That phrase was used Sunday in a letter to the editor criticizing "big government" for going after "big oil" in Congressional hearings and suggesting that, in "the near term" we start looking for more oil resources here at home --in the oceans and in Alaska, meaning I assume, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Now I'm no scientist but I do know how to read the 'scientific' conclusions of experts who say that oil from ANWAR wouldn't be available for at least ten years and even then might knock only seventy five cents off the cost of a barrel of oil. That doesn't sound like much of a solution to the high price of gas, let alone our "addiction" to foreign oil.
But the part of the letter that got my attention was the reference to environmentalists preaching "...the tenets and doctrine of the Global Warming religion... ."
Again, I'm no scientist. And I don't have anything against religion. But I do consider myself an environmentalist concerned about climate change and the ongoing degradation of the earth's ecosystems. That concern is based not on religious "tenets and doctrine" (unless my regard for the survival of life on earth, including human life, can be considered "religious") but rather on the hard scientific data that overwhelmingly points to catastrophe in the very near future if we don't stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The burning of fossil fuels, including oil, accounts for almost all of those earth warming greenhouse gases.
If one were to base the formulation of public policy on science, then, it seems clear that oil advocates, not environmentalists and their alternative energy ideas, would lose out. To conclude otherwise is wishful thinking, probably influenced by adherence to some form of free market ideology, which is probably more akin to religious belief than anything espoused by those who work to save the earth.
Now I'm no scientist but I do know how to read the 'scientific' conclusions of experts who say that oil from ANWAR wouldn't be available for at least ten years and even then might knock only seventy five cents off the cost of a barrel of oil. That doesn't sound like much of a solution to the high price of gas, let alone our "addiction" to foreign oil.
But the part of the letter that got my attention was the reference to environmentalists preaching "...the tenets and doctrine of the Global Warming religion... ."
Again, I'm no scientist. And I don't have anything against religion. But I do consider myself an environmentalist concerned about climate change and the ongoing degradation of the earth's ecosystems. That concern is based not on religious "tenets and doctrine" (unless my regard for the survival of life on earth, including human life, can be considered "religious") but rather on the hard scientific data that overwhelmingly points to catastrophe in the very near future if we don't stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The burning of fossil fuels, including oil, accounts for almost all of those earth warming greenhouse gases.
If one were to base the formulation of public policy on science, then, it seems clear that oil advocates, not environmentalists and their alternative energy ideas, would lose out. To conclude otherwise is wishful thinking, probably influenced by adherence to some form of free market ideology, which is probably more akin to religious belief than anything espoused by those who work to save the earth.
What is dismaying, but not surprising, is that global warming has not become a salient issue in the presidential race. It's not surprising because most voters undoubtedly believe that global warming will not affect them, perhaps ever, but at least not in their lifetimes.
They are wrong. The federal government -- yes, that's George Bush's federal government -- published a report yesterday that concluded that human-generated carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have already caused more frequent forest fires, reduced snowpack and increased drought, especially in the Western United States. The reduced snowpack translates into reduced levels of fresh water in our reservoirs and rivers that can be used for drinking and irrigation.
Unfortunately, most Americans voters would rather have reduced gas prices -- allowing them to drive more and burn more fossil fuels -- than make the sacrifices necessary to combat global warming. Our presidential candidates know this, which is why they haven't made global warming a central theme of their campaigns.
Dismaying.
Posted by: Craig | May 29, 2008 at 09:06 PM
Not only dismaying, but scandalous, which is why I'm not terribly excited by Obama's candidacy.
I will vote for him in November, however. It's time to end Republican rule.
Posted by: Terry | May 29, 2008 at 09:47 PM