Let's fight global warming; now you stop breathing first

Thursday, October 22, 2009



I have not been blogging much lately, which has opened the door for other activities. Other activities include, graduate work, remodeling my house and talking about global warming with my more “greener” friends. Oddly enough, in talking with them I was able to put my finger on something that seemed awkward, but I could not put into words until last weekend. It is the fact that fighting global warming is not a unified movement, because it does not equal green and does not equal environmentally friendly.

Let me explain and set up what the “fighting” global warming side of the issue should be:

Allegedly, our planet is turning into a ball of fire because CO2 is increasing. CO2 is the result of people breathing and power plants creating energy. CO2 is also innocuous aside from setting the world on fire. As a result of CO2 increasing the average temperature of the planet will increase about 4-12 degrees Celsius over the next 90 years. The result of which will lead to famine, wars and the senseless deaths of thousands of polar bears. In essence, we will bring about the end of the world.

Here is where the greenies get goofy:

Global warming sounds pretty serious right? Like, we should probably do everything in our power to stop it? Who better to advocate fighting global warming than those that believe global warming is a serious problem, right? Not so fast! I made an error in my assumptions. Since global warming is this big, huge, and an evil malice to all mankind, I assumed that those that believe in global warming would do whatever it takes to stop it. The answer to that is a…BIG…FAT…, NO!

The truth is that global warming is only a gossamer of a problem when trying to convince the unconvinced that they need to stop hurting the planet. However, when it comes to installing renewable technologies that say, chop up endangered bats, then all of the sudden the bat is more important than CO2. Another example would be solar panels that ruin iguana’s habitat and…poof…suddenly famine and wars can be averted for the lazy lizard’s sake. If CO2 is on the verge of nuking the entire world, should we really be concerned about the minimal nuclear waste caused by nuclear power plants? I’m being told from my green friends that a small amount of nuclear waste is a more pressing concern than polar bears trapped on floating icebergs 

Do you see what doesn’t add up? The argument that is being put forth by global warming fighters is that fighting global warming equals saving the planet and failure to address global warming equals you being an ignorant Meany. Yet, those that are out preaching green don’t actually accept that global warming is a serious issue, otherwise we would be doing everything possible to stop CO2. Instead, my green friends feed me half-save-the-world-from-CO2 ideas left and right. For instance, “stop eating beef because cow raising is increasing global warming or buy LEDs, which will reduce my personal energy consumption by a tiny 2% (home consumption only, not including transportation) and stop talking about nuclear energy, which would go a long way in solving the CO2 problem (It causes frogs to grow 3 arms). Please, don’t talk about liquefying CO2 and placing it into old coal mines, either. It too is bad for the environment.”

I must admit, it is funny watching the responses from the global warming fighters when you point out the futility of half-saving a world from destruction. It is as if their noble efforts will in some way be rewarded by the empty void of their extinction. Oh, how the hens, lizards and frogs will sing your praise for restraining the growth of new energies.

What’s the reason for this inconsistency (which by the way has long been the reason that I have remained a skeptic)? Why is it that those that want me to fight global warming are willing to only half-stop CO2 when I suggest that we throw the kitchen sink at such a serious problem? The answer is that fighting global warming has nothing to do with fighting CO2. What? Isn’t CO2 causing global warming? CO2 is nothing more than a monster in the closet. No, global warming fighters don’t really take their cause of CO2 seriously when stacked against all the other named evils of man like bringing about the extinction of other animals or going to war with other nations. Once these evils are suggested it is as if the average temperature of the earth stopped ticking up.

So here is my offer to the global warming fighters. I will start taking the fight against global warming seriously when you do.

Here is how we do that. Let’s agree that any energy plan without nuclear energy is a waste of time. Let’s agree that implementing renewable energies is more important than iguanas and hens. Let’s agree to go to war with India, China and any other nation in the world that does not agree to a new Kyoto protocol that is even more restrictive than the current one and is actually restrictive enough to stop global warming (serious global warming fighters know that Kyoto in it’s current form isn’t sufficient to stop global warming). Let’s wipe them off the map if we need to (In fact, I hope they do refuse, the loss of life would be an added bonus to fighting global warming). Let’s agree to do whatever else it takes regardless of other marginal environmental impacts, like say, liquefying CO2 and filling empty coal mines with it. All of this is what will likely be needed to actually stop global warming and if you aren’t going to take it seriously and commit, then why should I. I don’t acknowledge half-saving the world as useful, noble, or intelligent. You might as well be holding your breath.

1 comment

CJ said...

I agree wholeheartedly that climate change raises the serious questions you raised. Is climate change more important than protecting individual species? Some people make the wrong decision.

I completely disagree with your waiting for other people to start making sense before you to take the problem seriously. You'll be waiting along time. There will always be people who don't make sense.

You get the general idea on climate change. You didn't mention that this climate change is partly the result of a natural receding period of glaciation. Much of the warming we'll see over the next century will be due to human activities, but not all of it; probably over half. The science is unclear. The only thing we know is that human activities are accelerating the natural recession of glaciers that was happening since before humans had any influence.

I agree we need to embrace nuclear power. I agree we need to accept human activities that cause some extinctions for the greater good of slowing climate change. I think we should also be looking at decidedly unnatural technologies that could engineer the climate to do what we want.

Climate change is serious and will be costly. Don't wait for others to start making sense before you do.

October 23, 2009 at 11:23 PM

Post a Comment