This reporter just cannot understand the reason people are against cleaning up what seems to be harmful emissions.
On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, a Congressman insisted that global warming was a hoax. He said there was no scientific consensus that it was real; in fact, scientists around the world agreed that it was a lie, a nasty hoax that would cost the country millions of jobs and inflict terrible economic harm on the people who could afford it least.
The bill now before Congress is far from perfect. Some of us, who believe there is scientific consensus, are convinced that the threat is very real and have no doubt that the cost of doing nothing is overwhelming. In fact, many of us believe the bill is a pale sample of what is necessary and what we should be doing.
Usually, I try to understand opposing opinions. It’s not always easy but I make the attempt. This time, I can’t do it. Even if someone doesn’t accept climate change as a consequence of our use of fossil fuels, I don’t understand how anyone can say that having more toxins in the air is better than having fewer toxins. I don’t know anyone who likes having smoke from a lovely fireplace blow back into the room because the damper is closed. I don’t know anyone who likes standing next to a car burning far more oil than it’s supposed to. I don’t even know anyone who wouldn’t leave if an oil tanker blew up and caught fire in front of their home. Even if someone believes there is no long-term consequence to the planet from any of those situations, I suspect they’d want to leave the immediate area.
Clearly, what is logical to me seems equally unreasonable to others. I know some people have a philosophical objection to government regulations, some object to cap-and-trade as a policy and some are convinced the private sector is best able to regulate itself. Okay. I’m still not going to sit in a room filled with smoke and claim my lungs feel great.
Title: Say what!? By: Fred Posted: June 29, 2009 2:15 PM
I think you miss the point completely. For those of us old enough to recall, regulations made this industry and our environment is so much better today and 4o years ago. However, they need to make sense.
Your examples are about emissions from various hydrocarbon sources such as burning wood, poorly tuned vehicles, oil tanker explosions, etc. These are visible and often odiferous emissions that have little of the GHG emissions that are supposedly being targeted. Not every car is an oil burner and those that are should be removed. Most produce almost no discernable odor.
They say that the devil is in the details. I challenge you to actually do what few of those that voted did and read the bill that the House just passed. I would be most surprised if it does not curl your toes and raise your eyebrows as you see things like paying, not only Americans, but other countries for growing trees and there will be no oversight to prove the trees actually exist. How about that last minute provision that will require an extra inspection when you sell you home to make sure you have the right light bulbs and windows in your home. You will not be allowed to sell until the home is brought up to specific energy rating standards that are not even defined completely in the bill yet.
A government that tells me what car I will drive, what food to put in my mouth, what appliances to set, where I must set my thermostat, etc. is not a free-world government. I, for one, will not be surprised when they try to tell me I must have a computer chip placed under my skin to control everything I can buy and we all have to wear uniform clothing the way things are currently going.
Title: Lessons from History By: Jack Posted: June 30, 2009 11:50 AM
An old fairytale talks about a boy who shouted that a wolf was chasing him in order for him to gain attention ends in tragedy as a wolf really chases him but nobody believes it after so many lies. It appears in reality that we are much more gullible as the boy could only fool the people for a short time before they ignored him but today, we continue to eat up the doomsayers that continue to warn against catastrophic climate changes.
In 2006, the Business & Media Institute reported that the press had been reporting climate change was creating coming disasters in the 1800s. Noel Sheppard is an Associate Editor at the Institute. In 2007, he published a study that he chronicled of New York Times articles that have touted just that going back to 1855. Feel free to follow the details at http://newsbusters.org/node/11640.
The big difference between yesteryear and today is that certain politicians and corporate manipulators have maneuvered to take advantage of upcoming changes and fully expect to financially benefit from this ruse on a much larger scale than has ever been seen in the past. Maybe you can fool people all of the time.
