With Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the global warming trend is hotter than ever. I find it a stretch to relate global warming and peace on earth, but we’ll just leave those tough questions for the Nobel Committee to answer. For the sake of moving on to other aspects of global warming, such as the proposed solutions, I will reserve my criticism of Al to one sentence. Al, you’re a hypocrite, I appreciate the fact that you care about the earth, but don’t tell me I have to walk to work so that you can fly a private jet and suck up 20 times more energy than the average person – and I don’t want to hear about carbon offsets.
Al has told the world that global warming will cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet in 40 years. This will result in the destruction, no, elimination of, Florida, Louisiana and Manhattan. I don’t believe you Al… but that is scary, and because I am into self-preservation, I’ll listen to solutions just in case.
There have been many quick fixes presented with the intent of tackling this proposed problem. However, many of these solutions have drastic unintended consequences, including: greater power for a global government that does not represent us (United Nations), negative effects on third-world countries, and greater government control over industry here in the United States.
Automobiles constantly bombard our earth’s atmosphere with CO2, one of the many greenhouse gases we hear so much about that also include methane, nitrous oxide, hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Special interests have provided us with two popular solutions that look to mitigate this pollution. Ethanol, which is produced from common agricultural products, hit the scene in the late ’80s and became popular in the late ’90s. Despite the use of ethanol, oil consumption has hardly hesitated. To the contrary, unintended consequences are widespread. Iowa State University conducted a study looking at the effects of ethanol production. They found that not only is the price of corn rising, but so is the price of meat and eggs, since cows and chickens are raised on corn. Other crops rise in price as well because of the shift farmers make to corn production due to the rising demand. Ethanol doesn’t seem practical.
Another solution to the destruction automobiles cause is electric or hybrid cars. Electric cars sound great, they burn nothing, are quiet, and convenient. I only have one question: where does electricity come from? Last time I checked, most electricity comes from coal-burning plants, about 56 percent of it. The same coal burning plants that pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air power our electric cars. Just because the pollution can’t be seen, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Electric cars don’t seem practical.
The Kyoto Protocol is popular among environmentalists. These emissions requirements, created and enforced by the holier-than-thou United Nations, have been ratified by most, but not us. This protocol calls for the United States to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent less than what they were in 1990, by 2008. So far we have increased GHG emissions by 10 percent since 1990. In other words, the U.S. population, as well as economy, has grown since the ’90s, thankfully. Kyoto is simply an attempt to cap economic output. If we cannot produce energy then we cannot produce anything. And when economic production is stifled, so are standards of living. This is a classic knee-jerk reaction that large governmental bodies generally submit to: We, the governors, don’t like something that you simple-minded folk are doing, so we will punish you by suffocating innovation, raising taxes, and increasing regulation. Setting aside my personal belief that only problems, not solutions, arise from the UN, government still does not understand how a free market works. Incentives are all that is needed; if we would stop focusing on punishment and instead focus on reward, we may get something done. Kyoto is certainly not practical.
I don’t mean to sound like a cynic; I just want to be realistic. If we really want to reduce CO2 emissions we must think logically. Nuclear power plants are logical – expensive but logical – and a solution that even Gore agrees with. Expanding the use of current natural energy sources like hydropower, photovoltaic solar technology, and wind power is logical. Human fat is 76 percent carbon; maybe we should all gain some weight to sequester emissions.
The most important thing to remember is that greater government control is not the answer. Don’t let Al Gore scare you into awarding politicians increased control of industry, or of the way we live. After all, he would be happy if everyone lived like a caveman, except himself of course.
[email protected]