I agree with you. Rush keeps saying that the theory of global warming hasn't been conclusively proven. Well, it hasn't been conclusively disproven either. Some evidence indicates one thing; other evidence indicates something else. I suspect there are some chemicals that deplete the ozone, and I suspect there are some hothouse gases that contribute to a greenhouse effect. While I'm conservative, I also think government has a role in preserving environmental quality. People hate air quality measures, but the fact that California skies are as clear as they are today (which, in all honesty, are clearer than they were 30 years ago) is testimony to the effectiveness of air quality programs and requirements.
I worked for an oil refining company ten years ago, and we never were opposed to environmental controls. Our position was that there be good science to justify them, and that the controls be applied to everyone equitably. We considered it good corporate citizenship to support necessary and equitable environmental regulations -- and I'm referring to the nasty old oil industry here. I think it's reasonable for conservatives to be good conservationists.
If you read my very short self-description in my profile, I mention that I'm fairly liberal on environmental matters. Having given this more thought, I should say that I support *common sense* measures designed to protect the environment.
Thus, if someone tells me it will cost X amount to keep the air reasonably clean, but 100X or more to keep it in a near pristine state, then I'm going to say we should enact X (or maybe a bit more to be sure), but that 100X is not only too expensive, but excessive.
Companies *do* need to be prodded to maintain reasonable pollution restraints, but there is a point of diminishing returns which any prudent government policy needs to keep always in mind.
Tuor