Global Warming




Global Warming has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is Global Warming just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other 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.”

After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on […] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009

For an environmental insider’s view on the “Green Agenda” and its background and motivations check out The Green Agenda. Also read Lew Rockwell’s Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto.

Likes(0)Dislikes(1)

2,943 Comments:

  1. @Vengeful Fetus, @Matthew s
    In all seriousness indeed, why is it in a nation of scientific middlings,
    every bozo with a pair of lips has an opinion on Environmental science... the most complicated science of them all.
    When you critique articles from the National Academy of Science I will be
    impressed- until then you don't deserve any credibility.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  2. @Matthew s

    You can say whatever you choose, but once again you just puff ideological
    smoke. Gore takes his information from reputable peer reviewed journals,
    not from fiction writers and talk radio blather.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7

  3. I'm curious on what you guys think of nuclear power.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • Nuclear power? I'm against it. Too much waste and it can be unstable. I think we should be finding ways to utilize our current resources more efficiently. Yes we are reaching an, "energy crisis," so this resourceful utilization is easier said than done but I don't think nuclear is the answer. It is not as, "clean," as is present to be either. The zero carbon footprint concept is misleading. Nuclear power uses uranium which is mined from the earth and this mining process produces plenty in the way of CO2 emissions.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. @Matthew s

    I see a loose compendium of disparate facts, references to a screenwriter with
    no scientific background and unsubstantiated references to legions of so-called
    scientists. Stop puffing smoke, referencing fiction novels and refer to credible
    scientific journals if you want any credibility.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    • I can say the same thing about al gore

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

    • I assume you are referring to Crichton's book. He was trying to point out the danger of politicized science. He shows that CC is being treated the same way as the eugenics crisis was. He book was more about how people are using CC than whether or not CC is man made.

      Did you look at the 20 page bibliography in the back of the book? He actually explains where he got the facts and the charts he uses in his book. At least he is honest about the fact that he is using fiction as a media to get his message across.

      Did you read the "authors message" just before the bibliography? He points-out how there are few solid facts, but a lot of opinion- sounds like a religion too me. Just because those at the pulpit have formal educations doesn't diminish what Crichton said.

      Did you realize he graduated from Harvard medical school? You may want to poo-poo the fact that he was only a biologist, but recognize that he was a scientist.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • James Joseph Roper

        You may have seen the Union of Concerned Scientists' reply to Crichton's book. In any event, it was as correct about the science as any science fiction book is about its science - sometimes good, sometimes bad. Crichton was NOT a scientist, he was a medical doctor and they are not the same thing. Being a medical doctor does not make one a specialist in other fields - and he clearly wasn't a specialist in climate. But, the point is, reading science fiction does not inform us, but rather entertains us.

        To be informed, we must go to the source. And, I hope Ron Paul is doing just that on these issues.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        • Fluidly Unsure

          Personally, I hold the people who work in everyday life in higher regard than those in the isolated ivory towers of academia and large corporations. I have more respect for doctors, car mechanics, and construction workers than scientists, car engineers, and architects. Farmers deserve the highest praise than any other occupation.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  5. I was always against global warming, it is a hoax. on the other hand, pollution is not, look at la for example you see the brown sludge in the sky, and a few decades ago you could barely breath. Now its slowly getting better. WE should fight pollution. but they should not use "scare tactics" on us.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7

    • James Joseph Roper

      Global warming is not like a political party - where you can be for it or against it. It just is. When someone says that they are against it, I always wonder why that person even has an opinion about it, because it is clearly NOT an informed opinion. Biologists are finding changing patterns of bird migrations, plant phenologies, and other evidence that all points to global warming. The logic for global warming is very good, and if that logic is good, then global warming will continue. It just isn't a matter of opinion.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15

