What would Hugo do?

...About Global Warming that is? I felt, with Al Gore's testimonies before the House and Senate earlier this week, that this would be a good time to write about Global Warming or Climate Change.

As anyone who has read my earlier posts can surely guess, I'm not a big believer in human-induced global warming or climate change. My first real epiphany on man's effect on the environment occurred in an Earth Science class when I was in 8th Grade. The teacher talked about how the 1883 Krakatoa eruption had more force than all the world's atomic weapons combined, at least theoretically. This really convinced me about how little man can affect nature, at least en masse, and as global warming became a hot (sorry) topic in the 1990s, was the starting point of much of my thinking and opinion-forming regarding the environment.

Now I'm not saying that I'm for rampant pollution and that companies, and individuals, should not be held accountable for oil spills, and other instances of neglect or ignorance, but I do believe that in the United States and western Europe, companies and individuals have done a commendable job improving their national environments. Locally, Pittsburgh stands a great testimony to what can be done to improve the local environment.

However, questions have to be asked. How much environmental oversight by governments, on all levels, is too much? Is it necessary to curb economic output to meet the goals of Al Gore and other high profile environmentalists? Should China, India and other developing countries be held accountable even as substantial numbers of their people struggle to simply survive?

Much of the "solution" put forth by environmentalists to curb global warming involves the reduction of fossil fuel use. This brings up the title to this post: What would Hugo, meaning Hugo Chavez, do? This is very pertinent, as most environmentalists are anti-globalization and, generally, align themselves with left-of-center groups as well as the radical Far Left. Chavez, being the poster-boy for socialism and the Far Left at the moment, has a vested interest in _increasing_ fossil fuel use as that is Venezuela's most valuable export.

So what would Hugo do to curb global warming? Does he even think it is a problem? Or does he simply believe it is the result of evil capitalist America and Europe running their cars and air conditioners too much?

A quick Google search found an answer courtesy of Nikolas Kozloff of Venezuelanalysis.com:

"North Americans, he (Chavez) charged, had pursued an "egotistical" model of development. Chavez denounced the consumerist lifestyle in the United States, predicated on having more than one car per family.

On other occasions, Chavez has argued that powerful nations are responsible for causing global warming. What is more, he has publicly regretted pollution resulting from traditional sources of energy. He has called on developed nations to look more favorably on alternative energy such as gas, hydro and solar power. To its credit, Venezuela has ratified the Kyoto Protocol reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Kozloff continues by writing about a 2005 address made by Chavez at the United Nations:

"The Venezuelan president expressed concern about 'an unstoppable increase of energy' and added that 'more carbon dioxide will inevitably be increased, thus warming our planet even more.'

It's rather ironic that Chavez, as the leader of one of the world's leading oil producing nations, would emphasize global warming at the United Nations. Nevertheless, recent moves by the government suggest that Chavez is willing to undertake some modest changes in energy policy.

While it's certainly environmentally vital for Venezuela to move off lead based gasoline and adopt alternative technologies, Chavez also has public relations considerations. The Venezuelan President wants to paint himself as an underdog on the world stage, struggling against U.S. imperialism and the voracious consumerist appetites of North Americans. By moving towards ethanol, Chavez may deflect criticism that he is hypocritical."

So Chavez basically wants to have his cake (deride America and capitalism, but sell us plenty of oil to keep his government afloat) and eat it too (make modest changes domestically to save face with the Far Left throughout the world.) Nice. And typical of a dictator whose Marxist tendencies produce a harsher grip on his people with each passing day.

Maybe he should follow up by quoting former President Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is?"