Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Climate Change is too cumulative of an effect and too much of a behemoth to disregard while
waiting for more proof. The proof is really there, it’s simple physics. Carbon is a heat absorber.
We are pumping tremendous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and it is accumulating. The
earth has increased it’s temperature at a rate that coincides with the carbon accumulations.
|
The problem is that you really have no idea whether or not what you say is true. There is no "proof" out there; all people have are theories. Nobody out there has ever performed an accurate study that can link temperature with carbon accumulation, because neither one of them have been measured for a geologically significant period of time. And you forget that carbon doesn't just stay up in the atmosphere; it accumulates and falls back onto the ground as a result of rain and other weather phenomena.
Should we study climate change? Of course. Should we go out and make doomsday statements based on initial research and insufficiently supported theories? No.
Quote:
If we want to continue to survive like we have for thousands of years we need to take the
initiative now and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels of all types. The technology and ability
is there it just takes leaders with vision to take us down that path.
|
It takes a lot more than that. The technology to produce clean, cheap energy is not there (unless you want to go with nuclear energy, which is not politically feasible), and the cost of replacing our current infrastructure would be astronomical. Cars (another major source of greenhouse gas emissions) also require significant advances in technology before they'll be able to compete with standard vehicles. For example, hybrid vehicles in real-world testing are no more fuel efficient than many cars (
news article ).
The leader whose vision takes us down the environmentalist path is going to have to make severe compromises in other areas. To make a reduction in fossil fuels a priority would require billions (if not trillions) of dollars in research and expenditures, and where would that money come from?
You can't justify a major shift in policy based on the scientific evidence presented thus far. Obviously we should take initial findings into consideration when beginning policy, and compromises should be made between the environment and other concerns. But a dramatic policy shift is simply not feasible at this time, and would hurt our country more than it would help the planet.