Six of one is NOT a half dozen of the other.

First off, I fully acknowledge that the national security argument was first broached, and discussed within the Bund. In specific I remember that angle being brought up at Jambo's house - although I don't recall whether it was you or he - perhaps it was simultaneous, as sometimes occurs within our group. I also remember, and have acknowledged since, that I saw the logic in this - energy independence - being an issue of security. I was sold on that from the beginning, and have posted on it during our email threads. That show, after all, did not take the angle we do, so I couldn't have got it from them - they of course, were working on the "global warming" angle as to why renewable energy independence was necessary. So for the record, you guys saw this angle, which I subsequently agreed with, back in 2001. This show simply got my attention by pointing out that we were once exporters of oil, and so I combined the Bund angle of national security into one post last night. I hope the "hurt" is thus removed.

Secondly - perhaps my disdain for the champion's of the "global warming fanaticism", such as Al Gore, seeped into my last and overwhelmed the one line that dealt with your examples of man's impact on the environment such as the Exxon Valdez, Chernobyl, etc. And that line was this: As you know, "environmental" concerns are not a concern of mine. Pollution, smog, yes I can get behind stopping that - but man induced global warming due to the expenditure of fossil fuels, we've dealt with that farce.

I fully admit that pollution via man's actions occurs on a 1:1 ratio. I'd have to be as insane as the global warming wackos not to. And from now on I will separate "environmental concerns", since that by definition includes tragedies like Chernobyl, and more accurately refer to the "AlGoreians" (not to be confused with Algerians) as "global warming alarmists" whom "believe", absent hard science, that man is altering the climate of earth through Co2. In fact I viewed a program on HBO not long ago that would interest you - no doubt you are already familiar with this, but the name of the documentary was "My Heart's in Chernobyl", or something to that effect. And it tracked and interviewed the birth defects in babies in the surrounding areas. Oh my goodness! One must have a strong constitution to watch this in its entirety. These weren't cleft pallets and the like - we're talking the brain stem protruding out of the back base of the head, thus causing the brain itself, enveloped in some sort of sack, to grow independent of the skull - on a two year old. It was horrific.

As for holding out the possibility that man's actions may one day cause global climate change - that defies common sense to me. Is it possible that it may occur "one day?" I guess so, in so much as "anything" is possible. But my reasoning tells me that if nothing we've done thus far has altered the climate, and fossil fuels have a finite supply, then it's highly unlikely. Furthermore, to say "maybe in the future" man may cause this, lends a level of credibility to Al & co that they certainly do not deserve.

At any rate, I think we've found (outside of moral issues) the single largest policy platform that we can agree upon - renewable energy independence is a matter of national and economic security, AND Al Gore's amazing hair tonic is actually warm soda.
FR