Published: Tuesday, April 14 2009 12:00 a.m. MDT
Before Mr. Monson and the ideological contrarians begin their daily regimen of
posturing, I would like to mention his retort to a similar point I made
yesterday where he stated that global warming and air pollution are entirely
separate issues, and I would like to point out how egregiously wrong he was.
When one is reducing emissions overall, one is cleaning up the air.Since uncertainty may exist regarding the causality of global warming, the
proponents of this theory should just sell the idea of just cleaning up the
Asphyxiating? I don't think so. The air quality now is much better than even
when I was a kid back in the 60's. Kennecott and Geneva Steel were going full
bore then. During the summer, you couldn't even see the Oqurrih Mountians from
Murray the smog was so bad. My Dad has told me that back in the 30's, 40's, and
50's the air pollution was visibly bad, especially in the winter due to coal
being the prime fuel for heating. I remember sitting in school and looking out
the window in 5th grade. I thought up new lyrics for the old Primary song,
"Popcorn Popping on the Apricot Tree".Yes, we get our temperature
inversions, mainly due to the topography of the area. We get the occasional red
Global warming is a hoax created by Al Gore. Period.
In my opinion... if you need somebody like Al Gore to give you a "Reason" to
take care of your planet, you're an idiot. And if you weren't taking care of
your planet BEFORE Al Gore made his hit movie... Your a fool and no amount of
listening to or passing along GW_propaganda is going to fix that.We
all have our own reasons for being green. We don't need some outside celebrity
or government body to force us to do it for THEIR reasons or THEIR way.The only solution for these large cities you listed with unsustainable
populations (like Los Angeles, Beijing, Mexico City, etc) is to reduce the
population. And you know that's not going to happen.It's
interesting that the main people who push the GW crisis live in large cities
(where the polution problems are worst). But they want the people in rural
America to solve the problem for them.There's no magic pill these
HUGE metropolises can take to solve their resource and polution_problems. Even
if we had electric cars, etc, there would still be air polution in these cities
(hint: Cars aren't the only cause).
I appreciate your letter, Daniel. I agree with you that pursuing renewable
energy sources is a good thing...just like pursuing coal and nuclear energy
sources are good things. With growing demand for energy in this state from a
growing population, we'll need every source we can find. Wind, solar, coal,
nuclear, geothermal, hydro...let's use them all because we'll need them all.What we shouldn't do is use the heavy hand of government to limit the
use of our primary source of energy, based on a scientific theory that is not
playing out as predicted in reality. Doing so will cost thousands of Utahns
their livelihoods and will unnecessarily make living more expensive for
everyone, both of which will hurt the neediest among us the hardest.Such actions are irresponsible, wrong-headed, and represent poor public
Hippee... Jk I agree.
D. Monson ("What's Wrong with Toxic Substances?") and the other industry shills
at Sutherland Institute are remarkably adept at calling good evil and evil good.
They won't be satisfied until the sky is brown with NOx and we're all sucking
carbonic acid instead of saliva. Why? Because Sutherland is funded by Rogers
Corporation, a big polluter in Connecticut.
To Kevin @7:23-I guess this begins my "daily regimen of
posturing"...whatever that means. The point you're missing is that if you want
to make the air cleaner, there are much better ways to do it than fighting
global warming.For example, for decades we have been reducing air
pollution by scrubbing smokestack emissions for particulate air pollution.
Consequently, we've seen drastic reductions in air pollution emissions over that
same time period.Certainly we could attack air pollution by
attacking carbon dioxide via global warming policies. Unfortunately, we would
destroy the jobs and incomes of thousands of Utahns in the process, particularly
impacting the poor.This begs the question of why we should attack
carbon dioxide when better methods, with fewer negatives, exist that we can use?
In this light, reducing air pollution via global warming policies is
irresponsible and nonsensical way to attack air pollution.At its
root, the reason for this outcome is because global warming and air pollution
are separate issues, even though they are related. There are ways to deal with
them separately, and those are the responsible ways to handle them.
