The article provides some "inconvenient truths" relating to Algore's agenda.
The problem I have with all arguments on global warming is that no one wants to put all the arguments together. Getting independent from fossil fuels will aid in removing the main support of middle eastern regimes that for the vast majority are repressive and supportive of fundamentalist groups that are causing most of the international problems in the world today. Independence will necessitate the development of clean energy resources. This development will help all countries with their energy needs. By leading in the development, the US could create a whole new industry that could benefit the US itself.
The problem with Algore's methods is he's trying to scare activity out of people. That doesn't work well in western societies. First they tend to listen to those who most closely approach what they want to hear. The portion of society that will listen to Gore are those that already like his politics and hate those that oppose it. Big surprise there. A neutral party presenting the information would have gotten better results.
As for those that ignore Algore due to his hype, ignoring information that does have wide spread support is not intelligent. It may not be as big a problem as Algore is putting forward, but how long does one procrastinate before it is too late? Wouldn't prudence demand that some action be taken to at least mediate the threat? And in a capitalist society, couldn't this be a gold mine if one develops a viable clean energy technology?
How's that saying go? A stitch in time saves nine?
[h/t Viking Pundit]
Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. Let me explain.His conclusion:From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty -- and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.I must agree. The idea of taxing oil just won't work due to the rest of the world developing into heavy users of fossil fuels and counteracting any benefits that the west could provide.
The problem I have with all arguments on global warming is that no one wants to put all the arguments together. Getting independent from fossil fuels will aid in removing the main support of middle eastern regimes that for the vast majority are repressive and supportive of fundamentalist groups that are causing most of the international problems in the world today. Independence will necessitate the development of clean energy resources. This development will help all countries with their energy needs. By leading in the development, the US could create a whole new industry that could benefit the US itself.
The problem with Algore's methods is he's trying to scare activity out of people. That doesn't work well in western societies. First they tend to listen to those who most closely approach what they want to hear. The portion of society that will listen to Gore are those that already like his politics and hate those that oppose it. Big surprise there. A neutral party presenting the information would have gotten better results.
As for those that ignore Algore due to his hype, ignoring information that does have wide spread support is not intelligent. It may not be as big a problem as Algore is putting forward, but how long does one procrastinate before it is too late? Wouldn't prudence demand that some action be taken to at least mediate the threat? And in a capitalist society, couldn't this be a gold mine if one develops a viable clean energy technology?
How's that saying go? A stitch in time saves nine?
[h/t Viking Pundit]
No comments:
Post a Comment