Global Warming Hypocrisy: What Do Democrats Drive?

The other day I was in a parking lot and saw one of our town's Democratic Party leaders driving by in a full-size pickup. And I know another one who always seems to be in a Ford Expedition - a very large SUV.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are flying all over the country in jets (supposedly a big contributor to global warming), and it always seems like these high profile figures (of both parties) travel around in the big SUVs, typically with windows tinted to excess (in violation of a stupid NY law), speeding past normal traffic.

I was driving on the Northway today (I-87 north out of Albany for those who aren't local). Following on the suggestion of my associate, and because we were in absolutely no hurry, I decided to go the speed limit in the right lane. It seemed like the vast majority of vehicles on the road were flying by us, and also the vast majority of vehicles were significantly larger than our 2002 Audi A4 wagon.

My car has a 4-cylinder engine and a manual transmission. It seems like most cars on the road have bigger engines and automatic transmissions - which means they are not as good on gas mileage as my car.

And an awful lot of the people driving fast in those big, powerful, inefficient vehicles are Democrats. The hypocrisy is not limited to the leaders (or the Democrats). A non-partisan friend of mine was arguing with me some time ago. He was concerned about global warming and I was, in my usual fashion, rather unconcerned. He seemed to think I was an idiot for not agreeing with him. All of this took place as he was driving us to an event in his V8 powered large sedan.

Politicians ignore consequences

Many politicians talk about global warming and say they want to mandate cars getting 35 mpg or more very soon. These people live in fantasy land - and I should know because we just got back from Disney a couple weeks ago.

Let's suppose these monkeys actually passed a law mandating 35 mpg cars. This would mean that the only new cars available would be smaller and less pleasant than a Honda Civic. No minivans. No SUVs. No large sedans or station wagons either.

The only kind of car you'll be able to buy is something along the lines of the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, or smaller. Below is a picture of reality, from Edmunds.com:


That's a car that gets only 27 mpg city. It's tiny! That's with a 1.6 liter engine and a 5-speed manual transmission. Below is a Honda Fit - a little better:

Now we're down to a 1.5 liter engine and up to 33 mpg city. Tiny and slow. Still not good enough. We'll have to drive smaller cars with smaller engines.

Even if you are genuine and you plan to drive a more fuel-efficient car, or are already doing so, do you really think your neighbors will too? A lot of my neighbors drive SUVs and minivans. Sometimes it's not selfish - they have three kids and need something to carry all of them.

Reality is what will happen if the feds mandate 35 mpg or higher. People will stop buying new cars. We will do our best to maintain our old cars. Older cars will stay on the road longer, and cause even more pollution than the real alternatives.

The real alternatives (from the Stop Wasting Money guy, anyway) are encouraging the private sector to develop mass transit, and (gasp!!) higher taxes on gasoline and other fuels. Before anyone chokes on the last part, this can only be done by lowering other taxes at the same time so the change is revenue neutral. That way the people have the same amount of money in their pockets, and they can save money if they choose to use less fuel.

You see, mandating higher fuel economy encourages people to keep old polluting cars. Higher gas prices encourages everyone to use less gas.

Politicians want you to believe you can have your Corvette and drive it too. It ain't so.

Global Warming Hysteria and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Reading my wife's Glamour tonight ... Yes, I read my wife's Glamour, but I do not use it like George Costanza.

Anyway, this is the April issue, and there's an interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a somewhat big cheese in the environmental movement for some time now. He's asked about global warming and throws out some pretty amazing whoppers. I'll go through them:

1. "I see no legitimate [global warming] skeptics left in the scientific community."
-- Wikipedia has quite a long list of scientists who oppose the "consensus", and who might not realize that they're illegitimate.

2. "In less than 15 years, the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro will be gone."
-- I'm not sure why it's so important to preserve the snows of Kilimanjaro. Is there some endangered species that depends on these snows for its survival? Must be something cute I guess. Anyway, in a brief search I did find one source that criticizes claims about Kilimanjaro and global warming. But what do you expect from Cato libertarians, anyway? Oops, I found another one -- a blog mentioning that global warming is not yet killing the Kilimanjaro glacier. Oh, but that relied on Austrian researchers, and we know they're in league with the Nazis, right? The blog post references a BBC article that even mentions a slight increase in the ice volume on Kilimanjaro over the past year.

3. "If the Greenland Ice Sheet breaks, much of Florida's coasts will disappear and New York City will be underwater."
-- Took me a long time to stop laughing when I read that one - for several reasons. Hmm ... New York City underwater ... isn't that a benefit? Oops, sentiments of an upstater. But seriously, go to Google and do a search for - nyc elevation. Google says 33 feet (relying on Wikipedia). I checked out the IPCC report for 2007 - this is the Bible of the so-called consensus. Predicts sea level rise of somewhere between 7 inches and 23 inches. The larger number is just short of 2 feet. Well, I'm sure Google/Wikipedia is just off by more than 30 feet. Either that or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is full of hysterical bullhonkies (hey, did I just create a new word? - Nope - I Googled it and found 109 results).

4. "[Future generations] can expect an altered world. Since so much land across the planet will be underwater, there will be massive problems with environmental refugees, which will ultimately destabilize political systems and create more opportunities for violence."
-- Well for starters, something like 70% of the planet is already underwater. And if New York City won't be underwater ... and since Miami is at 6 feet, it won't be underwater ... and San Francisco is at 52 feet ... Mumbai at 10 metres (33 feet) and so on.

Aha! I found one. According to Wikipedia, the El Nouzha Airport in Alexandria, Egypt is currently 6 feet below sea level. Wait a minute ... so I guess that one's already underwater then, right? Strangely, Olympic Airlines (from Greece) appears to have flights to Alexandria on its website. I'm checking online to see if I can find a flight to El Nouzha (airport code is ALY). And it turns out EgyptAir flies into El Nouzha using a Boeing 737-500. I didn't know Boeing made those as seaplanes.

But wait, I'm not done with RFK Jr.'s hysteria. Massive problems with environmental refugees, which will ultimately destabilize political systems and create more opportunities for violence. Wow! That's pretty big stuff right there. But then again, there are plenty of refugees around the world already. And the southern US is flooded with refugees from the cold environment of the northern US. Have you ever noticed how many New York delis and bagel shops there are in Florida? I hear even Canadians sneak in down there.

Destabilize political systems -- I thought much of the world already had destabilized political systems. More opportunities for violence too. Well, at least he's not blaming guns this time.

The game plan of the global warming nuts is to grossly exaggerate the dangers. Scream so hysterically that anyone who hears will be frightened. Oh yeah, and you also have to offer no credible solutions.

By the way, if you review my past political history, you will notice that I am a strong believer in conservation, and particularly a big advocate for mass transit - which would help conservation and reduce use of fossil fuels AND reduce drunk driving deaths to boot.

I just don't think we need hysterical silly reasons for such an approach. And unlike half the global warming idiots, I actually drive a fuel-efficient car - a 4-cylinder with a stick shift. One friend of mine was ranting about global warming. He drives a big car with a V8 and his wife drives a large SUV. I razzed him about it, but they're good people so I backed off.