To Mike @ 9:00 AM: my grandparents tell the same stories, and I am thankful
things have improved since then. Are you arguing we shouldln't continue to
improve the quality of our environment? I'd like my kids to have a better,
healthier world than the one I grew up in. Don't you?
I couldn't agree more with Daniel's arguement.If you believe in
global warming or not, we all need to do more, much, much more, than has been
done in the past to reduce pollution, use resources more wisely, and seek means
to clean up the damage we have already done.It is amazing to see and
hear comments by so many, justifying continued excess waste of natural resources
because of nonbelief in global warming. Such a poor excuse for not being a
better steward of our earth.
It ain't easy being green
Re: Derek Monson: Thanks for your well-reasoned, insightful comments. I agree
with your logic.
Where is the nuclear power plant discussion. If we want to eliminate the
pollution associated with power production for large cities, nuclear is the best
way to go.
A thought about environmental issues: Maybe there is an unknown hand
guiding all this environmental stuff, which is trying to streamline the earth's
resources so that the earth's population can continue to grow. It could be
similar to the industrial revolution, and the development of all the efficient
agricultural methods that have been developed. I think that it is
pretty obvious that people who are GW deniers, do so mainly because they don't
agree with the ideology of the proponents of GW. I for one would think
it incredibly ironic if the population control/humanist side of environmentalism
led a movement that allowed the earth to support an even larger group of people.
maybe we can all start taking the emission free light rail to downtown SLC and
panhandle. I don't know of any other job I can get in the centrally planned new
world we'll be living in. Seriously, I respect this writer's point of
view. I'm not against clean air. I am against people using scare tactics like
global warming to achieve an objective (that may or may not have anything to do
with clean air). Follow the money....
I do not believe in human caused global warming. Climate change may be happening
but it is a natural occurrence. I am a conservative politically, perhaps closer
to a libertarian, that government it too intrusive. I am not an
environmentalist.I also own a 7 1/2 year old Toyota Prius and I
routinely get 45-50 MPG. I love my car. I didn't buy it to be green but
because it is a seriously good piece of technology and efficiency. I have an
organic garden and grow a lot of my own food. It is part of a philosophy of
being self sufficient, and good stewards of the land and the environment.None of the political labels so often used here apply to me at all, as I
seem to be in both camps at once. The labels and name calling that fills this
forum are useless. Do things because they are the right thing to do.
If you really do believe in being a "good steward of the land and the
environment," and act accordingly (as you say you do), that makes you an
environmentalist whether you like the label or not. You sound like a duck, you
walk like a duck...you must be a duck!
@David Lynn | 4:23 p.m. By this definition almost everyone is an
"environmentalists".The term "Environmentalist" has gradually come
to refer to the more RADICAL environmentalists.I really think most
"normal" people are doing a better job every day on being green. This topic has
just boiled down to a bickernig match between the more radical extreme
positions.I think if you look at it objectively... most people are
doing better today than they were 10 years ago. It's just that some people
won't be happy until everyone is doing it THEIR way, or to THEIR Extremes, or
till everyone confesses Al Gore and Michael Moore were right all along.
Actually fossil fuels are a replenishing source, albeit slowly.NO
one is saying we don't have pollution problems that need fixing,but
we can do that without destroying individual liberties, economic freedom, or
states rights.The left wing nuts want solutions that take power
from us and give it to them (the state), that confisticate by force our money
and our businesses,They want solutions that are disasterous to our
economy, and catastrophic to our country.Let's use common sense and
wisdom, be rational, and not be lemmings follong the liberal left wingnuts off a
gobal climate change cliff.
An Observer may want to reconsider if fossil fuels are a replenishing (or
renewable) source of energy.It seems that to be considered
renewable, an energy source would need to be renewable at a rate equal to or
greater than the consumption rate. Even the world's consumption of fossil fuels
was reduced by 75% in the next couple decades, our consumption will still
outpace any estimate of replenishment.So, to call fossil fuels
renewable is really academic, and absolutely not practical. So, as you say,
"Let's use common sense and wisdom, be rational".
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments