Giuliani and Thompson Right on Climate Change

Eilperin, J. (Nov. 6, 2007). Climate is a risky issue for democrats: candidates back costly proposals. Washington Post, A1,

Of the major candidates, only Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson have it together on global climate change:

While Democrats are working to outdo each other on climate change — New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, for example, supports a 90 percent greenhouse gas reduction by midcentury — GOP presidential candidates remain more skeptical, to say the least. Former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) stands by his commentary on National Review Online that warming on other planets has led some people “to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.”

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said in the wake of Gore’s Nobel Prize win that when it comes to global warming, “if we try to deal with it at too hysterical a pace, we could create problems.”

Among Republicans, only Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) — who began crusading against climate change after a heckler dressed as a penguin followed him around New Hampshire during his 2000 presidential bid — backs a specific, 60 percent cut in greenhouse gases by 2050. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee endorsed a mandatory carbon cap last month but has not laid out specifics.

(In fairness, Mitt Romney is not mentioned in the article, but the LCV profile is informative.)

Human-caused (“anthropogenic”) climate change may be happening. But if it is, nearly all “solutions” being talked about are worse than the problem. A better approach would be to fight HIV/AIDS, feed the hungry, and grow the economy — if you are concerned about human welfare, and not merely the puritanism of global warming religion.

6 thoughts on “Giuliani and Thompson Right on Climate Change”

  1. Well Dan,

    Do not take this the wrong way, but I expected more of you when it comes to the interactiveness required and available for human in the internet “reality”, since I have last corresponded with you.

    I am throwing down the gauntlet to you to find more creative ways to allow humans to connect, other than this static prose which is so ancient.

    I am doing my part.


    (p.s. I hope to meet you someday in the flesh)

  2. How about this improvement: an orbital power transmission system?
    It would be a step towards orbital solar power satellites (energy from space, which would require the same sorts of technology).
    Encourage more efficient power plants (you can buy power for peak periods instead of having to generate it yourself) and power plants in remote areas (encouraging development).
    Encourage development in remote areas (easier to provide electricity if you don't have to build power plants and fuel infrastructure) and encourage cooperation between space-faring nations (playing with anti-satellite weapons could kill your economy).

    Boy, I seem to like the word encourage today:P Have a nice day– your neighborhood recovering sci-fi addict.

  3. I guess you are welcome to come to the conclusion that they “have it together” on climate change, but some how I doubt many prominent laissez-faire capitalist figures would even bother to acknowledge human climate change if there wasn't for pressure from so-called alarmist, nor would there even be a debate period.

    And, yes, a vast majority of so-called skeptics and reluctant ex-skeptics come from a laissez-faire ideology while those spreading awareness/alarmism (take your pick) don't really seem to be united in any other one ideology other than in the area of environmentalism, with Newt Gingrich just being one example that comes to mind.

    As much as economic libertarians like to equate their opponents with religious orders, as demonstrated by the Douglas Durante/Jerry Taylor debate at UNL and book titles such as “The Anti-Trust Religion,” it seems that they need to do some soul searching themselves.

  4. I'd rather have “attention” / “debate” / &c focused on something that could actually make life better (like combating HIV, or malnutrition), rather than on something that is a technical matter at best, and an exercise in costly puritanism at worst (like climate change).

  5. I somehow doubt that Climate Change should be labeled as Puritanism as it does, and will affect most of us severely.

    The cause to this biggest issue is of course Humanity and our explosive growth plus a focus on the material so I can only say hand out the condoms and focus less on “things”.

    Without focus on a sustainable future there will be none!

  6. VoidMan,

    “I somehow doubt that Climate Change should be labeled as Puritanism as it does, and will affect most of us severely. “


    Sea levels rose as much in the 20th century (1.5 feet) as they are expected to do in the 21st… But if you make a list of the top 50 severe problems we faced in the previous 100 years, I wonder if it would have even made the cut!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *