Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

On Point: Of course it's political

Published February 27, 2007 at midnight

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »
"People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue, it's a moral issue."

- Al Gore, upon receiving an Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth

What can Gore possibly mean, "It's not a political issue"? Global warming will be tackled in the political arena - in legislatures and ministries around the world - or it will hardly be tackled at all.

Gore might have said, "It's not only a political issue," but he didn't. He claimed that a concern likely to occupy a central place in our politics for as long as we live is not political. Odd.

Or maybe it's not so odd if you're trying to imply that there is no legitimate debate over what to do about global warming - debate over economic trade-offs, the costs of competing policies, the capacity of societies to adapt, and so on. If that's your goal - if what you mean to suggest is that it's your way or the highway, because your way is the "moral" way - then maybe what Gore said makes sense after all.

Political sense, of course.

No skin off his nose

Doug Lamborn wasted little time before siding with Fort Carson in its proposed body blow to the economy of southeastern Colorado. The newly elected 5th District Republican signaled last week that it's fine with him if the Army condemns ranches and farms for a proposed massive expansion of its Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site - so long as it's done only as a last resort.

Why do advocates of condemnation think it makes a difference if property owners are run off only as a "last resort," when the result is the same as if there had been no negotiations in the first place? Why should they change their minds?

For that matter, why is it fairer to condemn a family ranch after its owners refuse 50 times to sell than to condemn it after only one refusal? If you don't mind condemnation as a last resort, you don't mind it very much at all.

"If they make a good argument that this is important for the mission of training soldiers for the 21st century, then I'll support \[condemnation]," Lamborn told reporters. That's highminded patriotism, to be sure, but 5th District voters can rest assured that the sacrifice it entails will not come at their expense. No, the agricultural economy in the path of the Army's planned mega-expansion of its training grounds lies conveniently to the south of Lamborn's stomping grounds. Those subject to last-resort condemnations will be someone else's problem.

Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages,can be reached at .