Another Sign of The Apocalypse

Nancy Pelosi and New Gingrich publicly agreeing on something...



Of course the final sign of the Apocalypse is Tom Delay and Jane Fonda publicly agreeing on anything or (Jeb Bush becoming president which is slightly more likely).

Conservatives Coming to a Climate Consensus?

No. But they are realizing that achieving energy independence and fighting climate change both have common solutions. Over at Townhall conservative columnist Cal Thompson comes around to a point I made over a year ago about the debate on climate change (although he first does some Gore bashing and accuses those that believe in global warming of being a cult first)

"Republicans and Democrats repeatedly tell us we rely too much on foreign oil, especially that which comes from a current trouble spot, the Middle East, and that which comes from a potential trouble spot, Venezuela. Might it be possible for the CGW crowd and the Church of Free Enterprise (CFE) to come together for the common purpose of reducing our reliance on foreign oil? CGW fundamentalists would get what they want — a reduced carbon footprint and supposedly lower global temperatures (go ahead and let them believe it) — while CFE parishioners would rejoice that Saudi Arabia’s hold on us (not to mention its use of our money to underwrite terrorism) could be broken.

If we would launch an energy independence program with the intensity of a Marshall Plan for Europe, or a man-on-the-moon project, to liberate ourselves from the petroleum despots by developing synthetic fuels and finding new energy sources closer to home — especially nuclear power — we could strike a blow against the Islamofascists more damaging than bombs and bullets."

I'm glad he's finally gotten past his partisan myopia on this topic and started to see the forest rather than the trees. However Mr. Thompson's call for "an energy independence program with the intensity of a ... man-on-the-moon project" went out years ago and was in part answered by Republicans for Environmental Protection (and other groups) when The Apollo Alliance was formed. Unfortunately he missed it because at the time as he (and many others) were too busy painting anyone concerned about global warming as a liberal flake. The result being that we are years behind where we could and should be in regards to energy independence and the Dems picked up the hybrid energy independence/global warming ball and ran with it which contributed to their ability to oust the GOP majority.

My point is that too many pundits, commentators, columnists, and bloggers are discounting the message due to the political affiliations of its messenger to the detriment of the greater good (and their political party). If the drivers of public opinion spent half as much time considering the possible merits of their opponents ideas as they do attacking the messenger we'd be in much better shape as a nation and much farther down the path to energy independence than we are. And maybe if Mr. Thompson can realize different problems sometimes have the exact same solutions and that a concerted bipartisan effort is needed for the greater good others can too.

H/T to Terra Rosa

Iraq War Was About Oil?

Alan Greenspan thinks so...

From the UK Times

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East. more

**Update**

Greenspan later clarified his statement in an interview with the WaPo:

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

Well its a much more plausible theory than the far left's theory that we were trying to grab all the oil in Iraq. Greenspan is at least a highly reputable source. Even if one disputes the veracity of Greenspan's statement one cannot deny that oil security is of import. However in my opinion if its that important then we should be making a bigger push towards energy independence.

Now if we could only take a break from arguing about global warming long enough to actually work together to achieve this goal in a rational manner we'd all be better off.

Bush Proposes Talks on Warming

Pre-Summit Speech Marks Shift by U.S.

By Michael A. Fletcher and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 31, 2007; A01

President Bush sought yesterday to take the initiative on global warming talks in which the administration had previously been a reluctant participant, offering to launch negotiations aimed at having the world's most prolific polluters agree on long-term goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposal, which Bush unveiled in a speech outlining his priorities for the Group of Eight summit in Germany next week, signaled a shift in the administration's often-criticized approach to combating global warming while offering what the president called a "new framework" for addressing the issue.

Though the president is still not backing a mandatory cap on carbon dioxide emissions, he made it clear that he would like the United States to play a major role in shaping global environmental policy after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

"In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it," Bush said. "The United States takes this issue seriously. The new initiative I am outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week."

The White House said Bush's proposal has drawn positive reactions from several European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has called for more prescriptive measures for limiting global warming. Still, environmentalists and their supporters in Congress criticized Bush's proposal as a weak substitute for cutting greenhouse gas emissions through binding rules.

Bush's speech came as several members of the Group of Eight have been pressing -- despite U.S. opposition -- for specific cuts in greenhouse gases as part of the June 6-8 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany. The German proposal calls for limiting the worldwide temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit and cutting global greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, both of which the administration rejects as impractical. more

Well this is new. I'm curious to see what proposals we bring to the table. Hopefully it'll be something concrete and useful like allowing politicians to only speak one thousand words a day.