Editor's note: Please welcome our newest writer, Jimmy Hogan, publisher of The Rational Environmentalist. We brought Jimmy on to begin a new feature: Red, Green and Blue. Every Tuesday, Jimmy and current political writer Ryan Thibodaux will address a specific green political topic. Ryan will take the progressive/liberal position, while Jimmy will take the conservative side. We hope you enjoy their commentary and their friendly debate, and that you add you thoughts to the discussion.

The earth is warming. There is no denying this and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing. These are facts that are studied and proven. The question before the world today, though, is “does this represent a cause and effect relationship?”. The consensus at last count was around 90% in favor of the idea of CO2 as the major contributing cause to global warming. I happen to be in the 10% of people who are not yet convinced.

Why is this question important? It is important because this issue, more than any other places the free market, capital economy, in square opposition to our environmental well-being. This might not seem like a new idea for most people because the perception of industrialization has always been a villain and arch-enemy to Mother Earth. The truth, however, is that the environment has no greater friend than our free market capital economy.

Consider for a moment what the world would be like without our thriving and robust economy. We don’t need to use our imagination really. Instead, we can simply look to the poverty-stricken Third World countries: open trench sewers in the middle of the streets… slash and burn forestry for the sake of inefficient agriculture… roasting endangered species over open cook fires… these are the real signs of environmental rape. In these places survival is the only concern and, except for the assistance of more wealthy nations, no one ever climbs above Maslow’s first step.

Contrast that to our modern economy that rewards hard work and innovation. Although we are indulgent, our excess is enough to feed much of the world’s hunger. Our market-driven medical advances save the world from infection and disease, and our free market for medicines provides the profit incentive that underwrites the cost of these drugs for the entire price-controlled world. And it is all of this wealth that gives us and the world the luxury to even consider our relationship with Mother Earth in the first place.

The Rhine River in Europe is the cleanest it has been in centuries. This is because of innovations in water treatment systems and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on waste-water treatment. Would this have been possible without thriving industrial-based capital economies? I don’t believe it would.

These are just a few examples, but no one can deny the improvements in life, air quality, water quality, and the environment in general in just our lifetimes. Yet the better things get, the more we become concerned.

This time CO2 is the enemy. Is it causing the warming? Not all by itself , but it can be a contributor. Most of the models point to a greenhouse gas tipping point where the smaller effect of CO2 and other lesser greenhouse gasses is causing increased water vapor in the atmosphere, and the additional water vapor becomes a primary cause for warming. Well, that’s OK in a Rube Goldberg sense I guess; but I don’t think we can call it science yet. It, instead, is consensus. I personally believe particulate reduction is an equally compelling theory to explain the recent spike in warming trends especially over the last 30 years. There is a very big problem with my theory though: our successes in fighting pollution help explain Global Warming? That’s scientific heresy! And worse, the solution to this problem requires of us the worst thing possible for an environmental activist (or scientist needing more research dollars)… absolutely nothing.

Well ‘nothing’ really is an exaggeration but what I do fear is that our efforts at CO2 mitigation might soak up the resources that could be better used in other areas of environmental science and other social issues at large. Additionally, I fear that it will be burdensome on the world economy as a whole, and the US economy in particular. Trust me, the world has quite enough people willing to blame their countries’ failures on US successes. Kyoto is a fine example of the world’s remedy to this, and the US senate should be praised highly for not ratifying this economic wealth redistribution treaty. We are already blamed for world hunger, poverty, sickness, unrest, etc. Do we really need to add “Acts of God” to the list, and take responsibility for thunderstorms and tornadoes?

As in anything, there is a win/win in the global warming debate where goals of proponents and opponents overlap. This is where I think we should spend our energies. Over 40% of the US trade deficit is in petroleum costs [9/06 Federal Reserve Article]. A lot of that money goes to foreign countries that are hostile to American interests. Plus we send our armed forces out every decade or so to help protect the world oil market from tyrants who wish us harm. None of these tangible intangibles are seen at the pump on a gallon of gasoline though. Even negating the strong ecological advantages of biodiesel and ethanol and their benefits in CO2 mitigation, a compelling case can be made for a gasoline tax that indexes the price to the real costs and helps level the playing field between imported oil and environmentally-friendly renewable fuels. For some reason, though, instead of agreeing about common ground, the pundits on either side prefer to dwell in the fringes where there is only polar disagreement. I suggest that every reasonable person wants a clean and healthy environment. Typically what we argue about is the means to that end. The environmentalists should be lauded for their enthusiasm… and the industrialists should be lauded for their pragmatism.

In summary, I really couldn’t care less if Joe Lunchbox wants a new CO2-belching, gas-guzzling Corvette if that is what motivates him to get up and go to work every day. He’ll be paying taxes on the purchase, he’ll pay taxes on his income, he’ll pay taxes on his gasoline, and he’ll help provide jobs to others up in Bowling Green, Kentucky, who in turn will do the same. This cycle of indulgence, along with healthy continued common sense progress on the environmental front, will ultimately benefit the environment by providing the resources we need to attack the big environmental issues and mitigate the impact of a growing population on Mother Earth.

Want to discuss Jimmy and Ryan's posts? Leave a comment, or go to the Red, Grenn, and Blue discussion forum.