Once again, politicians and many members of the public get confused over the difference between trying to stop climate change and preserving the environment. It is quite possible and desirable to preserve the environment without being concerned about “Climate Change”. Skeptics of the now exposed faulty and uncertain science of climate change generally agree that the environment should be preserved. In fact one of the good side benefits of the fuss about climate change is the increased awareness in the public of the need to not destroy mother earth.
The faulty climate change science wanted us to stop CO2 emissions at any cost whereas preserving the environment means reducing pollution, preserving natural areas (especially forests), conserving resources, reducing packaging and landfills and preserving all animal species (e.g. polar bears). The only one of these that relates to reducing CO2 emission is conserving oil and coal resources. And the problem here is not super urgent; it’s just that resources are limited and won’t last forever – so it’s good to develop alternative sources of energy like tidal power, geothermal power, solar power and wind power. Many of the things proposed in the name of halting “man-made climate change” are actually good – but for the wrong reason.
Measuring CO2 emissions and trying to halt them is a backwards kind of way of measuring consumption of carbon based fuels but in the long run it may be a good idea – in moderation. (By the way – taken to extreme – CO2 is emitted in large quantities by humans and animals – should these be limited?) But let’s not damage the economy in the process. And let’s focus on the real reason to do it so we don’t get sidetracked into carbon capture and carbon trading industries. And if the climate does heat up for natural reasons, let’s focus on mitigation.
Tags: Adaptation, Carbon Storage, Public Opinion, Resources