Kyoto for thee but not for me

With the Al Gore vehicle "An Inconvenient Truth" winning the Oscar for Best Documentary (and here we must use that term at its loosest - such as when describing another Oscar winner -"Fahrenheit 9/11"), there is a lot of talk in the media about global warming and the "greening" of the economy.

First, let me say that I don't think global warming exists. At least, not as Gore et. al. hyperventilate about it. I think our understanding of the Earth's climate is still too rudimentary to declare the debate over as to whether or not humans are the source of the negligible warming that some climate models predicts.

I imagine that if a Democrat wins the White House the idea of ratifying the Kyoto Protocols will rear its ugly head. Not only is this bad idea because it will damage our economy, but also because it will not bind the worst polluters - the Chinese - to its strictures.

Check out this article from the Washington Times (login required - registration is free). Why would we want to hamstring our own economy and let our rising chief rival have a free hand?

Now, having said that, I am 100% behind the "greening" of the economy. The reason is simple: our current, petroleum-based economy enriches our enemies. All the money we spend on oil goes to enrich some of the most backward, oppressive regimes on Earth. The same regimes that support Islamic terrorism. I think a presidential candidate that campaigned on a plank of energy independence would strike a chord with the American electorate. I know that I would get behind such a candidate. While I doubt that I could ever vote for Hillary Clinton, I could see myself voting for a Joe Lieberman running on such a notion.

It's time we withdrew the material support we are providing the repressive regimes of the Middle East.