Private Jets for Climate Change

It's amazing that Al Gore could, with a straight face, claim that his Live Earth concerts would promote a change in global warming. Let's just ignore the fact that it generated less than stellar enthusiasm world-wide. They were giving away tickets to the German event with travel packets. South Africa had a difficult time filling their venue. And what was with those scientists playing that horrible sound down there in Antarctica?
First off, as was noted in another article, I think they probably had to lock up Tipper Gore when they were picking the lineup. What would her PMRC group have said about T-Pain performing his hit "I'm in love (Wit a Stripper)" or the headlining Foo Fighters whose most recent hit was a cover of Prince's "Darling Nikki," ironically one of the songs that set Tipper off in the first place in her crusade against vulgarity in music?
But let's consider the irony that an event to highlight man's impact on the environment generated 31,500 tons of carbon emissions. The group that came up with this figure notes that the average British household, in contrast, generates only 10 tons of carbon emissions in an entire year. Additionally, while supposedly all of the waste generated was to be recycled, at least one venue has already admitted that their recycling abilities would only be able to handle, at most, one third of all garbage generated, and that the rest would go into landfills. Way to champion the environment. Finally, consider the fuel expended by all of the acts for these shows as they traveled in private jets to and from the events. Consider that a Gulfstream jet expends more fuel in one hour of flight than your average privately owned automobile consumes in a year. But us normal people are the real problem. How many trees are we supposed to plant to offset the carbon emissions from this concert? And then Al Gore has the nerve to tell us that we need to get active and encourage our governments to sign on to a treaty to cut greenhouse gas pollution by 90 percent? How about we start by banning blowhard musicians from jetting around the world for pointless concerts to highlight the big acts of yesteryear?
I don't think Al Gore really realizes what it would take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent. By one liberal estimate, if we were to ban all automobiles and gas stations in the United States, we could only cut these gases by ~30%. To achieve 70%, we would have to eliminate all energy sources except for nuclear reactors, dams, windmills, and solar panels. This means that Madonna, one of the headline acts at Live Earth, would have to give up her Mercedes, 2 Land Rovers, Audi, and her Mini Cooper. That's right, you wouldn't even be able to drive your Prius. So by reducing ourselves to third world status, we could only cut these emissions by 70%. And don't look for the eco-freaks to allow more nuclear reactors, even though the much-venerated French generate a large proportion of their energy from these reactors, and have miraculously avoided a Chernobyl-like catastrophe.
This is what happens when you get your policies from musicians and celebrities, any ten of which most likely don't even have a high school diploma to split amongst themselves. With all of the jeers from the left of how stupid Bush is, lets not forget that he did better in college than Gore, the man that is now the planetary expert on climate change. This despite the fact that he claims that the ice caps on Kilimanjaro are receding from global warming, even though temperatures atop the mount remain below freezing, and scientists have pretty much definitively proven that the receding glaciers atop the mountain are the result of fluxuations in solar radiation, and not rising temperatures.
One more note. It appears that Cindy Sheehan couldn't stay out of the spotlight too long, and is now threatening to challenge Nancy Pelosi for her house seat in '08 if she does not move on impeachment proceedings for Bush within the next 2 weeks. Pelosi, of course, won't do this, because she knows that it will be political suicide. So I am looking forward to Sheehan challenging her. I might actually donate to that campaign. In fact, if Sheehan throws her hat into the ring, I think Bush should go on the attack and actively campaign for Pelosi (would it really be that much different than his shilling for Lincoln Chafee?). What would be more of a guarantee for a Democrat to lose an election than to have President Bush campaigning for you?
And, finally, the Democrats are once more taking up the issue of funding for Iraq, after every other legislative attempt of theirs since coming into power has flopped. So if they gave in before, what makes them think they can out bluff Bush this time? Your odds of winning in the game of chicken decrease significantly with every time you flinch. My prediction is that the Democrats will not pass one significant piece of legislation by the '08 elections. They are already on track for proving me right.