Gore Urges Civil Disobedience But Emits Lots of Hot Air

Is anything on earth as gaseous as Al Gore blathering?

Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.

The former U.S. vice president, whose climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award, told a philanthropic meeting in New York City that "the world has lost ground to the climate crisis."

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.

"I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."

The government says about 28 coal plants are under construction in the United States. Another 20 projects have permits or are near the start of construction.

Scientists say carbon gases from burning fossil fuel for power and transport are a key factor in global warming.

Carbon capture and storage could give coal power an extended lease on life by keeping power plants' greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere and easing climate change.

But no commercial-scale project exists anywhere to demonstrate the technology, partly because it is expected to increase up-front capital costs by an additional 50 percent.

So-called geo-sequestration of carbon sees carbon dioxide liquefied and pumped into underground rock layers for long term storage.

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Christine Kearney and Xavier Briand)
© Thomson Reuters 2008

Green Hypocrites Fail to Make Grade

The Guardian has an article on the hypocritical behavior of rich greenies.

People who believe they have the greenest lifestyles can be seen as some of the main culprits behind global warming, says a team of researchers, who claim that many ideas about sustainable living are a myth.

According to the researchers, people who regularly recycle rubbish and save energy at home are also the most likely to take frequent long-haul flights abroad. The carbon emissions from such flights can swamp the green savings made at home, the researchers claim.

Stewart Barr, of Exeter University, who led the research, said: "Green living is largely something of a myth. There is this middle class environmentalism where being green is part of the desired image. But another part of the desired image is to fly off skiing twice a year. And the carbon savings they make by not driving their kids to school will be obliterated by the pollution from their flights."

Some people even said they deserved such flights as a reward for their green efforts, he added.

Only a very small number of citizens matched their eco-friendly behaviour at home by refusing to fly abroad, Barr told a climate change conference at Exeter University yesterday.

The research team questioned 200 people on their environmental attitudes and split them into three groups, based on a commitment to green living.

They found the longest and the most frequent flights were taken by those who were most aware of environmental issues, including the threat posed by climate change.

Questioned on their heavy use of flying, one respondent said: "I recycle 100% of what I can, there's not one piece of paper goes in my bin, so that makes me feel less guilty about flying as much as I do."

Barr said "green" lifestyles at home and frequent flying were linked to income, with wealthier people more likely to be engaged in both activities.

He said: "The findings indicate that even those people who appear to be very committed to environmental action find it difficult to transfer these behaviours into more problematic contexts."

The team says the research is one of the first attempts to analyse how green intentions alter depending on context. It says the results reveal the scale of the challenge faced by policymakers who are trying to alter public behaviour to help tackle global warming.

The study concludes: "The notion that we can treat what we do in the home differently from what we do on holiday denies the existence of clearly related and complex lifestyle choices and practices. Yet even a focus on lifestyle groups who may be most likely to change their views will require both time and political will. The addiction to cheap flights and holidays will be very difficult to break."

The frequent flyers said they expected new technology to make aviation greener, echoing comments made by Tony Blair last year, who said it was "impractical" to expect people to take holidays closer to home. He said the solution was "to look at how you make air travel more energy-efficient, how you develop the new fuels that will allow us to burn less energy and emit less."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

Acceleration of Islamization Post-9/11

Diane West has an excellent article on the West's sleep post-9/11 on the gathering storm.

As a society, we appear to have decided to remember 9/11 as something akin to a natural disaster that came and went rather than as a part of a diffuse but discernable push to advance the law of Islam.

Hypocrisy of financial patriotism

Patriotism Starts at the Top, Sen. Biden
By Arnold Ahlert

Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden thinks paying more taxes is "patriotic." You wanna talk patriotism, Mr. Biden? Here we go…

First and foremost, let's talk about why Joe thinks people should pay more taxes: to fund a government run with no concept of fiscal responsibility. Zero. This year's budget is close to three trillion dollars. That’s a number so large it's almost meaningless, so let me put some meaning behind it: Since the population of the entire country is 300 million, every single American is getting charged an average of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS apiece by our "patriots" in Congress.

Here's some of the things those patriots get just for themselves: staffs of 14 assistants for each member of the House and 34 for each Senator, on average. Top-notch health care and insurance plans. Pension benefits two to three times more than those paid in the private sector on similar incomes. Limousines, and special parking spaces on Capitol Hill and at Washington's two major airports. First-class travel all over the world. Their own private health clubs, one for the House, one for the Senate. Their own doctor's office on premises. And last, but not least, a work schedule with numerous holidays and a full month off in August.

All of it paid for by us.

You wanna be a patriot, Joe? Here's a few suggestions: Get you and your colleagues to stop taking earmarks. Cut down on your staffs. Pay for your own health and life insurance. Travel coach. Stop pretending you're "one of us" when nothing could be further from the truth. Oh, and one more thing:

Stop spending us into economic ruin–even as you have the gall to tell us it's for our own good!

Spending other peoples' hard-earned money isn't patriotic, Joe, especially when most Americans know that billions of dollars are wasted on out-of-date and ineffective programs. Programs whose primary functions are to bribe certain constituencies–or to make guys like you look good. Take a gander at Congressional poll numbers, Joe. Most of us don't think you guys look good at all. Most of us think Congress stinks to high heaven.

I do want to thank you for one thing however, and that's letting the cat out of the bag on what you and Barack Obama consider "change." Who could imagine such "revolutionary" ideas as taking even more money out the private sector and giving it to government to "redistribute"–in the middle of an economic downturn, no less? Higher taxes on the "rich," aka small business owners, is also pure genius. Why? They'll fire "little people" employees to make up the difference. And what can possibly compare with the "brilliance" of putting us all in even deeper hock than the NINE TRILLION DOLLARS of debt that you and your cronies have already amassed with years of irresponsible spending?

That's 35 years in the Senate just for you, Joe. 35 years of insinuating government deeper and deeper into the lives of every American. 35 years of ever-increasing amounts of waste, fraud, corruption and out-of-control spending by a bunch of self-interested, self-aggrandizing egotists.

Egotists whose concept of patriotism begins and ends with one idea: getting re-elected.

And you have the nerve to tell us WE should be more patriotic?

Take your "patriotism" and shove it, Senator Biden.

atahlert@comcast.net

(for the record: my annual income isn’t even sniffing $250K)

Want real change? Quit nominating lawyers!

Victor Davis Hanson on how to have real change in politics. Pebble to JWR.

The 2008 presidential campaign is supposed to be a referendum on "change" — who brings it and who doesn't.

Real change, however, hasn't yet proven to mean new politics.

The "hope and change" Barack Obama sounds like a traditional Northern liberal who always wants to raise taxes on the upper classes and businesses, expand government services and provide more state assistance to the middle class and poor.

"Maverick" John McCain talks like a conventional Western or Southern conservative in favor of spending cuts, across-the-board lower taxes and smaller government.

This year the media seem to think change means race and sex — whether Barack Obama's background of mixed racial ancestry or the gender of Democratic primary candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

It's certainly true that either the next president or next vice president will not be a white male. But does that mean de facto that the country will be run any differently?

There is, however, one area where we might have seen real change. The Democrats could have not nominated another lawyer. This may partly explain why former military officer John McCain and working-mom Sarah Palin are polling near even with Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, in a year that otherwise favors the Democrats.

A snowmobiling, fishing and hunting mom of five who was trained as a journalist seems like a breath of fresh air — and accentuates the nontraditional background of former naval officer John McCain. If the Republicans win, it may well be that, like George Bush and Dick Cheney, or Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, they weren't members of the legal culture.

On the Democratic side, Barack Obama got out of Harvard Law School, worked for a firm, offered his legal expertise as a community organizer and went into politics. Joe Biden graduated from law school and almost immediately ran for office.

In the Democratic primary, winner Obama, runner-up Hillary Clinton and third-place finisher John Edwards were all lawyers. In 2004, both Democratic nominees, John Kerry and Edwards, were lawyers. Al Gore, who ran in 2000, left law school without a degree and went into politics. His running mate, Joe Lieberman, was a Yale-trained lawyer. Mike Dukakis, the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee, was a Harvard-trained lawyer and ran with lawyer Lloyd Bentsen.

In fact, every Democratic presidential nominee for president and vice president in the last seven elections — except Gore who dropped out of law school to run for Congress — has been a lawyer.

What saved Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 was the presence in the race of third-party conservative candidate Ross Perot — and the image of Clinton as a Southern moderate, which seemed to reassure voters that this particular Yale-trained lawyer was nevertheless not quite another Democratic nominee like Walter Mondale or Dukakis.

Of course, there have been Republican nominees and presidents who were lawyers — Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Bob Dole — but recently far less so than the Democrats, as the administrations of Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes attest.

So, what's wrong with the Democratic nominee once again being a lawyer? After all, legal minds are trained to think precisely and evaluate both sides of an issue.

The problem is that lawyers usually do not run companies, defend the country, lead people, build things, grow food or create capital.

If this year Democrats were looking for populist candidates from diverse backgrounds and training who talked and thought differently from those of the past, then why didn't they nominate someone who was not trained in writing legalese and working the government legal labyrinth?

Instead, they needed different sorts, candidates who might have sounded a little rougher, a little less condescending and a little more like most voters. Most Americans have never been in — and never want to be in — a courtroom.

In the past, law school has not necessarily been considered ideal presidential training. Harry Truman was audacious perhaps because he had tried and failed as a haberdasher. Dwight Eisenhower learned about leadership from his years as a general. George H.W. Bush was a businessman and Ronald Reagan an actor. Even unpopular presidents like Jimmy Carter (farmer) and George W. Bush (businessman) brought different perspectives to the job.

Change for Democrats this year was not a new strain of liberal politics or a different race or gender. Instead, they needed to have run candidates who talked, thought and acted differently from their usual run-of-the-mill sorts.

And that meant someone other than the same old, same old legal eagles who appear glib — but so often manage to lose in November.

Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and military historian, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.