namesnotnames wrote:
What is the problem with reducing carbon emission, creating less pollution, and using new/different sources of energy to power our lives?
These are three fair questions. Here's my answers.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It's plant food. In fact, plant life prospers under increased CO2 levels and food crops become more productive. Reducing CO2 on a global scale is fraught with many problems. It's very expensive and produces little or no meaningful change in future climate. That's assuming that it does in fact affect the climate, which is not proven. It also requires sovereign nations to act outside their own best interests based on biased data and questionable computer models.
Unreliable surface station temperature data: In addition to data being manipulated and stations created out of thin air, the raw data itself is suspect. A survey of official temperature surface stations found that 83% did not meet compliance standards. Some were too close to heat sources, such as parking lots, buildings, air conditioner units, highways, or walls, all which create artificial heat zones. Some were painted the wrong color, which led to greater heat absorption and higher temperatures. When only stations that met reliability standards were averaged, the temperature increase was less than half that reported when all noncompliant stations were included.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/25/study-many-us-weather-stations-show-cooling-maximum-temperatures-flat/It's massive hubris to believe that we can dictate the future CO2 emissions of other sovereign nations. Conservation of fossil fuels is not the answer. Carbon credits are a joke. People are starving and dying in third world nations NOW because of lack of energy. Coal, oil, trees, camel dung... they are going to burn whatever is available to produce energy to heat their huts and cook their food. To survive and prosper, these people need more energy, not less.
Yes, we should be researching alternative energies, but we shouldn't be building operational wind and solar facilities. They are too primitive, too inefficient, too expensive, and too dangerous to the environment. The current generation of these technologies will be dinosaurs in 30 years.
My belief is that it is far better to focus on known, existing problems (dysentery, malaria, measles, better water supplies, air pollution) than to focus on reducing CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, we should also continue research to find a renewable, inexpensive source of alternative energy.