The Wall Street Journal is an unpretentious, slack-jawed journal that was initially designed for people who work in finance to look over market news and what's happening on “the Street.” More recently, it's become an alternative for people who are tired of the screams and cries from The New York Times as well as The Washington Post but that want to see an establishment to take a page from a major news source.
It's not exactly surprising, however, to read an enthralling editorial written by the Editorial Board, but on Sunday night, they delivered exactly as they wrote. They took climate skeptics Al Gore and John Kerry to the proverbial woodshed about their attacks on the World Bank.
In response to Gore and Kerry's tactics of pressure, the centrists at the newspaper pointed out the following:
“If Al Gore, John Kerry, and the New York Times gang up on someone, you'll be aware that a political hit is in the offing. This was the case this week with World Bank President David Malpass for his omission of not turning the global lending institution into a wing for Democratic Party policy on climate change.”
In dispute? The WSJ board accuses Kerry and Gore of shaming World Bank President David Malpass for refusing to bow to their every whim or demand. The goal of the World Bank is to reduce poverty across the globe, therefore its perspective isn't always similar to that of the elites of Martha's Vineyard and in Silicon Valley.
The Journal points out the importance of bringing third-world nations to the top of the list…
“…requires the use of energy that remains most efficient and cost-effectively available through the fossil-fuel industry. However, the Secretary of State John. Kerry recently cautioned African leaders to avoid investing in the long-term production of natural gas because they don't have a choice in the event of developing.”
“…it is a way of condemning nations in Africa as well as the developing world to years of poverty.”
While California isn't Africa, similar factors are playing out. The government says they're going to prohibit gas-powered cars by 2035. However, within a second they'll beg that you do not charge your vehicle since the grid isn't able to handle the load. Simply put, you won't be able to stop the gas until you have an alternative, which there isn't. The idea of asking Africa to starve so that Gore and Kerry are more comfortable regarding climate changes is absurd. It would be reasonable to think that they've learnt their lesson after watching the tragedy that took place during the recent earthquake in Sri Lanka (covered here by our Joe Cunningham) while trying to make a country that is developing be hurt to please the gods of the climate.
The WSJ adds:
“Kerry might even be sending the poorest countries to a life of hunger due to rising prices and possibly a worldwide shortage of natural gas fertilizer. Climate monomania is much easier to preach when you have seaside views from a bluff on Martha's Vineyard than it is from a small town that has no reliable power within the Congo.”
“The world is still learning that technology isn't there for a quick transition to the world that isn't dependent on fossil fuels. [ Emphasis mine.]”
Then they are brought in with a hammer:
“Lectures given by the likes of Mr. Kerry are hard to accept when he travels the world on a carbon-emitting private jet or government aircraft. For Gore, he has been warning about climate change for decades, even investing in green energy that is backed by a plethora of subsidies from the government. What can they show for all the years of climate campaigning? They host conferences and set unreasonable targets for emissions. However, they are not able to achieve them. U.S. emissions reductions in the past few decades are largely due to the growth of the production of natural gas which the climate movement wants to end.”
Exactly. Thanks, Wall Street Journal, for knocking these two climate snatchers down by a peg or two.
