Democrats to sell out economy for dubious climate policy

Washington Post:

All of the leading Democratic contenders for the presidency are committed to a set of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that would change the way Americans light their homes, fuel their automobiles and do their jobs, costing billions of dollars in the short term but potentially, the candidates say, saving even more in the decades to follow.

Former senator John Edwards (N.C.), who from the outset has made global warming one of the three pillars of his campaign, explains his ambitious plan to Democratic primary voters in terms of sacrifice.

"I know what presidential candidates are supposed to do; they roll in here every four years and they promise you this, they promise you that. What I'm going to do is tell you the truth," Edwards says at nearly every campaign stop. "It won't be easy, but it is time for a president who asks Americans to be patriotic about something other than war."

The strong medicine Edwards and his fellow candidates are selling -- an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gases from 1990s levels by 2050 -- tracks with a plan espoused by scientists. But it is a plan that will require a wholesale transformation of the nation's economy and society.

In a speech yesterday in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said she plans to address climate change and the nation's energy needs by launching an effort to require U.S. vehicles to average 55 miles per gallon by 2030 and providing $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help the auto industry transform to production of more efficient cars. Clinton estimated that by 2030, her plan would cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds compared with current projections.

"This is the biggest challenge we've faced in a generation -- a challenge to our economy, our security, our health and our planet. It's time for America to meet it," Clinton said. ". . . I believe America is ready to take action, ready to break the bonds of the old energy economy and ready to prove that the climate crisis is also one of the greatest economic opportunities in the history of our country. . . . It will be a new beginning for the 21st century."

According to energy expert Tracy Terry's analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, under the scenario of an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity. At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel.

"I'd be the first to tell you: This is not necessarily the greatest political calculation," Edwards acknowledged in an interview, adding that audiences tend to pause before expressing their support when he lays out his climate plan. "No matter what the politics are, there's such a moral responsibility to address this issue. We've got to do it."

In a Des Moines speech last month, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) predicted that new technology will ultimately bring rising energy costs back down. "But at least on the front end, there's going to be some costs, and we can't pretend like there's a free lunch," he told the crowd.

While Democrats are working to outdo each other on climate change -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, for example, supports a 90 percent greenhouse gas reduction by midcentury -- GOP presidential candidates remain more skeptical, to say the least. Former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) stands by his commentary on National Review Online that warming on other planets has led some people "to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle."

...

The Post describes this policy by the Democrats as "risky." That is another term that is used when the Democrats are on the wrong side of an issue.

The globo warmers have tried to explain away the rising temperatures on other planets which correspond to the rising temperature on Earth, but i find their explanations unconvincing. At best the explanations are theory and not fact. I am still a skeptic on the issue of whether man is responsible for global warming.

The whole concept is too much like the ancients who blamed eclipses on displeasing the gods. Warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for thousands of years when men were obviously incapable of causing or changing either. It makes much more sense to adapt to the change and take advantage of it rather than trying to stop it and ruin the economy and our way of life.

Personally, I like warmer weather and can live with it being one or two degrees warmer.