Libertarian Solutions: Non-governmental solutions to the "problem" of
global warming

By John Semmens
I recently had the opportunity to appear in a televised debate on the
state of the environment. My debate opponent announced that she had
just participated in a telephone conference call set up by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The main focus of this call was
global warming.

I was informed that the scientific consensus is that there is a
warming trend and that this is bad news. It was also asserted that the
cause of this undesirable warming is our love affair with the
automobile. It is this line of thinking that has inspired our Vice
President, Al Gore, to assert that we must endure a wrenching change
in our lifestyle by doing away with the internal combustion engine.

Before we give up our cherished mobility, wreck our economy, and hand
dictatorial powers to government so it can deal with this purported
crisis of global warming, let us consider the issue from a more
dispassionate perspective.

First, there is the question of whether there is, in fact, a warming
trend. While many climatologists believe so, others are not convinced
that this is the case, or that a human-caused increase in greenhouse
gases is responsible. The climate of the planet has always been
variable. The magnitude of these climatological changes has far
surpassed anything that might be the result of recent human activity.
This alone would seem to create a good deal of uncertainty about in
which direction the global temperatures might be headed and whether
anything that humans do has a significant part to play.

There are other reasons for uncertainty. In the 1970s, some of the
same people who are now demanding drastic action to prevent global
warming were demanding drastic action to prevent global cooling. They
seem to have a fixed idea that SOME global disaster must be underway.

Second, though, even if we accept the proposition that the earth is
getting warmer, it is by no means clear that this would, on balance,
be a bad thing. The current climate is relatively warm compared to the
norm over the past several million years. We are in the midst of a
warm interlude between ice ages. For 90% of the last 100,000 of those
years, a mile-thick sheet of ice covered half of North America and
substantial portions of Europe and Asia. It seems doubtful that a
plunge into another ice age, even if it were a natural occurrence,
would be favorably perceived by most human beings.

After all, the warming of the planet after the last ice age seems to
have coincided with the rise of human civilization. Maybe warmer is
better. Growing seasons might be extended. Agricultural output might
increase. Our ability to overcome hunger and malnutrition could be
enhanced.

Third, even if we accept that global warming is taking place and is a
bad thing, it does not follow that wrenching changes are appropriate.
The much-maligned automobile, for example, is responsible for only a
small fraction of the greenhouse gases blamed for the current
reputedly unnatural warming trend.

Each year, there are about 150 billion tons of carbon dioxide
emissions from all sources. Only about 7 billion (or 5%) of this
tonnage is the result of human activity. The remaining 95% are from
natural, i.e. non-human, sources. Less than 3/10ths of a billion tons
of CO2 are emitted by autos in the U.S. So, if every car in America
were permanently parked, global carbon dioxide emissions would be
reduced by less than 2/10ths of 1%. That is, 99.8% of the emissions
would be untouched by this draconian strategy against American
mobility. Lesser impacts like "no-drive days" or mass transit
subsidies would have triflingly tiny impacts.

In general, then, an effort to prevent CO2 from getting into the
atmosphere by restricting mobility and retarding industry does not
appear very promising as a means of reducing the concentration of that
particular gas. The cost would be huge and the results minuscule.

A better approach might be to focus on strategies aimed at absorbing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Plants use it as an input to their
growth. Consequently, a strategy that promotes plant growth would act
to convert carbon dioxide into vegetative biomass. Growing more trees,
harvesting mature wood and converting it into durable wooden products,
and replanting new trees would promote a sustainable cycle that would
remove CO2 from the air and reduce whatever contribution it is, in
fact, making to global warming.

But just as environmentalists of today crusade to decrease CO2
concentrations, so the same folks crusade to recycle paper, without
even considering that one goal may be counterproductive from the point
of view of the other. Putting discarded paper products into landfills
where they will be buried and prevented from oxidizing in itself
reduces carbon dioxide output. Further, it stimulates the use and
replanting of more virgin timber for the production of more paper,
which would contribute to the strategy of converting CO2 into biomass.

Another solution to the problem of greenhouse gas concentrations (and,
again, one which is not wrenching to American lifestyles and
industries) is the fertilization of the oceans with iron-based
compounds, which would extract CO2 from the air by stimulating plant
growth. After all, some of my readers probably put iron-based
fertilizers on the ground in front of their homes to get a lusher lawn
-- i.e., to stimulate plant growth. Spreading fertilizer in the oceans
could also substantially increase food supplies for aquatic animals
throughout the food chain -- possibly aiding in the preservation of
some endangered species. Neither the increased planting and harvesting
of trees for wood, nor the fertilization of the oceans, would require
the kinds of sacrifice being demanded by environmentalists like Vice
President Gore.

