Come on man, seriously? You might as well be asking why do you need to be a better person? Why do you need to care about anything? Why do you need to improve anything?
Oh. Yeah, I never equated the two. It's not an improvement, and it doesn't make you a better person. Do you really think apathy is why I make such an issue of it?
1) Carbon emissions have a negligible effect on the greater environmental picture. If they have an effect at all.
The planet is a homeostatic system. Increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows warming periods, and this is confirmed by ice core samples that have been taken from Antartica, etc. Temperatures rise, oceans evaporate, and CO2 is expelled with water vapor into the atmosphere. Higher levels of water in the sky provide for larger precipitation systems which block sunlight from entering and mediate the previous increase in heat. The Earth has been doing this for some time now. How long has it had an atmosphere?
The planet is a carbon processor. Carbon dioxide is critical in maintaining lush ecosystems and the primary effect of increasing the quantity of CO2 is an increase in the health and quantity of plants (subsequently increasing the planet's ability to process CO2). The most significant negative effects of pollution are local, and largely only in areas with high population densities. The air in Manhattan does not clear as quickly as the air in Lincoln, Nebraska. There are already solutions available for that, none of which require reductions in the use of energy culpable in causing the emissions. A good example of that is the fact that cars are much cleaner than they used to be. Another is the fact that, to this day, Manhattan is still not populated by mutants and other genetic monstrosities the likes of which you'd expect in a people exposed to such high levels of carcinogens. Cancer is not that simple.
Bottom line is that pollution is not the reason why people wish to reduce the consumption of 'fossil' fuels. The motive now is (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt) to save us from global warming. However, changes in global mean temperature require causes with much greater efficacy than all of the internal combustion engines, and power plants, and volcanoes, and swamps, and oceans this world has to offer. The only thing with that kind of power is the giant ball of fire 93 million miles up from us. It's emissions change, the incident energy we receive from it changes. This (unlike the comparatively more 'simple' science of anthropogenetic global warming climatologists) is verifiable, and can explain the warming period of the late 90's with little to no difficulty. Sunspot activity corresponds flawlessly with the weather of the last 20 years.
2) If you attempt to replace the heart of the economic system that is feeding the entire globe with an energy source that is both less efficient and more expensive, you are going to gut that economy. With said economy reduced to a carcass, feeding the globe will no longer be a problem. They will cannibalize themselves within a year.
The environment itself is resilient. What is not as resilient are human lives. Where pollution effects that, then there is a case for action. No one has the right to poison another man's water, air, and food. But the ecological crusade would never have had to resort to end of the world hysterics and witchdoctored science if our industrial production was the diabolical threat that it is claimed to be. There was no silent spring, and it's not because they banned DDT.
Ultimate Weapon said:
Environmental issues should have nothing to do with politics - though everyone likes to paint it that way.
Maybe if they got the hell out of politics, no one would have the material to paint it with.
Ultimate Weapon said:
It isn't a left or right issue. It's a human issue. It's our backyard. It's where we hike, where we snowboard, where we surf, where we get our food. It effects us all. It's the air we breath and the water we drink.
And the petroleum we burn.
It's pretty simple, electricity requires resources. Resources are finite. Reducing usage of resources while renewable resource technologies are in their infancy is necessary, unless you're looking forward to huge increases in energy costs are resources become more scarce.
Yeah, it's so simple that it only took over a hundred years to even get to a point where energy was so convenient and stable that people could indulge their fatuous, pretentious dreams of using less efficient, more expensive power sources to puff up their own moral vanity at the expense of that century worth of invention and innnovation and incalculable hours of work.
The 'resources' were just 'there'. We just 'took' them, right? It was
so simple.
dr_teng said:
So like I said, most people that aren't incredibly shortsighted, and yes, that includes the governments that enforce the energy policy.
You're right. Most governments are too ambitious to focus on the immediate moment. They need an unverifiable future to project unverifiable crises upon so that their current schemes of usurpation may acquire the faintest veneer of credibility. I know that in the U.S., that's usually all it takes to trick the golden goose into laying her eggs. What with all the NASCAR fans and McDonald's eaters, it doesn't take much. As far as I can tell, most of this country has fallen for it. No one's throwing CFL's into Boston harbor, are they?
Did they have to put that much effort into fooling the fools in Canada? Or was it dramatically more simple?
When someone is willing to ignore physical reality and pretend there's a never-ending supply of magic fuel on the planet, you're not going to get anywhere. You might as well spend your time trying to explain evolution to a creationist, it's not worth the effort.
Or like explaining inflation to a Cro-mag. I had thought about trying, but I was only able to find enough of a damn to give to Ultimate Weapon.