    • On the supposition that global warming is a hoax- Again, numbers don't lie. However, the way we interpret those numbers can be misleading or erroneous. In this case, the documented increase in average global temperature has been strongly correlated to the rise in co2 emissions. Along with the rise in co2 emissions, we have other greenhouse gases like methane, black carbon, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, butane, tetrafluoroethane, and sulphur hexaflouride. The gases responsible for the majority of global warming (about 70% of it) are co2 and methane respectively. Pointing this out isn't a scare tactic- it is science. What we chose to do about it is a whole different issue with many consequences. This shouldn't be framed as an "us" vs. "them" fight at all. Rather, we should be seeking out pragmatic solutions that involve as many people, groups, and governments as possible to make positive strides. It isn't simple, but it is workable. Just labeling global warming as a hoax without a strong scientific argument isn't sufficient.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11

      • I did my research, 17,000 scientist said there is not enough evidence to support global warming. it was temperatures the dictated carbon dioxide rises not carbon dioxide controlling temperature rises. ocean levels are decreasing. WE ARE STILL IN A ICE AGE. Sure the earth's temperatures levels are rising, but its part of a cycle. look at Michal Crichton's "State of fear" for example.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7

        • James Joseph Roper

          If you had done the research, you would have seen that those 17k "scientists" were not all scientists, and many of the scientists were not specialists in the area. And, those scientists did not address the additional information from biology that supports the global warming hypothesis. But, all this is moot, really, because the same issues that cause global warming are associated with all the issues of environmental degradation. Read the book "The World According to Pimm" to get an image of how the environment is doing these days. The main point is, global warming is only part of the environmental crisis, and addressing the environmental crisis in general must include remediation for global warming. I would like to see Paul actually state, in no uncertain terms, his stance on the environmental crisis, including global warming.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

          • Vengeful Fetus

            While you all sit here and bicker over childish things like Global Warming, my brethren are being murdered left and right! We must rise up and kill all of the wretched wenches who've done nothing but vile acts against my superior race!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11

          • Why is the hole in the atmosphere over Antarctica? Shouldn't it be over highly populated areas? Where the most pollution should be? not over some unpopulated uninhabitable area? there is no enough evidence to prove that "global warming" is our cause. Carbon Dioxide is highly abundant element in the world. Carbon is the fundamental building block in this world. If you want to stop Carbon dioxide levels in the air release pure hydrogen and light a match.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9

          • Vengeful Fetus

            In all seriousness though, you yourself should read Beyond Environmentalsim. Illustrates perfectly how the "environmental crisis" is nothing but fear mongering.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8

        • Matthew S,

          Sigh. Yes, the earth is in a period known as an ice age- an ice age is defined as a period where there are ice sheets at the north and south poles. Lack of ice at the poles is known as an, "interglacial period." Life can exist during interglacial periods but the ecosystem of an interglacial is entirely different from that of an ice age. Now, focusing solely on the argument of global warming is like having tunnel vision. There is A LOT going on here but bottom line, human actions do have a huge impact on the world. Here are some major issues to consider: climate change (a.k.a. global warming but in some places the climate is actually cooling so it's more appropriate to call it global climate change), deforestation (real), acidification of the oceans (VERY REAL), pollution (have you been to L.A?)... This list goes on and the impact needs to be looked at as a whole. The question is not IF this is real but WHAT are the implications? After the science of the question comes the philosophy of, but I’m not a philosopher.

          Sincerely,
          Biological Scientist.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  6. Most politicians have degrees in business, law and politics and they have built their careers around business, law and politics. They are not experts in the sciences and their opinions should be taken as just that, opinions. You would not consult a biologist about the stock market and you should not look to career politicians for scientific expertise. We need a politician who is competent in politics, finance, and science. Furthermore we need a politician who is competent in national and foreign policy and human rights.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1

  7. I agree. How can you protect "life, liberty, and property" if you won't protect people's property from pollution? I don't think Global Warming is such a "hoax," but I must agree with Dr. Paul that ending oil subsidies is a substantial first step, if not possibly the only step needed to be made due to the increases social pressure against pollution.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

  8. I am seriously considering swiching parties from Democrate to Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. However, the above interview makes Ron Paul's stand on Global Climate Change contradictory. Paul states, "However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations," then goes on to call global warming a hoax. Can he state his position more clear? Thank you

