Global Warming Objections, Part VII: The Bottom Line

by Chuck Hall

Global warming dissenters sometimes claim that climate change scientists are part of some vast global conspiracy. Apparently the goal of such demagoguery is to promote the idea that the global warming ‘conspirators’ somehow silence dissenting voices by not allowing them equal time in the media.
When I began this series on global warming, some editors informed me that they would not be carrying the series. Others informed me that they would no longer carry the column at all. If you are reading this column, please remember to thank your local editor for allowing you to decide for yourself based upon the facts I have presented. The point is that if there is any silencing being done by the media, global warming dissenters aren’t the only ones being silenced.
I think that a large part of the fear behind the dissent comes from the idea that accepting carbon emissions standards would mean making financial sacrifices. While this may be true to some extent, with careful planning a large part of this financial burden can be alleviated.
For example, as of this writing, the war in Iraq costs $275,000,000 per day, for a total of about $500,000,000,000! That works out to nearly $4100 for every household in the United States. If the U.S. had invested that money instead into alternative energy, then the U.S.’s dependence on crude oil from foreign countries would probably be a thing of the past by now.
We already have the technology to do away with fossil fuels altogether. Granted, being able to make the switch involves building a new infrastructure to support new energy alternatives, but building such an infrastructure would create much-needed jobs worldwide as new technologies become more readily available on the market.
Carbon emissions reductions have added benefits as well. Cleaner energy means a cleaner environment, not just in terms of greenhouse gases, but also in terms of acid rain from coal-burning plants, vehicle emissions, and waste products from refineries and industry.
The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones. It ended because we found better ways to make tools. It could be that we are learning better ways to power our homes and our vehicles as well. If oil prices continue to rise, the global warming crisis may take care of itself due to economic pressures. Some economists predict that gasoline prices may triple by the end of this decade. If that happens, people will be scrambling for alternatives!
Ultimately, if the majority consensus of climate scientists is wrong, but we take action anyway, we will have gained energy independence and a cleaner, more sustainable lifestyle. But if climate scientists are right, yet we take no action, our children will reap the consequences.