Global Warming: The last remnants of skepticism

Wish you could go back to 1978 when global warming hysteria in the political spectrum along side the ticking population bomb theory of the 50’s was a poster child issue conceived by the ‘radical’ Left?

Remember FDR’s New Deal? A series of programs whose goals of relief, recovery and reform of the United States economy during the Great Depression was the ultimately architectural design of big government and not the last for that matter, then came the Marshall Plan, etc.

Today’s conservatives are at it again, concluding that global warming is just the latest temptation of aspiring bigger government. However, the same market forces that conservatives deeply believe in are handing the Right a big defeat on global warming, because the scientific findings have become so compelling that even big players like Exxon Mobil and General Motors have stopped questioning the theory.

Needless to say, the scientific evidence is really strong. Climatologists say that according to weather patterns, there is over a 90% likelihood that the increase in temperatures is traceable to human activity. A panel of over 2,000 world scientists concluded the same in March this year. This is no small ice-age, or a cyclical warming of the earth, like conservatives guiltlessly emphasize. This means change, and the only meaningful and effective rollback that can make global warming slow down is big government in the form of policies that directly address it.

Although our understanding of what climate change means for the future is largely theoretical, conservatives cannot keep lucratively resisting calls for regulating greenhouses emissions. Having allied themselves for years with groups proposing “intelligence design” and other crackpot theories, the Right has lost much of their intellectual rigor. President Bush’s White House has been in a constant warfare with scientists and this has damaged their reputation considerably.

If what the Right fears in the global warming action list is a ‘consequential economic meltdown’, then they must accept that this criticism is no longer reputable, given the fact that corporate entities and market forces are joining to bring about economic incentives in developing and distributing sustainable and renewable products and services.

But if their resistance to global warming consensus is a fervor-driven crackpot theory born out of the very same natural fiber of intelligence design, then consider the last skeptics on the endangered list and let’s not allow the oversold imagery of global warming taint our efforts to slow it down.

The Addiction to Oil: Hidden Consequences

After watching the movie Syriana for the second time (it takes two times to actually understand the plot) I was compelled to analyze how oil consumption and addiction has made nations weaker and vulnerable in many ways when it comes to stability and collective security.

The US consumes 25% of the world's oil production and many of the world's security conflicts stem from our self-confessed addiction to petroleum products. Let me break it down for you:

Just recently Cheney's critical speech of Russia's autocratic government was met with silent dismay (calls have been raised to suspend Russia's membership into the G8 because of its democratic crackdowns). Behind the lack of response? Oil and natural gas, and of course Russia has plenty to feed US demand and the world's.

The US, Europe and Asia need oil and natural gas and are willing to abandon western principles and independence to get them. This is called addiction. One possibility to the lack of consensus the US has tried to gather from the European Union and the UN Security Council to stop Iran from enriching uranium (accused of developing nuclear weapons) may have a deeper explanation: as the world's oil reserves diminish and ways to explore and extract it become more expensive, securing Middle Eastern oil and Russia's own production is at the heart of the debate. I still fathom the possibility that the Iraq war has been the linkage to securing a buffer zone to deal with extremist regimes in the Middle East that are sitting on the oil wells we westerners have an addiction to.

Another good example of how our addiction is in direct conflict with our democratic principles is our ambiguous relationship with Saudi Arabia, which supplied 15 of 19 Sept. 11 terrorists. Most of our oil comes from this country, yet as we continue to crackdown on terrorist and extremist Muslim nations worldwide that can produce attacks on US soil or allies, we seem to ignore the fact that this nation still teaches militant Islam in school textbooks, and has not produced democratic elections in decades.

We all know that the cost of oil will keep rising thanks to climate change, widespread authoritarianism (Venezuela and Iran) and nuclear proliferation. Developing countries will be hit the hardest as their bargaining power is almost non-effective and citizens end with most of the hidden costs.

We need not only to recognize that we have an addiction, but to seek practical alternatives to oil. There is much to learn from Brazil, which developed a cost-effective, alternative to oil. Three decades ago, Brazil made a shift in consumption and invested in sugar cane ethanol production. Today, Brazil has succeeded where other industrialized nations have failed: it has become energy independent. During his most memorable moment in this year’s State of the Union address, Pres. Bush finally recognized this country’s addiction to oil; now let’s act together to find the cure.

During his most memorable moment in this year’s State of the Union address, Pres. Bush finally recognized this country’s addiction to oil; now let’s act together to find the cure. Developing alternative energy sources is not economic suicide like many have advocated, instead it is a national security issue just as it’s a vital economic one. It would be advantageous for the US to assume a leading role in a cleaner and more sustainable world.