Even though I could die in a car wreck any day, I still work to make my life long and fulfilling.
Even though I could die in a car wreck any day, I still work to make my life long and fulfilling.
Ya I was joking because I thought Methais was joking too.
There you go with the value judgements. I think that in your mind you feel that climate scientists are somehow judging you so you react defensively. No one's calling any greenhouse gas evil. No one's blaming anyone. It's just a problem that needs to be addressed.
I think your point is similar to what I already said about natural phenomena that could destroy us. It is true and it's a real threat. A big volcano, meteor or other natural process could wipe out civilization as we know it. Maybe even wipe out fragile animals like humans. Doesn't mean we should just shit in the pool because it's going to be drained at the end of the Summer anyway.
Here is my beef with the environmental zealots. It is all about money, and pushing forward social and political change they desire. They want scarcity of resources be it energy, oil from Canada, or food for the world through genetic engineering. They want scarcity as a tool to put forward the political change they're after. The various lemming joiners who push the agenda may not realize this, but the people at the top feeding them the bullshit do.
Personally, I find it offensive when a little brown kid dies because some douche from greenpeace prevents that kid from having access to GMO grain. I find it offensive when people have to endure a lower standard of living, including all the ills that come from that, because some loser doesn't want to give them access to available energy. I also find it offensive that these greedy tools are diverting limited funds from areas where they could be far better used. There is no argument about things like lead or mercury, imagine if all the money we're spending on CO2 (you know, what plants breath), was instead used to work on cleaning up things that actually kill people. Especially when you consider that we were all pushed into using lightbulbs that contain a mercury in pursuit of fewer carbon emissions. Yes, it is a tiny amount, multiple a tiny amount by the billions that have been manufactured. LED adoption can't come fast enough.
You know what people do when they have a lower standard of living? They cut down forests and use wood for fuel. Living green is a luxury and if you really wanted to get the world to exist with less pollution you'd not push for policies that retard economic growth. People living paycheck to paycheck don't care about dioxins, they don't buy organic produce, they need to be paid to recycle.
The opportunity cost of fighting this misguided crusade against CO2 is enormous. The only constant in the climatic history of the earth has been change, the earth has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled repeatedly long before we had SUVs. It is hubris to think we're steering this ship.
I compost, I donate to save the whales, I walk when I can instead of drive, I recycle probably a couple tons of shit a year, my next house is going to have a pimping solar array and be hugely energy efficient. My #1 favorite hobby is gardening, I've literally hugged trees. So fuck anyone who thinks I don't care about the environment. Modern environmentalism is more about politics than science, or anything found in nature.
/rant.
Don't forget to mention that the companies that lobbied the hardest to remove traditional lightbulbs are the same companies who manufacture the mandatory use lightbulbs. Also, motion sensor lighting and leds in my house fucking rock. Solar Panels are next up, they pay for themselves after all. Here is a case we all should be concerned about:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/featu...0,2504133.post
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine.
Lightning has killed more Americans in the last forty years than terrorism.
I would say "politics and money" instead of just "politics".
I can't access the report at the moment, but I'll respond anyway (because that's what I do).
I am convinced there is something to mankind's use of the Earth and temperature changes. The problem here, however, is that there are temperature changes in the Earth that occur naturally over time. So how much of the cause is natural and how much is due to mankind's use of the Earth? I do not know of a single study that can answer the question intelligently.
As such, I have problems with extremists on either side of the issue. We need a common sense, implementable set of solutions. Considerable nuclear power expansion is, in my mind, one part of the solution. We need more efficient cars and more research into reduction of fossil fuels in making them run. Someone should research the much greater use of trains in transporting goods.
These ideas barely scratch the surface, but are the sort of things that should be considered. Banning all fossils fuels by 2030, for example, is the sort of idea that should go straight into the trash heap.
Last edited by Candor; 02-27-2014 at 07:39 PM.
So tell me how this is different from big oil, monsanto, et al? I find it disingenuous to harp on "environmental zealotry" when there is plenty of entrenched zealotry in the business of making money at the expense of the planet.
I'm going to hazard a guess that you'll find a higher rate of little brown kid deaths from countries and companies moving in, stripping resources, looting the local economy and whatnot than from greenpeace. Just a guess though.
Truth.
It is hubris to think we can do whatever we want to the planet without ill effect.
I'm moving to the woods, so I'm better than you, gardener.
But really, these are all excellent things.