It's thinking like this... that has really fucked our planet.
The writer, Edwin Feulner, believes that by increasing use of fossil fuels, we are bound to reduce their use. That argument doesn't even have face validity. Admittedly his argument is a little deeper than that, he cites the unspecified research cited by the World Bank (wow! now that is research you can count on!) that shows as people get wealthier, they hurt the environment less. He says "It seems that once people are earning enough to support their families, they're eager to improve their environment, too." Apparently Hummers and 10,000sqft homes with 9 foot ceilings are only for the poor. And he must also be dreaming of some sort of Utopia where the vast majority of the world's population live in such affluence. I love this leap of non-logic where he quotes Al Gore...
From the article:
The former vice president says that to do that, "we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions."
Of course, the reason the United States emits so much CO2 is because we've got the planet's largest economy. So Gore's prescription boils down to saying we need to show the rest of the world the way forward by freezing -- and then reversing -- our economic growth.
His faulty logic is that CO2 emissions are the source of the US economy. He speaks as if entrepreneurship, investment, creativity, and all the qualities that make capitalism work will fail without fossil fuels. A quick Google search will find you a bevy of small companies ready and eager for the chance to spur a new economy if given a chance. And that chance could come easily if the billions of dollars in government handouts are shifted from big oil to environmental enterprises. If you want to spur the economy, move the money around and spread it out.
There is also an assumption that the government would act in some obscenely foolish way - such as outlawing the automobile. This is unlikely. Democrats are business people too, but they are business people who see that things that benefit the greater society also benefits the business community. Proposals supported by leading democratics are very sure-footed (Apollo Alliance). They are gradual and realistic approaches often including the rational choice of truly letting market forces rule simply by removing the privileged entitlement that big oil has enjoyed.
The author gives a very weak argument for innovation.
iPods and home offices are the innovations cited to help keep pollution down. iPods? huh? And home offices...Exactly what proportion of people have that option? Are traffic problems decreasing in America's most affluent cities? I must have missed that study. If these are the best example he can come up with then he has clearly either had his head in the sand or is intentionally ignoring a burgeoning industry. An industry that would benefit greatly if given the same tax breaks and other government favors that are lavished on the oil industry. Innovation will solve the problems but it needs the chance and the focus.
With confidence, Mr Feulner says that the next fuel will find its way to American consumption. It doesn't say what the next fuel will be or if it will be clean. But, confidently quoting the Bush administration, he assures us the next fuel will be global warming god-send. He is wrong again. He says we've had wood before, then to coal and then natural gas and oil, and he says we'll one day replace oil. Well, Mr Feulner, pay attention sir, we're going back to coal. What planet is this guy living on? Trusting the Bush administration on climate change is like trusting a fox in a hen house. I will also point out his Bush administration quote, which he cites as if it is a fact of the future, begins with the word "could". Yet he uses the quotes contents as if they are fact.
One significant piece of the puzzle missing from his article is that no business will do anything they are not forced to do. Businesses will always take the path of least resistance to profit. It is a requirement of law. Sometimes bad publicity will steer a company right, sometimes law, but there is never good will if the result is a decrease in shareholder value. Never. This is where a government of the people for the people must step and say things like "pay your employees", "don't dump dioxins into the ocean", "hire women", and now, finally, "reduce your CO2 emissions". Big oil is an interesting business as it is basically a monopoly. Not in the sense that there is no competition between companies, but in the sense that the result of its product (energy from oil) is a life requirement. No amount of bad publicity is going to turn customers away. Consumers need energy. They also need to act collectively through government to enforce practices that are best for society. Companies won't clean up their act without that force.
And one other point. Mr Feulner's article is for America. It is about America. It only cares about America. The sad part is that the author doesn't recognize that America is part of the World. The noxious gas cloud over China is coming to America. The pollution created by iPod manufacturing (coal fueled plants) is still being created, just not on American soil. And maybe one day, when China is well off and is no longer a cheap labour market, maybe China can shift from coal to renewables. But when that day comes, the cheap labour will be in Africa and it will be that continent that is burning fossil fuels to satisfy World needs. Mr. Feulner can then write future articles about how America has reduced is pollution output. But when will China catch up? When will Africa catch up? how many more years of rampant CO2 emissions? 50? 100? Top scientists say we have about 10 years before the tipping point. I'd rather not waste any more time listening to these blow-hards saying "just ignore the problems, they'll fix themselves".