Government vs. Industry

Sitting through a high school debate recently allowed me to compare notes on how the issue of global warming should be addressed. Let me first say, to those of you who don't believe that global warming exists, please take your head out of the sand. Your indignation is disgusting. Your methodology of manipulating the system is failing our society and you are unwilling to admit it. In your opinion, its better to take the world down than to admit a mistake.

Pictures of sheets of ice plummeting to ocean level, the rapid loss of the icecap on the island of Greenland and the sadness associated with a polar bear drifting away to death on a tiny piece of ice is nothing short of appalling. The increase of world temperatures coupled with many devastating weather events leads to serious concern about the future. Yet, we seem to be making little or no progress in solving this problem.

The high school debate centered on government regulation vs. market mechanics. And the overriding question was "Which is better suited to help solve the global warming issue?"

An educated guess says the student vote favored the arguments presented by the side representing government regulation. I, for one, see no way the nation could ever depend on industry to take the necessary steps to begin the global warming reversal process. After all, it is industry, assisted obviously by the population which demands bigger and better and more energy powered devices, that has led us to our present dilemma.

Sure, industry will flaunt a few token ideas that will convince some that help is on the way. But, ultimately, the idea of profit making will filter back into the conversation. At that point, with even more profit to be made, it will be full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, and to hell with global warming. Industry will sustain itself at the cost of every human being on the surface of the earth. It will squeeze every bit of loose change out of a poor man's pocket regardless of what that means in the big picture of our existence.

Profit making can be the equivalent of greed. Industry has, justifiably, always been concerned with making money. But, I yearn for that long-ago day when the industrial tycoon owned a business all to himself. While he certainly made a profit and lived much more comfortably than his employees, he also frequently gave back to society in a big way. Today, so many industries are publicly owned and there are numerous stockholders wanting to make money. And, making money is a natural desire of ownership, but certainly not the kind of behavior necessary to turn the global warming dilemma around.

On the other hand, government is equipped to deal with all sorts of dilemma. We as a species learned the necessity of government many centuries ago when we discovered that we could not live peacefully together. Some question whether we live peacefully together today, even with the existence of government. Still, as our nation views government, it is designed to allow for our existence in a fashion that is fair to all.

The high school debaters, to their credit, discussed the Environmental Protection Agency and its regulatory abilities to use government to fight the global warming problem. I have no problem with their arguments.

However, I want to put global warming on another level. I want a logical explanation why government is the route that needs to be followed to fight global warming rather than our profit-making industries.

The Preamble of the Constitution is a complex set of goals for our government. We have heard about "a more perfect government" the need to "establish justice," and the idea that government should "insure domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defense." But I believe the other two goals of the Preamble are ideally designed to deal with global warming.

The Preamble ends with the final two goals, "...promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." It seems to me that the general welfare of our nation is threatened by global warming. And, it seems necessary for our government to act if we are going to pass on our system of government and the existence of our nation to future generations.

I am a firm believer that the US government is charged by the Constitution of the USA to deal in the best way possible with global warming. Yes, its going to cost money. Yes, our taxes will raise. And, yes, people will be upset. Case in point. There are no free rides in this world. We helped cause the problem and we will have to pay for it.

And, if we don't fix this problem of global warming, regardless what those with their head stuck in sand say, we are rapidly watching ourselves bring this world to an early demise.