Warner-Lieberman

So, it looks like the whole "green" craze is finally starting to catch on with more and more people. It seems like every other commercial we see on television these days makes some reference to the environmentally friendly properties of certain products. I don't watch a lot of television, but even I have noticed a marked increase in the number of times the "green" word is uttered in marketing schemes. I used to love the Discovery Channel, but it, along with The Weather Channel, seems to have become the new headquarters for Global Warming propaganda. More and more we see references to the idea of man-made "climate change" as common knowledge, or fact, when in reality it is merely unsubstantiated theory.

The simple fact remains that there are just as many climate scientists who reject the idea that man-made climate change is even possible. Global Warming has become a religion to many, and for the most part, its proponents have come from the left. Supposedly, more and more conservatives, especially conservative evangelicals, are now being won over by the arguments for "doing something" to prevent this impending disaster. I hope to post more extensively on this topic in the near future, when I have time to truly address what I see as the motives behind this movement, and the potential consequences if too many people do give in to its demands.

But for now, lets look at the latest offering from those who would use government (that bastion of efficiency and excellence) to "solve" this supposed problem. Remember when those on the left joined in with Europe and the rest of the world to condemn our president as a heretic and earth-hater for not placing our government under the Kyoto protocol? That was fun. Well, it turns out that those earth-friendly nations under the Kyoto protocol actually increased their carbon emissions by 21.1% between 1997 and 2004, while the big bad U.S. only increased emissions by 6.6% - oops. So, now that we've seen how effective government regulation can be at reducing these emissions, let's take a look at the Warner-Lieberman legislation before congress. In particular, let's assume for a moment that the bill will have its desired effect (all evidence to the contrary aside) and actually decrease U.S. carbon emissions. What then?

Climatologists predicted a whopping 0.07 degree Celsius drop in global temperature would result from worldwide participation in Kyoto! So what would we get in return for this basically negligible drop in temperature? (I would be willing to bet that most of the equipment used to measure our earth's temperature has a margin of error greater than 0.07 degrees) The Heritage Foundation has done an excellent study, complete with a state-by-state breakdown of exactly what this bill would end up costing taxpayers. To paraphrase, this bill would wreak havoc on our already faltering economy nationwide. Check out the effect it would have on Georgia.