Though deniers of global warming aren’t deserving of a thorough explanation of how global warming is indeed a human-instigated phenomenon (research it, don’t gripe about it here), how is it at all excusable to oppose the effort to hedge climate change?

Hypothetically, let’s just say global warming isn’t caused by humans. Let’s just say it’s a natural change in the planet’s average temperature. Or, better yet, let’s just say the earth is the same temperature for the past 100 million years (5,000 years for creationists). If this is so, why do so many people detest the idea of being more conscious of the impact we have on our ecosystem (however light some may imagine). Who does recycling hurt? How is conserving energy (even without the threat of an energy crisis) somehow foolish?

The only argument against climate change policy that has any merit is the ridiculous claim: "It’s bad for business! And what’s bad for business is bad for America!"

Newsflash! If the government gives incentives to business to streamline their methods of doing business by reducing emissions, materials and various other forms of waste, you have the engine of capitalism propelling markets to be more responsible. As a matter of fact, the Japanese and many of our European friends have gotten a jump start on the United States because they have addressed this form of "New Capitalism" long ago.

So far ahead are many of these foreign companies, we actually rely on them to supply us with the best in renewable energy technology (e.g. photovoltaic cells, wind turbines, etc.).

But no, apparently "free-market" lunatics hate the idea of a potentially damaging and oligarchical system like capitalism from being nudged into a positive direction because that would be indicative of a GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER! Good lord! Heaven forbid we use a tool like government (it is a tool, conservatives; the Greeks didn’t develop a republic just have a big, bad boogeyman looming over them) to curb the tyrannical tendencies of those who have amassed tremendous wealth and power!

So, who cares if it’s all a sham? What do millions of scientist have to gain through empirical testing on climate change? What do progressives win if we all start acting responsible? Certainly there is no personal profit form any of this except the satisfaction of knowing that we will prolong our species’ life on this planet, that we have preserved the health and beauty of our surroundings and that we need not worry about where we get our energy fix.

To oppose efforts that make these improvements is a non-sequitur. It’s almost like opposing the idea of cleaning dirty dishes just because they don’t pose a deadly threat. Conservatives, I point my finger stiffly at you: do you really take charge of an issue ONLY when we’re facing the prospect of annihilation?

Those who are behind the efforts to convince the world that global warming is a myth are those who have most to loose, Exxon Mobil being one of the biggest but includes many of those who make millions out of the selling our existing natural resources.

This is no different than when a few decades ago incontrovertible evidence showing the link between smoking and numerous fatal diseases was put forward by those scientists studying the subject. The Tobacco companies funded sceptics, started health reassurance campaigns, ran advertisements in medical journals and researched alternate explanations for lung cancer, such as pollution, asbestos and even the keeping of birds. Denying the case against tobacco was "closed," they called for more research as a tactic to delay regulation.

Those behind the septics movement have only one agenda to make every last cent they can for the diminishing resources they control. The more they discourage people from changing to alternative methods of energy, with all their propaganda, the more their dwindling resources will be worth as the worlds increasing needs for energy will guarantee. What these interests mean when they say ecological measures are "bad for business" is really "it is bad for OUR business"

These people have no more interest in the health of our world and the need to manage and control our resources any more than the tobacco companies cared about the people who would die prematurely . The really unfortunate thing is those in control of the world’s energy resources have so much more money to spend on their campaign of disinformation and are able to mount a much larger effort to fudge the issue and consequently convincing more people of their lies.

Though as you point out even if global warming was a myth the world’s natural resources of oil and gas are running out. Only by massive research and changing to alternative sources of power now will we able to avoid a future of massive energy shortages and even more wars over the diminishing supplies, which in Iraq and the Kuwait war we have already seen.

With tobacco companies they could only cause the destruction of individuals the energy corporations if they win this battle and stop us taking the necessary actions could cause the destruction of the whole planet or at best a world in chaos, where countries are unable to produce enough energy for the basics of life for their population.

The only light I see in the darkness of the future world we are leaving our children and grandchildren is that more of the world are seeing through the lies and realising the importance of our environment and natural resources. As someone who has been banging on about this for decades, when I was considered a total loony, today there are far more people finally seeing the dangers we face. Whether this is "too little too late" and those with the power can make the many difficult decisions and compromises needed to make the changes necessary to avoid catastrophe, only time will tell.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,