It is my turn to write over at the Simple Green Frugal Co-op. With the looming UN Climate Change negotiations at Copenhagen only 44 days away, I thought I would try and reach as many people as possible, even though I might be bending the rules of the co-op. This is not the time for sticking to the rules as far as I am concerned.
So if you are interested, pop over to the Co-op and read my post titled “Anyone For a Habitable Planet?”
I believe you will enjoy reading about my risk based approach to the biggest issue that is facing the human race and all of the planets inhabitants.
I just read your comments regarding risk management. There is nothing wrong with the concept of reducing pollution, there is no argument here from any skeptics or deniers. But we have been sold a story that we may be looking at a global catatrophe with shaky science to back it up; that CO2 is the driver of our climate, and that Cap&Trade is the only solution. The skeptics disagree with this story and now we have this stalemate. Why was it done this way? Why were’nt we sold a solution to pollution, rather than a solution to global warming?
Remember, back in the 1970’s we introduced catalytic converters for cars because the smog was so bad in every city. It took about 10 years but now we have smog only in a few cities and most of it occurs on certain days when the wind and weather are a factor. An incredible improvement. We have not put catalytic converters on Electric Generating Plants, or on large trucks, or planes or homes. And many nations do not place converters on their cars at all. Catlytic converters have been the most successful environmenatal technology in history, but the Greens ignore them and want Cap&Trade instead. We have not exhausted the pollution technology at all, but instead we need Cap&Trade. It makes the skeptics wonder what is the true goal in all of this. Are the Greens really interested in saving the planet or is there an ulterior motive? I don’t know, I really don’t know.