James Bond vs Al Gore

lMyQjAxMDA5MDIwMDEyNDAyWj.html
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704107204574475181433552914-


http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704500604574482191245495128-lMyQjAxMDA5MDIwMTEyNDEyWj.html


Those of us who are hidden away from the Al Gore Forces (AGF) have some allies. We try to keep a low profile so that we won't be attacked and discredited. First attached, we were given access to a conversation between James Bond and Felix Leiter on how many feet above high tide the Thames River would have to be before it floods London. While Bond's original reaction to Leiter's question was that "SPECTRE" must have some plot to make that happen, Leiter informs him that it is part of CIA Director Leon Panetta's newly launched "Center on Climate Change and National Security" where the CIA has been tasked to evaluate potential threats to the U.S. from climate change. Quoting Panetta, "Decision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security."

Of course, Bond's reaction to all of this is that nobody listens to Al Gore but Leiter informs Bond that the CIA is not allowed to question the science. Leiter goes on to explain to Bond that it's really not the CIA anymore, it's the "CYA".

At the risk of offending the AGF, I'll go with Pete DuPont (second attached) who sees "global" and "warming" as the two most important words used to justify the approaching governmental control of the U.S. economy. DuPont's "reality" is that global warming is barely occurring: in the 30 years starting in 1977, warming amounted to 0.32 degree Fahrenheit per decade, and, in the next 100 years, it is estimated to be about half a degree per decade. So, global warming looks like something that does not merit the extreme control currently being contemplated in Congress. The new Boxer-Kerry Bill is the Senate version of the Waxman-Markey House bill. The Boxer-Kerry bill looks to require a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

This 20% reduction would mean getting back to 1977 levels of emissions which would require fairly draconian measures: for example, car and truck miles would have to be reduced by one-third (over 10 years). Who volunteers to go first with that one? And, what's the impact of that on our very weak economic recovery? Oh, and there is a return to "protectionism" with a new "border adjustment program" where we in the U.S. can apply "tariffs" on goods imported from countries that do not adopt acceptable environmental standards. Acceptable to whom, the AGF?

Both the House and Senate bills would allow "emitters" to claim they were hitting reduction targets (while actually emitting more carbon) by investing in projects that reduce carbon. There is no "cap-and-trade" system that really works - Europe tried it.

High cost policies with low impact results are not in America's best interests. While the AGF look to change how we approach improving our environment, hiding behind radical approaches and threatening opponents is not the way to do that. Improving the environment while having a progressive approach to economic growth and jobs is the only way to go.