Media: U.S. Should Throw Billions of Dollars at Global Warming

[jpak]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2006/20061108124934.aspx

How will the new Congress handle world pressure on the “dire” threat of global warming? If the media had their way, the United States would give in and join programs that are proven failures – costing taxpayers up to $180 billion per year in the process.

World leaders are meeting this week in Nairobi, Kenya, to discuss a new climate change agreement, and the idea du jour is to make the United States pay up.

The existing Kyoto Protocol, which the United States did not endorse, doesn’t expire until 2012, but the United Nations climate conference aims to decide where the world goes from that pact. Greenhouse gases’ contribution – indeed, humans’ contribution – to global warming remains very much in dispute, but that hasn’t stopped the left-wing crusade against carbon dioxide and other gases.

U.S. media have embraced a recent British study that calls for American taxpayers to pay at least 1 percent of gross domestic product or even more – up to $180 billion per year toward a new emissions-lowering system. That works out to a minimum of $400 for every man, woman and child in the United States – per year. If we don’t pay, they say, calamity ensues.

<more>

[lapfog_1]

1. How about we throw 400 Billion a year into

non fossil fuel energy production.

It has the following advantages....

We could radically change our CO2 output and, thus, do our part to avoid Global Climate Change (and the costs that we WILL pay in the future... see the post this a.m. from an Australian who said that vegetables are getting to be as expensive as meat there, because of the ongoing drought).

We would quit funding the ME arabs and their radical religious agenda (thus reducing terrorism).

We could create jobs here in energy production and "recycle" that money into our own economy.