Temperatures in Washington D.C. Rise – Democrats Full of Hot Air

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

While several investigations promised by Democrats continued today in our nation’s capital, the focus briefly turned to climate change. Al Gore visited with members from the Joint House Subcommittee on Global Climate Change in the morning before joining the Senators in the afternoon for a similar discussion.

In the morning session, Gore gave a speech that outlined his claims about global warming and some needed solutions he proposed to the subcommittee. He came with “new evidence” of our effects on nature. The former vice president claimed to have reports from scientists that showed all of the ice in the Arctic (that’s in the North, for all of the uneducated people) could disappear completely within the next 34 years. He also explained that the Earth is “shaking” from glacial earthquakes that have more than quadrupled in the past 15 years. He even had evidence that global warming is responsible for the fires in the western United States, Russia, and Australia.

After relaying these newly discovered human atrocities against nature, he gave the joint subcommittee a list of propositions on how to help curb the effects of global warming.

Al Gore called for an immediate freeze on all carbon dioxide emissions and wanted a reduction of 90% by the year 2050. He asked that legislatures use the tax codes of our country to implement a “pollution tax” on all carbon pollution and to redistribute this money to the poor. Stronger Kyoto-type treaties were called for with quick implementation, as soon as 2010. He asked for a ban on incandescent light bulbs and that no new coal-fire power plants are built without carbon-capture and sequestration capabilities. He asked that a carbon-neutral mortgage association (“Connie Mae” as he called it) be established and that corporations disclose their amount of carbon emissions (probably so they can be taxed later).

So, how would one go about halting all carbon dioxide emissions? Are we to stop breathing, or is this just a halt on machines? And how can you reduce carbon dioxide by 90%? That reduction would bring carbon dioxide levels below 40 parts per million (ppm) in relation to our current level. Is that even possible? The pollution tax is a little more excusable…he is a Democrat and they love their taxes, especially if it affects big businesses. But such a tax would not affect them, since taxes are passed on to the consumer. So, we would be paying for their taxes and our own “pollution tax”. What a novel idea, Mr. Gore.

In the afternoon session with the Senators, Gore was asked questions by the panel. The Democrats present fell all over themselves at his mere presence and were only able to mostly speak of their admiration of him and give little anecdotes about the effects of global warming on ice-fishing, manatees, and wetlands in Maryland (but I’m not sure if these wetlands were too dry, or too wet). One Democrat Senator did seem interested in some of his proposals though. Senator Hillary Clinton appeared to be engrossed in the ideas of taxation and mandatory compliance of emission standards. She was also very attracted to the “Connie Mae” proposal. Who’d have guessed?

The Republicans on the panel seemed to be more interested in finding out facts and asking pointed questions about his claims and ideas. Senator James Inhoffe of Oklahoma showed everyone present the hypocrisy of Al Gore in his opening questions. The senator asked the former vice president if he believed global warming was a moral and spiritual issue, if carbon dioxide was responsible for it, and if we are responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide. Gore answered yes to all three. But when Senator Inhoffe showed Gore the last frame from his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which asked the viewers if they were ready to change the way they live, he asked Gore if he would then pledge to reduce his energy consumption and emissions.

At that point, an amazing thing happened. Al Gore refused to do it. Instead, he talked for a few minutes about the scientific consensus on the issue and about his efforts to try to live more “green”. The most prominent, most passionate voice for advocating man-made global warming couldn’t pledge to reduce his energy consumption. I guess he really doesn’t feel this is a grave threat after all.

During his talk he made a reference to the unanimous agreement of the U.N.’s IPCC report by members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Senator Inhoffe quickly corrected him by displaying a list of over a hundred scientists of the NAS who did not agree. Senator John Warner of Virginia asked Gore how we could ensure that nations like China and India would agree to Kyoto-type regulation agreements. Gore gave an answer along the lines of: “If we do it, they may follow our lead.”

When the issue of nuclear energy was raised by Senator Larry Craig of Idaho on how to cut costs and pollution, Gore insisted that nuclear energy could be a very small factor, not nearly as much as coal based carbon-capture and sequestration plants and pollution taxes. Senator Craig pointed out the fact that the previous administration, of which Gore was vice president, cut nearly all funding for research and development of clean energy provided by nuclear power plants. Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee continued the discussion by pointing out that nuclear power provides 70% of our carbon-free energy, but only 20% of our power. It seems that nuclear power is the best way to fix our problems, but environmentalists won’t dare allow that!

So, what did we learn today? Well, we learned that Al Gore loves the idea of communist-like legislation of controlling businesses and individuals. Senator Clinton seconds that motion. Al Gore believes that carbon dioxide levels have never been above 300 ppm. He believes that Mars is cooler than Earth and Venus is warmer because of their respective carbon dioxide levels. He believes that overpopulation and technology are destroying our planet. He said, “the history of freedom is the history of legislative bodies.” He says that global warming presents us with “the greatest opportunity we’ve ever encountered,” and he compares this issue to the moral issue of the civil rights movement.

Despite all of this, he refuses to reduce his energy consumption.

He was referred to as the leader of climate change awareness and was championed by the Democrats as the lone voice that moved the Earth to action. At this point in time, I’m not sure if that’s a good thing, or bad. Let’s hope for his sake that he’s right. If the consensus changes again like it did a few decades ago, I’d hate to be in his shoes.

For background reading, check out the following:
http://www.xomba.com/environmentalism_vs_communism_is_there_a_difference

http://www.xomba.com/a_world_crisis_the_new_global_terror