“The Express group lost an unusually large number of high-profile libel cases in 2008-2009…The string of losses led the media commentator Roy Greenslade to conclude that Express Newspapers (which also publishes the Star titles) paid out more in libel damages over that period than any other newspaper group”
rag……..anella……………fighting climate change is a fools errand.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the “global warming” folks are right. I am not sold, but for the purpose of this discussion I’ll grant the hypothesis that man is causing the planet to get warmer as a consequence of his emission of CO2 (sequestered millions of years ago into the earth’s crust and elsewhere) into the atmosphere.
Here’s the problem: North America has about 330 million people in it, most of them in The United States. That’s a lot of people.
But Asia has 4 billion people living in it, or more than 10 times as many. And unfortunately most of them are living at a vastly inferior standard of living compared to ours. Africa has about 970 million people (three times North America), and again, nearly all are living vastly below our standard of living.
We’re 1/15th of the population in question and nearly all of the rest of the people involved are going to dramatically increase their per-capita CO2 output whether we like it or not.
Herein lies the problem: While we emit more CO2 per-capita than anyone else today, we won’t be emitting the most CO2 for very long on an aggregate basis.
To actually stop the increase in CO2 emissions we would have to find some way to compel the Asians and Africans to not increase their CO2 emissions.
But all possible means for them to improve their standard of living inherently involve significant and even dramatic increases in CO2 emissions per-capita.
The math is simple: Within a few years China will emit more CO2 than we will. A few years after that both Africa and India will surpass the United States. None of these regions will agree to stop emitting CO2 because to do so is to agree to keep their people perpetually poor and agrarian while we enjoy the fruits of a westernized, industrialized economy.
That’s not going to happen and yet without it happening no amount of bleating about “climate change” or laws passed to curtail our CO2 output will do a thing for the climate of the planet. It will not make any material difference to the outcome; indeed, oil companies have said that they will simply move refining and other operations to nations without such pacts (like India and China!) to avoid the tax, and pass through any impact in the US directly to consumers.
The amount of CO2 emitted will not go down, but your costs will go up, making the only net effect economic: you will be poorer and whatever man-made effect exists on the climate will continue to exist.
If we were truly interested in the welfare of the planet we would recognize that short of thermonuclear war developing nations are not going to agree to stop developing. We would thus divert our attention toward dealing with the changes that come with our planet’s climate, whether it is in fact warming due to our activity or whether the changes in climate are more mundane (read: due to the sun.) We would thus deploy our money where it could actually do some good, such as flood control and population relocation, along with modifying farming and other production resources to be able to suit changing climactic conditions.
…………..The climate is always in flux – that is, it is always changing. It has done so over the millions of years in the past, and will in the millions of years in the future.
I agree, in part, that the attention climate change is receiving is a diversion from the real work we should be doing.
I also know that ‘global warming’ and cooling is a natural occurrence that has happened many times over during the history of this planet.
Let’s say climate change is not man-made and is not a result of burning fossil fuels. That’s fine. But what about the other effects of burning fossil fuels? What about the heavy metals that end up in our drinking water or the harmful particulates that end up in our lungs?
Is it just to allow the biggest burners of fossil fuels (a finite resource) continue to do so at the rate at which they do? Is it okay to just sit back and watch the mess unfold? Or to deny that something is amiss when large oil companies drill in developing nations, polluting land and water, poisoning people?
We have enjoyed the benefits of fossil fuels at the expense of people’s lives. How is this ethical?
Yes, developing nations will begin to catch up and perhaps surpass the US if they decide they want to attain the material wealth that we have. But wouldn’t it be better to help developing nations achieve an abundant lifestyle without burning fossil fuels and polluting our natural resources, ultimately polluting all of us in the process? Wouldn’t it be better if we fought to reduce our own polluting outputs and be leaders in changing the way we fuel our economy and lives?
Some people want to do this under the guise of “carbon-emissions-reduction-targets” or “climate change” – maybe they’re missing the mark there. But the end benefit should be the same. A cleaner, healthier, safer, and more just world.
I am truly interested in the welfare of the people. The thing is, we have to take care of the planet in order to take care of ourselves.
I’m not arguing your point about cleaner, healthier, safer, and more just world. I of course believe the injustices committed in north west Africa are incomprehensible but they are mostly because of corrupt local governments and not big oil. It is next to impossible to repair pipelines when oil workers are kidnapped and rebel groups blow them up day after day.
I just think that you would be hard pressed to make a winning argument based on the premise that our lives are not better off because of our burning of fossil fuels. Life without fossil fuels = abject poverty on a massive scale. Peak oil is WAY scarier than global warming. NOTHING exists that has the thermodynamic properties that fossil fuels have.
You said to call your senator to support climate change/legislation. F that. Getting the masses all worked up to fight something that is mathematically impossible to stop if indeed humans are responsible is a travesty. And I’m certainly not going to call my crap senator or crap president as I’m sure they are way too busy lining the pockets of the mega-rich in this country. What a red herring climate change is………nothing to see here sheeple…….u should be concerned about global warming……not this fiscal rim job we’re performing on u.