History 101

There are over 2,600 headlines this morning focused on Australia's new PM and his intentions to sign on with the Kyoto Accords to address "global warming". Obviously, I haven't read them all, but the vast majority of those I have viewed are the "see... someone is seeing the light!" kind of articles, while a few are well-written and serious criticism of the entire issue, and the US's role in a "greener" world.

The President (and by extension, the GOP as a whole) is going to have to face the fact that the rest of the world is going to continue to buy into the "global warming" panic that Gore et al are selling on a daily basis.

How does the current administration, and any future administration the GOP might want to work into the White House, best accomplish its business with a world obsessed with "greenhouse gases"? What does history teach us?

In the 1930's, a "conservative" Congress enacted several Neutrality Acts that made it nearly impossible for government or industry to intercede on behalf of European allies that might ask for or need American assistance in the growing global conflict. Fascism was crushing the Iberian peninsula, Italy and North Africa, and nearly all of central Europe, while blatant Imperialistic aggression was raging across the Pacific Rim. These acts were signed by a very reluctant PotUS that fought tooth and nail to beat them out of a vote... but the overwhelming support these Acts engendered in America caused him to sign them, and find alternative methods to achieve his goals in Europe and the Pacific.

To counter the Neutrality Acts, FDR forced the Lend-Lease Act... a resounding success (as seen in hind sight) in that it allowed for the assistance that the UK, France, Russia and China needed, but removed entirely the onus of massive loans that the pre-WWI policies had placed on belligerent nations. No re-payment was needed in the Lend-Lease program, thus the already war-driven economies of Great Britain and China, and those about to develop in France and Russia weren't hampered by the question of how and when they would repay loans to the US.

Lend-Lease did something else... it allowed the US to give away older, less advanced equipment and arms to nations in need, and allowed the US to spend large chunks of cash to build newer, better replacements... and by extension, prepare our own industrial sector for a war-time production that might have been slowed without Lend-Lease.

So, historically, we see that by not wasting effort and resources in fighting a "no-win" fight with Congress, FDR could work to find alternative means to achieve his goals... and garnered public support along the way.

Bush has made his position on Kyoto blatantly clear... "no frigging way". Okay, done deal. So why continue to fight the call of the vast majority of the public to make the effort (and YES, spend the money!) on finding and developing new, alternative, NON-petroleum based fuel sources here in the US? Why only repeat the mantra that we are going to free ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil? Why not give the country (and the WORLD) the example that we can and WILL do just that? Why not make it a national priority?

Since my satellite radio has been back on, I have heard the conservative pundits say time and again that there isn't enough "sacrifice" for the common goals of this nation by the public. They think that America is so intent on not losing one iota of personal freedom and standard of living that our efforts to win the War on Terror, and the very specific actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, might be curtailed... and I AGREE! Yet these same pundits (Church and Reagan, by far the loudest) say that any Federal interference in the price of gasoline or the requirements that auto-makers must meet in production of vehicles is an infringement on their "RIGHT" to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

By simply regulating the price of gasoline (responsibly, of course... in the same manner tobacco or alcohol is regulated) so that a portion of the price goes to offset the costs of research and development of alternative fuels and energy, how much more appealing would the "green" movement find a GOP administration? By attaching additional funds to defense bills that promote or directly fund alternative fuel development, or hydrogen-based fuel supply and distribution within current US abilities, how much quicker will the Dems in Congress pass the bills?

In short... where does the US lose by following FDR's example here? Once these initial steps are taken, then it will be all the easier to enact a "Manhattan-style" project to free America from foreign oil... how can that be bad?