By Author:Iain MurrayJonathan H. Adler Amy Ridenour Tom Tanton Steve Hayward Randal O'Toole Michael DeAlessi Joel Schwartz IMGrant Andrew Morriss J. Bishop Grewell Chris Horner Marlo Lewis Carlo Stagnaro Pete Geddes John Downen John Baden Jane Shaw John La Plante Fred L. Smith Ken Green Ben Lieberman By Category:AgricultureAir Quality Biotechnology Brownfields CAFE Standards Climate DDT/Malaria Energy Energy Independence/National Security Environmental Alarmism Environmental Economics Environmental Risk European Union Extinction Federal Lands and Parks Federal Programs Federalism Forests International Media Oceans Pollution Population Poverty and Hunger Precautionary Principle Private Conservation Property Rights Recycling Sustainable Development Tragedy of the Commons Transportation Urban Planning and Sprawl Water Wildlife By Month:September 2007April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004
Powered by
Site design by |
Weekly Standard: Going Green?
Posted by Amy Ridenour · 18 June 2006 · Climate
Quick on the heels of its recommendation that conservatives support the Senate pro-amnesty immigration bill (for political rather than principled reasons, yet), the Weekly Standard is apparently laying the groundwork for a change in the conservative position on global warming. From the June 12 issue, in an article by Contributing Editor Irwin M. Stelzer praising Treasury Secretary-designate Hank Paulson with all the enthusiasm usually reserved for people named Bush, comes this: Then there is the environment, a policy area in which the Bush administration is in something of a time warp. No honest person can with certainty assert that global warming is a threat. But any responsible person can see that the evidence is sufficient to suggest that it might be, and that some action to contain emissions of greenhouse gases is an insurance policy worth having. Paulson is Wall Street's greenest titan, chairman of the Nature Conservancy, a bird-watcher, an advocate of a greenhouse gas emissions trading system for the United States and of mandatory curbs on emissions if voluntary action proves inadequate. At Goldman, he allocated $1 billion for investment in renewable energy and energy-saving projects. He is likely to make his voice heard in an administration that is said to be ready to move from its justifiable opposition to the Kyoto treaty to more positive proposals for emissions reduction.No word from the Weekly Standard on the price tag of the "insurance policy worth having" (known as 'cap and trade' to those of us speaking plainly) as if 1) the cost wasn't billions, to be borne mostly by those who can least afford it, and 2) the "insurance policy" would actually lessen global warming IF (a big IF) the environmental left's position on global warming is accurate. Will we soon see the Weekly Standard join the New Republic in name-calling skeptics of the notion that slowing the U.S. economy would have a notably beneficial impact on the world's weather? (A longer version of this blog entry appears on the National Center Blog.)
|