|
The world’s 6.7
billion people have been swamped in recent years by a virtual tsunami of non-stop
publicity conveying the universal theme of imminent environmental disaster.
We have been told almost daily that calamity can be averted only if we
immediately demonstrate our good sense by doing whatever is necessary to halt
the rise of man-made greenhouse gases.
Cited as the primary villain is a naturally occurring substance known
to all as carbon dioxide which is also created by burning fossil fuels such
as oil, natural gas and coal.
Many of us have cheerfully assumed and
accepted enormous amounts of guilt because of our role in contributing to the
apparent surplus of CO2. Because of our altruistic values, sense of
responsibility and good intentions as stewards of the environment, we
willingly do whatever is necessary to preserve planet earth. In spite of driving gasoline powered
vehicles and consuming electricity generated by coal and natural gas to
perform the myriad tasks of our daily lives, we have enlisted as loyal foot
soldiers committed to a transcendent and enduring belief in Mother Earth.
The sacrifices we make by altering our
comfortable lifestyle and accepting reductions to our living standard are
therefore justified. We feel as virtuous as Mother Teresa was tending to the
dispossessed in the streets of Calcutta. Saving Mother Earth is a cause,
indeed a belief, which transcends in time, scale and duration anything else
that is part of the routine of daily lives. This mission comprises beliefs and
dogmas such that it parallels religion in many respects.
Are Our Sacrifices to
Save the Planet Warranted?
As individuals and nations we are being asked
– indeed it seems we are increasingly being forced – to accept
impositions which seriously interfere with the life we strive to
achieve. The financial costs will
be both major and continuous – but for what purpose and to what
end? If we accept what we are
told, the benefits are nothing short of the preservation of earth as we know
it. If we do not participate, we are culpable in this genocide. Moreover, all
living things will be either destroyed or irretrievably altered. So we are informed by Santo Al Gore.
To any concerned citizen with an ounce of
morality, a pending global disaster of such magnitude demands only one
response. Comply...without
further delay. Sign up now, just like our kids have already done at school by
buying and planting twigs of trees to help suck up surplus CO2. Bullying and badgering mom and dad
about their careless climate warming habits has become the kids’ daily homework
assignment.
There is no more time remaining to examine or
discuss any nagging questions or doubts concerning the merits of
anthropogenic induced climate change.
We must reduce our collective carbon footprints now. Electricity
sourced from coal must be replaced by anything that doesn’t spew CO2,
except, of course, nuclear power. Our next car must be a state of the art
plug-in electric version, or at least a hybrid. But isn’t the single
largest source of electricity the burning of coal? Hmm, how does buying and driving an
electric car help? Regardless, we
must get with the program...now!
No more questions please!
Some of us still harbour
doubts about this newly declared pollutant with the CO2 label. It wasn’t long ago that Sulphur Dioxide/Acid Rain was the great Satan. Somehow that issue got fixed, or at
least it is no longer viewed as a serious problem, considering that fishing
remains a popular activity. How
about Smog? Europe and North
America have made huge strides in dramatically reducing this noxious soup of
gases and particulates. Los
Angeles and other cities with peculiar climate and topography still suffer,
though, as do most places which use coal to produce electricity.
To What Extent is Asia
Making Sacrifices to Reduce CO2 Emissions?
The rapidly industrializing cities of Asia present
a different story. Clouds of crud
are so pervasive and permanent that it is almost impossible to know if the
sun is shining. Most industry in Beijing, China was shut down weeks ahead of
the last summer Olympics to allow the wind to clear out the perpetual fog of
dense smog. Of course athletes
needed a fighting chance to set new world records and tourists, too, needed
to leave mesmerized by the architecture and economic progress China has made
in recent years.
However, smog is a permanent fact of life in
most Asian cities and it is getting worse. More amazing still is that these
rapidly industrializing nations have not been asked, under the terms of the
UN sponsored Kyoto Protocol, to reduce their carbon production by even one
measly tonne, even though the carbon portion of
that smog is massive and growing rapidly.
The last time I looked water born sludge and
chemical contamination has not disappeared either, although first world
nations have made considerable progress in reducing the problem. Great Lakes water quality in Canada
and the United States attests to how seemingly dead bodies of water can be
rejuvenated.
Why Concentrate on
Eradicating CO2?
The question is whether citizen concerns over
these normal forms of pollution have been lost in the whirl of publicity and
political action focused exclusively on Global Climate Change. Could it be that those of us with a
broader perspective and concern about the full range of environmental issues
are wrong? Obviously our
priorities are not in sync with many persons deemed to be environmental and
climate experts? Perhaps we are
right and they are off on a tangent using global climate warming as their
vehicle of choice to achieve their other less apparent objectives?
Carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Even the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) seems prepared to declare it thus.
How is that possible? It
is a naturally occurring substance critical for the growth of all plant
life. Combined with water and light,
growth takes place through the process of photosynthesis during which carbon
dioxide is ingested. So how does
a substance which is a core component of growth become something we must
eradicate? More precisely, we are
being asked to limit the man-made version of carbon dioxide which results
from our burning of fossil fuels.
Given the vast quantities of naturally
occurring greenhouse gases such as methane, which is even more villainous,
should we not also be trying to contain them? Draining swamps would help to
substantially limit a major source of methane, although all decaying plants
create these gases. Animals,
especially cattle, also discharge vast quantities of methane during their
lifetimes. Presumably society
could do without meat for food from domesticated animals by converting to
vegetarian diets. Adopting much more predatory hunting laws would allow man
to dramatically reduce the population of wild animals thereby further
limiting the production of methane.
A Case FOR Global Warming
Measures to contain and limit major sources of
greenhouse gases such as those noted above would no doubt be viewed as
extreme, even bizarre, as well as politically unpalatable. So why are we so compliant with what
we are being subjected to and asked of us by the climate warming
establishment? Rather than
limiting CO2, we need more of it.
We also need more sun, more heat and more water in order to allow more
land to be opened up to the growing of food crops.
The year 1800 is usually cited as the time the
population of earth first reached one (1) billion persons. When this writer joined the workforce,
population had more than tripled to over three (3) billion. Today the world’s population
stands at more than six and one half (6.7) billion. Developing and third world population
growth indicates a global population of eight (8) billion by 2025.
Far from lamenting a
warming world, we should be desperately looking forward to new opportunities
a warmer world would present us in meeting the challenges of our perpetual
population growth.
|
