Not an unproven hypothesis, a validated scientific explanation for the ongoing increasing temperature of the earth.
I am not concerned with “global warming” because there is nothing I can do to stop it, if it is indeed caused by humans. I am however concerned with polluting and ruining our local ecology. : I recycle and try to save both water and energy. I don’t see what that has to do with the price of bread.
The problem with carbon credits, is not that people can’t make as much money as oil companies, it is that, carbon credits are making money off of nothing (scam) and not reducing carbon emissions. All it really does, is tax people (although at this point voluntary) for their carbon emissions. If someone doesn’t use as much as some arbitrary person thinks is necessary, then they can sell their credits to someone who will use it. So no, there is no hypocrisy, it is a scam, and should be denounced as such. Did you know that Al Gore buys (or bought) carbon credits from his own carbon credit company? Sounds like a clever way to avoid tax liability. (BTW I noticed BP cleaned up the Gulf pretty well after their terrible spill, but I don’t see the wind power companies doing anything about all those birds and bats they are killing. Makes you think. This is not about the big bad fossil fuel companies.
I have never seen an article (not that there isn’t one) that has shown an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and a .2 increase in world temps have caused crops to fail. I hear plenty about droughts or floods, or bad years, but so it has always been the world of farming. I can’t even definitively say rising CO2 levels are actually causing warming, much less that reducing CO2 levels is going to stop that rise in temperature and still be good for crops.
There are too many steps, too many links, between what makes world temp actually rise, what effects does that rise in temp actually have, and is it even man made. It is a hypothesis and has not been verified by any stretch of the imagination. The Models, and there is not just one, can’t predict the same thing. None predicted no rise in temps for the last few years, and give no confidence intervals for their predictions.
That doesn’t sound like “verifiable” to me.
I made a specific argument against one kind of alternative fuel. (Bio fuels). Which have proven to be awful both for the environment, and the economy. Did you know that the production of ethanol takes more water in the (name removed by moderator)ut that you get ethanol back? There are more fundamental environmental issues to be worried about. Global warming isn’t going to be an issue if we run out of drinking water. By polluting it (fertilizers for all that ethanol bound corn
), using it frivolously and wasting it.
Sigh you want to tax the “over consumption” of gasoline. Why gasoline? why not oil? What is over consumption? Can an individual really over consume gasoline, wouldn’t that really be businesses. BTW, gasoline is already taxed, and it is a wonderful regressive tax for the poor trying to get to work. (I love how liberals always ignore their points in other threads to make an argument about AGW). I guess I am just a bleeding heart conservative.
Pray tell, what individual action is going to lead to the harm of others? This is really the question. You can’t say my shower in the morning is going to lead to an increase in global temps, or my neighbors driving to work every day will. This is what encompasses sin.
I will however, oppose governmental measures to mitigate rising CO2 or rising temps, when it is going to damage the environment and economy. I will not oppose any individual efforts to try and save the environment (except for crazy types), but I will point out inconsistencies in the argument.
example: The new CFL light bubs take longer to manufacture, more energy, and have a more complicated manufacturing process, use heavy metals, and more materials generally, compared to an incandescent. So unless we can say these factories are especially “green” and clean, which I seriously doubt as they are made in countries with less environmental controls (mine were made in china), It seems that the manufacturing process is much dirtier than incandescent lightbulbs. Does the extended lifetime and energy savings make up for the extra pollution from manufacturing? I would like people to actually answer this before declaring that I am sinning by not having these bulbs.
The majority of my lamps actually have these lightbulbs right now, because I use to live in an area with a really unstable power grid. We burned out incandescent bulbs every 2 or 3 months. So we got some CFLs to see if they worked better, we certainly didn’t get the promised 5 years. We instead got 6 to 8 months.
I notice however, nobody is lobbying to fix the power grid, except for power companies. But wouldn’t you think, fixing the power grid would save everyone a lot of money and save a lot of energy, perhaps making harmful alternative fuels unnecessary and creating jobs? One can’t make money off fixing a public good, so it is probably going keep getting piecemeal maintenance, until there is some major failure of the power grid.
Ugh, for the record I hate long posts, like this one, and that is why I (besides the fact that not all of it needed addressing) is why I didn’t go point by point of your post.
