"One scientist calls the recent U.N. summary report on climate change "a sham" that included the names of scientists who actually disagreed with its findings. The show also asserts that efforts to reduce carbon dioxide are killing people in Africa — who must burn fires inside their homes because their governments are being pressured to use wind and solar power — and cannot produce enough electricity for the continent. The program airs Thursday."
I can hear the rebuttal now: "of course, it's not killing anyone! We care!"
This reminds me of when the leftists who were so adamant that air bags be installed that they ignored and played down the evidence that the impacts were killing people.
Let's bring balance to the debate, folks, and get some middle ground, and, more importantly, some common sense.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12167
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17500301/
why aren't you?
BTW, I assume that is you and your daughter in your icon. Cute little girl. You, not so much!
"Communist leaders have promised repeatedly to clean up China's badly polluted environment, though they warn they are constrained by a need to promote economic growth and lack of technology."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17464817/
The first MSNBC article mentioned is a great example of free-market driven policies to improve the environment. I would also expect a huge ROI, or at least a nice tax write-off. I imagine the former is most likely the case.
http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/CalltoTruth.pdf
Page 13 for an alternative view that extreme efforts to curb climate change-causing emissions would hurt the world's poor, who need access to low cost energy production methods.
Then China will export the technology, at best being a competitor, and at worst, exporting it to the US, thereby increasing our trade deficit. Do you not see an economic opportunity here for the US, or are you content to be a debtor nation?
Chris: "The first MSNBC article mentioned is a great example of free-market driven policies to improve the environment."
True. I agree re: ROI and/or tax write-off. But what do you say about corporations calling for federal policy? I understand they don't want to deal with many separate state policies, but they are also increasingly convinced that there is a serious risk. But my question was, if corporations are trying to address the problem, why aren't you? Or are you?
Re: world's poor - so which is more harmful? Efforts to curb global warming or global warming itself? It is actually quite possible that efforts to curb global warming might be an economic plus, if you don't swallow the false dichotomy that the economy and the environment are in opposition.
My concern about corporations calling for federal policy is corporate welfare through regulation that put them at a competitive advantage while putting competitors at a disadvantage. In Florida - many years ago - a local printing firm patented a font. That same firm convinced the legislature to require that it's updates, etc, use that font.
Guess who got the contract, thereby hurting competitors.
Many times corporations shut out other corporations from the bargaining process. I'm not so convinced that they see an increased risk as much as they see an opportunity to make money and hurt competition.
I'm of the opinion that mandated efforts to curb emissions will hurt the world's poor. I'm not remotely convinced that the consequences are as bad as predicted (Greenland is called Greenland for a reason and it's not because it's covered in ice), that cutting emmissions will benefit as much as they say it will, and I do believe that mandated emission cuts will hurt the world's poor, as the article has pointed out above.
As far as being a responsible citizen, I'll bite and take the bait.
I use compact flourescent light bulbs - a lot more expensive, but long-term cost effective and they put out much less heat than incadescent bulbs, which is wonderful in the Tallahassee summers. I drive a very gas efficient small SUV and try to use synthetic oil when possible. I was hoping my truck was flex fuel capable, but it's not. And I just upgraded the sound system, so I'm not trading anytime soon (I do beleive in noise pollution :) )
And I'm a huge believer in property rightst as a way to prevent unwanted development. I'm from a small county and I've seen intelligent development and I've seen stupid development driven by developers and lap-dog beauracrats and elected officials go along with it for a mere pittance.
My whole belief and argument rests on a simple presumption: that there is middle ground, that neither extreme is correct and that the truth is closer to the middle, and that both sides are going to have to give a little to get a little.
But - and I've seen this, too - if one side pushes a little too hard, the other side will push back - and hard - and it becomes a free-for-all with nothing but losers all around.
That really doesn't address my question. Of course, they wouldn't export technology unless it benefitted them first. My question has to do with whether they develop, produce and export it (at a profit), or the U.S. does. As it is now, however, it's the Germans and the Japanese that are leading in this sector. U.S. intransigence has left a vacuum. Others fill it.
Chris: "My concern about corporations calling for federal policy is corporate welfare through regulation that put them at a competitive advantage while putting competitors at a disadvantage."
That is an excellent point. However, the oil and coal companies have enjoyed those advantages for decades. Renewables either deserve preferential treatment until they reach mass production status, or oil and coal companies should pay back all the tax breaks and subsides that have put them at an advantage.
Chris: "I'm of the opinion...."
I have to say that I'm impressed with your concern for the poor. Mandatory emissions do not have to hurt the poor. I recently saw a report that some solar companies are donating solar panels to homes being rebuilt in New Orleans' 9th ward. BP, one of the world's largest producers of solar panels, has provided solar power in 3rd world countries for some time now. I will continue to disagree with you that global warming is not a threat. I am grateful that most of the world's powers are now trying to address it.
Chris: "I use compact flourescent light bulbs - a lot more expensive, but long-term cost effective...."
Very cool! More expensive in the short term, but as you say, more cost effective in the long term. The same can be said for Energy Star appliances, when you replace those. Conservation is conservative.
I understand people with families probably need larger cars or SUVs. I'm glad you're at lease conscious of the need to use the most efficient model you can find. If you're not thinking of replacing yours soon (I like noise pollution too - still a huge Beatles fan), then by the time you do, there will be very nice hybrids that will meet your need.
Now if you're willing to stretch a bit, you can already buy energy generated by renewable sources. Many utilities offer that option:
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/locator/index.htm
or, if your utility does not offer that option, you can get it through Sterling Planet's nationwide program:
http://www.sterlingplanet.com/
You end up paying about $20 to $30 a month premium for this. If you cannot afford that, ok. But just know it's available.
Chris: "And I'm a huge believer in property rightst as a way to prevent unwanted development."
I wish that were an answer. Unfortunately, the supreme court ruled against you on this one in the recent "immanent domain" case. If a corporation thinks it can use your land to make a profit, then it can buy you out. Many states have begun to enact legislation against this. I don't know about FL.
Chris: "My whole belief and argument rests on a simple presumption: that there is middle ground, that neither extreme is correct and that the truth is closer to the middle, and that both sides are going to have to give a little to get a little."
That sounds good, but the problem with that is that today we may split the pie down the middle. I conserve mine, and you eat yours. The next day, you claim that the middle way is now half of my piece. This goes on and on until now I've drawn a line and say no more. Then you say I'm an extremist.
What I'd like you to consider is that we have had a history of an economy that operates by exploitation. It is not the best kind of economy. It always has consequences, which the "privileged" externalize to your beloved poor. I favor a quantum shift to an economy that is sustainable.
In my youth, I heard the term "population explosion" frequently. I decided then to not have children, so as to not contribute to the "explosion." Fine. I have no regrets about that. Your daughter has a little more room in this world because I decided to do that. I hope, for her sake, that we are able to move to a sustainable future. Otherwise, she is going to have a much tougher go of it.