Here he argues that using so-called "renewable" energy resources like ethanol, wind power and solar are far more destructive of the environment than burning fossil fuels. He writes:
If you remove the argument over climate change from the equation (as even European governments are starting to do), one thing becomes incandescently clear: Fossil fuels have been one of the great boons both to humanity and the environment, allowing forests to regrow (now that we don't use wood for heating fuel or grow fuel for horses anymore) and liberating billions from backbreaking toil. The great and permanent shortage is usable surface land and fresh water. The more land we use to produce energy, the less we have for vulnerable species, watersheds, agriculture, recreation, etc.Then on the Enterprise blog [here] he writes to "extend and revise" his article, noting the vast benefits that have accrued to mankind and to the environment due to the use of fossil fuels, the only reasonable partial alternative to which, he notes, is nuclear power.
Then he takes on the holy cow of scientific authority, wielded so promiscuously and recklessly by Democrats. He writes:
Scientists are technicians, not moral philosophers. While they can provide facts that inform good decision-making, they can't distill morality in a test tube. Politicians shouldn't abdicate to the guys in white coats their responsibilities to answer moral questions the white coats can't answer.Read the whole article here.
Precisely what I have been arguing here for several years. I don't always agree with Jonah, but on these subjects he is spot on and one of the few voices of reason in this season of hysterical discourse that the Obama campaign unleashed.