How many of you have heard of “Going Green”? Maybe you know it as being Eco-friendly. Either way, this trend has certainly become a full-fledged movement. All throughout the country, people are switching to hybrid cars, using paper grocery bags, and reducing their “carbon footprint” though other various methods. Our once doomed world is now back on track to being the way it was.
But how was our planet? And how long ago was it when the environment was better? Disregarding the terrible grammar of that last sentence, the point still stands. The consensus of the general public is that the environment is in a terrible state and the planet is headed for oblivion, but can anyone remember when that wasn’t true? Now, the problem is Global Warming, but back in the 1970′s and 1980′s, it was the coming of a second Ice Age. Interesting progression, isn’t it? It is like we are trying to balance on a solo stalagmite rising out of a dark abyss.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is call “alarmism”. In the media business, it has been used for decades if not centuries. It makes sens if you think about it. News stations get funding from companies paying the station to run their ads. The more people who watch Channel X News at 4, the more valuable the air time is during that news segment. How do the news media attract more views? The answer is simple: by scarring them. It’s the same concept as a car crash, it’s terrifying and an awful occurrence, but as long as it didn’t happen to you, it is captivating.
Getting caught up in the hysteria is normal. Most people are unaware that they are and it happens to all of us at some point in our lives., just do not let people use it to take advantage of you. Recently, a bill known as the Lieberman-Warner Bill came before Congress. This bill was supposed “to establish the core of a Federal program that will reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough between 2007 and 2050 to avert the catastrophic impacts of global climate change” (See Bill here). It really was a fancy way of introducing government control into the economy. That is a bad thing. Thankfully, the bill was defeated. It would have allowed the government to auction of “Greenhouse Gas Credits (GHG’s)”, thus turning carbon into a commodity. I’m sorry Ladies and Gentlement, but the economy does not work like that.
Now, as for you carbon footprint, Steve Boler’s article from The American Thinker website, explains it best. My big problem with the whole issue is people are starting to treat carbon like a poisonous chemical. Unlike Arsenic, Mercury, and certain forms of Chromium, which appear in very small amounts in nature but are lethal, Carbon is just the opposite. If you ingest arsenic, you can die. If you are exposed to mercury, you lose you hair and experience severe dementia (hence the concept of the “Mad Hatter”). If you inhale too much carbon, you yawn.
On another point, if we reduce the amount of carbon in our atmoshpere, there could be unintended consequences. In 7th grade biology, kids learn about plans and photosynthesis; the process all members of the Plantae kingdom use to convert water, light, and CARBON DIOXIDE into glucose and OXYGEN to survive. (I know this is a review and almost infintile for about 99% of my readers). If carbon dioxide goes down too much, we will start to see stunted plant growth. This would affect the out put of food growth and production worldwide. Domino effect blah blah blah… I think you see where I am going with this.
Again, we arrive on top of our stalagmite. What do we do? My advice is “Don’t be stupid.” Burning vegetation just to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is not the way to go, but neither is trying to force a complete 180 on our lifestyle because the sirens and flashing lights of the environmentalist alarm disorient us. After all, it’s just a passing fad.
