I noticed that you signature line includes something about service dogs - are you aware that the carbon footprint for a dog is greater than that of an SUV? If you have a dog and I have an SUV it is you who are contributing more “pollution” than I. Does this mean it is immoral to own a dog?
pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_650786.html
Ender
There is obviously some confusion here. First of all, I have
one service dog, not “dogs” as is indicated in the first sentence of your post.
Thank you for the link and for bringing the thread back onto topic. I haven’t been successful in doing so.
Here are some statements from the article:
"The push in Congress for a huge new carbon tax is a dangerous farce. Yes, CO2 levels and global temperatures have risen since the Industrial Revolution. But the political reality is that truly meaningful global restrictions on CO2 emissions in the near future simply will not happen and pretending otherwise is a waste of time, money and political capital.
"The Pew Research Center poll last month showed that belief in, and concern for, climate change is evaporating. Belief in global warming has dropped from 71 percent in April to 57 percent; only 36 percent believe man is mostly responsible for climate change. Only 35 percent of respondents said it’s a “very serious problem,” down from 41 percent.
"This is after more than a decade of near-relentless fearmongering – er, sorry, “education” – from Al Gore, academia and Hollywood. They can’t persuade the American people to spend trillions for less than a degree Celsius of cooling a century from now.
"No doubt the fact that neither climate models nor doomsday predictions have panned out (there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998) is a big part of the story.
"But the bigger reason for the shift is that Democrats are threatening to really do something about it and the costs no longer seem hypothetical. Throw in a bad economy and Americans simply balk.
"But the anti-global-warming industry seems to be on autopilot, churning out books that only half-jokingly propose eating your pets. Others insist that Americans will have to restrict themselves to only one child, just like in authoritarian China. If those are the costs, free people will not pay them.
"If you cannot afford – politically, morally or economically – the solution to a perceived problem, then it’s not a solution. We cannot afford to end the use of carbon-based energy. So a better strategy is to develop remedies for the bad side effects of carbon use.
"That’s the case Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner make in their book “SuperFreakonomics,” which is already being torn apart by environmentalists horrified at the notion they might lose their license to get things done as they see fit.
"Is the atmosphere getting too hot? Cool it down by reflecting away more sunlight. The ocean’s getting too acidic? Give it some antacid.
“The technology’s not ready. But pursuing it for a couple of decades will cost pennies compared with carbon rationing. Moreover, you just might get to keep your dog.”
At the present time, I haven’t been presented with any evidence that global warming really exists and/or that humans are responsible for it if it does. I’m not concerned with global warming. The thread had gone off-topic, onto general pollution. I’ve already admitted (twice) that going off-topic was mostly my fault. My apologies.
NOTE: Sarcasm filter disabled.
I have no problem with what your article states. I also think that if I were required to get rid of a service dog and my SUV by the government, couples should be required to have a maximum of one child. If another child is conceived, that child should be aborted. If that child is born, she should be murdered. And anyone over 60 should be euthanized for the good of the environment. I guess maybe I should be euthanized too. I’m not very productive anymore after getting hurt. I’m sure I’m putting a huge strain on the environment.
So, let’s kill all the dogs, babies (past the one that couples are allowed to have), elderly people, and disabled people.
That will ease the carbon load on the environment.
But the government will have to come get me. And I won’t be at home. I’ll be at the beach, throwing antacid pills into the ocean.
) the required 20 minute window.
