andydes wrote:OK, say you are right. That either global warming is a myth or not caused by industrialisation.
The world's population is growing at an alarming rate and getting more energy hungry. We're fast running out of fossil fuel as it is. Everyone will be trying to gain control of the few remaining resources, which won't always be in countries that are particularly fond of you (we all know where that one goes).
Either way, we still need to find new sources of energy, seriously reduce our consumptiion, or both.
Reducing deforrestation, preserving natural habbitats, improving air quality, etc. are all generally seen as good things as well.
Yeah, that's kind of the big point to me. I've been gone from this conversation for a couple days (travelling for work, sorry not to have gotten back to refute your arguements UDP).
But the petroleum (OK, hydrocarbon) economy is about a related, nested system of problems. Global warming is only one aspect, and a potentially dramatic one at that. But, lets focus on the other political, economic, and environmental implications of fossil fuels for a moment:
1) They are finite, and the most accessible resources are exploited first (which can be offset to a degree by technology, but leads inevitably to a scenario of diminishing returns). We don't know if these resources will run out in 100 years or 300, but everyone agrees its a limited time proposition.
2) The recovery of these resources requires dubious political compromises and terratorial agression - an expensive as well as immoral path, and just bad for us in the mid-term, strengthening our enemies and binding our options. (Where did bin-Laden get his money?)
3) Recovering these resources depletes whatever landscape it is in, essentially turning it into an industrial zone. In the case of surface coal mines for instance, the tops of of mountains are blasted off and the debris is shoveled into the streams around them.
4) There is no dispute that the other (particulate) air pollution from hydrocarbon fuels kills many thousands of people each year.
5) The economics of petroleum benefit an entrenched and select few, who have spent generations cozying up to the levers of power (Hello, I need to speak to the vice president...). These companies have shown themselves time and time again to be devoid of morality in the face of human suffering, and active participants in provoking deaths for profits both in the USA and abroad.
6) The amount of energy wasted simply because we have a culture of waste is staggering. Simply keeping tires properly inflated would save thousands of barrels of oil a DAY. Properly insulating buildings should be a no-brainer at this point. Whatever your politic, we should deplore the loss of human effort and environmental resources inherent in waste like this.
Soooo....I am also in favor of the principle of adaptability. And what that means, first and foremost, is securing a wide range of economically viable and nonpolluting sources of energy for our cultures' future. This will not only have the political and environmental benefits I indicated above, but will encourage entirely new industries, which are mostly nascent right now. These industries will, in the mid-term, be much more economically beneficial than the dinosaur duo of the American automobile/petroleum industries, because they wll require high levels of innovation and education, and will result in products which will be sold and licensed around the world - much like space-program spinnoffs from the Apollo program.
So, even if we think the threat of climate change is a plot by Greenpeace and other nefarious world powers, we can certainly see that adapting to the present day political, economic, and environmental outlook requires a change in our conception, delivery, and use of energy in all sectors of our economy.
you're really stretching it. ignoring a vast majority of scientists in favor of Greenpeace's agenda. what a tool...