Topic: Global Warming
Global Warming & The Space We Live In With much discussion these days regarding global warming it is important to remember that our actual "living" space on earth is relativly small.by Kipper Mathews
(libertarian)
Monday, March 3, 2008
With all the discussion these days about global warming, we need to remember that our living space on this planet or the space in which people can exist in is a very thin layer around our very large planet. That space is only three miles up and three miles down. Three up and you run out of oxygen, three miles down and the heat is to high to sustain human life.
All of the pollution created by man over the last 100 years is some where in that 6 mile space.
In perspective, think about going three miles from your home and think of standing that distance on end. That is the air space we live in.
Now consider 100 million cars in all the large cities around the world polluting that space all day everyday. How much breathable air is left ?
Some of the discussions around global warming is the CO2 caused by the use of fossil fuels. While some believe that the world is better off because of the creation of CO2 as the worlds vegetation breathes it in and in turn breathes out oxygen. This is true except for the fact that we are and have for some time, been eliminating the earths vegetation at alarming rates for the wood products and to clear land in order to build cities.
There has also been a lot of discussion involving the use of alternative fuels to eliminate our dependency on oil and or fossil fuels. Scientists and automobile manufactures are making advances in many hybrid and electric vehicles and the production of electricity powered by wind and solar.
Scientists have also been studying converting of corn into ethanol.
Opponents to this technology, mostly backed by oil producing companies world wide have gone as far as to say that people all over the world will starve if we use our corn supplies for fuel.
The truth of the matter is that the majority of the corn grown in the United States is purchased by the US government in the form of farm subsidies. The government in the disguise of helping farmers to cope with lost crops from natural causes, forces farmers to grow corn at a rate that will build up a reserves of corn big enough to supply the world with corn in case of a catastrophic disaster or war, etc. However the world doesn't consume that much corn. So our Government forces the farmers to grow corn and then forces them to plow the corn back into the fields to keep the price of corn up. Just as they do with many other crops.
That is more or less what they do with oil too, except they leave it in the ground rather than put it back in.
There never has been and never will be a shortage of corn.
VIEW POINT:
When it comes to deciding on what alternative fuels are cost effective and which will help move the United States away from it's dependency on foreign oil, eliminating our "need" to go to war over oil, we have to remember that big oil companies will try anything possible to manipulate Americans with propaganda and fear tactics rather than save the planet or give up their profits.
If you enjoyed reading this article please give it a thumbs up and leave a comment below.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Kipper Mathews only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kipper Mathews is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Ivan from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-03 05:28:59
Interesting point of view. If you reduce the size of the earth to, say, a basketball, the ecosphere would be a membrane with the thickness of a sheet of paper. To consciously pollute our own environment is stupid, but alas there is no shortage of stupidity. (we almost always pave over the best land first). But to entrust a central government to make decisions that the free market should be making is also stupid. The Tokyo accords regarding carbon dioxide are equally stupid, as if the laws of nature could be swayed by a "consensus" of "scientists". How our ecosphere treats us in return is not a democratic issue.
There are more trees on this continent today than there were when Columbus arrived. For a real science-based discussion of the CO2 isssue, follow the link in my article
The point of my article is that when politics and science get mixed up, the net result is typically a policy that enriches the fat cats at the expense of the little guy (we the people). Tell the Mexicans protesting about the cost of their tortillas that there is no shortage of corn. Subsidies for the Archer Daniels Midlands of the world are not good policy. The big agribusiness industry does not treat soil as a precious resource, but that's another discussion.
Politically based decisions that should be the province of science and the free market almost always result in higher costs and inefficient use of capital, usually to the detriment of the little guy.
Posted By: Jeremiah Johnson
Date: 2008-03-03 08:21:02
Regarding the global warming discussion, I always find it interesting to ask, what percent of global greenhouse gases do you believe man contributes to our environment? For instance, (% produced by man)/(% total produced by man and nature). Being raised in public schools and repeatedly told that we were destroying the planet, I was quite amazed when I found out the real amount of affect we are having. It amounts to 0.28% of global greenhouse gases produced by man.
I, too, was a skeptic. But the scientific community is almost unanimous in their verdict that human activity is contributing to global warming.
Since the Industrial Revolution the CO2 in the atmosphere has reached higher levels than it has in 400,000 years, as examined in ice samples.
Perhaps the burning of fossil fuels, added a small percentage. But consider the world-wide practice of clear-cutting and burning as well.
Trees (all life forms for that matter) act as a carbon trap, extracting CO2 from the air and replacing it with life-giving oxygen.
Since, we won't stop our CO2 and CO machines, as we have become dependent on them for mobility, and we won't stop burning coal for power, then we must counter-act this by planting billions of trees and encouraging other countries to stop slash and burn agriculture.
In JJ's statistic: That takes into account water vapor, without it: over 5.5% as a direct consequence of man's activities. Why didn't you point that out?
As a force of nature that is self-aware, we must own up to our responsibility of affecting the climate and contaminating the air we breathe, or face the consequences of denial.
There are many scientists who disagree with the anthropogenic global warming theory. Following are three separate list of scientists who disagree with AGW:
60 scientists signed a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging him not to sign any Kyoto like treaties. The letter states :“The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” Ref [link edited for length]
100 scientists signed a letter to the secretary general of the UN stating:“UN climate conference (is) taking the World in entirely the wrong direction”Ref [link edited for length]
19,000 scientists signed a petition stating:“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Ref [link edited for length]
Now let me ask; where is the list of scientists who do agree with AGW?
Posted By: John Schnackenberg
Date: 2008-03-21 09:49:35
I agree we are not good citizens of our planet and that even starts at a local level where developers pouring money into politicians pockets are focused on building on every inch of land with no regard to environmental consequences.
However as far as we directly causing Global Warming I suggest you visit the following site on glaciers.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