Title: Right On! By: Tom Posted: July 1, 2009 3:18 PM
I agree with you Ms. Quinn. How can we as responsible citizens of this world accept injecting litterally millions of tons of anything man-made into the atmohphere and just accept it as a means of doing business. We teach our kids (or hope we do) to clean up their own messes and we should be setting the example. Just because it might not be visible does not make it real.
Title: Global Warming? It’s About Garbage in the Air By: Suresh Posted: July 14, 2009 5:39 AM
I agree with you Ms Quinn; If you are living in the USA, then Big corporations & industry lobbyists will keep arguing with the help of their stupid & technically illiterate lawyers that there is no global warming or it is OK to emit gases from industries or cars.
These people are only worried about their pockets, not the environment, nor the sustainability for future generations.
Title: climate change By: paul Posted: July 17, 2009 6:36 PM
i can remember in the past the doomsayers proclaiming ice age coming.
not too many years ago CO2 was going to freeze the planet and the global temperature was going down, then Magically the same CO2 was causing the temperature to go up.
newer more accurate satilite temperature readings show the themperature has been going quite down fast since 2001, and urban encrochment on previous sensor net gives some land based sensors eronious temperature increases.
i none the less do feel we need to consider the environment we live in. CO2 is not a polution any more than N2 and O2. plants need CO2 as much as people need O2 there are a lot of ugly things being put into the environment that are dangerous to mankind lets pick our wars where they will do the most good.
Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to the magazine.
By: Fred
Posted: June 29, 2009 2:15 PM
Your examples are about emissions from various hydrocarbon sources such as burning wood, poorly tuned vehicles, oil tanker explosions, etc. These are visible and often odiferous emissions that have little of the GHG emissions that are supposedly being targeted. Not every car is an oil burner and those that are should be removed. Most produce almost no discernable odor.
They say that the devil is in the details. I challenge you to actually do what few of those that voted did and read the bill that the House just passed. I would be most surprised if it does not curl your toes and raise your eyebrows as you see things like paying, not only Americans, but other countries for growing trees and there will be no oversight to prove the trees actually exist. How about that last minute provision that will require an extra inspection when you sell you home to make sure you have the right light bulbs and windows in your home. You will not be allowed to sell until the home is brought up to specific energy rating standards that are not even defined completely in the bill yet.
A government that tells me what car I will drive, what food to put in my mouth, what appliances to set, where I must set my thermostat, etc. is not a free-world government. I, for one, will not be surprised when they try to tell me I must have a computer chip placed under my skin to control everything I can buy and we all have to wear uniform clothing the way things are currently going.
By: Jack
Posted: June 30, 2009 11:50 AM
In 2006, the Business & Media Institute reported that the press had been reporting climate change was creating coming disasters in the 1800s. Noel Sheppard is an Associate Editor at the Institute. In 2007, he published a study that he chronicled of New York Times articles that have touted just that going back to 1855. Feel free to follow the details at http://newsbusters.org/node/11640.
The big difference between yesteryear and today is that certain politicians and corporate manipulators have maneuvered to take advantage of upcoming changes and fully expect to financially benefit from this ruse on a much larger scale than has ever been seen in the past. Maybe you can fool people all of the time.
By: Tom
Posted: July 1, 2009 3:18 PM
By: Suresh
Posted: July 14, 2009 5:39 AM
These people are only worried about their pockets, not the environment, nor the sustainability for future generations.
By: paul
Posted: July 17, 2009 6:36 PM
not too many years ago CO2 was going to freeze the planet and the global temperature was going down, then Magically the same CO2 was causing the temperature to go up.
newer more accurate satilite temperature readings show the themperature has been going quite down fast since 2001, and urban encrochment on previous sensor net gives some land based sensors eronious temperature increases.
i none the less do feel we need to consider the environment we live in. CO2 is not a polution any more than N2 and O2. plants need CO2 as much as people need O2 there are a lot of ugly things being put into the environment that are dangerous to mankind lets pick our wars where they will do the most good.