Follow by Email

Monday, January 11, 2010

Global Warming vs Plain Old Logic

Instead of wasting billions on an international marketing effort to convince people of the threat of global warming, why not just go out there right now and clean up the floating pile of garbage in the Pacific? It's right there in the ocean where everyone can see it and touch it. But no, that would be way too constructive. What we need are more meetings and conferences and accords and agreements and panels and committees and fact finding missions, all designed to appease the third world and level the playing field between the haves and the have-nots. Sure, hamstring American industry while the governments of South America, India, Africa and China exploit their natural resources without restraint. Create more legislation, more bureaucracy, more laws, particularly international ones, that can't and will never be enforced. If we can't stop piracy on the high seas because we're too worried about violating the rights of the Banana Republics, how can we make sure effluence and emissions in China and India are at maximum allowable levels?

Maybe I'm crazy, but if you want to stop pollution and "global warming" you simply have to look around you and take a few very simple steps. First, clean up that gargantuan floating barge (the size of Texas) of plastic flotsam and jetsam in the Pacific. Second, stop manufacturing or just stop importing toys and other items that come in plastic packaging. Before Christmas I bought a small compass for a friend's son. There was more plastic, metal and paper in the packaging than in the thing I was buying. How stupid is that? It's so stupid as to be its own joke. And, I guess, shame on me for buying it, except, in my defense, it was still a lot less wasteful than my other choices.

So, let me get this straight. Instead of cleaning up the pollution we've already created and reducing environmentally harmful emissions by NOT manufacturing packaging material we don't need or want, we're trying like hell to reach international agreement on reducing plant and other greenhouse gas admissions in order to reverse something a lot of scientists don't think really exists or can be reversed effectively by man. And we're doing this by trying to establish a set of unenforceable international laws. Wouldn't we accomplish the exact same thing by doing the former, by cleaning up the mess we've already made and reducing wasteful manufacturing?

Who the hell is in charge here? It's like the world is being run by The Marx Brothers.

No comments: