The problem with the climate change debate (and it is not a debate about “global warming”) is that the loudmouths on both sides are almost completely full of crap.
On one side, we have a group running around screaming “The sky is falling!” and declaring the entire planet is inperil, and that our very existence depends on the immediate cessation of all fossil fuel use, because failure to do so will result in total annihilation of the entire human race, as well as almost all other species of animals and birds.
I don’t have to tell you, apocalyptic proclamations from humans always cause me to chuckle, whether they come from an evangelical Christian, a psychic who believes we have two years to go, or a science hobbyist who's convinced himself the world is about to explode and the only way to solve the problem is to ditch all the cars and trucks and walk. Those on the left who think they can only motivate folks with gloom-and-doom proclamations really need a clue.
Of course, on the other side we have a moronic group who are all too willing to make the absurd claim that there is absolutely no problem with spewing all sorts of chemical gunk in the air. Some even go so far as to claim burning as much fossil fuel as we’d like is our God-given right. They claim no ill effects on the air and water, and that, if animals start going extinct, well, so be it; such is the order of things. Besides, we still have blizzards and cold weather, so it can't be that bad, right? Of course, if the planet does get warmer, that can’t be a bad thing, right? It’ll just mean longer summers. How is that bad?
As you can see, both extreme sides sound like morons, which is why we keep burning more and more fossil fuels, and why oil companies get tax breaks while green energy companies have to hold bake sales and sell stuff on eBay to raise money.
So, where are the rest of us when it comes to this issue? Why does the opinion of sane people always seem to be missing from the public debate?
I don’t doubt the concept that the planet is warming. Statistics going back several hundred years point to that as being the case. And of course, we have to prepare for the possibility that such a warming trend might continue for an extended period. But to declare definitively that the warming trend is solely because of us is not only impossible to support, but it’s also completely irrelevant. Let’s stop with the screaming, stop with the blame game. Let’s deal with the facts in evidence – that the Earth is warming, and may not stop warming during the next century or so, and we will have to be able to deal with the problems that come up.
Climate change should be addressed, of course, but it should be addressed rationally. Screaming about the end of the world doesn’t work when attempting to get people to do something. People want to hear about the benefits of working to change the energy culture. When it comes to energy production, we have at least thirty years of catch-up to do in transitioning away from fossil fuels, and it has to happen relatively quickly. But "quickly" in this case means about 50-60 years, not 5. And that transition shouldn’t be based on some tenuous prospect that the world might cease to exist if we don’t. In fact, even if fossil fuels were NOT the main cause for climate change, we should still be ditching the fossil fuels.
There are tons of rational reasons why we should wean ourselves from fossil fuels that have nothing to do with the end of the world. Start with the fact that they’re dirty as hell. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to power-wash buildings once because of the soot that collects from burning fossil fuels, and then never have to do it again, or only have to do it every 20 years instead of every two? Fossil fuels also cause wars, and the cost is prohibitive.
There are so many cleaner alternatives right in front of our faces, there's simply no reason to continue over-using this 19th Century technology. We know how to use solar and wind power to generate electricity, we know they’re both cleaner, and we have significant evidence that they have little or no negative environmental effects; it’s unimaginable that the environmental effect of wind and solar power could be as devastating as the brown air and soot that mar our landscape because of burning oil and coal.
I guess that’s one reason why I’ve never understood why some elements of this debate feel the need to constantly adopt all the “gloom and doom” rhetoric. The other side’s argument is patently absurd. While I do agree that the world is a better place because of motor vehicles and electricity, it’s pretty difficult to walk through a typical city and not think we’d be better off if we could just manage to find a way to produce them without all the dirt noise and clutter.
Contrary to what some would like you to believe, there is no downside to weaning ourselves from our addiction to fossil fuels. Cleaner air, cleaner water, (eventually) cheaper and more reliable energy, and no dependence on others for supply. Basically, even if "global warming" skeptics are correct, and there is no global warming happening, what major harm will have been done by transitioning away from fossil fuels?
Say you put solar panels on a home’s roof and/or a couple of wind turbines in the back yard, in order to produce your own power. Have we been trained to be so dependent on the corporate power structure that we’ve convinced ourselves that the only way to have the energy we need is to buy it from a huge, centralized plant? Whatever happened to that “can do” American spirit? Does that not fit into the “American way” we’re always bragging about? Instead of building a huge oil-burning plant on the edge of town to provide massive amounts of power for hundreds of thousands of people, why can't tens of thousands of people set up their own smaller power plants, produce their own power and sell back the excess for those who can’t produce their own? Why can't utility companies build a greater number of smaller plants, using biofuels, and supplement that with wind and a solar farms, with the intention of expanding later? How is that a bad thing? Doesn't it seem to make more sense to build 20 smaller plants using various energy production methods to provide power for a million people, rather than building one huge plant, powered by fossil fuels, designed to power all million people?
We must also invest in finding ways to conserve. We replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents that provide the same light using one-fourth the power. Then, as we research, we figure out how to run lights throughout the house using half even that amount of power. If we can charge a battery to run our iPods for upwards of 12 hours by plugging it into a laptop for a couple of hours, the ability to conserve vast amounts of electricity by stretching what's available is there; we just have to learn how. Wouldn’t it be great to live better than we do now, while using a quarter of the energy? Is there a reason why peopel bitch about our $300 per month electric bills, but then scoff at the very prospect of cutting the bill to $100 through conservation? If we could get to the point that we’re either using one-third the power we do now, or use the same amount to do three times as much, I simply can’t see that as a bad thing.
How cool would it be to put up a building in the middle of a large city, and not have it covered in black grime after 30-40 years? How great would it be to not have a brown cloud hanging over the city on certain days when weather conditions are not ideal? How cool would it be to be able to go to the beach and not be covered in tar balls after a swim? How incredible would it be to let the oil powers fight things out amongst themselves, and leave us the hell out of it?
I don’t know why the climate is changing, and frankly, I don’t really care. It doesn’t matter, really. The reasons we have to stop using fossil fuels to the extent we do are so numerous, there’s absolutely no reason why we have to pretend to be Chicken Little to get people to pay attention. We’re polluting the planet to a shameful degree; we’re using up natural resources at an unsustainable clip; and we’re on the verge of making huge swaths of the planet uninhabitable, even as our population continues to increase at an alarming rate. There is no doubt about any of that. We have to change a lot of our habits. We have to use less oil and other fossil fuels; in fact, we should stop burning anything for fuel, including food by-products.
Renewable sources of energy are cheaper, they're cleaner, and they will make everything around us cleaner and fresher. Because they are natural, abundant, and all around us, they make each of us more self-sufficient and less dependent on others. The production of the machines necessary to produce energy is an industry with huge economic potential, as well.
In other words, can’t we just emphasize the positives of switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources to get people behind the concept? Is it really necessary to suggest the end of the world is nigh?
