Originally Posted by Pillar of Armor
Here's what it comes down to, carbon sequestered in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has increased significantly. In simple models and experiments carbon traps heat. Global average temperatures have raised a few degrees at a rate that correlates with the increase in carbon in the atmosphere. So, correlation: yes. Cause and effect: some say yes, some say no.
What do you do with this knowledge? Well, you could look at it like this example: "Well we could be poisoning our water. Do we continue our actions and take the risk or change and ensure that we don't poison ourselves." One would think you wouldn't want to take the risk, but lets say that isn't enough for you.
Here is some other intensives for changing our current energy paradigm.
Energy Security: we rely heavily on foreign oil and other fuels, most of which comes from the middle east, with oil prices controlled by OPEC. Even if we were to max out production here in the US and drill everything we have, we simply don't have enough supply. Next best option? Nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, energy efficiency standards, energy conservation.
Energy Value: Oil is getting damn expensive, and the price is only going north. Other energy options are seeing price decreases as the tech gets better. Need I say more?
Ocean Acidification: We know we are putting carbon in the atmosphere. The biggest carbon sink that pulls it back out of the atmosphere is the ocean (pretty simple chemistry). The problem with the carbon in the ocean is that it increases the acidity, which is hazardous to organisms that are important to our food supply and it damages corral reefs which are important for shore protection (harbors, shipping lanes, residential areas). Technical stuff here |
It's really an opinion (and there have been plenty of experiments and studies to "prove" both sides right) as to the effects of carbon, and the REAL question of whether or not we need to change the "carbon habit" in particular. I am of the opinion that the carbon emissions in regards to global warming are not an issue, but that's not to say I can't change my mind/form a different opinion in the future.
Just one point I'd like to make about oil -- most of our oil is not actually imported from the middle east -- it is imported primarily from Canada at just under 20% of our import (which accounts for 58% of the oil -- the other 42 we pump domestically). Mexico and Saudi Arabia are the next two in line, trading places frequently. The following runners up include nations in South America and Africa. Iraq and the remainder of OPEC account for a little under 7% of our imports (which comes out to about 4% of total oil for the US). We are not involved in the petrol dollar because we just love oil. We could dump oil if we really wanted to and it was a national interest. But it is not a national interest. How do you control the world [currently]? Oil. How do you control oil? Prices and trading. How do you control prices and trading? Consumption and treaties, respectively.
Not to harp on the co2 thing again, but there's a couple glaring holes: "From some odd 1800's until 1994..." So......last 18 years anyone? I can't find this article anymore unfortunately (which is a shame, and I'm no conspiracy theorist but the original blog I found it published on was taken down with no explanation and the article no longer exists in the form it was published...) so you'll have to take me at face value (or not -- believe whatever you want to believe, doesn't matter to me really, I just enjoy the occasional engagement). Basically NASA (which historically is an organization which very much supports the notion of anthropogenic [since we're throwin that term around a lot] climate change) had either launched a satellite (I'm pretty sure this was the case) or they used a satellite already in orbit with the proper capabilities (not so sure this one is right) to measure the levels of carbon dioxide in earths atmosphere over time (something like an 18-24 month period -- the report came out in the last 6 months or so). Turns out that during that period, the level of carbon dioxide didn't increase at all -- if I recall correctly, they found that it was escaping out of the atmosphere (I could be completely wrong about that one, but I'm
pretty sure it was the conclusion they came to). Again, could be wrong about that last part and maybe the ocean is simply absorbing it more as the atmosphere (supposedly) has reached its carbon saturation.
Either way, plant trees.
EDIT: On the libertarian stuff. Basically...yeah lol. I personally find libertarian philosophy to be the most moral of the political parties, and that's saying something for a political party. But watching the youtube armchair libertarians that do nothing but post their videos and bitch about how shitty everything is in regards to government and industry control while you can see that they're in a suburb or a city through the window in the background and they have IKEA furniture and other random bullshit from target and walmart and I don't see these people wearing clothing they made themselves (from cloth they wove themselves, if we really wanna be hippie about it). This is not to say all libertarians who post on youtube are like this; I've seen plenty that simply post to respond to others who just randomly bash libertarians and what not, and plenty of us do walk the walk as well -- it's just difficult to see us all the way from the city (which I can't WAIT to leave the city; people get my PTSD all wadded up in my panties -- you know, stranger danger and all that).
...Wow: /tangent.