would melt in 2350 and predicted that the melting would take place in 2035. No sensible society would stake its economic future on the word of folks capable of such an error.
In recent years, we have seen how negative to 2% growth hurts many, many people, as compared to what happens with 3% to 7% growth. So we're much less willing to adopt policies that will slow down growth not just for a few years but for the indefinite future.
Media, university and corporate elites still profess belief in global warming alarmism, but moves toward policies limiting carbon emissions have fizzled out, here and abroad. It looks like we'll dodge the fate of the Millerites, the children's crusaders and the Mahdi's cavalrymen."
Enjoyed Professor Walter Russel Mead's article also.
"Greens Missing the Green Revolution"
snippet of the article:
"Greens spend much of their time and money trying to make energy more expensive so that people will consume less of it or consume more of the ?right kind? ? expensive and inefficient energy produced by alternative sources like wind and solar power. This is an uphill battle and puts greens on the wrong side of politics more often than not. More expensive energy means fewer jobs and less freedom, and surprisingly large numbers of people object.
Energy efficiency is something else. People actually like lower energy bills ? and of course if people consume less energy there will be less pressure on the environment. If the green movement could bring itself to shift its own energy and commitment from Solyndra-type grand interventions to conservation and efficiency projects, the world would be a cleaner and greener place.
More efficient energy use won?t solve all the world?s problems, and it doesn?t satisfy the statist, anti-capitalist instincts of many environmental activists, but it offers the environmental movement its most promising route of advance under contemporary conditions."