It would be easy to justify a "Fossil fuel depletion act" if fossil fuels were indeed in decline and we were unable to maintain supplies. But until then, it would be almost impossible to justify such measures, which might include regulations on the fuel economy of motor vehicles, lower speed limits, more nuclear power plants, higher utility fees to pay for the transition from coal, etc.
But what Gore is promoting... is that there CURRENTLY is way to justify these measures, before any crisis occurs. It capitalizes on people's dislike for severe weather, especially very hot weather, their general ignorance of climatology, and the tendancy of vocal minorities (especially leftists) to believe zealously anything they are told that might bring down "the establishment".
Hmmm.... conflicting reasoning indeed. Have to think about that.
Current Events » in reply to If they called it the "Fossil fuel depletion act" then I might think differently
And more conflicted reasoning
The whole thread (33 posts)
- Gore descends to speak to Congress
- re: Gore descends to speak to Congress
- Jesus HMF Christ!
- The Earth has a fever you know.
- I'm tired of commenting on this subject.
- No, Gore just spoke to congress (n/t)