I haven't done the math, but it seems pretty obvious that trying to end biomass burning-for example, by boosting aid to Africa-would be a much more effective first step in combating climate change than the Kyoto Protocol, which, as even its backers acknowledge, will accomplish more or less nothing. It would probably be much cheaper, too. So why don't we hear more about the biomass burning problem?See also: "watermelons."My hunch is that it's for the same reason we don't hear climate watchdogs aggressively promoting low-carbon energy sources like nuclear power: they are less interested in the problem than in solutions that involve more government, less industry, and a redistribution of wealth. If this is true, conservatives are right to remain highly skeptical. One doesn't have to be scientifically literate to recognize the political attractiveness of the climate-change issue to the Al Gores of the world.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.