If the same category four cyclone (or “hurricane”
in the Atlantic) hit an industrialized country, the storm would have
been harmful but not even remotely close to the devastation that exists
today in Myanmar.

This tragedy doesn’t provide ammunition for global warming
(category four cyclones aren’t unique), but for the need for countries
and their citizens to develop better infrastructure, build better
buildings, have better emergency services, etc.

The only way
these changes will happen is if poor countries are able to generate the
wealth necessary to make the changes.  The only way for the U.S.
to better protect itself against hurricanes is to ensure that we
continue to be a wealthy country.

Al and friends instead want to
tell third world countries that the single most critical factor to
develop wealth, low-cost energy, should be prohibited.  They want
to adopt policies that would keep the poor countries poor and put
wealthy countries on a path to poverty.

The Beacon Hill Institute examined the impact that policies
being considered by the Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change
would have on NC.  Please recognize that these policies wouldn’t
even come close to what the zealots want in terms of reductions in
carbon dioxide.  Policies include a cap and trade program, taxes
on driving, taxes on electricity use, etc.

From the press release: ?By 2011, the state would shed more than 33,000
jobs,? according to the report from the Beacon Hill Institute, the
research arm of the economics department at Boston?s Suffolk
University. ?Annual investment would drop by about $502.4 million, real
disposable income by more than $2.2 billion, and real state Gross
Domestic Product by about $4.5 billion.?

When the Beacon Hill Instutute presented this data to the
Commission, there wasn’t a dispute about the numbers.  Those
trying to argue weren’t concerned with the actual loss of jobs and the
devastation on the economy, but instead were pointing out that this is
a price that needs to be paid.

NC, the U.S. and for that matter the entire globe have to make choices.  We can choose to adopt policies that would have no effect
on temperature and have devastating effects on our economy and our
ability to prepare for major storms or we can choose to be sensible and
do all we can to ensure that public policy doesn’t undermine countries
from having the wealth necessary to protect themselves from natural
disasters.

I’m inclined to favor the latter option, but that’s just me.