Contrived vs. Real Environmental Issues

At this time Barack Obama ponders whether he should go to Copenhagen in December to attend the climate change conference; as of this week he stated that he could go to use that as a means of promoting the Cap and Tax bill in Congress if that were needed.  And, once again, Barack Obama would be wasting the taxpayers’ money to travel to Copenhagen in pursuit of a dubious cause, with the difference this time that, if he were to be successful, the cost to the same taxpayers (as well as future generations of taxpayers) would be a lot higher than simply financing the Summer Olympics.

Man-made climate change is a dubious cause?  You tell me – first, the simple fact is that global temperatures have been falling since 1998.  Eleven years and counting.  The environuts will tell you that this can be explained away by solar activity – and that argument in and of itself deflates their man-made warming claims, as it acknowledges that the sun is far and away the biggest driver of global climate.  Furthermore, the global climate models of which the followers of Algore are so fond are crude (even according to those who develop them), and those used to support man-made global warming have been found to be initialized with conditions orders of magnitude more pessimistic than reality.  In short, THEY MADE THE PROBLEM UP (and Algore is now a multimillionaire managing partner at Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield and Byers, in the “green technology” space.  Hmmm…).

Their answer to the contrived problem is to make us more like the underdeveloped countries.  They know that the “carbon emissions” are a result of combustion, which fuels the majority of energy generation driving the economy.  Reducing carbon emissions back to some past level reduces the economy back to that same level – essentially a legislated recession.  Those who do not reduce will be taxed out of existence by Cap and Tax.  And, most insidious, there would be an annual transfer of wealth of many billions of dollars  from developed nations (read that “the USA”) to developing nations (you know, friendly ones like China) to help “bring them up to code” (Van Jones would be proud – “Give them the wealth!”).  So, what’s in this for us again?

I have a better idea.  While “climate change” is dubious, there are real environmental issues that need investigation and attention, and you don’t have to go far to find them.  So forget Copenhagen.  Here’s a candidate for where a portion of the attention should go – in central Palm Beach County there has been a statistically significant rate of a specific type of brain cancer concentrated in a relatively small geographic area (I’d call it a “cancer cluster” but that’s a loaded phrase – stick to the known facts instead).  The area is somewhat rural; the residents use wells for water.  That area is close to known sources of industrial waste products (sugar refineries and the Pratt and Whitney facility).  Given all of this it would seem that this could be a real environmental issue which needs attention.  By taking the time, and money, and effort from (excuse me…) crap like “climate change” and dealing with real issues, like this one and others throughout the country like it, facing real Americans, we’d be spending tax dollars to benefit taxpayers, solving real problems vs. contrived problems, putting people to work solving these real problems, and keeping American tax dollars in America.

Unless the goal is to turn the USA into a third world backwater, in which case forget everything I just said.