Ugh Watch II

I really wanted to just ignore this incredibly off-the-wall op/ed by Oklahoma senator James Inhofe in USA Today. But since he's the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and actually has some influence on climate change issues, I felt compelled to make just a few comments.

As I reported last week, the Senate could pass an amendment to the energy bill in the near future that would take action to decrease greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. To people like Inhofe, who refuse to accept that global warming exists (contrary to the findings of our own National Academy of Sciences just last week, as well as countless other scientific organizations), passage of such an amendment would just be catastrophic. Inhofe outlines his opposition in the op/ed piece. He begins with this outrageous paragraph:

"Despite the lack of a scientific consensus to warrant such measures, climate change alarmists - in the heat of the summer for the scariest effect - are promoting mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions in the USA. It's a classic case of "ready, fire, aim."

1. True. There isn't a scientific consensus that global warming is a significant problem. There's also not a consensus that there's enough oil in ANWR to justify drilling there, and yet Inhofe is one of the biggest backers of taking that drastic and probably useless step.

2. "Climate change alarmists": John McCain? Jeff Bingaman? Chuck Hagel?

3. "in the heat of summer for the scariest effect": Because clearly those favoring action on climate change had such a heavy influence on the scheduling of the energy bill's consideration. Oh wait, Bill Frist must be in on the conspiracy too!

4. "ready, fire, aim": see 1. Apparently "ignore, stick head in sand, ignore" is a better strategy.

More Inhofe: "Two Senate bills would, like the Kyoto Protocol, cap carbon dioxide emissions. Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates estimates that the costs of implementing Kyoto would cost an American family of four $2,700 annually."

Senator Inhofe, enlighten us: which of the current amendments even comes close to implementing Kyoto's standards? Answer: none of them. Kyoto is not even in the same room as these amendments, so the costs would be significantly less. And frankly, I think any such costs would be more than made up by the fact that taking action now might actually mean there's a world as we know it around for the next few generations.

Inhofe quotes an EU official and French president Jacques Chirac (mmm, way to fire up the base, mention the French guy), with Chirac calling Kyoto "the first component of an authentic global governance." Inhofe concludes by saying "Based on ... uncertainty our constituents hardly need 'global governance,' but they do deserve responsible governance at home."

1. No one is talking about implementing Kyoto. No one is talking about implementing Kyoto. No one is talking about implementing Kyoto. No one is talking about implementing Kyoto.

2. I fully agree, the American people do deserve responsible governance at home. They do not deserve straw man rhetoric and scare tactics from a senator whose head is still stuck in the sand.