For the life of me, I'll never understand the "rationalization" when it comes to this issue. No one argues that we shouldn't cut back pollution. Maybe we ought to stop calling it a greenhouse gas, as anything associated with the colour green has people seeing red. Do people out there think we should just cut our pollution in every other way except that costly pesky gas carbon dioxide? Or maybe it just sounds good to say we want less pollution. Look at any standard definition of pollution and seriously tell me that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases don't fit the bill.
The question really is, what on earth do these people have against environmental ethics? Maybe it's because carbon dioxide is a natural substance. Or maybe it's the fact that it seems so costly to do anything about it. Or maybe some people just don't want to face the fact that their own actions have far reaching consequences.
I know the idea of a biosphere is very complex and a tough tough application to run. Do you think anyone would ever think it's a good idea to increase heat trapping gases in a biosphere? How long would it last before the system crosses the threshold into chaos?
I'd like all the naysayers to seriously think about this, let those neurons do their thing. Given the earth as a whole is a complex web and knowing what we know, what makes anyone think that taking a resource from the ground, burning it, and releasing that trapped energy into the atmosphere won't have effects. We know we can't apply nitrogen and phosphorous to agricultural fields continuosly without ramifications, we know the same is true for natural products like manure. We know we can't release natural compounds like cyanide into water courses as effluent without problems. We can't emit many compounds freely without causing acid rain. We certainly can't emit man-made halogenated products without negative impacts. In fact I'll go on record that any human product of manufacturing when released willy nilly will have impacts on the eco-system. So why oh why do we have the blinders on when it comes to the (choke) greenhouse gases? Do we have a penchant to protect the poor ole oil companies? Are our governments powerless to help employees when we have Alberta posting a $7 Billion dollar surplus? Or maybe the whole problem is in the blind fools following the loud mouthed fools, towing some party line like a seal clapping for more herring treats.
Try to find a thread on this site where the environment is being discussed and no political party is mentioned. Hell I've done it, I've dished it to to them all, even the Green party which from my rants you might think was equivalent to a blastpheming priest. Difference as I see it is I hold no allegience to any party.
It's good that people can exercise their critical thought and question science. If not I'd think we were heading for trouble. I've probably wrote too much now and lost some peoples attention.
Seriously think about this, you wouldn't pollute your house with constant toxic gases, even if they were below the toxic concentrations. You wouldn't dump chemicals in your back yard. How is the air we all breathe any less connected to you or I? I've probably inhaled the hot air you belch out, and it goes vice versa. We're all down wind from somebody.
Edit: For the record I don't think the climate change is completely our fault, I do think without question we're helping it along.
