Ay, gente, por favor... is this a Cuba blog or an environmental blog?

And crisis or no crisis, again I raise my point -- what's so bad about America leading the way in developing new energy technologies that will simultaneously be more efficient, pollute less, AND free us from having to deal with loony leaders of certain oil-producing countries?

I mean... what's the objection? Even if you disagree with the premise of whether global warming is happening, the result would be better anyway. Is this where we want to spend our energy, fighting for a cause whose beneficiaries are the likes of hugo chavez? A cause that would keep America focused on the energy technology of yesterday instead of taking its rightful place as an economic innovator in new technologies?

Dave, this blog is whatever the writers want it to be. Our focus is Cuba, but to ignore other issues of great import would be foolish. One-dimensional provincialism is the specialty of other blogs.

Dave,
Is your issue with Babalu posting about non Cuba issues or that they expose global warming for the farce that it is? You used one sentence to intro and the rest on your enironmentalist paragraph.
Environmentalism is about much more than the environment. It is as tied into liberal politics as anything else. The answers to "loonies" and gouging is not about going green. But environmentalists will use anything to get people on board. Me recycling my trash won't make chavez go away.

I mean... what's the objection?

Umm, that the implementation is half-assed, and focuses on reduction, not innovation?

Look, why is there a tarrif on importing ethanol from Brazil? where are the nuclear plants? the wind farms? the solar farms?

The answer for the most part boils down to: I want mine, the rest of you can screw off. NIMBYism at its worst.

Lots of talk, not so much doing anything. Less talk, more doing is better. Drill here, drill now, more refineries please is a stop-gap measure.

And if we ever master fusion power, we can tell the saudis to go hump a camel. The camel may not appreciate that, but so be it...

What's wrong with just going along with the farcical climate change hysteria, Dave?

I'll tell you what's wrong: There are millions of children in this world starving and suffering from easily cured illnesses. There are thousands of people each day dying from cancer, and AIDS, and countless other incurable diseases. There are billions of people suffering under tyrannical dictatorships.

These are all very important issues that mankind must address. But it seems there are people that would rather use their time, resources, and trillions of dollars to attack a nonexistent problem.

That's what is wrong with just going along with it, Dave.

Wow. I don't post here for who knows how long...and I start a mini-controversy. ;)

Let me make myself clear regarding the meaning of this post. Everybody knows that the earth has warmed. And there may very well be some minor man-made contribution to that. But the science is FAR from conclusive that man is contributing even a little to the overall warming. Besides the inconclusiveness of the man-made argument, the point here is that climate is something that is determined in the large scale, both in space and time. To consider the current warming a crisis, besides being scientifically shaky, is fundamentally wrong because of the definitions I provided which indicate that something as slow-changing as climate cannot be considered a "crisis". It's not just alarming to think we're in a climate crisis, but it doesn't make sense either.

BTW Dave, I am definitely in favor of exploring alternative sources of energy. I am most definitely in favor of more oil drilling. And I am in favor of a clean environment. Those are not contradictory stances. We just shouldn't be scaring people with inconclusive science in order to justify someone's agenda.

Quick answers to everyone:

George, of course this blog is about whatever we want it to be, and far be it from me to discourage an open exchange of ideas. But as Alberto rightly puts it, there are much more important things to be blogging about, and my suggestion is to focus our energies on more important topics. Arguing against the climate crisis seems like a waste of time because, regardless of the motivations of environmental extremists, the thrust of the movement cuts our dependence on foreign oil and can only help us. It's a "missing the forest for the trees" situation -- maybe it's true that global warming isn't caused by man -- but at this point, who cares? Let's move on and progress our technology.

Pototo, see above. And although it's true that environmental issues tend to be the dominion of the left, that's a different issue. There's a question of the science and there's a question of how we should address it. Some extremists on the left favor a radical change in the way we live, imposed top-down by government. I have always been in favor of a free market and market-based solutions as the only way that will really work. And a free-market system can help America lead the way in the energy production technology of tomorrow.

Alberto: I agree that there are much more important topics, and that's why I think that this is more or less a fruitless discussion. Even if it's true that man's impact on the environment is zero, we nevertheless have a lot to benefit from going along with the environmental movement. Namely: less pollution, technological progress, economic benefit, and reduced dependence on foreign countries.

I don't look at this in terms of left and right, I'm looking at it scientifically and pragmatically. The science shows at least a high likelihood that our current energy technology is bad for the earth, and we stand to benefit greatly in many ways.

Robert: I agree that we shouldn't be scaring people but I would favor investing money into developing new technologies that would put America at the forefront, instead of hunting for more oil and possibly damaging the natural beauty of this country. Cigar Mike wouldn't have as much to Discover of America besides oil fields.

Darth Aggie: I agree, the focus should be on innovation, and not reduction. And the implementation should be market based, and not top-down government imposition.

Finallly, I think that the Cuba issue has been turned into a left-vs-right issue, and that's stupid, because it's a HUMAN issue about fundamental freedoms and totalitarianism. But the left has dug into one side, and the right has taken another. For example, the incredible hypocrisy of the American Library Association, who won't recognize Cuban independent librarians. All due to partisanship and allegiance to some left wing extremists.

Whether we are polluting and harming our God-given world is not a fundamentally left or right issue, either. Let's be pragmatic. There are more benefits to be had by moving away from oil and toward new technology.

Dave, with all due respect, if you do not think that the largest potential transfer of wealth in the history of the world -- their estimate to fix global warming: 43 trillion dollars -- is not important to discuss then you're sadly confused.

As for the issue Cuba being a left/right issue I agree. Those labels were coopted by the left and misappropriated. Socialists, communists and fascists are kissing cousins, not distant relatives.

Whose estimate? What estimate? "Fix" global warming? What does that mean? I'm not sure where that's coming from. Nonetheless, I maintain the distinction between: (1) is global warming happening and (2) how should we handle it.

Regarding (1) I think it's true that man has been polluting and damaging the environment. But Even if it weren't true, it's still a good idea to advance technology and be free of the chavezes of the world.

Regarding (2) I suppose some are calling for extreme measures, and others are more moderate. I think we should move toward energy independence in a fiscally responsible way, but bottom line is that it would be great to move away from oil.