As of now, the information that scientists have in determining whether or not global warming is caused by human activity is limited. By limited, I mean limited in determining whether human action is the principal cause of the warming that we are currently seeing (at least until the last few years), warming that might be temporary, or if it is principally a natural fluctuation in Earth’s temperature. Global warming events have taken place in Earth’s history long before the proliferation of the Hummer, but unfortunately the doomsayers continue to preach that humans are the principal cause and must be stopped at all costs. Interestingly enough, currently we have been experienced a drop in average world temperature over the last few years, but this neither refutes nor asserts the global warming hypothesis (here’s an interesting website). To put it plainly, the nearly “instantaneous” (in terms of Earth’s age and history) temperature changes that we are experiencing right now do not point to human caused global warming nor do they refute this claim and, equally important, Earth has been hotter or about as hot during past periods of human existence and nothing catastrophic has happened (see the Medieval Warm Period). Personally, I do believe that humans contribute to the warming of the planet that we have experienced simply because it is true that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere and we produce significant amounts of greenhouse gases, but at the same time I recognize that our models do not and cannot accurately predict what will happen in the future. This means that it is possible that the planet might warm up a couple more degrees Celsius and then immediately start cooling because of greater cloud coverage caused by higher amount of water vapor in the atmosphere… it is also possible that warming will continue indefinitely and we will become a water world. My point is that we must continue to study the issue but not allow these environmental concerns, which may be wrong, to destroy the progress that human civilization has made. Most importantly, no matter what we do, a government-based “solution” to controlling greenhouse gas emissions will almost certainly fail. Government can help, but the only thing that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the free market and until the free market finds a profitable reason to do so, the current trends will not change.

Compiled from Hadley/CRU (Climatic Research Unit) temperature data

As of now, leftists around the world are trying to use the global warming argument as an instrument in the weakening and ultimate destruction of America. What is most unfortunate is that conservatives and libertarians have not presented the public with another option beyond calls to continue studying climate change. The truth of the matter is that there exist opportunities for the free market and for America as a whole to change our behaviors in such a way that will reduce carbon emissions drastically. While climate change is not a principal concern on my mind, as compared to the immediate dangers of militant Islam, nuclear armed rogue nations, and the threats against freedom, it just so happens that there is a solution to all of these problems: energy independence. What would happen if the United States of America reduced dependence on oil and/or developed a non-carbon based energy source? Would Iran be able to continue financing its nuclear program? Would militant Islam continue to finance international terrorism? Would human carbon emissions continue to envelope the planet? The answer to these questions is probably no. This is why I consider climate change a secondary issue, because the primary issues of security and energy independence can be solved by the same thing that would solve the climate issue. Here is where the free market comes in: if entrepreneurs out there came to realize the potential profits they can make by being the developers or producers of an alternative energy source (hopefully non-carbon emitting), then the United States will be safer, cleaner, and these entrepreneurs will be very successful. I have read articles here that showcase some of these types of entrepreneurs, but the effort has not been intense enough to produce the type of results that are necessary. If government wants to be involved, the most that it should do is aid in the research and development of these alternative energy sources.

Sadly, instead of tackling the problem in a common-sense way, government has instead decided that it will pump billions into a “green” economy that is inefficient and only expands government size. For example, the obvious solution to reducing emissions from coal plants would be to start building nuclear power plants, but the government has been reluctant to do so. The only environmental issue there is in the storage of nuclear waste, but at least global warming can be averted. Of course, the environmentalists are opposed to the obvious benefits of nuclear power, showing how detached from reality and attached to ideology that many environmentalists are. It is clear that the government is not serious about cutting our emissions nor about energy independence, but instead they use the threat of climate-linked catastrophe to justify government economic intervention. This needs to change. To continue to rely on the burning of carbon-based fuels at this point in history is absurd. It is about time that we move beyond this and develop an energy source that will not leave us at the mercy of third world dictatorships with ties to terrorism and, at the same time, will not contribute to the increasing global temperatures (we may not be the principal cause, but we do contribute somewhat). Since the problem of relying on fossil fuels for energy is a national security issue and an economic issue, we cannot allow the climate-change-doomsday-alarmists to use this in order to promote a government expansion agenda. At the end of the day, the only thing that we can do is wait for a free market solution to this problem, let’s just hope that government does not stand in the way of progress. That’s some irony though, given that many environmentalists tend to be die-hard opponents of the free market and the only thing that can save the environment is just that.

-AG