Comments on: Should U.S. Be Held to Higher Environmental Standards? http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/06/26/should-us-be-held-to-higher-environmental-standards/ News & commentary on sustainability, activism, urban planning, politics, and our world. Wed, 23 May 2012 18:26:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Will http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/06/26/should-us-be-held-to-higher-environmental-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-60014 Will Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:33:20 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/?p=1188#comment-60014 Global warming is a reality. To say otherwise is morally reprehensible and quite frankly embarrassing. The consensus has been established. Anthropogenic warming is a reality, and we have to deal with it. While a small minority of scientists funded by ExxonMobil have created the illusion of controversy, almost every single PEER-REVIEWED climate scientist concurs with the idea of anthropogenic warming. Climate history, ice core data, satellite data, balloon data, and the reality that there is no serious alternative explanation for the rise in temperature illustrates the unquestionable truth. That is why Naomi Oreskes could survey 934 peer-reviewed studies and note that not a SINGLE one of them disputed the idea of human-induced climate change. Policymakers have given up on the bullshit. You should too. Masimba Biriwasha, your work on needle exchange programs and the HIV/AIDS crisis has inspired me. This global warming article is quite well written as well. Thank you. Global warming is a reality. To say otherwise is morally reprehensible and quite frankly embarrassing.

The consensus has been established. Anthropogenic warming is a reality, and we have to deal with it. While a small minority of scientists funded by ExxonMobil have created the illusion of controversy, almost every single PEER-REVIEWED climate scientist concurs with the idea of anthropogenic warming.

Climate history, ice core data, satellite data, balloon data, and the reality that there is no serious alternative explanation for the rise in temperature illustrates the unquestionable truth.

That is why Naomi Oreskes could survey 934 peer-reviewed studies and note that not a SINGLE one of them disputed the idea of human-induced climate change.

Policymakers have given up on the bullshit. You should too.

Masimba Biriwasha, your work on needle exchange programs and the HIV/AIDS crisis has inspired me. This global warming article is quite well written as well. Thank you.

]]> By: Paul http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/06/26/should-us-be-held-to-higher-environmental-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-60013 Paul Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:14:30 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/?p=1188#comment-60013 1) CO2 is plantfood, and is exhausted via respiration from every breathing animal on the planet. By swallowing the logic that CO2 is a pollutant, you must consider your very existence to be detrimental to the planet. 2) The optimal global temperature has not been defined. The global climate is always in flux, and it is impractical to assume that every change is detrimental. 3) Equal, if not better, correlations can be made between solar activity and global temperatures. It is not a matter of scientific concensus. Just ask any one of these 31,000+ scientists (http://oism.org/pproject/). 4) No mention is made of the efficiency of the USA. Look at per capita produciton versus energy consumption. By this measure, the USA provides the world with four times as much per unit of energy. 5) The current administration has welcomed treaties that would hold all nations to high environmental standards. Treaties that are biased against the USA will harm the environment, because production will shift to less efficient nations. I am one of the Americans promoting the practical applications of newer and more efficient technologies. My company makes components for high-efficiency inverters for alternative energy and motor drives. I have long been an advocate for high efficacy LED lighting, which has far more potential than mercury-containing CFL lighting. Quit putting your hope in world treaties and regulations that restrict people. Real hope is in ingenuity of free people. 1) CO2 is plantfood, and is exhausted via respiration from every breathing animal on the planet. By swallowing the logic that CO2 is a pollutant, you must consider your very existence to be detrimental to the planet.
2) The optimal global temperature has not been defined. The global climate is always in flux, and it is impractical to assume that every change is detrimental.
3) Equal, if not better, correlations can be made between solar activity and global temperatures. It is not a matter of scientific concensus. Just ask any one of these 31,000+ scientists (http://oism.org/pproject/).
4) No mention is made of the efficiency of the USA. Look at per capita produciton versus energy consumption. By this measure, the USA provides the world with four times as much per unit of energy.
5) The current administration has welcomed treaties that would hold all nations to high environmental standards. Treaties that are biased against the USA will harm the environment, because production will shift to less efficient nations.

I am one of the Americans promoting the practical applications of newer and more efficient technologies. My company makes components for high-efficiency inverters for alternative energy and motor drives. I have long been an advocate for high efficacy LED lighting, which has far more potential than mercury-containing CFL lighting.

Quit putting your hope in world treaties and regulations that restrict people. Real hope is in ingenuity of free people.

]]> By: Ben http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/06/26/should-us-be-held-to-higher-environmental-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-60012 Ben Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:19:30 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/?p=1188#comment-60012 When did protecting the environment start to mean fighting global warming? Carbon dioxide is a minor problem that cannot even be called a pollutant without redefining the word. We have much bigger and more pressing matters on our hands. America already has tougher environmental laws than the rest of the world, with Houston, TX being the most environmentally regulated city on the planet. The improvements have been dramatic, all of America's cities are significantly cleaner than they were just two decades ago. We are leading the world in clean air and water standards. In fact, any definition of pollution that does not include carbon dioxide has America among the best. However, internationally, fighting global warming has harmed helping the environment. The Amazon is being chopped down for more sugar plantations to make ethanol. Wood and "biomass" is being burned instead of natural gas, massively increasing particulates, NOx, and sulfur in the air. Windmills and dams are being errected with little thought as to their deadly effect on birds and fish. Toxic waste from solar panel manufacturing plants is being dumped in secret because it is too expensive to dispose of. People are starving pointlessly for a combination of fear of genetically modified crops and ethanol production (I apologize for the lack of references, but time and space are short). It is not an uncommon sight, saving wildlife, reducing real pollution, and even protecting humanity all being sacrificed in order to cut carbon. When did protecting the environment start to mean fighting global warming? Carbon dioxide is a minor problem that cannot even be called a pollutant without redefining the word. We have much bigger and more pressing matters on our hands.

America already has tougher environmental laws than the rest of the world, with Houston, TX being the most environmentally regulated city on the planet. The improvements have been dramatic, all of America’s cities are significantly cleaner than they were just two decades ago. We are leading the world in clean air and water standards. In fact, any definition of pollution that does not include carbon dioxide has America among the best.

However, internationally, fighting global warming has harmed helping the environment. The Amazon is being chopped down for more sugar plantations to make ethanol. Wood and “biomass” is being burned instead of natural gas, massively increasing particulates, NOx, and sulfur in the air. Windmills and dams are being errected with little thought as to their deadly effect on birds and fish. Toxic waste from solar panel manufacturing plants is being dumped in secret because it is too expensive to dispose of. People are starving pointlessly for a combination of fear of genetically modified crops and ethanol production (I apologize for the lack of references, but time and space are short).

It is not an uncommon sight, saving wildlife, reducing real pollution, and even protecting humanity all being sacrificed in order to cut carbon.

]]>