The debate is over. Or, more pointedly, the dissenters have been successfully silenced. It seems clear to me that the vast, overwhelming majority of the free world has accepted, de facto, that planet earth is doomed unless man, i.e. the U.S. Government, intervenes.

Even in our institutions of higher education, no more debate is allowed on the topic. Framingham State (A Massachusetts publicly funded college) has organized a Global Warming Teach-in, wherein 45 professors from 15 disciplines will devote their lectures to teach that, as one of the organizers explained, "global warming is a real, non fictitious problem, and it is a problem that humans have created." This same organizer, then goes on to admit that "I realize there's not 100 percent consensus on that." Huh? If there is dissent, shouldn't a college be teaching and encouraging all sides of the debate? Studying English at Framingham State? Philosophy? Physical Education? Ceramics? Well, don't expect to learn much about your selected discipline this week.

The debate is indeed over. It now seems that we should direct our energy at trying to limit the amount of Government involvement, i.e. spending and regulating.

I've made my point on the dangers of a State response to Global Warming. However, in last week's New York Times Magazine, Thomas Friedman provides a reasonable and balanced alternative to an all-out Government intervention. I do not agree with his final analysis, but anyone who wishes to debate the real threats and, ultimately, the real sacrifices that American's must make in order to stave off the dire predictions coming from the "scientific community" should start reading here.

Quote of Note

The only way we are going to get innovations that drive energy costs down to the China price -- innovations in energy-saving appliances, lights and building materials and in non-CO2-emitting power plants and fuels -- is by mobilizing free-market capitalism. The only thing as powerful as Mother Nature is Father Greed. To a degree, the market is already at work on this project -- because some venture capitalists and companies understand that clean-tech is going to be the next great global industry. Take Wal-Mart. The world's biggest retailer woke up several years ago, its C.E.O. Lee Scott told me, and realized that with regard to the environment its customers "had higher expectations for us than we had for ourselves." So Scott hired a sustainability expert, Jib Ellison, to tutor the company. The first lesson Ellison preached was that going green was a whole new way for Wal-Mart to cut costs and drive its profits. As Scott recalled it, Ellison said to him, "Lee, the thing you have to think of is all this stuff that people don't want you to put into the environment is waste -- and you're paying for it!"

Mr. Friedman is someone whith whom I could have a debate

Unfortunately, thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision that labels CO2 a pollutant, we can expect the Government to go ahead, full throttle with spending and regulating. In my home state, Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick has suddenly enacted strict regulations that will force most new development projects, including those already in progress, to provide an environmental impact study of their own. The developer must now provide data showing how the environment will be damaged by the energy used, green-house gas emissions from the employees or visitors' cars, etc. In the past, a new development meant more jobs and more opportunity. Now, thanks to the miserablists that preach doom and gloom, new development only means more woe. Thank you Governor Patrick! This policy (one that requires no oversight or legislative approval) will surely bring new business to the Bay State.

But as the Environmental Affairs Secretary insists "We can no longer be indifferent to green-house gas emissions-- any more than we are to any other form of air pollution."

The debate is over.