[sustran] Lifestyles of Lear Jet Liberals

[Daryl Oster]

ARTICLE:  Lifestyles of Lear Jet Liberals (Global Warming)

Lifestyles of Lear Jet liberals

By Debra J. Saunders
Monday, September 25, 2006

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2006/09/25/lifestyles_of_l
ear_jet_liberals


Limousine liberals, move over. You've been out-glammed by Lear Jet liberals
who burn beaucoup fossil fuels in the sky as they soar across the globe
fighting global warming. 

Last week, they flew to their Mecca, the Clinton Global Initiative
conference in New York. For the left-leaning and loaded, this is the meet
that has it all -- the mega-rich paying to be seen caring about poor people
and the environment, while posing for photos with former President Clinton. 

You see, they care so much more about the environment than President Bush
because they support the Kyoto global warming pact, which they believe would
save the planet from greenhouse gases, if only Bush had not rejected it.
(Never mind that Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify the pact, probably
because senators voted 95 to 0 for a resolution rejecting any treaty that
exempted China and India.) 

And forget that Kyoto has the depth of a cowboy movie set. The storefronts
look like a general store and saloon, but when actors walk through the door,
there's nothing there. The overwhelming majority of industrialized nations
that signed onto Kyoto amidst much fanfare haven't cut their greenhouse
gases. In June, the United Nations reported that only two Western European
signatories -- Britain and Sweden -- are on target to meet their
greenhouse-gas reduction targets, which call for a worldwide reduction of 5
percent below 1990 levels in 2012. 

Spain is spewing more than 40 percent above its 1990 levels. Canada is 30
percent over. By comparison, Dubya's America looks good -- emitting 16
percent more greenhouse gases than in 1990. 

No wonder Lear Jet liberals love Kyoto: It allows them to look like they
really, really care about the environment -- and have their contrails, too. 

The big news of the CGI was an announcement by Sir Richard Branson, founder
of Virgin Atlantic Airways, that he would donate $3 billion over 10 years --
his personal profits from his airline and train businesses -- to global
warming research. That's more money than I'll ever see, or spend on R&D, so
bully for Branson. Still, it should be noted that Branson said some of the
money will go back to his own corporations' research. That's not quite
charity. 

Besides, Branson hails from a country where some enviros believe flying is
worse than a mega-SUV. The bishop of London recently referred to flying
abroad on holiday as "a symptom of sin." 

Europeans are acutely aware of the effect flying has on one's carbon
footprint. Flying is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases in the
United Kingdom. As the Guardian reported, greenhouse gas emissions from
flying more than doubled from 1990 to 2004, to 5.5 percent of the United
Kingdom's emissions. It would not surprise me if someday Great Britain
legislates a limit on short flights -- say, London to Edinburgh or Paris,
trips you can make in a car or train about as fast as flying. That would be
bad news for Virgin Express. 

In California, Branson has a soul mate in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Critics hit the governator for signing global-warming bills while owning
four Hummers, but his biggest green sin is dibs on a private plane. Flying
is my biggest item in my carbon footprint calculation, and I don't own a
jet. Flying is probably the biggest personal polluter for people who take
more than 10 roundtrips a year. So all those Hollywood stars who preen about
their Priuses can see themselves as eco-virtuous only by ignoring their
plane travel. 

They are in a pickle. How can they be beautiful people if they don't jet to
an island for a week or two of eco-tourism?