I was talking to one of my close friends a wile ago about global warming and I was surprised to learn how much false information she thought she knew. I want to make sure everyone who reads this essay knows the true facts and not the false beliefs. I asked her what the purpose of the Kyoto treaty was. She said that is was to reduce global warming by the year 2100. I told her that the effect of Kyoto would be to reduce global warming by .04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100 and this would not solve the problem.

Many people think that Kyoto was a first step. But as my friend said, the purpose was to reduce carbon dioxide, not take a first step. Why make a treaty that wont do that. That won’t in fact do anything. My question to all of you is “ do you believe that it is possible to reduce carbon dioxide?” To witch many of you would reply yes.

A lot of people would say something along the lines of “ there are a host of alternative energy sources just waiting to be adopted. Wind power, solar, geothermal––”

Tom Wigley and a panel of seventeen scientist and engineers from around the world made a careful study and concluded it is not possible. They said there is no known technology capable of reducing carbon emissions, or even holding them to levels many time higher than today. They conclude that wind, solar, even nuclear power will not be sufficient to solve the problem. They say a new and undiscovered technology is required.

When I said this to my friend she said, “that’s crazy. Amory Lovins laid it out 20 years ago. Wind and solar, conservation, energy efficiency, there’s no problem.”

But I said “Apparently there is. Lovins predicted that 35% of US power would come from alternative energy by the year 2000. The actual figure is 6%.”

No country in the world produces 35% renewable energy. Japan is 5% renewable. Germany is 5%. England, 2%. Denmark, eight. At this my friend said, “That just means we have more work to do.”

No question about it. We do need to produce more energy. Wind farms chop up birds so they may not be so popular. But we could solve the problem with solar panels. Silent efficient… And all we need is about twenty-seven thousand square miles of panels. Just cover the state of Massachusetts and we’d be done. Of course by 2050 our needs would triple so maybe New York would be better. Lets settle on Nevada, it’s mostly desert anyway. But I was curious about my friends own experience with alternate energy. I asked her what kind of car family drives?

She said that her parents need a big car for the kids so they have a SUV. She dose not have solar panels for her home. I questioned her about her home and family size. I will not disclose the details, but I would say that it is to big for only 5 people.

“Hey”, she then said angrily. “I don’t like your attitude.”

“I’m sorry”, I said. “I’m not judging you. I’m just trying to figure out what your real position is on the environment is.”

She stated proudly that her position was that human beings are heating the planet and poisoning the earth and we have a moral obligation to the biosphere––to all the plants and animals that are being destroyed, and to the unborn generations of humans––to keep these catastrophic changes from taking place.

“So our moral obligation is to others––other plants, animals, and other people?” I questioned.

“Exactly”
“We need to do what is in there interest?”
“What is in the interest of all of us,” she said.
“Conceivably their interest in not the same as ours. Conflict of interest is the usual case.”
“Every creature has the right to live on the planet,” she said flatly.
“Surely you don’t believe that,” I said unbelievably.
“I do. I’m not speciesist. Every living thing.”
“Even the Malaria parasite?”
“Well it is part of nature,” she stated controversially.
“Then do you oppose the elimination of polio and smallpox? They were part of nature too,” I said simply.
“Well I would have to say that it is part of the arrogant pattern of mankind, changing the world to suit his purposes. A testosterone-driven impulse not shared by women––”
“You didn’t answer me”, I said. “Do you oppose the elimination of polio and smallpox?”
“You’re playing with words.”
“Hardly. Is changing the world to suit one’s purposes unnatural?”
“Of course. It is interfering with nature,” she said snottily.
“Ever seen a termite mound? A beaver dam? Those creatures change the environment dramatically, affecting many other creatures. Are they interfering with nature?”
“The world is not in danger’, she said, “from termite mounds.”
“Arguably it is. The total weight of termites exceeds to total weight of all the humans in the world. A thousand times greater, in fact. Do you know how much methane termites produce? And methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.”

After that she left in a huff and was angry with me for the rest of the day. This is what makes me really angry. People like my friend, who wishes to go unnamed, think that the politicians and scientist are being stupid and greedy. They think that no one cares about the environment but them. They say that other people have to do a better job. They think that they are the only ones that care about the world and global warming. My friend is not a bad person, just misled.

Well I care to. I love this planet and especially America. I want to do my part and help the country. But trying to stop global warming is a futile effort. Global warming is a natural process that has been going on for billions of years. Even if the warming was going to kill all of the present animal life on Earth, there are millions of microscopic organisms that thrive on UV radiation. These creatures will evolve into bigger, better, and smarter creatures than we are. We will evolve no matter what. There will be something better than humans here in the next few million years. The world is going to warm weather or not we like it. We do not have the ability to destroy the planet or to save it. Global warming is a natural process. And by the way, this past winter was one of the coldest winters on record. Where the hell is global warming when you need it? Apparently it’s not warming enough. When people ask me what I think people should do about global warming, I tell them to buy an air conditioner. It will warm no matter what.

So, back to Kyoto. My question to all of you is are people causing global warming? My answer is no.

The following facts were taken from a web page and restated by myself the web address is: http://www.heartland.org … ?artId=812

It is true that the percent of carbon dioxide has risen by 25% and average temperature by one degree Fahrenheit. The question is weather or not the rise in temperature and of carbon emitted by humans is connected.

Two of the most widely believed human contributes to global warming are fossil fuels and aerosols. The warming in the last century occurred in 2 stages. ½ degree in 1910----–1940 and another ½ degree in 1980s and 1990s. From the 1940s-70s the planet cooled slightly. If gas burning is causing so much global warming, why did the planet cool durring WWII? This is when billions of gallons more of the stuff was used for the war.

Also with the aerosols 90% of them are manufactured in the Northern Hemisphere. When the aerosols go into the air they collect in the atmosphere. But they get rained down before they reach the Southern Hemisphere. This means that the Northern Hemisphere should be warmer than the southern. This is not the case. They both warmed at the same rate.

This shows that the warming is not caused by humans as much as it is by the natural word. Besides, haven’t any of the genius scientists realized that we are still coming off a major ice age? Maybe the planet is just still warming up. In my opinion, the world is not in any danger from us humans.

please send comments to alway_shoot@yahoo.co.uk

Article Source: http://www.articleset.com