Tuesday, July 24, 2007

7-24-07: Global Warming Revisited

I had a pretty interesting conversation with a buddy from work today about global warming. To be honest, he didn't know much about the topic, but, of course, had an opinion. I'm no expert, but I've read a bit.

One of his arguments was that, even if we're not sure man is responsible for global warming, we should still do something about it. I cited how the Kyoto Accord won't have an effect unless overall emissions drop 30% instead of the planned 10%, but "that's a start." Well, not really. Imagine donating $10 a day over the course of a politician's campaign. By the end of a couple years, you'll have given quite a bit of money, but they probably won't have any idea who you are. Whereas, if you donated the full amount at once, they'd likely see your name and might even listen to something you have to say. $10 will have no effect.

After work, a funny things popped into my head that, I think, is an interesting way to look at the "we should just do something anyway" argument. For the sake of argument, let's assume a great deal more liberals are on the side arguing that man-made global warming exists (note: saying "global warming exists" is not what I'm getting at; I'm going after "global warming exists AND is man-made). Now take the war in Iraq. Many liberals, and others, feel that the war has been doomed from the start. I don't quite think so, but let's just say "You're right. In hindsight, maybe it wasn't the best logic." Their reasoning is that the information the United States and coalition forces used was faulty. Saddam Hussein allegedly had weapons of mass destruction, so we invaded. There were other reasons, but liberals like to point that big one out.

So basically their argument is that taking drastic action without thinking it through and dealing with true facts is a bad idea. I agree with that logic, in general (not necessarily in this case because politicians like to cover their ass even after voting FOR the war). Now, these same people, for the most part, are saying that, despite evidence to the contrary, we MUST take action against global warming.

I see a definite parallel. Sure, the magnitude may not be quite the same, but the concept is. Weapons of mass destruction cause death; global warming may cause extinction. The roles seemed to be reversed, and the war isn't even over! Yes, you can say "this isn't a political deal; this is our survival!" Bullshit. Once policies are made, it's... politics. Government grants are given away every day to research the man-made warming theory. Money that could help further out development is now spent on making things "greener."

Technology has given us a lot, but it has taken away a lot, too. Whatever happened to thinking things through? Whatever happened to taking the time to find reason? The world has become so fast. It's nice to take a break and just think for a while.

No comments: