Alan Caruba writes about the new generation who has been importuned since pre-school to view the Earth as an endangered environment that threatens all mankind. They have grown up listening to the ravings of Al Gore and a legion of organizations that subverted science because the real science does not support the delusion of global warming.

Those of us who grew up in the 1940s and 50s almost universally look back on those days with great fondness. Born into an era that saw the end of the Depression and living as children through World War II, we were nonetheless somehow shielded from it by parents who took care to ensure that these calamities in the world did not take from us the sheer joy of being young.

By 1945, America emerged from the war as one of the world's recognized superpowers, plunging immediately into the Cold War with the Soviet Union, a totalitarian regime that, like all Communists, promised a worker's paradise and delivered a new form of serfdom. '

When anyone says 'polluters will pay' to reduce greenhouse gases, they mean you and me

Here's a handy reference guide to help steer you through the horse manure Canadian politicians, environmentalists and others are feeding us these days about how they plan to combat global warming.

(1) When any of them tell you "polluters will pay" to reduce greenhouse gases, they mean you and me.

Whenever they talk about a carbon tax, a "cap-and-trade" system, carbon credits or the regulation of industrial greenhouse gases by government, they are talking about the same thing -- higher taxes.

In a rare burst of clarity in a report otherwise loaded with "green" bafflegab, the economic study the David Suzuki Foundation released last week to bolster its case for a $100 per tonne carbon tax accurately explained the motivation behind all these government mandated, central planning programs.

A few weeks back I noted in my column that when times get tough, Americans will stop worrying about whether polar bears have enough ice and start asking whether those white, furry critters are edible.  That comment caused quite a stir, and I would like to thank everyone, in particular the folks from Alaska, for the great recipes they forwarded—“Bear Claw Cordon Bleu” for instance.

A smaller number of folks were offended by my bear remarks.  They considered them a veiled swipe at their fellow global warming zealots.  My only regret is that they thought my swipe was . . . veiled.  I guess I should have taken a cue from General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz who recently told a group of reporters that, in his opinion, global warming is a “total crock of ****.”  Nothing veiled about that.  And, despite efforts by the climate change mob to silence Mr. Lutz, the man from Detroit refused to back down. 

"It's not easy being green" isn't just the lament of Kermit the Frog, it's the dilemma of carbon-crunching greeniacs everywhere.

At least that's the sanctimonious cri de coeur of Seattle Post-Intelligencer blogger Curt Milton:
What's your carbon footprint? How much carbon does your lifestyle emit every year? Can you reduce your carbon footprint?

Thanks to Al Gore (and a lot of other forward-thinking people), carbon is on everyone's mind. The more carbon we emit, the more the Earth's atmosphere heats up. And that, as we all know, is a bad thing.

But, as Michael Specter writes in the Feb. 25 New Yorker, reducing your carbon footprint isn't that easy. And what seem like simple solutions (eating food that is grown close to home) aren't always the best ideas when the whole carbon equation is considered.