Two stories hit yesterday that should leave you worried.

Well, you should be worried, if you have not joined the Gorical’s zealots, – if you have doubts as to weather human activity is causing “global warming”.

First -

Yesterday news hit that the EPA wants to use Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide, other gases.

The proposal, technically a “finding,” concluded that six greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the 1970 act. But it does not spell out how or what to regulate. If the White House approves the finding, the EPA as well as lawmakers will start that discussion.

Potential health impacts from warming, the finding said, include longer and more severe heat waves; increased smog in some areas; dangerous flooding caused by stronger storms; and diseases, including malaria and dengue fever, related to flooding and warmer weather.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson suggested last month that she would declare global warming a health threat, and recent agency decisions have hinted that the agency was leaning toward making greater use of the Clean Air Act, which is already used to curb emissions that cause acid rain, smog and soot.

Global warming – a health threat.  If I weren’t crying so hard, I’d be laughing at the sheer stupidity of it all. 

To have a history lesson – the Earth’s climate is VARIABLE.  It always has been.  This is the reason that Canada is no longer buried under huge ice fields.  (no, it wasn’t the fires that cavemen started that melted the ice).  This is the reason that we even have the term “Ice Age”.  Think about it.  There was a beginning and an end to each Ice Age – and it, again, was not caused by man.

In the Middle Ages, Europe experienced a warm spell.  Did this cause a disaster?  No.  In fact, it caused a cultural explosion.  Cathedrals were built.  They were able to increase crop yield.  Times were good, people were happy.

Last month, the EPA announced it was reviewing a Bush policy that prohibits using the federal permit process to require new coal-fired power plants to install equipment to reduce carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

Yes, the evil coal industry again.  What the above means is that energy costs will go up.  Or, some energy will never be created, due to the increasing regulation.  And energy is our necessary evil.  We need it.  For our homes, businesses, cars, for just about every thing.  And, at this point, a lot of our energy comes from coal.

Environmentalists were pleased with the finding.

That alone puts fear in my heart….

Frank O’Donnell, director of Clean Air Watch, called it “a green-letter day for the environment.”

O’Donnell said he expected federal limits on pollution “emissions from the biggest sources, including power plants and motor vehicles. And it ought to jumpstart action on this issue in Congress.”

Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse gas.  And will be regulated.

“Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars which may either be consumed again in respiration or used as the raw material to produce polysaccharides such as starch and cellulose, proteins and the wide variety of other organic compounds required for plant growth and development. It is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend on living and decaying plants for food, either directly or indirectly. It is, therefore, a major component of the carbon cycle.”

So, plants NEED carbon dioxide.  And humans, animals, and all living things create carbon dioxide.  So, is the government going to start taxing me for the carbon dioxide that I breathe out?

Second –

UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt.

JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.

Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.

The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.

Forgive me for asking, but just how is one supposed to go about REDUCING a population?  It seems to me, Hitler tried that one before, and that has been rightfully, universally (except in Iran) condemned…

“Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.” – Porritt

Let me get this one straight – Britain, whose population is already dropping and is well fed, should reduce its number further, while developing countries, with families that have 8 kids on average, whose populations are starving, and (and this should upset green people) who pollute on a large scale, should “keep on keeping on?”

Conclusion –

You see, the crux of the matter is that the environuts do not want to save the Earth FOR us, they want to save the Earth FROM us.

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

View Technorati blog reactions.

Related Posts