Let me start by stating that I am in complete agreement with the idea that it is our responsibility to use our resources in such a way that is minimally invasive to the environment. Having said that...
I cant put any stock in climate change or climate disruption or whatever its being called now in no small part because all the predictions have been wrong.
The ice age of the 70s-80s
Fail (Time Magazine)
The acid rain of the 80s
Fail (NOAA)
The extinction of the polar bears by early 2000s
Fail (Nat Geo)
The disappearance of the polar ice caps by 2013
Fail (NASA & NOAA)
The 120 degree normal temps in the northern hemisphereFail (NOAA & WSJ)
Even the man responsible for Al Gores scientific research for An Inconvenient Truth turned down his share of the $1million Noble prize awarded for the film, stating that (paraphrasing) his science was purposely skewed to accommodate the hypothesis of global warming and WND reports claims from 2011 by American scientists that most of the data collected that supports climate change is invaild or unusable because 75% of the tempreture measuring instruments were placed in non-nuetral environments like the middle of parking lots or near exhaust vents for office building AC units among other places.
Scientifically the more CO2 in the environment the more nutrients plants have which means they produce more oxygen and more food (Liberty and Tyranny: Mark Levin) None of these are bad in todays world of food shortages and skyrocketing food costs. The CO2 ppm argument is never made in context and it is never mentioned that the US has been responsible for the most drastic decrease in CO2 emissions over the past 25 years in comparison to the rest of the world. The proportion of ppm in context is likened to one tile of one bathroom of the entire Empire State Building. If anything a victory lap is in order due to the tempreture stability over the past 20 years and the severe cut in CO2 by american companies at a cost of trillions to energy companies for compliance in spite of China and India and their complete lack of regulation of "dirty energy" plants. This whole idea of climate change is nothing more than a ploy used by communist and marxist governments and philosophers to justify the nationalization of industry. Hell, Lenin put on the first of the earth day celebrations. It always starts with control of food and fuel for the sake of the environment. In the 170ish years since the Communist Manifesto these concepts have never succeeded in helping the environment but have lead to the deaths of 10s of million. 1920s Ukraine pops into my head as the most vivid example of this during which Stalin literally starved the Ukraine citizens almost into extinction by way of military force. I'd get into more detail but it was an extremly gruesome period.
Naturally i can agree that it is indeed a good idea to be good stewards of the land but not at the expense of the worlds most powerful economy. The notion that we are in enough trouble with the climate to warrant the elimination of coal energy and fossil fuels is irresponsible and shows a lack of understanding in how the economy works. Alternative energy is still far to expensive to be viable. Wind and solar don't produce nearly enough energy to sustain this country. Germany recently tried the solar revolution and now has billions in obselete solar technology that was never capable of reaching the energy demands in the first place. They are now buying energy from surrounding countries who still use coal and nuclear power.
Lets look at it logically. Electricity can not be stored which is why our coal power plants run 24/7. They have to in order to meet the demand. The sun only shines 12 hours a day max and the wind doesn't blow all the time. So, what is to be done when its calm at night and people still need to charge their phones, tablets, cars etc..., for everyday living?
From a politics stand point our government is knee-capping the coal industry with billions of dollars worth of regulations and standards that cant be complied with or met without necessary technologies that we have yet to discover. Couple that with the billions of dollars in extra fuel cost to the military with the switch to bio diesel which is upward of 20 times the cost of regular diesel and you have a calossal and unecessary waste of money in both private and public sectors.
The government is trying to force us into alternative energy without taking into consideration the fact that the market, by a huge majority, doesnt want it because they cant afford it. Simple supply and demand. Wind and solar are limited in production capability in a market where demand is very high. This translates into extremely high costs. Fossil fuel and coal are abundant making it easy to meet demand without shortages and only minimal down time which means they can keep the cost low. Our current economic state is such that the high cost of alternate fuels makes them incompatible with the needs of the market.
Again, we have to be good stewards of our resources but we also have to be smart and responsible in how we go about doing it. Man is not the problem Man's arrogance is. We are such a small spec on this earth to such an extent that every human being (7.2 billion) can stand shoulder to shoulder and still not fill the state of Rhode Island (smallest US state) There simply are not enough people to make as big a negative impact as has been stated. Energy demand is purely a byproduct of a functiong market. The choice of which type of energy best suits the needs of the market should be left to the market participants. Us. It is my contention that we as members of individual communities are far better suited to determine what type/s of energy serves our community best. For this reason I am for an "all-in" approach which lets the market decide rather than letting the goverment pick winners and losers based on bad science and an administrations will to control the people.
