Saturday , 23 September 2017

Why Should WE Make Sacrifices to Offset Global Warming? (Part 3)

The world’s 6.7 billion people have been swamped in recent years by a virtual tsunami of non-stop publicity conveying the universal theme of imminent environmental disaster.

We have been told almost daily that calamity can be averted only if we immediately demonstrate our good sense by doing whatever is necessary to halt the rise of man-made greenhouse gases.

Cited as the primary villain is a naturally occurring substance known to all as carbon dioxide which is also created by burning fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal. Words: 1346

So says Arnold Bock ( in an article edited by Lorimer Wilson, editor of  (It’s all about Money!), for the sake of clarity and brevity to ensure a fast and easy read. Please note that this paragraph must be included in any article re-posting to avoid copyright infringement.  Bock goes on to say:

Many of us have cheerfully assumed and accepted enormous amounts of guilt because of our role in contributing to the apparent surplus of CO2. Because of our altruistic values, sense of responsibility and good intentions as stewards of the environment, we willingly do whatever is necessary to preserve planet earth. In spite of driving gasoline powered vehicles and consuming electricity generated by coal and natural gas to perform the myriad tasks of our daily lives, we have enlisted as loyal foot soldiers committed to a transcendent and enduring belief in Mother Earth.

The sacrifices we make by altering our comfortable lifestyle and accepting reductions to our living standard are therefore justified. We feel as virtuous as Mother Teresa was tending to the dispossessed in the streets of Calcutta. Saving Mother Earth is a cause, indeed a belief, which transcends in time, scale and duration anything else that is part of the routine of daily lives. This mission comprises beliefs and dogmas such that it parallels religion in many respects.

Are Our Sacrifices to Save the Planet Warranted?
As individuals and nations we are being asked – indeed it seems we are increasingly being forced – to accept impositions which seriously interfere with the life we strive to achieve. The financial costs will be both major and continuous – but for what purpose and to what end? If we accept what we are told, the benefits are nothing short of the preservation of earth as we know it. If we do not participate, we are culpable in this genocide. Moreover, all living things will be either destroyed or irretrievably altered. So we are informed by Santo Al Gore.

Who in the world is currently reading this article along with you? Click here to find out. 

To any concerned citizen with an ounce of morality, a pending global disaster of such magnitude demands only one response. Comply…without further delay. Sign up now, just like our kids have already done at school by buying and planting twigs of trees to help suck up surplus CO2. Bullying and badgering mom and dad about their careless climate warming habits has become the kids’ daily homework assignment.

There is no more time remaining to examine or discuss any nagging questions or doubts concerning the merits of anthropogenic induced climate change. We must reduce our collective carbon footprints now. Electricity sourced from coal must be replaced by anything that doesn’t spew CO2, except, of course, nuclear power. Our next car must be a state of the art plug-in electric version, or at least a hybrid. But isn’t the single largest source of electricity the burning of coal? Hmm, how does buying and driving an electric car help? Regardless, we must get with the program…now! No more questions please!

Some of us still harbour doubts about this newly declared pollutant with the CO2 label. It wasn’t long ago that Sulphur Dioxide/Acid Rain was the great Satan. Somehow that issue got fixed, or at least it is no longer viewed as a serious problem, considering that fishing remains a popular activity. How about Smog? Europe and North America have made huge strides in dramatically reducing this noxious soup of gases and particulates. Los Angeles and other cities with peculiar climate and topography still suffer, though, as do most places which use coal to produce electricity.

To What Extent is Asia Making Sacrifices to Reduce CO2 Emissions?
The rapidly industrializing cities of Asia present a different story. Clouds of crud are so pervasive and permanent that it is almost impossible to know if the sun is shining. Most industry in Beijing, China was shut down weeks ahead of the last summer Olympics to allow the wind to clear out the perpetual fog of dense smog. Of course athletes needed a fighting chance to set new world records and tourists, too, needed to leave mesmerized by the architecture and economic progress China has made in recent years.

However, smog is a permanent fact of life in most Asian cities and it is getting worse. More amazing still is that these rapidly industrializing nations have not been asked, under the terms of the UN sponsored Kyoto Protocol, to reduce their carbon production by even one measly tonne, even though the carbon portion of that smog is massive and growing rapidly.

The last time I looked water born sludge and chemical contamination has not disappeared either, although first world nations have made considerable progress in reducing the problem. Great Lakes water quality in Canada and the United States attests to how seemingly dead bodies of water can be rejuvenated.

Why Concentrate on Eradicating CO2?
The question is whether citizen concerns over these normal forms of pollution have been lost in the whirl of publicity and political action focused exclusively on Global Climate Change. Could it be that those of us with a broader perspective and concern about the full range of environmental issues are wrong? Obviously our priorities are not in sync with many persons deemed to be environmental and climate experts? Perhaps we are right and they are off on a tangent using global climate warming as their vehicle of choice to achieve their other less apparent objectives?

Carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Even the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seems prepared to declare it thus. How is that possible? It is a naturally occurring substance critical for the growth of all plant life. Combined with water and light, growth takes place through the process of photosynthesis during which carbon dioxide is ingested. So how does a substance which is a core component of growth become something we must eradicate? More precisely, we are being asked to limit the man-made version of carbon dioxide which results from our burning of fossil fuels.

Given that vast quantities of naturally occurring greenhouse gases such as methane, which is even more villainous, should we not also be trying to contain them? Draining swamps would help to substantially limit a major source of methane, although all decaying plants create these gases. Animals, especially cattle, also discharge vast quantities of methane during their lifetimes. Presumably society could do without meat for food from domesticated animals by converting to vegetarian diets. Adopting much more predatory hunting laws would allow man to dramatically reduce the population of wild animals thereby further limiting the production of methane.

A Case FOR Global Warming
Measures to contain and limit major sources of greenhouse gases such as those noted above would no doubt be viewed as extreme, even bizarre, as well as politically unpalatable. So why are we so compliant with what we are being subjected to and asked of us by the climate warming establishment? Rather than limiting CO2, we need more of it. We also need more sun, more heat and more water in order to allow more land to be opened up to the growing of food crops.

The year 1800 is usually cited as the time the population of earth first reached one (1) billion persons. When this writer joined the workforce, population had more than tripled to over three (3) billion. Today the world’s population stands at more than six and one half (6.7) billion. Developing and third world population growth indicates a global population of eight (8) billion by 2025.

Far from lamenting a warming world, we should be desperately looking forward to new opportunities a warmer world would present us in meeting the challenges of our perpetual population growth.

Editor’s Note:

The above article is Part 3 of a 4-part series including:

  • “Global Warming: A Man-Made Crisis” (Part 1)
  • “U.S. and Canada are Global Warming Scapegoats” (Part 2)
  • “Global Warming: The ‘Anthropocentric’ Crisis” (Part 4)

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given as per paragraph 2 above