The U.S., one of the most politically temperate nations in the developed world, has rarely nurtured radical politicians. But some of the recent political pronouncements on the subject, and the costs that could be imposed by them, would cause the most ardent social engineers elsewhere to marvel.

I am not a Republican nor am I owned by the oil lobby. In fact, I thought that I was an environmentalist, and on a number of issues, I feel closer to the Democratic Party.

I also know that energy is the commodity that fuels the world economy and that that economy is what runs modern life. If you do not agree with this simple – or even simplistic – statement, there’s no need to read the rest of this essay.

“It’s the economy, stupid” is what made me support Bill Clinton, because he proved to be a pragmatic Democrat. It’s great when a socially liberal man realizes that a strong economy is essential in order to deal with many social problems. The economic growth during his presidency was not a fluke and it was also fueled by an unprecedented energy demand. None of the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates seems to be impressed with the fact that 87 percent of the world’s energy supply comes from fossil fuels, and that according to both the Energy Information Administration and the International Energy Agency, world energy demand will increase by more than 50 percent over the next 25 years, while the fraction coming from fossil fuels will not change.

Lately, it seems that the facts simply do not matter. And if those who have taken sides were honest, they would admit this readily.

Thus, whether global warming is happening or not (a heated debate, that clearly does not hold the much ballyhooed “scientific consensus”), and whether it is anthropogenic (a preposterous argument in my view, and I have made calculations), is not really the issue. And it also does not matter whether Gore’s statement that “nine of the ten warmest years were in the last decade,” has been repudiated with nary a whimper from the already convinced press.

Rich social activists – often headed by Hollywood or celebrity misfits – favor solar and wind energies, even though those sources can never amount to more than a fraction of a percent of our energy demand, and at a huge cost.

And whenever the costs of alleviating the presumed anthropogenic global warming by other means come up, they often listen with glee. For example, although estimates vary, sequestering just the incremental CO2 from now until 2030 will require drilling 1.7 million wells, at a cost of over $7 trillion. “Good,” they say. “Make it bigger. That leaves us with more reason to go solar.” But of course, it is their maids and drivers who will bear the cost.

Then there are the scientists. Relegated to the fringes of society, often by choice, they have now found a cause – alarmism – to help them become relevant and important. Repeatedly, I encounter scientists who believe in global warming without ever doing one calculation on their own to corroborate their sentiments. Some science. This will leave a permanent black eye on what they have committed their lifetimes to.

Nastiest of all, global warming ideology portrays America as a materialistic hog of world resources, and that is the exact same rallying cry put forward by Osama bin Laden.

All of that said, I am sure that nothing of consequence will happen. The economy, ever resilient, will debunk alarmism and will eventually zero in on the right solution. It’s just the noise, stupid.