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4

  9. perhaps it is a hoax. turning to renewable, nearly free, energy sources cant hurt, it can only help. reduce our addiction and physical dependance on oil. by nearly free i mean of course solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. every day the sun shines and we dont pay a "sun bill". every day the wind blows and we dont pay a "wind fee". every day the tides come in and out and we dont pay a "tidal surcharge". get real, electricity is nearly free and the technology exists to produce vehicles that run on electricity only. hydrogen is another fuel source that is VERY clean and efficient, also it will never run out much like solar, wind, and tidal power. there is no need for americans to have an electric bill, or to pay $4.15 a gallon on gasoline just so they can go about their day.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0

  10. If you use sardonicism as a linguistic tool, it must be accompanied by specific
    arguments with intellectual rigor. I am not quite certain what has been
    said here- it seems to encompass thoughts on population biology, nuclear
    energy, alternative energy, energy conservation... all with an underlying Randian philosophy. Perhaps you can be more specific.
    And there is nothing wrong with incorporating sardonism into a discussion
    on something that affects us all so profoundly. It is a natural linguistic
    counterpunch to a perceived act of aggression... and pollution is an act of
    aggression against your neighbor(Ron Paul).
    After all, nothing can be so confrontational, so assailing as truth.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  11. Lets try this a different way: How to cut Human Environmental Impact?

    1] Reduce the world human population. Outside the control of the US Gov. Seems counter to "freedom" and medical achievement in extending longevity. [Despite the cries about the horrible environment, people are living LONGER then ever before.

    2] Invent new energy solutions - This is NO job for the Gov. or any Gov - despite conspiracy theory, the world is a BIG place - S. Korea, Japan, EU - all are energy constrained with the best engineers in the world - solution thus far - use less, drive smaller, live in smaller homes, etc - still a gas combustion engine! Either way, US GOV funding energy tech - as if the Bernak is not creating enough credit oozing from every pore of the US economy. Example Japan - post Nuclear economic DISASTER - 1/3 production cut - They have the most advanced tech in the world.... they need to rebuild energy infrastructure - what will they rebuild? Nuclear! Why not wind and Solar?> Duh... that is your scientific response simplified.

    3] Reduce consumption - ahh.. the Big Gov. trifecta - to decide who can do what with this ever changing target "evil". I assure you, no matter what level of "reduced output" is found to be fair - select people will be able to pollute more then others - that is right... kill me and my future offspring / planet - trample on MY god given right to live healthy! Just as India makes the case they should pollute more to catch up with infrastructure the USA has, etc [we destroyed the environment 40yrs ago building our cities - why are we special? So, average could interact on social networks, play video web games, live a virtual life - the wealthy - they could actually play sports, drive cars, take risks to feel "alive". But to be really green - it would be best to hook the masses to a computer and a morphine drip - that should do it!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

    • What an oversimplistic, condescending, and erroneous post. If you want to contribute to the debate, you should get out of your attack mode and get to the point. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  12. James Joseph Roper

    A lot has been learned in the past two years since Ron Paul's comments on global warming. I think he should update, so we can understand his current position. Also, I see a remarkable lack of OTHER issues about the environment. Global warming (or climate change, or as Farred Zakariah called it, climate weirding) is definitely a part of a larger issue of environmental problems. I would like to see Ron Paul put global warming into a context of general conservation issues. After all, what would curtail global warming is the same thing that would help the environment - Reuse, Reduce, Recycle.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  13. I'm glad to see I'm not the only conservative who thinks conservation of our environment should be part of that stance too.
    Regardless of whether humans are causing global warming, we are un-doubtedly the cause of tons of envirornmental problems. We need clean air, clean water, etc to survive. I wish the world would quit arguing about global warming and put their efforts towards improving the environment for our own health.
    But food costs have not risen because of ethanol from corn. Corn only ammounts to 3 cents of a box of corn flakes. Marketing, transportation, and labor are the hugest portion of food prices.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  14. @ Jared

