So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement."Treason against the planet"? Mr. Krugman certainly has a flair for the dramatic.
But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason -- treason against the planet.
Let's set aside the fact that the global warming scare is based entirely on junk science, an insatiable lust for taxpayer dollars, and a desire to alter the very fabric of Western civilization. Even if, by some chance, in our wildest imaginations, Earth really did warm a few degrees, I still fail to see how that would be a bad thing.
The way I see it, the melting of the polar ice caps would mean more water for drinking and irrigation. Once-frozen wastelands would become fertile farmlands capable of feeding hundreds of millions of people. Sure, Duluth, Minnesota, might become the new spring break destination of choice, the Winter Olympics might have to be put on hold indefinitely, and Paul Krugman might have to shave his beard, but I prefer to look on the bright side.