Well, I finally had to make the call to the school today. My daughter came home and said that she watched the first 10 minutes of An Inconvenient Truth today in honors science class, and that she would be watching the rest of the movie tomorrow, and writing a paper on the movie. I called the school and spoke to her science teacher, who had a “f*** you” attitude and said that the movie was educational and taught kids how to save the wetlands…and then she admitted that she had never actually seen the movie.

I then told her that I didn’t want my daughter watching the movie and that she was not going to write the required (indoctrination) paper about the movie. Nella and I will be enrolling her in a good private school at the end of this year. Below is the letter that she is carrying to school tomorrow to give to her teacher (not into having her name all over the Internet, so the name has been changed in the letter):

February 20, 2008

Dear Ms. Nick

Please excuse “A” from watching Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and from writing a paper about this movie. This movie is overtly political, and it has been proven inaccurate and purposefully misleading by many climatologists and weather experts. In fact, this movie amounts to little more than liberal propaganda designed to scare people, and I expected more from a Meisler education. Outside of a political science class, this movie is entirely inappropriate for a twelve year old student. In the future, please contact me if you plan on requiring “A” to watch any film that is remotely political. Should you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at (504) 555-5555.

Sincerely,

Michael W. Gahagan, Esq.

A news article in Nature highlights some encouraging developments among those willing to pursue alternative fuels: investment rather than coercion. Regardless what you think about global warming (I am a skeptic), the desire for most proponents of alternative energy policies to ration the allocation of electrical power or consumption of goods is spine-tingling for the average American and a political no-brainer. However, Laurie David and Al Gore and company have been trying to scare the hoi polloi into adopting such measures as using one sheet of toilet paper per bathroom visit and voluntarily restrict air travel, the result of which would only marginally change the temperature according to most models…

That’s why I’m glad to see the prophets of the secular church of environmental doom and gloom are finally willing to put their money where there mouth has been and invest in alternative fuels. Two weeks ago Google announced that it was unveiling a plan to develop a fuel technology that will be cheaper than coal. It’s called RE<C (renewable energy < coal) and it is ambitious. It must be noted that this enterprise is being run by Google’s philanthropic arm. Philanthropic arms can often be viewed as political marketing, when ADM advertises it’s investment in alternative energy on Sunday mornings, it makes people feel warm and fuzzy. Same thing as when the Ford Foundation sponsors free trips to the Art Institute in Chicago. Warm fuzzy feelings don’t always translate to profits, a point which is illustrated thus:

The clean-tech market is “fraught with pitfalls and not for the inexperienced or the faint of heart”, according to NVCA president Mark Heesen. It is fit only for investors ready to look long-term and with a deep knowledge of the sector, he warns. “Short-term ‘tourists’ should steer clear.”

I look forward to the day when solar power is cheaper than coal. I do not look forward to coercion of the public to stop using coal and inducements in the form of tax breaks to those who use alternative fuels by the federal or state governments, however.