Glo-Bull Warming

My position on Global Warming is that it is a hoax, but either way I don't believe Congress has any business talking about it.

It says in the Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

You can do a quick search if you want, but there's nothing in there about funding for Global Warming research, any preventive actions or other regulations.

One can argue (forgive the cliché) until he's blue in the face that we are currently experiencing Global Warming caused by human interference, but that does not change the fact that the government, which by the way is supposed to 'Derive its rights from the people,' has no business with it.

Let's ignore this as lefties usually do (come on it's a living document), what can we expect from the government if it tries to decide for people how they should react to Global Warming:

· The first thing that will likely happen is government funding for research, and other combative crap. A number I've heard tossed around is $30 trillion. The impossibilities of this number are so vast it feels silly to write about. Not to mention the corruption that is to be expected with any government activity, we would have to worry about where the government is going to get this money. The GDP in 2007 was $13 trillion; the proposed cost is more than twice that. This means that it would take more than two years to get this money if they taxed 100% of all American's paychecks. Probably longer than that unless we forget about all other current government programs. That's not even the worst of it, all this money that is taxed has to be taken from something, the economy is a zero-sum game: every dollar taxed has an opportunity cost. If they decide to just print a bunch more cash, than the inflation will go up to Jimmy Carter levels.

· Emissions tests is another thing that probably doesn't work. The US can't control the emissions of any other country, so any effect is likely to be negligible (I don't have any facts on this, it's just an assumption). Also, what about the people who can't afford a car that's up to the standards, they will probably lose their job, which will up the unemployment rate, and the welfare, which could add another few hundred billion to opportunity costs in the economy.

For those who think Global Warming will end the world, here's my suggestion: Let the Free Market take care of it.

Many companies are already pushing 'green' products; as a result many producers have to adapt their items. This is evident in the Wal-Mart situation, where some companies have to sacrifice margins to be able to sell to Wal-Mart. This is not because of any government regulations, but because entrepreneurs think that consumers are scared of global warming so they change their product to benefit society.

Wow! Revolutionary.

Al Gore has convinced millions of people, that global warming will kill them and all the Polar Bears, without government help, and the movie A Day After Tomorrow grossed $187 million in the US and $543 million worldwide (an almost 70% margin by the way), without any government help.

Meanwhile, congress has had endless conversations about it, on their exorbitant one-day-a-week salaries, and nothing has come of it, which is quite possibly the best outcome.

It's a good thing they never took action against global cooling, or we'd really be in trouble.

Roark is a soon-to-be Utah College student who is peeved that Global Warming kept snow on the ground and the temperatures below 50 until May.

For more info on Global Warming read these books: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) and An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems