Yes fanatics. To reduce the "carbon footprint" to the extent required
to actually reverse the warming trend, (the much touted Kyoto Protocols
wouldn't even come close, and the estimated short term loss in GNP in
the US to implement those would probably bring on a Global Recession, if
we actually tried to conform to them), would impoverish even the United
States. China and India would face violent revolution, (stifled rising
expectations tend to cause such things), Worse yet, the required
surplus wealth needed for relief of those parts of world effected by
global warming if it's not caused by man, (and I happen to believe that
it's probably not, though I do admit I could be wrong) simply wouldn't
be there. Thats just for starters. Then theres the unfortunate truth
that the poorer a country is the less it's people care about the
environment. Just staying alive is much more important. A good example
is the loss of the rain forest in Brazil. A major cause of that loss is
relatively poor ranchers and farmers attempting to turn it into farms
and ranches. The fact that this a poor place to do that is not stopping
them, they have to eat. Every single time I hear someone talk about
sustainable energy sources I get the feeling they just haven't gotten a
handle on the magnitude of the problem, or they make it someone else's
problem. Solar isn't going fill the gap in any major way, not without
covering thousands of acres of land with solar power cells, (just look
at the energy flux available in sunlight to get your base of what's
available, then look at the typical conversion efficiencies in solar
power cells, you lose a lot of potential right there, but then
atmospheric conditions take a toll...) When you finally come up with a
reasonable estimate of watts per acer divide that into the amount of
electricity that Canada used before WWII and see if you can sustain even
that level of comfort with solar power, with Canada's entire land
area... Wind is even worse. Most places you have to have duplicate
capacity for electrical generation based on some other method, most
places that's natural gas. Then there's the wealthy well connected
people who don't want a modern windmill even on the horizon. It begins
to limit your options for placement, (the best place to generate power
is near to where it's used after all).
So let's see, global warming fanatics want us to impoverish ourselves to
stop climate change from happening. Which we might not even be able to
do. If we do that and they are wrong, we will have many more deaths and
greater environmental degradation for no particular gain. If we do
impoverish ourselves and they are right, there will still be needless
deaths and dislocations, (an analysis I'd love to go into but heck, this
is already too long and with no footnotes you will refuse to even
consider this but hey you asked).
Let's not forget that controlling your carbon footprint is becoming the
preferred way for most governments to get even more detailed control of
your life. California currently is trying to get a law that would allow
them to take remote control of the thermostats of every home and
business in that State, (starting with new construction but extending to
everything eventually). The incremental loss of freedom is astounding,
and it only gets worse from here...
frank theriault wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2008 2:29 PM, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I hate this use of the word Hoax. A hoax doesn't harm people, except
>> maybe the pride of the gullible. If the global warming fanatics are
>> wrong, then many people will be harmed by their actions. If they're
>> right then serious actions should be taken, though not unnecessarily the
>> ones they propose . Either way the debate isn't helped by the use of
>> improper terms.
>>
>>
>
> I know I shouldn't, but I must:
>
> Okay, tell me, what horrible things would happen if the global warming
> fanatics are wrong? (BTW, using the word "fanatics" is rather
> telling, no?)
>
> Let's see, we'd lower pollution levels, reduce our reliance on
> non-renewable, toxic, noxious energy resources such as petroleum and
> coal, we'd develop local sustainable sources of energy using such
> things as wind and the sun, we'd reduce garbage, we'd get more people
> out of cars and into mass transit, onto bikes and walking - possibly
> even becoming more fit and healthy in the process.
>
> I'm missing where the "harm" part comes into play...
>
> :-)
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
>
--
I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati.
A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated.
When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world
-- Anonymous
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