Neither would they require that we yield our valued freedom to live
our lives as we think best to some environmental czar or bureaucracy.
The fact that more practical, cost-effective, and less intrusive
options for dealing with the perceived threat of global warming are
ignored in favor of schemes that would place broad new powers in the
hands of government persuades me that saving the planet is, at best, a
secondary concern of those demanding that we sacrifice freedom and
prosperity. More likely, the continuing stream of environmental crises
are pretexts for the acquisition of more government power over how
people live their lives. As the violent history of the twentieth
century's governments has amply demonstrated, there are few things
worse for human and other life forms than expanded government power.

John Semmens is a member of the Arizona Advisory Council on
Environmental Education. Reprinted courtesy of The Pragmatist, Box
392, Forest Grove PA 18992.

EDITOR'S NOTE: How can Libertarianism solve America's problems? Each
issue, LP News will showcase how "Libertarian Solutions" -- or interim
steps in a libertarian direction -- can help improve our nation.

On the off chance that you are wrong, who takes care of the consequences?

I see TV adds now from a tobacco company, warning that smoking is addictive
and can kill. They are the one of the tobacco companies who kept dsaying,
"It hasn't been proven". Do you, perhaps, recognize yourself?

"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6930a3c6.0401081006.4929a726@posting.google.com...
Libertarian Solutions: Non-governmental solutions to the "problem" of
global warming

By John Semmens
I recently had the opportunity to appear in a televised debate on the
state of the environment. My debate opponent announced that she had
just participated in a telephone conference call set up by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The main focus of this call was
global warming.

I was informed that the scientific consensus is that there is a
warming trend and that this is bad news. It was also asserted that the
cause of this undesirable warming is our love affair with the
automobile. It is this line of thinking that has inspired our Vice
President, Al Gore, to assert that we must endure a wrenching change
in our lifestyle by doing away with the internal combustion engine.

Before we give up our cherished mobility, wreck our economy, and hand
dictatorial powers to government so it can deal with this purported
crisis of global warming, let us consider the issue from a more
dispassionate perspective.

First, there is the question of whether there is, in fact, a warming
trend. While many climatologists believe so, others are not convinced
that this is the case, or that a human-caused increase in greenhouse
gases is responsible. The climate of the planet has always been
variable. The magnitude of these climatological changes has far
surpassed anything that might be the result of recent human activity.
This alone would seem to create a good deal of uncertainty about in
which direction the global temperatures might be headed and whether
anything that humans do has a significant part to play.

There are other reasons for uncertainty. In the 1970s, some of the
same people who are now demanding drastic action to prevent global
warming were demanding drastic action to prevent global cooling. They
seem to have a fixed idea that SOME global disaster must be underway.

Second, though, even if we accept the proposition that the earth is
getting warmer, it is by no means clear that this would, on balance,
be a bad thing. The current climate is relatively warm compared to the
norm over the past several million years. We are in the midst of a
warm interlude between ice ages. For 90% of the last 100,000 of those
years, a mile-thick sheet of ice covered half of North America and
substantial portions of Europe and Asia. It seems doubtful that a
plunge into another ice age, even if it were a natural occurrence,
would be favorably perceived by most human beings.

After all, the warming of the planet after the last ice age seems to
have coincided with the rise of human civilization. Maybe warmer is
better. Growing seasons might be extended. Agricultural output might
increase. Our ability to overcome hunger and malnutrition could be
enhanced.

Third, even if we accept that global warming is taking place and is a
bad thing, it does not follow that wrenching changes are appropriate.
The much-maligned automobile, for example, is responsible for only a
small fraction of the greenhouse gases blamed for the current
reputedly unnatural warming trend.

Each year, there are about 150 billion tons of carbon dioxide
emissions from all sources. Only about 7 billion (or 5%) of this
tonnage is the result of human activity. The remaining 95% are from
natural, i.e. non-human, sources. Less than 3/10ths of a billion tons
of CO2 are emitted by autos in the U.S. So, if every car in America
were permanently parked, global carbon dioxide emissions would be
reduced by less than 2/10ths of 1%. That is, 99.8% of the emissions
would be untouched by this draconian strategy against American
mobility. Lesser impacts like "no-drive days" or mass transit
subsidies would have triflingly tiny impacts.

In general, then, an effort to prevent CO2 from getting into the
atmosphere by restricting mobility and retarding industry does not
appear very promising as a means of reducing the concentration of that
particular gas. The cost would be huge and the results minuscule.

A better approach might be to focus on strategies aimed at absorbing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Plants use it as an input to their
growth. Consequently, a strategy that promotes plant growth would act
to convert carbon dioxide into vegetative biomass. Growing more trees,
harvesting mature wood and converting it into durable wooden products,
and replanting new trees would promote a sustainable cycle that would
remove CO2 from the air and reduce whatever contribution it is, in
fact, making to global warming.

