There is no slam dunk for AGW...there isn't even a slam dunk for GW. There's nothing conclusive to indicate that we are not simply going through a cycle that we were going to go through one way or another.
Actually, no. 95% of climate scientists agree the planet is getting warmer, and humans are responsible. I don't even have to point to the dying coral reefs or the melting glaciers, I can just look at how much more mild winters here are in Chicago compared to when I was growing up 45 years ago. When I grew up, we had a healthy level of snow by Thanksgiving. Now we are lucky if we see snow by January.
Future generations will be confused by the song "Baby, it's cold outside", not because of it's tacit endorsement of date rape, but because it actually used to get cold outside.
I never mentioned anything about gas guzzling cars but you did twice. Efficiency has its limits... energy transactions will cost a certain amount regardless of how you obtain them. Electric vehicles have a larger carbon footprint than the gas powered ones because they still need hydrocarbons to produce them and to charge them. People who claim that they charge only with solar or wind are full of shit. You're still Vested in the machinery. Yhe machinery requires massive hydrocarbon expenditure to produce it.
Actually,we could also have more hydroelectric or nuclear power to reduce our carbon footprint. We can replace coal power with natural gas, which burns cleaner. We have a whole bunch of options, and we should be looking at ALL of them.
No it's not just about supply and demand because no one is going to produce at a loss for any length of time. Having said that there's no question that running on an all electric car economy will take a bigger chunk of free spending money per Capita household then hydrocarbons are currently taking.
Works on the assumption that technology will remain static. Electric cars are Far more efficient than they were 20 years ago.
You're wrong about simple efficiency as an alternative goal....the people who are pushing these things are definitely looking to shut down hydrocarbon combustion completely. You seem be more reasonable on the issue..
But the progressive left by and large is not.
You can always try to argue a point with the most radical straw man on either side. But let's get real. Our dependence on fossil fuels are damaging the environment AND are empowering guys like Putin and the Ayatollahs in Iran. This is an issue where there SHOULD be bipartisan agreement on. But when the GOP is anti-science, you generally have a problem.
When I was younger (god, how many times do I say that... I'm ******* old), Ozone Depletion was a big concern. Big Hydro Florine didn't pay billions for fake scientists to bullshit us. Ronald Reagan listened to the scientists, and despite his idealogical bent against government action, signed on to the Montreal accords and alternatives were found. As a result, Ozone damage has been arrested and is reversing.
Refusing to save the planet because it would impose on your lifestyle is not only selfish, it's foolish. Denying we have a problem in the face of evidence is even worse.
You're Also completely wrong about China. It doesn't matter what they're producing for green energy.Their Hydrocarbon emissions are increasing by 5 to 7% annually along with India, Pakistan Indonesia and Russia. I mean what the **** are you talking about man? Do you even know?
That's like keeping your stereo on 11 because your neighbor won't turn his down... you still end up with busted eardrums... but you showed 'em, didn't you.
Let me repeat... the hydrocarbon emissions are increasing not decreasing so who gives a shit what they build for windmills or solar panels? That's like a rapist excusing himself for his activity because he donates to a center for women's health.
Again, not really a good metaphor. A better metaphor is that an overweight person might still be eating more calories than a healthy person, but at least they are making the effort to cut intake and lose weight. If we develop the technologies, China will adopt them, eventually.
www.statesman.com
www.dailymail.co.uk
