mavericck

No it definately is not a good thing. This is not one of those cases where the ends justify the means. The man-made global warming movement along with extreme environmentalism (the notion that we should go back the dark ages) is one of the greatest threats to civilization. This whole global warming chirade is one of the greatest hinderances to improving and industrializing the developing third world (especially in Africa). I love how the media and the environmentalists always talk about the dangers of using technologies to industialize and yet they never ever talk about the benefits of technologies such fossil fuels and nuclear power. Under this new environmental movement America, Europe, and Japan have all agreed to impose draconian measures to ensure that we restrain development in the Third World. The policies that are being put into effect to prevent so called global warming are having a disastrous effect on the worlds poorest people.

The notion that we should impose draconian measures to cut carbon emissions even if the theory of man-made global warming is proved to be completely false, just to be on the safe side is absolutely ludicrous. I am going to call this the "The Precautionary Principle", this idea or notion is only used only to promote the global warming alarmists agenda or idealogy. The people always talk about the risks of using a particular type of technology but never talk about the risks of not using it.

Two billion people on this planet are without electricity and instead of using electricity or natural gas to cook their food and run their lights they must burn wood or dried animal dung. The indoor smoke this activity produces is the single most dangerous pollutant in the world and according to the World Health organization Four million children under the age of five die each year from respiratory dieseases cause by smoke inhalation and many women die each year from cancer and lung diesease for the same reason.

We in the industrialized world cannot beging to imagine the hardships these people endure on a daily basis, no lights, no electricity, no running water, and no refrigeration with which to keep food for longer periods of time (No refrigeration is part of the reason Africa is starving). This is life without industrialization and fossil fuels. Now don't bring up that we should use wind and solar forms of power generation and that we should force the developing third world to use these forms of power generations as well. The forms of electrical generation are notoriously unreliably and weak. I really don't a steel industry or an automotive industry or any kind of heavy industry being able to run on these forms of electrical power generation alone. Not only are wind and solar energy woeful incapable of supporting an industrialized nation but they are also extremely expensive even for us in America and Europe. Now if this form of electricity is expensive even for us, imagine how expensive it is for Africans and other people in the third world.

This man-made global warming hysteria is damaging our economy and killing millions of people world wide who are waiting and eager to have industry and electricity come to their part of the world. This chirade is responsible for rising oil prices due to the fact that we can not build any more refineries and can tap into our vast oil deposits in Alaska. It is a huge drain on American businesses to comply with these policies put in place to stop carbon emissions from polluting our atmosphere (which is a completely ridiculous notion, carbon emissions are irrelevent to a rise temperature and all life on this plan produces carbon emissions that we humans can not even beging to come close to producing).

So no the ends defintaly do NOT justify the means.

ff_

Nobody's asking you to go live in a cave without any modern conveniences, or start burning your own feces as fuel for tonight's dinner. All that's being requested is that people start conserving, rather than being so wasteful. Instead of buying a Hummer or Excursion to commute to your office job, perhaps consider an Accord, Camry, or Civic. Maybe take the bus to work. Maybe it's as simple as adopting some of the tips that have been posted in mmarshal's "how to save gas" thread.

I'm by no means a green-peacer (not even close), but I also don't go through life without being mindful of the impact I have on the environment. I think it's perfectly reasonable to encourage a shift in the way we think, and live our lives. Yes, I believe that the ends do justify those means.

mavericck

I don't think that we should dump our waste into the oceans or the rivers, I never meant that at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being able to buy my Hummer and drive it when and where I please and no I am not warming up the earth by doing so. What kind of shift are you talking about? The shift that I think that you are talking about is impossible in the developing world and is a severe drain on our economy for no other reason other than to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

If you believe that the ends justify the means then you think that it is alright that millions of Africans and people in the third world die each year because of not having the basic ammenities of industrialized life. There is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels to generate energy.

I'm sorry I'm having a tough time understanding your logic.

ff_

How do you know that a problem doesn't exist? It's pretty convenient to ignore the possibilities, and write off the entire argument. Sure beats making an effort to "do the right thing".

For the sake of conversation, let's ignore the global warming debate (anything that comes out of Al Gore's mouth is probably phoey anyhow). Let's talk about our dependence on foreign oil. Let's discuss the problem with us needing to buy oil from the middle east in order to feed our silly, insaciable appetite for passenger-less 12 MPG SUV's. From countries that would just as soon kill every one of us, if our oil purchases didn't fund their entire economic well-being. What percentage of that oil money goes towards funding organizations such as Al Qaeda, who have already shown on more than one occasion that they're willing to put their money where their mouths are?

mavericck

I know the problem doesn't exist because it's a proven scientific fact that carbon emissions follow a warming period and not the other way around. What's the right thing to do? Rely on the "Precautionary Principle" of just in case? At whose expense?

I'm not saying that we should buy more oil from them I'm saying that we have just as much oil sitting underneath here in America and in Canada and that we should be supporting our own economy by using our own oil and expanding our current refineries in the cleanest way possible. I'm not saying that we should all be driving around in Hummers and Tahoes, but I am saying that we have the freedom to do so if we wish and that we also have the choice of supporting our own economy, (and not hurt it by stunting it with global warming legislation) not our enemies by using our own resources and nuclear power until we find a viable and most importantly affordable alternative (solar and wind just aren't going to cut it).

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

You're my new hero. EXCELLENT posts!