It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The climate change conundrum

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:24 PM
The climate changes. It always has, and it always will. NOBODY questions that. NOBODY. WE ALL AGREE.
The argument seems to stem from who do we blame. IF we blame the coal fired power plants, then there will be more restrictions put on them,and the cost of energy will rise. If we blame cows farting, then we will have to invest in massive amounts of beno to put in livestock food causing the price of beef to skyrocket.

If climate change is man caused or not, that is the question. But why does it even matter? Is it just so we can find someone to blame and feel superior as we all watch the world swirl down the crapper?

Pollution sucks. We all agree. Driving cars, using gasoline to power them and emitting all that pollution into the air is bad no matter what you think about Al Gore.

It seems the debate has made it so nobody is really doing anything at all to change the current situation. Are we destined to use fossil fuels forever? I sure hope not. Can we do something right now to start a fix? Possibly, but until we all stop fighting over who is going to get thrown under the bus, nothing will happen.

Forget climate change. Focus on pollution reduction. The Earth will make itself right when it's ready even if we don't like it.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by network dude

Don't you Mason's have some unknown technology that can fix this???
J/K well said, unfortunately it's the American way to look for someone to blame while leading the cause... Sad, really... The current situations that are on the docket for this world are very demisable and bleak for lack of better words...

Something does need to change, to that end I don't know what. Kinda just sucks

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by network dude

Thank you.

One of the few reasonable threads on this topic.

Should we look for a cheaper cleaner alternative to oil? Yes
Should we work to reduce pollution and environmental impact of industry?
Do we need to be taxed to death to do it? No
Is our use of oil going to cause the planet to spontaneously combust? No.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:38 PM
reply to post by network dude

Originally posted by network dude
Are we destined to use fossil fuels forever? I sure hope not.

Eventually, they will be replaced.

Technological advancement will ensure it, and I feel reasonably confident the speed of that advancement will outpace any real need.

Originally posted by network dude
Can we do something right now to start a fix?

We are...and much of it isn't very good because of the shrill urgency caused by the AGW adopters.

'Biofuels a big cause of famine'

The mechanisms that cause death by starvation are all human-caused reasons. The main reason for this daily massacre is speculation on the food market. Half of the global population lives in cities, where food is not produced. According to World Bank data, 1.2 billion humans are "extremely poor." If the corn price were to explode again, like it did in the past two years by 63 percent, then these people will die because they cannot pay these prices.

The second reason is biofuels. Let's take the example of the largest producer in the world, the United States of America. In 2010, the USA burned 138 million tons of corn and hundreds of million tons of grain in order to manufacture ethanol and biodiesel. If you have a car that runs on biofuel, you would have to use 352 kilograms of corn in order to fill up a 50-liter tank. A child in Zambia or Mexico - where corn is a basic staple - could live on this amount for a whole year.


As Biofuel Demand Grows, So Do Guatemala’s Hunger Pangs

GUATEMALA CITY — In the tiny tortillerias of this city, people complain ceaselessly about the high price of corn. Just three years ago, one quetzal — about 15 cents — bought eight tortillas; today it buys only four. And eggs have tripled in price because chickens eat corn feed.

Meanwhile, in rural areas, subsistence farmers struggle to find a place to sow their seeds. On a recent morning, José Antonio Alvarado was harvesting his corn crop on the narrow median of Highway 2 as trucks zoomed by.

“We’re farming here because there is no other land, and I have to feed my family,” said Mr. Alvarado, pointing to his sons Alejandro and José, who are 4 and 6 but appear to be much younger, a sign of chronic malnutrition.

Recent laws in the United States and Europe that mandate the increasing use of biofuel in cars have had far-flung ripple effects, economists say, as land once devoted to growing food for humans is now sometimes more profitably used for churning out vehicle fuel.

As usual, one must be very careful what one wishes for...

Biofuels Digest’s 10-Minute Guide to Obama’s New Energy Policy

Major push from Obama on energy.

From DOE: “Liquid fuels demand can be sufficiently reduced so that biomass can meet all liquid fuel needs.”

A particularly useful strategy when you can ignore the deaths otherwise caused by such a policy...but very few people- and certainly not the MSM- really discuss that.

edit on 26-6-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by loam

Very well stated, as usual!

If the .gov were actually capable of legislating "green" tech into a reality, why not just mandate all cars have the fuel economy of a prius.

The reason is, it is not possible, all the regulations they have passed do is squeeze the little guy, and make life tougher, as food, energy, and transport are mandated to higher and higher prices, all the while ignoring the facts that the tech is not currently affordable, or even efficient enough to be useful.

I will never understand the shortsighted nature of so many folks.

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 05:33 AM

Originally posted by loam
We are...and much of it isn't very good because of the shrill urgency caused by the AGW adopters.

YES!, that is exactly why this is so dangerous. There is some fantasy "urgency" that needs to take place or we will all die. When in reality, we need to make lifestyle changes to deal with our issues. None of that will happen overnight, but let a few good ideas come out and when the cool kids start doing it, you know the drill.

It just pains me to see the animosity that exists between both sides. If you break it down, nobody likes pollution, everyone knows that the climate changes, and the only thing left is why? Sadly some have bypassed that and went right to "who is going to pay".

top topics

log in