    The solution is straightforward, but bitter medicine for a nation steeped in
    self-indulgence .
    Everyone is responsible for their own actions, with unlimited personal liability,
    both civil and criminal.
    Strengthening Tort law is the obvious solution- yes, folks, turn the lawyers loose,
    with the clear understanding that any frivolous suit will bring retribution. The
    immediate effect will be to render moot all government agencies responsible for
    enforcement, thus downsizing government. A vigorous, profit-driven legal
    system is the ultimate in free-enterprise and offers a system of checks and
    balances against abuse.
    I can already hear you Chamber of Commerce folks crying over such an
    outlandish proposal, but I have news for you. Profit without accountability
    is simply criminal behavior. Grow up and take responsibility for your own
    actions.
    We rarely do the wrong thing while trying to do the right thing.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  15. @Fluidly Unsure
    Without a doubt, the transition from nuclear must be gradual. But it will come irrespective of our opinions. I just read an article(second hand) from the Council of Foreign Relations, nuclear energy section. Apparently, if trends continue, for nuclear power just to maintain its share of energy production a new 1000 MW plant must be constructed every 16 days for 21 years. If that happens it will be the end of us.
    However, my main objection to nuclear power is economic. Instead of unleashing Americas capacity for innovation in a Manhattan/Space program type venture, we have wasted our national treasure and energy on foreign intervention and bailing out the Wall-Street parasites. In the meantime, our foreign competitors lead the world in alternative energy, leaving us with export envy, a dearth of jobs, collapsing currency and wasted mind-power in Silicon
    Valley. We are being led by idiots from both parties.
    But government is simply a reflection of the popular culture, so I suspect we
    are getting what we deserve.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  16. The only thing nauseating is Information Theory nonsense, the reason the vast
    majority of economists are always wrong at major turning points in history,
    clearly demonstrating Hayek was wrong.
    Extremes in nature are simply not tolerated, whether from government or
    the free markets. In the endless limbic-driven cycles of fear and greed, rationality is not a factor-irrationality is, demonstrated in the natural herding behavior of all social organisms.
    Absent a system of checks and balances all systems self-destruct. And economics is still the dismal science.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  17. All of this environmental debate makes me sick.

    The US Government IS the largest consumer of energy and emitter of "pollution" in the world. Yes, that $1.3 Trill/yr war machine [DOD + Emergency war spending] consumes more nuclear, jet, gas and diesel then most any other single nation! One might wonder what gives the US Gov the right to pollute in the name of "just cause" for greater WORLD good, betting world reserve status is sustainable.

    The US Trade deficit and lost manufacturing simply shifted the pollution from the USA to developing economies. Could you imagine the output gap under today's EPA regs, US Wages, OSHA and Legal Exp or cost of energy IF IF IF ... Manufacturing had to return to the USA>? AKA INFLATION!!!

    So, America - you want to tell the world what pollution is and is not, you demand high living standard, full employment, safe working conditions, low pollution, freedom of choice, big Gov. social safety nets, low energy prices etc, etc. you want it all! NOW remind me again what makes US Special in this ultra competitive, efficient, fast information world?

    Russia plowed 1/4 of GDP into military spending in the early 80's thinking GOV innovation would be the greatest facilitator of future capability - they went bankrupt!

    As per Gov. balance - protecting people from pollution or regulation or anything else ... its called "Freedom of Information" - Free markets work when information flows - WE HAVE INFORMATION - BRING DOWN THOSE WALLS TO INFORMATION AND LET THE MARKET DECIDE TO REGULATE ON VIRTUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL CHOICE!!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

    • You've got to admit that comparing the USA to the USSR is a fallacy. With or without government intervention, markets continue to operate. Using your logic, China would be a model of market efficiency and heavy government intervention. Just look at their year over year GDP growth numbers. Still a fallacy, but worth pointing out.

      Having perfect information makes beautiful sense in theory, but does not work well in reality. People and companies with entrenched interests have and will continue to stretch the truth, lie, and do whatever it takes to survive and thrive. The public will always be confused because they are more exposed to what they are told than what they hear. Some will discover the truth at their own volition, but their message will fall among many deaf ears, a few highly resistant ones, and a few agreeable ones. That's just the way reality works. Easily manipulated sheeple we humans are.

      Of course I believe in individual choice. Dare I say that I think even the most die hard liberals do. However, (speaking from a centrist point of view), I believe in team effort, and strength in numbers. In fact, that is the very basis of democracy. There are times when it is more appropriate to build consensus and chart a course as a community (oh God, not Communism- let me make that clear) instead of doing whatever we want to do as individuals without respect for our neighbors.

