Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vergil83 my post remains unremarked on...... |
This is a complex issue, so I hope you don't mind my weighing in with my rather lengthy thoughts here.
While it is likely true that the consensus of opinion is that warming is occurring, it is worth noting that in the late '70s the consensus was just the opposite. Then the fear was we were headed for an ice age. Even scientists have a hard time not over weighting the last few years of data when looking at a series that spans over a hundred years. Then there remains the question of how much warming is human caused (the earth isn't the only planet in our system that seems to be warming), and more importantly what our options are (and at what cost) to mitigate any human effects.
To me the most interesting thing about global warming theory is the remedies embraced (and those not embraced) by the most vocal proponent organizations. If I truly believed we faced global disaster, I'd be willing to entertain solutions which would otherwise be unpalatable to me. I personally use this as a barometer for the sincerity of the movement as a whole (but not individuals). If groups like the Sierra Club start suggesting increased logging of lodgepole pine and like forests to avoid having aging stands burn and release CO2, then I'll take notice. But when groups preach doomsday scenarios and then coincidentally suggest as the remedy the same policies they have always pushed for, I tend to find them less than convincing. To be clear, I'm not questioning your sincerity or anyone else here, just pointing out why the organized groups seem that way to me.
I also find Kyoto more than a little troubling. Even it's proponents say it would have little impact, and that is assuming it works as planned. Moreover, I fail to see how transferring the most energy intensive economic activity from nations with strict environmental laws to those with next to none would help the planet at all (this is what Kyoto would really do). Does the earth care what political jurisdiction CO2 or other emissions come from? For example, if Kyoto were implemented, what would stop Mexico from burning it's oil, and using the energy released to generate Hydrogen. It could then sell it's Hydrogen to the US, for use as a "clean fuel". Or moreover, what would stop the US from selling coal to Mexico to do the same with? This is one glaring example, but even if you closed this one loophole there are hundreds of thousands of ways the same kind of thing would happen, albeit less obvious. Until there is a global treaty on the table which covers every country (and doesn't exempt the 2nd largest consumer of oil), with serious provisions for detecting and stopping cheating (if you aren't prepared to go to war over it, how serious are you?) I really don't see the point in a treaty.
I'd personally like to see more fuel efficient vehicles, simply because I don't like to spend a lot of money on gas. Both of our cars are stick shifts, with minimal options for this reason. I'm pleased to see the trend already turning to more efficient vehicles (regardless of size). I just hope the trend remains in place when gas prices come back down.
Linear Mode
