Loading...

Monday, September 24, 2007

Could We Have a President With Courage Please?

Judging from my title, it's probably not clear what I mean. Courage to know when enough is enough and leave Iraq? That'd be great, but that's not what I'm talking about at the moment. I heard on the radio this afternoon that both Al Gore and the Governator (who's last name I can't spell, so I'll leave it at that) are attending a UN conference on Global Warming. President Bush still refuses to support regulations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases because it would be too harmful to the economy.

I would like a president who had the courage to say, "You know what? Yes, this might hurt the economy in the short term, but my money's on the fact that selling hip waders to New Yorkers isn't going to be enough to keep the great capitalist machine running once the oceans rise." For some bizarre reason, Presidents of both parties have had people tell them this is happening for years, but have failed to do anything significant to help prevent catastrophe.

I hope that there are still lilies around when my grandchildren grow up so they can know what Jesus meant when he talked about the lilies of the field. And to all those folks who hold up John 3:16 signs at sporting events, note that it says "For God so loved the world", not "For God so loved 'us', or 'humanity'". Maybe we should start paying closer attention to that which we claim to be God's handiwork - the earth itself - and take better care of it so that our children and their children can enjoy it.

Here's hoping W's successor has a little more courage to do what's right. (And by the way - if we the voters tell them this is important, there's a possibility they might listen!)

2 comments:

tzink said...

> I would like a president who
> had the courage to say, "You
> know what? Yes, this might hurt
> the economy in the short term...

The weakness of this approach is that it assumes all (or any) of the anti-global warming solutions will actually work.

For example, the Kyoto Accord is not actually the solution to global warming, it is only projected to reduce global temperatures by 0.06 degrees centigrade. Indeed, Kyoto is designed to be only the first of many agreements that need to be implemented.

Furthermore, does this even represent the best use of capital? For example, for the amount of money we could spend combating global warming, we could provide fresh drinking water to most of the developing world.

Mark said...

I agree with you that Kyoto is just a start, but I would rather have a reduction by .6 degrees than an increase by as much as 6.

Best use of capital? As soon as we pull out of Iraq, we'll have enough money to combat global warming, provide fresh drinking water to most of the developing world, and provide full health care coverage to every person in the United States, with quite a bit left over.

And wouldn't that be cool? An investment in the peace and security of the future, rather than ensuring the continuation of terrorism indefinitely!