Climate Wierdness

That's what Thomas Friedman of the NY Times called climate change on Sunday. He was following up on the "study" issued by the UN that basically says "We're screwed."

And that's the problem with the liberals who want desperately to declare the debate over. The debate is anything but over. Calling for an end is just their way way of asking us to give up. But in the process of trying to get conservatives to shut up, liberals have decided to portray things in the worst way with the most catastrophic consequences. I believe they are doing so in the belief that if their predictions are bad enough, that we might be inclined to think that while they may be wrong, they might only be wrong about the depth of the disaster. So this is why they hint that in fact, it might already be too late. We are destroying the planet, but there might still be time to act,... barely.

OK, so let mew get this straight. All the carbon from burning fossil fuels (or anything else for that matter) is what is at fault. But even as we in the US have made the Prius one of the most popular cars in America, and have gone on an electric car binge, the problem remains that for every American who buys a Prius, there are 5 other people in the world who have just gotten a gas guzzling, carbon spewing car, truck, motor cycle etc. They want the transportation and they couldn't care less about climate change. Whats more they can't afford to think about that even if they did care. We can't convince them, and we can't control them. Oh, by the way what are we burning to generate the electricity that charges all those electric cars? Coal.

The liberals are ready to wreak havoc on our economy and way of life, in order to nibble around the edges. If we are really as bad off as they say we are, this is all spit in the ocean, and they know it. If they truly believed what they are saying, they would be all in for a two pronged attack. First would be the development and design of the safest nuclear power plants possible, with fail safe, earthquake proof systems that would contain any accidents and include a way to safely shut down on it's own. Nuclear is the only thing that can replace fossil fuels on the scale that we current burn them. Wind and solar will only compliment, not replace. The second prong would be to build huge carbon capturing systems to take some carbon out of the atmosphere. And these would also need to be nuclear powered.

So here's the deal. If you believe in global warming, yet aren't advocating for this radical path, then you are full of it. If it's as big a problem as Tom Friedman says, this is the only serious way that Americans can take this on. If you are advocating something less, then your motives are suspect in my book.