      Basically, it is a balance. Hyperindividualism and hypercommunism don't work on their own. There has to be a middle ground, and thus, complexity. It is human nature to try and simplify things in our minds to understand them better, but it doesn't always work that way in reality.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  18. @William: My thoughts are still that while we should use alternate energy plants like south east California (Inland Empire) does, we shouldn't abandon nuclear plants just yet (time will come).

    I'll bet we can harness the tides, Santa Ana winds, or the mediterranean-like sunshine and do so on its own merit, not with more subsidies than are offered to traditional solutions. However, just the construction alone will take time. Until then we have to live with the nuclear plants if we want a "modern" society.

    BTW: if this is a beauty contest, IE beats the coast hands down.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • I would argue that many renewables including solar would survive and compete on their own merit without the subsidies IF we stopped subsidizing big Oil and other fossil fuels like natural gas and coal. And I mean subsidies in the form of tax incentives, outright subsidies, and allowing polluters to skirt accountability for environmental degradation.

      In addition, I prefer the coast. Much better for surfing, and the weather is much nicer- especially during the summer 😉

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  19. @Fluidly Unsure..as usual, you ask penetrating questions.
    1) Of course containment vessels are not useless. They are a vital component
    of these plants. However, as with the dome, what happens next involves a
    lot of supposition. It is generally accepted that a pressure vessel meltdown
    will create a hot spot. In this case the CV buys valuable
    time to reintroduce coolant to the corium melt and risk of pressure buildup
    can be minimized. At Three Mile Is the PV remained intact because of
    depth of defense procedures using control rods. Further, the CV withstood
    a massive hydrogen explosion.
    But in the case of a sudden breach of the PV the melt falls into the cooling
    water below with the attendant risk of steam/hydrogen explosion. Absent
    coolant, molten concrete then produces more pressure from decomposition
    products. Temperatures can quickly accelerate as high as 2800 C, melting
    through the CV to the groundwater. This is the seismic risk, as Japan
    discovered.
    2) No amount of inspection or depth of defense procedures can offer anything
    more than reassurance to a nervous population. A former AEC chairman
    described these plants as impossibly complex. Westinghouse has reported
    the basic components as deteriorating at 2-3 times the expected rate due
    to the corrosive conditions. Human error is a far greater risk than seismic
    events-Three Mile Is was a cascading series of human error.
    If you have any experience in government inspections, you probably
    see clearly they are consumed by graft, hopelessly entangled in a good-ol' boy
    political system. I don't trust any of those bozos....besides the system is
    too complex to render valid critique.
    3) I 131 is a minor problem-its half life is too short and its effects controlled
    by Iodine supplementation, although thousands of cases of thyroid
    cancer will still result in the case of a serious incident Far greater is the
    danger of Cs137 and Sr 90, dangerous for hundreds of years-and in the
    case of Pu239, hundreds of thousands of years.
    4) The plants at Diablo Canyon(I live part of the year in Slotown) and
    San Onofre are both seismically rated at Richter 7.5. But with the
    proximity to the subduction zone this is meaningless. The Ring of Fire
    seems to have entered a new level of activity, with rising risk.
    5) I stand by my risk/reward standard of measurement. The ratio is
    obscenely high...I simply cannot imagine abandoning large parts of
    beautiful coastal Ca.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  20. The most menacing Environmental problems are Plastics. Whether in Landfill or in Pacific Vortex, Plastics of 10, 20, 50 years ago are beginning to disintegrate. These are releasing their ingredients (Chelating Agents) in the Rivers and Oceans. The tougher the Plastics are, for example Car Bumpers longer they take to disintegrate. As the use of Plastics are increasing exponentially, the danger from them will also grow exponentially.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    • When I was a teen in the 70s, plastic was the ultimate solution to environmental concerns. It was recyclable and society could stop depleting the planet of resources like trees. Apparently someone forgot to check whether all plastics would always be recycled, or whether plastic bags wouldn't threaten wildlife. The fact that trees were even more recyclable was lost at the way-side. I wonder what negative effects will show up in cotton bags.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


2 × = four

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>