Carbon dioxide: They call it a pollutant. We call it Life.
That's the latest ad tagline of an environmental think tank called CEI funded by, surprise, the oil industry.
This is their response to Time magazine's "Special Report" on Global Warming.
I thought the points they made were interesting and valid, but I doubt many people will bother to read through it. =p Their stance in general is that the hype about the dangers of Global Warming is unsubstantiated, fuelled through sensationalism in articles from supposedly reputable publications like Time =p
3 comments:
I'd be wary of anything produced by a stakeholder with a large degree of bias, in a field where almost all environmental scientists have agreed that global warming exists and is a major crisis situation...
They do have some valid points, however, their points do not really lead to the conclusion "so we should ignore the problem and keep polluting", unlike what they are evidently trying to say. Also they forget that the "high" end of the predictions are based on high rates of pollution, something that they are (evidently) promoting.
I think a lot of people sort of forget that economic progress does not necessarily require greater environmental destruction. Environmentalism and good fiscal policy CAN go hand in hand, if you're smart about it.
I think that yes, there may not be complete proof that C02 levels lead to global warming or whatever (I'm not a scientist, and I'm not very smart, and I'm drunk). But scientist do agree that there is a corellation.
Do we wait around till there's irrefulable proof? If there's a good chance CO2 levels are hurting us, then lets not take the risk with the planet eh? Since we don't have anywhere else to live. Yes, Carbon Dioxide is good, necessary even, but the ad that I bothered to watch was like "Carbon Dioxide is essential for us to live. And these people are bagging it? What do they have against Carbon Dioxide? We *like* Carbon Dioxide. Prejudice bastards."
Which was very nice and emotive, but honestly, it's a chemical. A chemical that's necessary for the balance of nature, but for any balance, too much is a bad thing.
I reckon the problem might not be as bad as some hippies make it out to be. But it *is* something that should seriously be watched over. And the way that site totally bags out things like conservation of energy (like conservation of energy ever hurt anyone) I think is a bit over the top.
As for stuff like answering so called FAQ's like "Does global warming cause Malaria?" That seemed to me like a total ploy, to make out that environmetalists are all stupid and paranoid. (although shit, for all I know there might be a lot of scientific basis to back that up, but it seemed dumb to me, and it felt like those CEI people were using that question to make hippies seem like they didn't know what they were on about.
I guess, I like the fact that there's at least some sort of response. Two sides to the argument, but I feel like the environmentalists still have a stronger argument.
After writing the above I read the article that was in respone to some "time" artice (or I read the short response anyway) but even the fact that they're asking ECONOMISTS whether it's worth thinking about global warming, whether it's FINANCIALLY worth thinking about, is ridiculous. That's like asking your accountant about AIDS.
But, I have to agree with Snipergirl here. There are many viable alternatives to envoronmental destruction that just haven't been looked at very well. Perhaps in the short run there might be set backs, but long term it's pretty clear that being environmentally friendly isn't even that much of a hindrance to corporate and technological success.
This is probably totally irrelevant, but I've been working at Coles (a very large supermarket chain) and the management seem to have this idea that being cruel and hard and selfish (in terms of making money) leads to better profit margins. This is something that seems to be perpetuated very strongly in certain American and (I hate to admit) even Australian Wall Street culture. They don't see that caring not only doesn't cost very much, it can actually help you.
/end rant.
why they're taking the financial angle to things is because their conclusion (based on whatever scientific studies they quote) is that the "impact" of human-contributed global warming is very small and that it is far cheaper to directly mitigate those effects rather than reducing human-contributed global warming.
this goes to the core of why we want to stop global warming in the first place : because it affects humanity.
as for the rest of the animals and plants on this planet : they've survived far greater temperature variations in the past, the optimal temperature in terms of global biodiversity is a few degrees higher than it currently is anyway IIRC, and global warming is a very tiny facet of the human-caused stresses that are afflicting our ecosystem anyway.
Post a Comment