Why? Because there is no serious analysis or political will behind it---most politicians who pay lip service to the supposed crisis know the costs would be prohibitive and any action taken would have little effect. Has the Senate voted on the Kyoto Treaty since it was rejected 95-0 in 1997? Are you kidding? Will asks if the new Senators since then disagree with that vote. And this:
Do they also disagree with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist''? He says: Compliance with Kyoto would reduce global warming by an amount too small to measure. But the cost of compliance just to the United States would be higher than the cost of providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation, which would prevent 2 million deaths (from diseases like infant diarrhea) a year and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill each year.Well, this is a serious choice to weigh. More stats suggesting the eco-pious Prius advocates ought to hug a Hummer. (Note to Wilmette.)
And this will bring angst to the heart of any bona-fide liberal. Should Ben & Jerry's be banned in the interests of eco-puritanism?!! (Sorry, Lick Global Warming doesn't cut it.) No more Cherry Garcia for peace-niks?
No more Americone Dream?
Previous posts: Cool the Alarmism, Chicken Little Supreme
UPDATE: Joe Kernan, the first thing in the morning guy for CNBC politely challenges Sheryl Crow on the issue of global warming. NewsBusters coverage here.
No comments:
Post a Comment