Tonight, when I got home from a review session at school after work, I stopped by a local pizza shop to pick up a pie for dinner. I know the owner there — he’s a hard-working, decent guy and usually can be found covered in flour and barking orders from in front of the oven. Tonight, he was seated at a table and going over his menu with a man I assumed was a printer.
“Price changes,” he said, pointing at the pile of papers in front of him. “It should be thirty dollars for a large pizza considering what we all pay for flour.”
So here we see global warming activism in action — the effects of an overzealous political movement which hijacked a trend founded in responsible conservationism.
The power of the public relations machine behind global warming activism is unbelievable. On the basis of media interpretation of well-sold junk science, people have made all sorts of life changes for the wrong reasons and, most importantly, without questioning whether they could possibly be doing more harm than good.
After all, many folks are spending extra money (in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars) for a hybrid vehicle — not necessarily for the augmented gas mileage or even the tempered effect of emissions on the environment, but as a political statement and as a chance to raise an egotistical finger to the evil oil industry. Also because of this movement, people are switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs to save energy and produce less waste, yet they never seem to think about the adverse environmental impact of the mercury and toxic gasses found inside the bulbs themselves.
With regard to the adverse effects of ethanol and bio-fuels, matters are even worse.
The UN says it takes more than 510 pounds of corn to fill a single 13 gallon automobile gas tank with ethanol, enough to feed a child for a year. Last week, the UN predicted “massacres” unless the biofuel policy is halted.
“The reality,” says Jacques Diouf of the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, “is that people are dying already. Naturally people won’t be sitting dying of starvation, they will react,” he said.
The same article said that this ghastly and unacceptable effect was caused in part by America’s diversion of 18 percent of its grain output for ethanol this year. What, may I ask, will happen when the United States meets its Congress-mandated goal of increasing, five-fold, the use of biofuels? What will happen when we divert even more of our grain to ethanol, when we meet the goal of diverting 45 percent of corn for biofuel by 2015?
Much of the global warming crowd doesn’t seem to mind the adverse impact that federal emissions regulations–rules not followed by China or India–would have upon the American economy, but can they justify allowing children to starve in the same of unsubstantiated scientific theory?
We are messing with the fuel supply based upon junk science, upon superficial numbers, and upon improperly and prematurely silenced debate. I understand the need to take care of this planet, but the human race is being arrogant in jumping to conclusions and thinking that we know all we need to know about Earth, about her systems, about our universe and our place in it.
Mars is getting warmer, and we’re not there. Earth, actually, is getting cooler. Furthermore, studies are showing that carbon dioxide levels react to temperature and not the other way around.
Regardless, we need to come to our senses and prioritize. The seas are not rising, at least not to the extent Al Gore says they are. The temperature is not rising, either. We are certainly not losing this planet any time soon, but I will tell you one thing that some behind the global warming movement have been correct about:
Ted Turner was right. At the rate we’re going, we may very well all be cannibals in a matter of decades. It won’t be due to global warming, however, at least not directly — it will be because we were blinded by junk science and real arrogance and used up all of our corn and grain unnecessarily.