Global Warming
“Global Warming”, which is now called “Climate Change” to hedge for a potential drop in temperatures, has come to be an increasingly important issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is “Global Warming” just the latest big government hoax to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for oppressive policies?
On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:
“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.
Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.
It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.
The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.
We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.
Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.
Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”
For an environmental insider’s view on the “Green Agenda” and its background and motivations check out The Green Agenda.
Print This Page
Word.
[Reply]
I have been more supportive to you and your campaign than anyone I know. I put out signs, attempted to spread the word, attended one of your rallies, and even contributed to your campaign. This issue ,however, is one which I wish you would reconsider how you look at it. I agree with you that government is a poor substitute for the market but the government still needs to govern.That means that when Autism is rising in the developed world at a much quicker rate than in the underdeveloped counterparts and we know that heavy metals can act as a trigger we don’t take the sky is falling approach we take the common sense approach. When we find atrazine(a herbacide known to cause birth defects and change the sex of some species of fish)in the breast milk of Inuit mothers that there is no escape for any American and we must act. Allowing Multi-national corporations or big lobby farmers to spread there disease to every citizen is not just. As far as global warming in specific we know what it may do. We already have alternatives so I agree with you on the market approach but it won’t be possible without the legislation to stop unjust polluters. Allowing them to do this is the equivalent of a subsidy that we will all have to pay the bill for when it affects our health. I pay for my garbage to be disposed of properly so should “they”.
[Reply]
Derrick,
There is only one way to ensure that you produce no more greenhouse gas; i.e., stop you from breathing out carbon dioxide. Are you ready for that remedy?
Heavy metals and atrazine do not create carbon dioxide like you do, right? The issue here is global warming; not other kinds of pollution. You confuse the issue with discussion of other pollutants and polluters. I hope you did not mean to do that.
[Reply]
Global warming is a myth if not a lie. And it is another form of terrorism. Soon we’ll be paying taxes just to breathe due to this scare-mongering.
[Reply]
As I understand it, the question is not whether or not the climate is changing but whether or not man caused it and whether or not man can prevent it. If the human factor is true then action is called for.
But climate change is being used as one of the many attempts to make people feel guilty for existing. However, we humans are a part of nature and cannot destroy it. Our attempts to survive by manipulating the environment is no less natural for us than using claws and teeth to kill “innocent” prey are for a mountain lion.
That said, alternate energy makes a lot of sense to me. After moving to the Inland Empire in California, I learned that alternate energy can be self-sustainable.
[Reply]