One of the frustrations of reading the editorial page is that it is pretty much the same people who weigh in, from both the “liberal” and “conservative” perspectives. Recently, several letters and op-ed pieces published in the Globe, in essence, deny the existence of global warming or climate change. Some attempt to be “scientific,” quoting outliers who argue against the views expressed by the vast majority of experts.
For the time being, assume these people are right. There is no such thing as global warming or climate change. It is just part of the natural weather patterns and cycles of the Earth, or whatever. Some lingering questions remain.
First, where, exactly, do these “experts” believe that all this garbage besides carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil fuels goes? Or more simply, what is the down side of cleaner air?
Cleaner fuel creates great economic opportunities. Any nation’s economy takes its greatest leaps forward when innovations are introduced (assembly lines, the Internet). We are in the position to create many new jobs connected to finding ways to generate and use energy that is cleaner, and, more importantly, local. Make it more practical. In the past century, the airlines have used up more than half of the potential raw material for jet fuel. If there is no substitute found, the friendly skies will be empty by about 2060. Consider the potential profit in discovering a new source of energy for airplanes. Why wouldn’t you want that to happen?
Second item: Please explain why making the United States less dependent on foreign oil, whether or not burning that oil leads to global warming, is a bad idea. Perhaps you enjoy the $3 per gallon prices that take the greatest toll on the poor or are completely comfortable that some people can either heat their homes or buy medicine and food. Undoubtedly you had no problem with the $140 million dollar bonus paid to the head of Exxon when he stepped down a few years ago.
Apparently you are also not concerned with how extensively the United States is buried in the problems of the Middle East, most notably in oil-producing countries. We don’t seem to have the same amount of “energy” (pardon the pun) when it comes to problems in other nations. Could it be that we help certain countries because it is in our interests to help those who “help” us, by feeding our unending thirst for fossil fuels?
Question three: How is global warming a “liberal” issue? What is “liberal” about worrying over how we will leave the planet for the next generation? In the Bible, you can find several verses referring to man's responsibility to “have dominion” (e.g., take care of) the Earth. Are you saying God is a liberal Democrat?
Question four: Why focus on Al Gore? His is one voice, among literally thousands, suggesting that global-climate change can have devastating effects on people, animals, and the well-being of the entire planet.
Question five: Why does the Globe continue to give a venue to such extreme positions? Is this the best an editorial page can do? A place clearly exists for some new voices, especially voices of reason, when it comes to some of the more daunting challenges that face our nation and the world. That would mean the same tired old cast of characters would stop quoting and paraphrasing the talking points of others and instead use a little bit of logic and look for common ground.
Donald Baack, Ph.D. is a university professor at Pittsburg (Kan.) State University in the management and marketing department and the co-author of three college textbooks, one high-school textbook and four popular press books. He lives near Carl Junction.
