Yeah, yeah, I know.. Lots of politic-y type stuff lately. Kathryn forwarded me this link though, and I'd be doing some sort of disservice by not passing it to my friends and family. Its an opinion piece that states an actual course of action regarding conservatives and conservation. Mark Sanford is the Republican Governor of South Carolina, and this was published in the Washington Post. He nails it.

I believe conservatives have a window of opportunity, but that window is closing fast.

First, conservatives must reframe the environmental discussion by replacing the political left's scare tactics with conservative principles such as responsibility and stewardship. Stewardship -- the idea that we need to take care of what we've been given -- simply makes sense. It makes dollars as well, for the simple reason that our economy is founded on natural resources, from tourism and manufacturing to real estate and agriculture. Here in South Carolina, conservation easements are springing up across the state as landowners see the dual benefit of preserving the environment and protecting their pocketbooks.

Second, conservatives must reclaim lost ground from far-left interest groups by showing how environmental conservation is as much about expanding economic opportunity as it is about saving whales or replanting rain forests. When corporations such as BP and Shell America pursue alternative energy sources, they not only cut carbon emissions but help cut our petroleum dependency on OPEC nations. When South Carolina restaurants recycle their oyster shells, they not only restore shellfish habitat but take a job off local governments' plates and ensure continuing revenue streams for local fishermen.

Third, conservatives must respond to climate change with innovation, not regulation. This means encouraging private research and implementation of more eco-friendly construction, more energy-efficient workplaces and more sustainable ways of going about life -- all of which cuts costs and protects God's creation. It means looking past the question of whether your car's exhaust melts polar ice caps and instead treating our environment as an investment our future depends on.

I can't count how many times someone points to the fact that it's cold outside as proof of global warming not existing (global warming is about extremes, not hot and cold). Almost all sides can admit that the world is entering some sort of period of change. The question isn't on that, it's whether or not we are making any meaningful contribution to it. I've shared my thoughts on this subject numerous times, but I'll do it again for good measure -- if it costs us little to nothing to change various practices and ensure that we are not contributing forces, and we benefit from these changes in numerous other ways, why not?

And what about the climate changes themselves? Nobody is talking about them. We're so busy pointing fingers and trying to make this issue a divisive political war instead of using it to unify an otherwise politically torn country. Examples of real world questions that need to be answered are insurance costs, costs of strengthening storms, potentially lost GDP from a changing business landscape, protecting inhabited low lying areas disrupted by melting glaciers, protecting countries dependent on fresh water that is quickly disappearing. These are all important, life altering possibilities. None of them are necessarily doomsday prospects, yet they all dramatically effect our national security and world stability. What do you think is going to happen when someone like Chavez runs out of water? What if we experience 2 or 3 more Katrina's? We can't even handle the first one.

Then again.. Brittany just shaved her head, and well, thats a lot more fun than talking about Al Gore screwing up our weather patterns.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Human-caused global warming is here -- visible in the air, water and melting ice -- and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.

"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling."

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles."

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html

I can hear the cries from all my party-line republican friends already -- this is somehow the liberal media promoting an obviously biased report... by... a... panel of world wide.. .scientists... ahem.

Again, the question remains.. What would qualify as evidence? What will it take to, at the very least, see a comprehensive US government study on this issue?

Technology advancements over the last 25 years no longer allow for the economic argument. Limited government arguments no longer apply when we're already enforcing standards in the areas that would require improvement. From a conservative point of view, changing these standards of production would mean less dependence on foreign energy sources while generating more globally competitive products -- a strong win for everyone in the U.S.

"Most journalists and pundits have limited knowledge of science; as a result, they tend to pick whichever science best suits their political prejudices. Both science and journalism deserve better. Perhaps we can start by remembering that an ideological crusade can be as strong an inducement to bend the truth as the profit motive."

Amen.

A Republican friend of ours up in DC called me a "dirty hippie" when I started jokingly blaming weather patterns on Al Gore ("Al Gore's f'n up the World!"). Once she realized I was teasing Al Gore, she backed off.. But the fact is, I think there is a great deal of truth to global warming, and think Al Gore is doing a bang up job bringing it to attention. He's just fun to tease. In this friends mind, I really should stand out as a "dirty hippie".. A capitalistic, government reducing, dirty hippie.

The kicker is, I'm willing to bet that this particular person comes from a liberal arts background, never has taken a science class of any substantial merit and has never looked into understanding even the basic premise of the theory of global warming.. The party line states its a farce, and a farce it will remain.

Technology has come a long, long way since Reagan ordered the solar panels off the roof. The economic argument continually holds less and less water. On the democrat side, they only promote scientific studies that back worst case scenarios. It's "politics of fear," only instead of terrorism, it's hurricanes.

What will it take to actually, seriously, look into this issue? And would either party be willing to admit that they were wrong even if we did? What would be so bad about increasing the automobile standards so that we aren't dead last in the entire world? Or maybe increasing appliance standards to energy star levels? These aren't suggestions to simply encourage a healthier environment, they're suggestions to reduce our energy use overall (and consequently dependence on oil). That fits both "sides" agendas, no?