Global warming is a world concern
March 2, 2007
I listen to Sean Hannity on the radio every day, not because I think he’s a good American, but because it’s important to know your enemy. The issue he has been flooding the airwaves with lately is the issue of global warming, saying it is an anti-capitalist agenda, a fear tactic perpetrated by Democrats, and above all, failed science. By doing this, Hannity, and many other people on both sides are doing the public a disservice by wrongly politicizing an issue that, to most people, is just common sense.
First, 500 words is completely inadequate to give you the science behind global warming. I’ve done hours of research, watched four hours of History Channel special on past weather events, and called my local meteorologist, and there is a lot to it. I just wish someone would write a definitive report on the subject ... wait a second, the Environmental Protection Agency just released a report on the existence of global warming. It was compiled by hundreds of scientists over six years, using decades of research. What’s Fox News’s response? “WITCHDOCTORS!”
Look, let’s forget whose science is correct (I hate having to say that). The common sense is that the planet has a fixed amount of resources, and if we continue on a course of rabid consumption, we do a disservice to future generations.
Some would even look at this simple and crystalline argument and scoff. In fact, on most anti-warming sites, the primary argument is that prohibiting consumption would inhibit the economy. This also seems to be common sense. An economy is based on consumption, so limiting consumption should hurt it right?
Not necessarily. If we shift to replenishable resources, consumption would no longer be a problem. If our industries invested in alternative energy and came up with a viable hydrogen powered car, they would make a fortune. Not just from selling an efficient car to an American public that is tired of being gouged by gas prices, but also by selling this technology to other companies and countries. Alternative energy is an inevitability. The oil will run out. Who would you rather see invest in, invent, and profit from this technology? General Motors of America or Honda?
Alternative energy sources would also be good for national security. The number one thing that makes our country weak is its dependence on foreign oil. If OPEC raises prices ten dollars a barrel, we see negative repercussions in the stock market. If the Middle East suddenly cut us off, our countries infrastructure would grind to a halt, and we would be forced to buy from Russia at $200 a barrel. If we were free from our dependence on oil, we would be more secure in our future growth, and would be free from the noose of the oil producing countries.
Another argument against global warming is that it is a political fear tactic by the Democrats to bring voters to their side. The Republicans would never do this. They would never put the nation on, oh I don’t know, let’s say an orange alert for no good reason, would they? Yellow cake anyone?
It might be true that the Dems are using this issue. The fact is that both sides cling to issues for leverage, but if I’m going to make a gamble, I’m going to err on the side of common sense. We only have one planet, so conservation is the side I choose.
Our country is coming to a crossroads, not only for our country, but also for the future of the planet. Many pundit hacks want to politicize this issue. If they can muddy this issue enough, people will throw their hands up in disgust, and quit the subject altogether. But this issue isn’t about politics; it’s about finding a sustainable future for this country that weighs our need for growth with the need to protect our natural resources. It’s about making a long-term investment in our country’s success. It’s about common sense.
Kris Evans is a student at UW-River Falls.