Even if it doesn't work! There have been some pretty hare-brained schemes to reverse global warming, most of them based on the theory that man-made carbon dioxide is responsible for most of it, from burying the gas under the ocean floor, dumping iron in the south Pacific to spur massive algae blooms, and even buying imaginary permission to use more energy. Now we have the idea of massive pipes to spur algae blooms, instead of dumping iron. Yup, crazy, and the scientists know all their solutions probably won't work:
The two scientists [Lovelock and Rapely] argued it was unlikely any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for limiting carbon would restore the planet's status quo.
Whatever that status quo is. Probably before humanity picked up spears. So, why do something on the small chance that it would work, but without knowing any of the effects of these schemes? Isn't this the same argument the supposed environmentalists use for rejecting the use of genetically modified crops? "We don't know all the effects these plants will have on the environment!" It reminds me a bit of an old joke about organized Christianity, when the Pope was informed that Jesus had returned: "Quick! Look busy!" If Gaia decides to bring the apocalypse, I think people will be able to adapt much easier than in eons past.
I just kinda think that we shouldn't mess with the planet at all, but we did so unknowingly throughout the Industrial Age. All we can do now is conserve resources that are finite, and the rest will or won't happen. For that reason, going green (and I don't mean hiring Chem Lawn to pollute the ground water) isn't a bad thing --- but as someone pointed out, right now it's feasible only if you're wealthy. That's what needs to change. The solution must be holistic.
ReplyDeleteJames Hansen at NASA said that smog particles in the atmosphere would reflect sunlight and cause a new ice age after five to ten years and he developed computer models to prove it. Of course that was before he decided global warming was more lucrative and came up with computer models to prove that.
ReplyDeleteCCL, the problem is the measures they want to impose would kill hundreds of thousands of people and destroy the economies of many developed and developing countries. You don't do that if you don't even know if there is a problem or rather the measures you are considering will make it better or worse.
ReplyDeleteWhat I hate is all the hype about global warming, as if we can actually we can do anything about it, instead of concentrating on the environmental projects that are still on-going, but just aren't as sexy anymore.
ReplyDeleteConservation is the best environmental approach, which cuts costs, instead of imposing more costs. I don't really mind that SUV's guzzle so much gas, but being classified as light trucks, instead of tall station wagons, cut into the gains we had already made with regard to smog and other fine particle pollution.
Agriculture could have made more strides using biotechnology, so that we can grow more produce, while using less water, shorter growing seasons, and less land. But there is no more profit in agricultureal innovation because of the devolutionary attitude of many environmental activists.
Sadly, the theory that man-made contributions of carbon dioxide to an overall greenhouse effect causing global warming, is being used as cudgel to change energy policy, and force rich nations to give money to poor nations via a carbon-credit scheme.
Imagine how much further we would be with our own independence from foreign oil if the energy policy debate had been couched in terms of national security, energy efficiency, and environmentally friendly renewable sources. But when people hear about unproven predictions from computer models served up with anti-economic rhetoric, well, I guess that's where we are right now.
I think it no accident that Leni Riefenstahl was active in the environmental movement. It is about government control, and no one who cares about the environment would want the government in charge. Governments that are that powerful are not accountable to the people and have caused the worse environmental disasters in history. The people who push for such powerful states always think "their" people will be in charge. It rarely works out that way. How long would Cindy last under Hugo's rule?
ReplyDelete(As an aside, I exchanged quite a few emails with Cindy when she was a simple Gold Star Mom. I felt I was helping support the troops by honoring her loss; I wrote to Dept of Defense on her behalf. At that point, she seemed to have both feet on the ground . . . but that's an aside.)
ReplyDeleteOn topic:
The problem, I think, is exactly what Joe detailed. Look at all those solutions he outlines in that one comment --- in a word, wow.
We really ought to don our creative solutions hats. We should set aside politics and refocus our efforts on finding economical solutions that work for every nation. Is Kyoto bunk?
I just think we can do better. The fish are dying, you know?