I first want to assert that despite the disparity of viewpoints on global warming, I believe there is an element that most participating in the debate have in common. That something is the desire to be responsible stewards of the earth so that future generations can thrive on this one and only earth we call home. If we are to continue to flourish as a species, this means continued use of the natural resources the earth has to offer, some of which are renewable, and some of which are not. As imperfect creatures with limited albeit growing knowledge, we will always struggle to meet the ever increasing resource demands of a rapidly growing world population. Yet we have discovered that long term sustainability is critical to the future, which requires as minimal an impact on the environment as possible, judicious use of non-renewable resources, and maximum use of renewable resources.
My main grievance with the subject of global warming is the mass hysteria and fear mongering surrounding it, and the utter lack of balance and legitimate debate in terms of defining precisely what global warming is, what its causes are, and what its potential dangers may be. What many don’t understand is that long term warming and cooling trends have been occurring for hundreds of millions of years, and that it is only very recently and for a very short period of time on the geological time scale that homo sapiens sapiens has graced the earth with his intellect and capacity to impact the environment through the building of advanced civilizations and supporting industries. Thus, I am a bit skeptical that in 200 years or so of carbon-based industrial output, human activity has become the primary cause of global warming, or has even contributed greatly.
Former Vice President Al Gore has claimed that the “science is settled” on global warming, but this violates an important principle of scientific theories. Scientific theories are provisional, and are constantly subjected to falsification. This couldn’t be more applicable than in the case of global warming, which is largely predicted by computer models that have serious limitations due to the sheer complexity of the climate system. With such complexity, given the everyday uncertainty we experience with weekly weather predictions, is it wise for us to put complete faith in some computer models that are projecting increased temperatures and rising oceans fifty to one hundred years into the future? I would not until there is more data and more open debate. Regardless, I will put my faith in the good earth that has been responding to climate change for millions of years, and also the brilliant minds working on promising technologies that will allow society and industry to have as little impact on the earth as possible so it can continue to do its job of supporting life. So there is no need for panic even if the direst predictions prove to have merit, and it turns out that man is not the main cause of global warming.
Thus, my suggestion is that we cool down the hysteria and exercise common sense. The fact is we don’t know for certain to what degree human activity contributes to global warming. What we do know is that regardless of the cause, we need to be the best stewards of the earth that we can in order to assure future survival, to the best that we know how. I emphasize the best that we know how because we are imperfect beings that will always be limited in knowledge compared to what can be known about the universe. Introducing carbon taxes and carbon offsets would be inane given our current understanding, would be ridiculously complicated, and would only benefit those that administer them and make money off the transactions. Few would win in this shell game while most everyone forced to play would lose liberty and freedom.
We should diligently work towards solar, wind, geothermal and other forms of renewable energy that provide the least impact to the environment, simply because it is the right thing to do both individually and corporately, and not because government bureaucrats are buying into doom and gloom fifty years from now if we don’t. Private industry based on market forces should drive this innovation with encouragement and support from government, but without productivity sapping mandates and needless meddling. It will take time over the next couple of decades for new technologies to mature both technically and economically to the point that they can carry the load for home and industrial energy generation. So in the short term we need to increase domestic exploration for petroleum and natural gas. With respect to transportation, we must begin the transition to natural gas and renewable alcohol-based fuels in order to power cars, trucks, and aircraft, which will considerably cut down on CO2 emissions.
In the end analysis, what allows societies to continue and to thrive in concert with the earth are the day to day individual and corporate decisions that build up to a collective result. Yielding that power to centralized government with the expectation that a few can direct and control desired outcomes has always failed in the forms of socialism and communism. We cannot effectively meet the challenges of today and tomorrow any other way than a free market system with limited government and sensible regulations, and an informed populous that works together to achieve great ends.
References:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=369494
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84421
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Comments on this entry are closed.