... using dirty fuels and industries that emit anything other than CO2 or O2 is crapty. it is crapty for your lungs, for the smog it makes, and for the waste it creates.
As a former resident of the Los Angeles area I couldn't agree more. It really sucked those afternoons when I couldn't see the San Gabriel Mountains from my office window despite the fact that they were barely five miles away. However, lying and inventing a crisis in order to address an issue you haven't been successful in addressing directly is not only bad policy it will, in the long run, damage your cause. Once the global warming hoax is widely seen as the fraud it is folks trying to effect change for the right reasons will face that much more skepticism and that much more resistance.
do you think using all our NON-renewable resources is a good idea?
It really depends on whether we're happy living in detached single family homes and having mobility independent of our physical condition or the whims of whatever agency happens to be running the local public transportation. If you want to move to a commune by all means, move to a commune. Personally I'll pass because I know for a fact that the free market, if the left doesn't manage to tax or regulate it out of existence, will replace non-renewable sources of energy as the cost of using it becomes unbearable. In a century or two all of these issues will work themselves out. Distorting the market via drastic government intervention will only impede progress in that direction.
Right now people are getting rich selling global warming propaganda and suckling at the government teat "researching" a hoax. Better to take the carbon tax/credit nonsense off the table and allow the markets to move towards a real long-term solution rather than having the government attempt to choose winners. Ethanol anyone? Wind turbines that kill raptors? Offshore wind farms that damage the marine environment? Legislating clean coal plants right out of the market in favor of clean burning natural gas then wondering why the price of said gas increases seven fold in under a decade. Etc. The only guarantee is that whatever solution the government favors will be, at the absolute best sub-optimal and more likely downright asinine.
let's fix things before they become a big problem, the technology is out there to do amazing things that pollute less and use re-newable technology.
Of course and right now we're doing the best thing imaginable to make that happen: allowing oil prices to stay high. Every time you hear a politician talking about reducing the cost of oil / gasoline what they're really saying is, "I don't care about environmentally friendly fuels or renewable energy."
what reasons are there to keep being wastefull and pollute if we don't need to? nevermind the off chance that we may be irreversabilby changing our climate to unstable and unheard of levels that our current population (and population distribution) can not deal with...
Because doing so will guarantee that we're forced to make changes sooner rather than later. Conservation of oil merely prolongs our dependence on it by guaranteeing a supply for that many more years. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
And if the climate is irreversible warming (it is not BTW) every warm period in human history has coincided with great advances in science and the arts, every cold period with a decline of the same. Yet more proof that lefties desperately want to return to the Dark Ages.
