Carbon will be the leading source of conflict
Per Barbara Boxer:
“I’m going to put in the record … a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way,” Boxer said. “And that’s why we have so many returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue.”
I’m going to put on record, I’ll promisie quotes from generic titles as well, that carbon pollution won’t cause a single conflict in the next 20 years.
We have veterans who want to end our reliance on the Middle East. Most people would recognize that as eliminating our dependency on oil. That has very little to do with pushing cap and trade. That has very little to do with regulating carbon. They’ll take Kentucky coal over Saudi oil in a heartbeat. I’m with those peeps. However, burning coal makes carbon. It has done that since before Barbara Boxer was born. Now, a lot of people are making the cliam man’s impact on the environment was more severe 100 years ago than it is now. That was because man relied more on burning coal than other options. With the advent of nuclear, natural gas, electricity, wind, water, and nowaday bio-mass and other technologies, man doesn’t rely as much on coal as he did then. With that, the “dirty” carbon emissions have actually decreased substantially over the last fifty years:
Now, what we see here is that since 1960 ( that’s fifty years, Babs ), sulfur emission have decreased. Now, the reason this chart means anything is because we NEED carbon. OK? Plants LOVE carbon. Simply saying you want to eliminate carbon means you want all life on Earth to die. That’s pretty harsh. That’s what Barbara Boxer is saying. The reality is that carbon is not a bad thing. Sulfur is. The assumption made by simple minds like Al Gore and Barbara Boxer is that in order to make energy, you HAVE to make carbon. So, in order to make energy more efficient, you lower the carbon usage. Make sense? It really doesn’t. You can crank out all the carbon you ever imagined and it won’t necessarily harm the Earth. It will suffocate mankind if plants don’t take of the problem. Sulfur, that’s another story. Sulfur’s nasty stuff. That’s the stuff acid rain is made from. There’s nothing good about sulfur. The reason they put the hammer on coal fifty years ago was the sulfur, not the carbon. Because of that, over the next fifty years, the US developed a massive addiction to oil. However, to make it real fun, we made the game complicated by pretty much eliminating any chance of drilling at home. You can’t drill in fifty feet of water, but you can in 5,000 feet. Waters in the Gulf can be put at risk, sand in Utah can not. Our economy has propped up every terrorist organization on Earth as we sent billions upon billion to the Middle East. But, we damaged the environment a lot less.
That’s what the Veterans oppose.
Barbara Boxer is now using that Vetereans’ opposition to sending money to the Middle East to support her plan for trading stocks in companies that are penalized to varying degrees based on the whims of the EPA in order to save the environment by most likely emitting more sulfur into the air.
Ya get all that?
And if we don’t support her plan to emit more sulfur in the air and bankrupt the economy, there will be war in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, or ( insert current conflict here ).
Carly Fiorina has taken a position opposing Boxer’s statement. She has also taken the lead in California. I’d like to think Californians are finally taking their politics seriously. But, I’m still skeptical.
Not wanting to explain their logic to the general public about regulating carbon, Boxer went the route of using EPA policy changes to do it. The Republicans balked. They had a vote. Wanna guess how it went? These peeps voted to continue allowing the EPA to regulate carbon:
Yup, out of 53 votes for regulating a life sustaining gas, all 53 were Democrat.
Out of 47 votes telling the EPA that’s nuts, 6 were Democrat. Boxer took that as encouraging sign that Congress is ready to support Obama’s plan to regulate ( read, tax ) the air that you breathe.