The best magazine
I remember seeing the Jacque Cousteau documentaries and NASA films of dying fish populations, receding coral reefs, crashing ice bergs in Greenland, polar bears hopping from one ice fragment to another starving looking for food, maps showing the melting lands in Antarctica, and stories of holes in our ozone layer getting larger.
But is this all an illusion? Is there really global warming or is this made up science? A news story is out right now called "Climategate" that purports that hackers found e-mails of scientists manipulating data concerning our climate and global warming.
There is in fact conflicting evidence and all scientists don't agree, although most do agree that global warming is real.
Interesting though, is the timing of the hacked e-mails as they came out right before the Copenhagen Conference.
This suggests an inside job and another political spin.
Some say they were the Russian Secret Service.
The green movement should not halt because of the hacked e-mails.
Cleaning the earth and ridding ourselves of oil dependence is a good idea whether man is responsible for creating substantial global warming or not.
If we err, let's err on the side of green.
What is wrong with pursuing green technologies in the name of global pollution? Certainly we all agree that pollution has been caused by man.
The smog and pollution in Los Angeles is not a natural cycle.
You don't have to be a environmental scientist to know that that pollution must have some affect on our personal health, as well as the environment.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that the millions of autos burning gas and oil, don't smell that good, and can give us headache or make us ill after smelling the carbon burning exhaust.
We know that the carbon monoxide fumes can kill us if we leave the car running in a closed garage.
You don't have to a scientist to know that the birds can't fly very well with oil on their wings.
Man has caused pollution.
How long can we continue to cause pollution by using unsustainable energy sources and carbon burning technologies? Perhaps in 10 years there will be no arguments or any refutable evidence to suggest that global warming is a made up science.
I am of the opinion that we need to approach these issues with a "green capitalistic" viewpoint.
The green revolution can be a profitable and an altruistic endeavor at the same time as we clean up the earth, develop new green technological investments, and rid ourselves of oil dependence.
The current approach at the Copenhagen Conference is a "cap and trade" approach to world emissions.
This means that countries will agree to cap (or reduce) their emissions by say 2%, but can trade their rights to another country if they don't use their credits, or reduce by more than the 2%.
Undeveloped countries may have minimal emissions, so they stand to benefit the most and can trade their rights to another country.
Prior to the Copenhagan Conference, The Kyoto Protocal was accepted by some countries.
"The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 required signatories to reduce their carbon emissions, and the European Union in 2005 launched its own cap-and-trade system.
The program sets a limit on carbon emissions, and companies are issued free carbon allowances that they can buy or sell based on their emissions needs.
" Compliance with the "cap and trade" system may be hard to prove and signing treaty members may not pay.
I feel a better approach to using these world funds, would be to set up funds for loans and grants given to businesses throughout the world that invest in and develop new green technologies.
A "green capitalistic" approach of these funds would enable the cleaning and greening of the earth to jump start more effectively.
Offering credits and trading the credits, which is more of a socialistic concept, may cause more problems such as regional job layoffs or transferring companies overseas because of tax credits.
Opponents of the Copenhagen conference say that the transfer of wealth will occur between the developed countries to the undeveloped countries with the enormous sums (.
7% of GNP) of money being asked for by this treaty.
I believe the real transfer of wealth today is already occurring from the oil consuming nations to the oil producing nations.
We are being held hostage by these countries economically and ideologically.
The moneys should be viewed as an investment in our planet as well as a movement to recover from the world-wide economic plight we are now in.
Having a green movement will help us recover as we create millions of new jobs and focus on a single investment direction to propel us into the new century.
Many studies have concluded this.
Economic stimulus will be created by pursuing the new green technologies like the electric car.
Our existence and/or current lifestyles on planet earth may be in peril if we don't clean up our act.
If we error by over reacting, let's err on the side of green, whether your a Democrat or a Republican.
Getting together with other countries to pool our funds to clean the earth and reduce oil dependence is a good idea, but a better approach of the use of the funds needs to be worked out.
Source: ...