Today, Heritage Foundation points out that you must have a strong economy to promote a strong environment. In 1997 when the Senate first debated climate change and the Kyoto Protocal, it UNANIMOUSLY agreed with this position. That is precisely why the Senate voted 95-0 not to enact global warming legislation that burdened our economy unless other nations did the same.
Posts Tagged ‘climate change’
A strong economy promotes the environment
Thursday, April 22nd, 2010More questions about climate change data
Monday, February 15th, 2010We’re posting two articles today: one on scientific disagreements about global warming, and the second about the Obama Administration’s “green” defense policy.
The first article: World may not be warming, is typical of what you will read on the science of this issue. There is increasing doubt surfacing about the basic science underpinning the global warming theory. Typically, the proponents of the theory respond to critics by saying that in fact they are as certain as ever about the science, and then a technical back and forth ensues among the experts. This is why I caution so strongly against taking climate change measures that hurt our own economy. The scientific opinion on this issue is in flux, and we don’t want to ship millions of American jobs overseas to stop a problem that science may soon decide doesn’t really exist.
The second article refers to the “Quadrennial Defense Review” (QDR), which is the Department of Defense’s foremost defense planning document, issued every four years. The Obama Administration’s QDR mentions “climate change” more often than it mentions North Korea, Russia, and China put together. What that says about the current risk assessment in Washington is obvious.
What agenda is advanced by bankrupting the US?
Friday, December 18th, 2009In 2009 alone the actions of Congress and the Administration grew the public debt by 31 percent, from $5.8 trillion to $7.6 trillion, rising from 41 percent to 53 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The projections for the future are even more alarming. Yet the President committed to $100 billion annually for the next decade to help poor nations fight climate change. That one decision adds to the debt which American taxpayers will have to pay. So, we are borrowing enormous amounts of money, largely from China, and transferring it to third world countries who steal even the food we send them to feed their people, while at the same time our government is trying to pass cap and trade legislation which will impose enormous new burdens on an economy that is already in serious trouble.
What coherent agenda is advanced by bankrupting the United States?
Forsee advocates common sense on cap and trade
Tuesday, December 15th, 2009MU President Gary Forsee has the daunting challenge of running the four campuses in the MU system during a time of decreasing state revenues and budget shortfalls. In light of this budget crisis, he is right to oppose the proposed cap and trade legislation. It will significantly raise energy costs and unless China, India, Japan and other industrialized countries take similar actions, it will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. That is precisely why the United States Senate, in 1997, voted 95-0 not to enact global warming legislation that burdened our economy unless other nations did the same.
Gary Forsee is being an outspoken advocate for common sense – something that often gets lost in Washington.
