Getting Real With Global Warming

» Jackson1776 - Opening the Debate

Hello readers,

This article will no doubt provoke you to add your 2 cents, and I encourage and look forward to your comments.

I will do my best to answer them ASAP.

Enjoy,

Jackson Murphy
Contributing Editor

-- posted by Jackson1776

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Hobbes - Economies vs. Environments? I think not.

Jackson: It almost seems like you are arguing a case which could be applied generally across the board against environmental regulation:

-Economic damage must be avoided.
-Environmental regulations cause economic damage
Therefore:

-Environmental regulations must be avoided.

This is an interesting perspective, and please correct me if I am misrepresenting you, but don't you see the fundamental problems with this perspective? It simply ignores the fact that there are serious environmental and consumption issues which are relevant today, and that these must be addressed before things get worse.

There is a reason why the U.S. was so loudly berated when it pulled out of Kyoto: The U.S. produces approximately 50% of the world's CO2 emmissions.

The solution to the burgeoning energy crisis that you point to is to build more power plants. Your argument ignores the other options out there which are equally valid.

a)Instead of building more polluting power plants, why not simply cut down American energy expenditures?

b)Why not focus on the construction of sustainable power sources (there is a great variety of choice, and they are easily constructed) which do not cause substantial environmental damage? Switching the energy focus of the American government to sustainable power would allow it to build power plants with relative environmmental impunity, improve the air, water and soil of their nation and remove their dependence on foreign enegry sources and finite sources of power.

Lastly,

"Maybe there really is global warming . . . and maybe 4.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases we humans generate is responsible for it, as opposed to the 95.5 percent generated by nature."

It is not a question of whose gasses cause the greenhouse effect. All of these gasses contribute. However, nature, unlike humans, balances its CO2 emmissions in a system which can sustain the levels it produces and which is self-propagating. It is when we humans come into the mix that the scales tip, because we introduce gasses into the environment whose effects are not balanced according to the prior standards. This forces the system to find a new equilibrium. Nature cannot stop producing CO2 any time soon, but we can, or we can at least moderate our production.

A question: What measures do you suggest in the place of the Kyoto Accord (or in general) to curb the production of CO2 and other harmful gasses by heavy industry in the U.S.?

-- posted by Hobbes

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Jackson1776 - A Response to Hobbes

In response to message posted by Hobbes:

Hobbes,

I think you did misread my article. I don't think I suggested that we don't care about the environment, but that the Kyoto agreement was stupid. This is not to say that I don't care about the environment, but what is the point of protecting the environment if you bankrupt a nation and a people to pay for an accord that will do nothing to address large parts of the problem. It makes no sense.

I will give you an example of the sustainable model of energy-it is California. They tried for 25 years to go the green way, and now they are always out of power. they have not built one power plant in that time, but tones of wind power and solar stuff-it isn't working. Not to mention that they tried to lower consumption which also didn't work. We have to live within realities and power is one of them-and that means we have to make more of it for places like California-and that might mean we build a nuclear plant or two instead of C02 causing plants. But it has to be done.

As for your last rant, I think I make it clear that the Kyoto agreement is not the proper vehicle to deal with this problem-it doesn't solve the problems we face realistically.

Jackson Murphy
Contributing Editor

-- posted by Jackson1776

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions