One of the problems in the global warming debate is that the warmists advocate a solution that’s very painful: moving away from fossil fuels. Alternatives are not mentioned or considered.
A reason for this is that the war on fossil fuels is a thinly disguised war on capitalism and human economic freedom. That’s a big reason why environmental extremists don’t want to consider other solutions. If they can save the earth and kill capitalism and humanity at the same time, this false crisis has surely not been wasted.
If the earth is warming (it hasn’t recently), and if the warming is caused by human activity (there’s not persuasive evidence of that), it’s a problem that can be fixed over a long time horizon. During that time, technology may appear could easily and inexpensively fix the problem.
Bret Stephen’s recent Wall Street Journal column highlights such a possible solution. Its cost, he says, is that of a “single F-22 fighter jet.”
The details of this possible solution don’t really matter here. Here’s what does, according to Stephens: “… seemingly insurmountable problems often have cheap and simple solutions. Hence world hunger was largely conquered not by a massive effort at population control, but by the development of new and sturdier strains of wheat and rice. Hence infection and mortality rates in hospitals declined dramatically as doctors began to appreciate the need to wash their hands. Hence, too, it may well be that global warming is best tackled with a variety of cheap fixes …”
This approach, however, won’t sit well with those who want to control our lives. And that’s what Al Gore is really all about.