Oh, boxmonkey, you mean people like ME, don’t you!!! You’re saying I just want the environment selfishly for myself - to use and abuse. Owch!! You got me doc,… I didn’t see it coming.

APB:
*The character assassin (a.k.a. “boxmonkey”) has struck again. He or she skillfully slipped in and out of this blog without leaving a trace of evidence or reason behind. *

I’m so melodramatic and arrogant sometimes. Sorry.

Seriously though, I would repeat what I said about some topics you should look into, but if it fell on def ears once, then…. let’s not be redundant. So just a few points:

1st - Thanks for the response.

2nd - The Kyoto protocol was a good example of political science, not practical science. You many think it should have been ratified by congress. Billions of dollars spent (not on education, welfare, national defense, ect), all for a POSSIBLE DECREASE in the EXPECTED INCREASE of global temperatures by a fraction of a degree over 30 years.

3rd - Every dollar spent on trying to cool the earth - could be spent on food for the starving, education, ect. So we’d better be sure we can cool it.

4th - I love the environment. But there are plenty of examples where by trying to save the environment - humans have only worsened the situation and cost human lives. I’m worried that in trying to stop global warming, we will hurt the environment even more, or even cost human lives.

5th - Please give me an example of this “overwhelming scientific evidence”. One example will suffice - if you have the time or interest.

6th - The NUMBER ONE “greenhouse gas” is,……. hydroxyl acid, also known as dihydrogen monoxide. So next time you water your lawn, you’d better think long and hard about increasing the local evaporation rate of this toxic chemical.

7th - Bloodletting can be beneficial for certain types of infections, and there was plenty of “scientific evidence” given at that time for the use of this technique. The problem was the interpretation of the “evidence”.

8th - Questioning GLOBAL warming VIA HUMAN ACTIVITY, is NOT akin to denying that pollution exists, or hating the environment. I’m not a Holocaust denier for Pete’s sake.

9th - I love lists.

10th - I like even numbers.

If you don’t believe that we are on such a path, then you are clearly ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence to support this idea, something that bloodletting never had going for it.

1. National Security
2. Personal Economics
3. Personal Preference
4. Scientific Exploration

Reducing fossil fuel consumption should NOT be done for:

1. Self-righteous environmentalism.
2. Saving the environment.
3. Reducing global warming.

People SHOULD inform themselves about:

1. Le Chatelier’s principle in regards to gaseous atmospheric reactions.
2. LOCAL temperature increases due to urban sprawl, and how they effect world averages.
3. Solar activity and global warming.

In due time, this “global warming via human activity” idea will be relegated to its place in history along with phrenology and bloodletting.

I would love to have a hybrid or even a small efficient car, or maybe even a diesel car so I could experiment with making biodesel from waste vegetable oil, but there’s no way I can afford such a thing, and I’m not even among our nation’s poorest.

Europeans ‘enjoy’ astronomical gasoline prices because they have astronomical taxes to feed their astronomical appetite for socialism. I know, I lived in Germany for a total of 7 years between 1975 and 1992. Having said that, Europeans do enjoy a fabulous public transit system. It works well there because: #1 the geography is different, Europeans tend to be more centrally located while here in the U.S. we are more spread out; #2 attitude, Americans are more free-spirited and less likely to allow anything to encroach on our automobile “rights”.

I hope that higher prices are the beginning of us taking seriously the option of renewable energy (I filled my car today with an ethanol/petrol mix). However whilst higher prices may mean individuals are using slightly less, globally the world is using more. Hybrid cars, and legislation favouring them, could be part of the solution. So too could better public transport. Working closer to where we work is another, as is working from home when we can. I’m sure there are many, many more solution.

Unfortunately I think it’s going to be up to the market to drive change. It’s only when consumers start opting for other options that things will change. I have little faith in governments doing this when there is short-term economic pain involved that decreases the chances of success at the next election. It will be easier for politicians to say thing have to change when the world is a complete mess. The need for drastic change will be clear then, and an electoral winner. Unfortunately you don’t appreciate what you have until it’s gone, and I’m very sad about the way our generation is treating the world - which belongs just as much, maybe more, to our children and greandchilren, than it does to us.