--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On Dec 28, 2008, at 2:21 PM, I am the eternal wrote: > > > I concur with this assessment. However I'll also throw in a few > > observations. As I said before, we are going out of an ice age. If > > there is global warming it might just have something to do with that. > > OK, there are things melting. Well what did you want? Only the > > Garden of Eden area to be temperate? Yes, I believe there was a great > > flood and a temperate Garden of Eden where the people were able to > > switch from hunter/gatherer to farmers. In the Middle East. And this > > dovetails with the end of the Ice Age. I agree that there is a lot > > more crap in the atmosphere then there has been in a while. We even > > see that when we release air trapped in lead tombs in Baltimore. But > > the atmosphere has been full of lots of crap before. And man didn't > > do it. > > > Consider this: > > If global warming is false then that translates into "it's ok to > continue to have rich industrialists exploit the earth (oil slicks, > strip mining, pollution, greenhouse gases, pass a tipping point, > etc.)" and investment will be able to move away from more green > industries and our reliance on unstable, medieval-consciousness > countries will continue. The status quo will be able to continue to > influence governmental policy and how we continue to (as a species) > interact with our environment. > > If global warming is a real phenomenon, then we are (ethically, > morally and survival-wise) forced to go green, for our own survival, > after all we have entered extinction-6. BUT even if we are wrong on > global warming, isn't the moral imperative to go green anyways? Should > we continue the 'largest transfer of wealth inhuman history' to the > Saudis, et al?
I think a proper "shift" would be to carbon-based coal, which the U.S. had oodles of. For example, shifting en masse to the eco-friendly plug-in hybrid car would mean that about 90% or more of the energy used by those cars would come from electricity...which, in turn, would come from coal- fired plants. Yes, it would be carbon-based but, as I understand it, a much, much more efficient use (and therefore less pollution) of carbon than oil-based gasoline. Plus, the money would stay in the US instead of going to the Saudi's et al. > > Therefore, until GW is absolutely proven false, it is morally > reprehensible to advocate on the side of the Petro and Mining > Industrial complex and climate change denial. Actually, many of us on the other side of the issue feel that the policies advocated by and justified by the belief in catastrophic man- made global warming is "morally reprehensible". One need look no further than the Al Gore-enabled food for fuel programs which is, literally, killing human beings in the third world. Further reliance upon and insistance upon "green" beliefs will continue to kill the poor and make their lives more miserable than they would be if carbon-based fuels would be exploited. As for preventing something that has not yet been proven false, sure it is better to be safe than sorry but the costs of doing that have to be weighed, don't you agree? And killing the world's poor is not a cost that I am willing to pay. > It is morally and > ethically supported to move away from methods (even potentially) which > disturb the balance of Gaia's natural homeostasis. I truly believe that Gaia is on the side of the carbon-based industries. The concept of Gaia holds that the Earth is a living organism. As such, it contains and exercises natural "processes" for responding to, say, increases in CO2 in its atmosphere. Like a wound on our flech, a scab appears and is part of the healing process. Gaia and Mother Earth loves and celebrates our exploitation of carbon from her belly. She will take care of any ramifications that result from this in her own way. And it's not some pie-in-the-sky belief, Vaj. Science is and will continue to observe and discover the ways in which the Earth responds to increases in CO2 and how the Earth, through Gaia, will adjust itself. We just aren't aware of how this organism works because we haven't studied it yet. > > So my question is, if you admit that we do not know whether or not GW > is true (and please keep in mind the earth is entering an extinction > phase) or whether it is false and WE MIGHT NOT KNOW TILL IT"S > POTENTIALLY TOO LATE; given that possibility, which "side" would you > prefer to err on? On the side that doesn't kill the poor in order to succeed. > > All life may depend on your decision. > Yes...are you willing to hold this standard up when you consider the courses of action? Because I don't think many are when it comes to policies like food for fuel. Where do you stand, Vaj, on food for fuel?
