Who is responsible for the polar bears?

Matt asked me a couple weeks back why Republicans hate the environment. Republicans don't hate the environment; they just hate democrats. Moreover, republicans don't like democrats spending money in order for the democrats to secure their seats in congress. How could republicans like spending money on the environment if their wealthy donors don't want their taxes to go up? In lieu of looking cynical, lets just say republican and democrat ideologies, which their donors reflect and support, attack the issue at different angles.

Friday, Al Gore and some old guy, claiming to be republican, spoke before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in support of a climate change bill concluding a week of hearings involving supporters and those in opposition. Gore spoke poetically over the issue with attempts to strike fear into members of the House that inaction will be looked down upon by future generations. This coming a day or so after republican Newt Gingrich threatened the further economic downturn this bill would cause and, in typical Newt fashion, the financial effect this would have on the elderly.

It reminded me of the debate over tobacco. Tobacco obviously is bad for people, but we can't prove that tobacco killed the Marlboro man. We are having drastic effects on our environment, but we can't prove that me driving a car is killing polar bears. So, why should we do anything about it? The stakes now are much higher and it looks like both sides want to save the planet, but their rhetoric makes them look like pro and anti polar bear because of how they want to go about helping the environment. Republicans want to conservatively use tax breaks and special incentives to change our energy behavior, and democrats want to actively spend money on changes like smart electric grids, wind and solar energy, research and development, etc. (Albeit some republicans probably don't give a shit about the environment, but I'm sure the same goes for some democrats.)

Their banter looks like this:
-When Gore says this threat is imminent, he means that there will be no imminent threat on the American people to change their lifestyles and capitalism will not support the expensive changes needed to curb the greenhouse gas effects on the environment.
-When Newt says he stopped reading the bill on the page that regulates jacuzzi energy usage he means that the government shouldn't regulate energy because American people have the right to choose how they help the environment as they see fit.
-When Gore says spending money to re-insulate houses will create jobs, he means that spending will help the economy by creating an infrastructure in the energy sector.
-When a house republican says that this is going to cost Americans at least 30 cents a day he means that we spent a ton of the Americans' money on environmental spending in the stimulus bill last February and Americans can't afford to spend more money.

and the debate goes on...

Personally, I hope the government gets a little more aggressive than past years in its attempts to fix the harmful effects we are having on our environment. We need to make it economically sexy to go green, which is a long way off since petroleum grows on trees. My prediction: people will change their lifestyles and a move toward carbon emission reduction will take place after polar bears are determined to be extinct. Research and development will be key to conserving and creating more available energy ... less dependence on oil (go Obama) ... nuclear energy ... most of which the government will have to take money from people to make happen whether we like it or not. A bill like this needs to happen; maybe one not as deep as this and not during a recession and not after all that spending in the stimulus bill.