[Vision2020] Global Climate Change Responses - A Proposal

[Paul Rumelhart]

Garrett Clevenger wrote:
> Paul writes:
>
> "I don't like the idea of taking drastic measures at this stage when (in my view) the consequences of our actions are still up in the air."
>
>
> Drastic measures like starting wars for oil? 
>
> Or drilling 5000 feet below the ocean's surface resulting in milliions of gallons of oil destroying the Gulf?
>
> Or how about sending poor miners into the earth to dig for coal, exposing them to deadly dust and mine accidents?
>
> Or how about all the smog we now breath due to combustion of fossil fuel?
>
> I would say anytime people have to die to get our energy or we risk destroying ecosystems to get it, that is a drastic measure.
>
> My grandpa was a coal miner.  He died of black lung. He's only one of thousands.
>
> The Gulf spill is just one of many that have polluted and destroyed people's livlihood.
>
> These are very real consequences, Paul. Whether buning fossil fuel is causing climate change shouldn't matter when there are so many other good reasons to limit our consumption of this addictive and deadly substance.
>
> Do you really think we need to be using so much of it? Don't you think all these other problems are concerning and worth addressing?
>
> Fear plays on both sides of the debate.  Paul's side has it (fear of destroying our lifestyle if fossil fuel use is curtailed (and fear of losing money)) plus they've got billions of dollars to feed their propaganda machine to try to convince us that burning fossil fuels is ok, just as good as drinking God's juice.
>
> Our side has fear of destroying our childrens future just to keep fueling SUV's and making cheap crap.
>   

I'm completely behind stopping our dependency on oil and coal for the 
reasons that you just outlined.  I just don't want to be manipulated 
into doing it to "save the world" from global warming.  I'd laugh if it 
wasn't so tragic.  If all of the effort that was going into devising 
carbon credits and pushing carbon taxes and trying to limit our "carbon 
footprint" was going into getting us off of foreign oil, then off of 
domestic oil, and on to a mixture of nuclear power and alternative 
energy systems I'd be all for it.  The carbon credits and whatnot might 
be an avenue to come at the oil and coal problems from the side, but I'd 
prefer we just tackled them head on. 

As I pointed out in my previous post, I think that many of these actions 
will be detrimental to our country and the world with (in my opinion) no 
really good reason to do so based on our current understanding of the 
science.

> It's pretty clear to me which side is the moral one.
>   

I don't like the tendency to frame this issue as a moral one.  There are 
all sorts of good reasons not to just ban oil and coal tomorrow.  How do 
you think your food gets to the supermarket?  How many people survive 
the winters because of coal plants?  How much are crop yields increased 
because of modern fertilizers?

We need to walk the line between killing people off by raising energy 
costs too much too quickly and wantonly going about our business as if 
oil will last forever.

> Which side are you on?
>   

I'm on any side that happens to agree with me at this point in time.  
Why don't we stop drawing so many lines in the sand?

Paul

> Garrett
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>