Drill baby drill.

The electric chant of the 2008 Republican Convention…

Now, as a Republican, I am not opposed to drilling for oil. In fact, I believe that Alaska should expand its oil production…

But, that chant was a disaster. I believe that many America, myself included, wanted to hear words that would lift and inspire (or at least, incentivize) us to new heights of greatness. To hear creative ideas that would marry free market principals with innovative energy solutions…

Instead, we got a chant that would have played well in the 1908 convention…

Wait, wait, you’re saying. You recently wrote a couple articles that savaged Al Gore et all for the belief in fossil fuel driven global warming… And now you’re attacking “drill baby drill?” What gives?

Well, I stand by the previous remarks. Gore and Company’s, blind, religious devotion to manmade global warming theory is exasperating. Their dismissal of any and all evidence to the contrary -- stupefying.

As an educator, I give Gore’s crowd a D- for critical thought.

Yet, despite the questionable evidence for manmade global warming, I do agree with Gore’s ultimate conclusion: we must move away from fossil fuels, and move towards clean and/or renewable energy.

But my reasons for using renewable (and/or cleaner) energy have nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions. No, they have to do with the concrete science regarding human health.

Currently coal provides 49% of America’s energy. Coal plants emit many pollutants , including mercury. According to the Rhode Island Department of Health, “exposures to high levels of mercury can permanently damage adult organs, including the brain, kidneys, and a developing fetus. Effects on brain function in adults may result in irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, and memory problems .” Alaska is now the only state where fish can be eaten by pregnant women .

Coal, is therefore, a dirty fuel that harms people (It should be noted that scrubbers in some of today’s coal plants help reduce the amount of emitted pollutants… unfortunately, too many pollutants still escape).

You may, then, be wondering why I have taken a strong stand against Congress’ cap and trade plan, and Al Gore’s Copenhagen strategy.

It’s simple: the severe emission cuts would hurt the people – of both developing nations and the First World. As USA Today put it:
“Technologies to cut back carbon dioxide emissions from factories and vehicles that feed the global economy add costs to fuel, food and more, an option that appeals neither to industrial nations struggling with the global economic meltdown or developing nations trying to ramp up economic growth.”

Put simply, carbon cutting technology is amazingly expensive. If nations are forced to spend money on carbon capture and sequestration, then their economies will weaken. A weak economy means that people won't have jobs or money.

And, in the end, it’s all about the people. (Or, at least, it should be)

If we were to implement severe and immediate carbon cuts we could destroy the fledgling prosperity of billions of Third World citizens. Look at China and India. Millions have emerged from poverty in the last decade simply because of the availability of low cost energy (a good book which devotes much time to this subject is “The Post-American World,” by Fareed Zackaria). If we take cheap energy away, we sentence these people to a life of poverty.

So, what if we do nothing about carbon emissions?

Well, according to the U.N.’s own report (IPCC Special Report on Emission’s Scenarios), the Third World’s economic growth will then rise at an average of 2.3% for the next hundred years. In a century the Third World will be 8.5 times better off than they are today. (Lawson, 36)

Now, think what would happen to the emerging Third World if we told them that they had could no longer have cheap energy… Billions would be trapped in poverty.

That is unacceptable.

So, we have to ask ourselves whether we the world to enter another recession (or even, Depression) because of our zeal to dramatically curtail emissions…

Like I said, I am not a fan of the old-school coal-fired plants. I want to see the U.S., and world, eventually either move away from coal -- or at least find a truly clean method of utilizing it (we have so much of it, after all…).

But, unlike Al Gore, I do not want to curb pollutants with an economic revolution. No, I want to see an energy evolution.

How do we get there? Well, we need to pursue the possibilities of a gas tax (in order to wean us off of foreign oil) or a carbon tax.

Any carbon tax must be gradual, and it must offset other taxes.

I agree with Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s
statement last week, “As we take stock of our options, I believe we should explore pairing a massive tax cut with a price on emissions. Academics and economists suggest that climate policy offers an opportunity to improve the efficiency of our tax code and benefit our economy."

Amen. We must find ways to marry environment and health with economic growth.

Because, in the end, all must be present to benefit the people.

Book Source:
Lawson, Nigel. An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming. Duckworth Overlook, London, 2008.