But just as environmentalists of today crusade to decrease CO2
concentrations, so the same folks crusade to recycle paper, without
even considering that one goal may be counterproductive from the point
of view of the other. Putting discarded paper products into landfills
where they will be buried and prevented from oxidizing in itself
reduces carbon dioxide output. Further, it stimulates the use and
replanting of more virgin timber for the production of more paper,
which would contribute to the strategy of converting CO2 into biomass.

Another solution to the problem of greenhouse gas concentrations (and,
again, one which is not wrenching to American lifestyles and
industries) is the fertilization of the oceans with iron-based
compounds, which would extract CO2 from the air by stimulating plant
growth. After all, some of my readers probably put iron-based
fertilizers on the ground in front of their homes to get a lusher lawn
-- i.e., to stimulate plant growth. Spreading fertilizer in the oceans
could also substantially increase food supplies for aquatic animals
throughout the food chain -- possibly aiding in the preservation of
some endangered species. Neither the increased planting and harvesting
of trees for wood, nor the fertilization of the oceans, would require
the kinds of sacrifice being demanded by environmentalists like Vice
President Gore.

Neither would they require that we yield our valued freedom to live
our lives as we think best to some environmental czar or bureaucracy.
The fact that more practical, cost-effective, and less intrusive
options for dealing with the perceived threat of global warming are
ignored in favor of schemes that would place broad new powers in the
hands of government persuades me that saving the planet is, at best, a
secondary concern of those demanding that we sacrifice freedom and
prosperity. More likely, the continuing stream of environmental crises
are pretexts for the acquisition of more government power over how
people live their lives. As the violent history of the twentieth
century's governments has amply demonstrated, there are few things
worse for human and other life forms than expanded government power.

John Semmens is a member of the Arizona Advisory Council on
Environmental Education. Reprinted courtesy of The Pragmatist, Box
392, Forest Grove PA 18992.

EDITOR'S NOTE: How can Libertarianism solve America's problems? Each
issue, LP News will showcase how "Libertarian Solutions" -- or interim
steps in a libertarian direction -- can help improve our nation.

On the off chance that you are wrong, who takes care of the consequences?

I see TV adds now from a tobacco company, warning that smoking is addictive
and can kill. They are the one of the tobacco companies who kept dsaying,
"It hasn't been proven". Do you, perhaps, recognize yourself?

"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6930a3c6.0401081006.4929a726@posting.google.com...
Libertarian Solutions: Non-governmental solutions to the "problem" of
global warming

By John Semmens
I recently had the opportunity to appear in a televised debate on the
state of the environment. My debate opponent announced that she had
just participated in a telephone conference call set up by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The main focus of this call was
global warming.

I was informed that the scientific consensus is that there is a
warming trend and that this is bad news. It was also asserted that the
cause of this undesirable warming is our love affair with the
automobile. It is this line of thinking that has inspired our Vice
President, Al Gore, to assert that we must endure a wrenching change
in our lifestyle by doing away with the internal combustion engine.

Before we give up our cherished mobility, wreck our economy, and hand
dictatorial powers to government so it can deal with this purported
crisis of global warming, let us consider the issue from a more
dispassionate perspective.

First, there is the question of whether there is, in fact, a warming
trend. While many climatologists believe so, others are not convinced
that this is the case, or that a human-caused increase in greenhouse
gases is responsible. The climate of the planet has always been
variable. The magnitude of these climatological changes has far
surpassed anything that might be the result of recent human activity.
This alone would seem to create a good deal of uncertainty about in
which direction the global temperatures might be headed and whether
anything that humans do has a significant part to play.

There are other reasons for uncertainty. In the 1970s, some of the
same people who are now demanding drastic action to prevent global
warming were demanding drastic action to prevent global cooling. They
seem to have a fixed idea that SOME global disaster must be underway.

Second, though, even if we accept the proposition that the earth is
getting warmer, it is by no means clear that this would, on balance,
be a bad thing. The current climate is relatively warm compared to the
norm over the past several million years. We are in the midst of a
warm interlude between ice ages. For 90% of the last 100,000 of those
years, a mile-thick sheet of ice covered half of North America and
substantial portions of Europe and Asia. It seems doubtful that a
plunge into another ice age, even if it were a natural occurrence,
would be favorably perceived by most human beings.

After all, the warming of the planet after the last ice age seems to
have coincided with the rise of human civilization. Maybe warmer is
better. Growing seasons might be extended. Agricultural output might
increase. Our ability to overcome hunger and malnutrition could be
enhanced.

Third, even if we accept that global warming is taking place and is a
bad thing, it does not follow that wrenching changes are appropriate.
The much-maligned automobile, for example, is responsible for only a
small fraction of the greenhouse gases blamed for the current
reputedly unnatural warming trend.

Each year, there are about 150 billion tons of carbon dioxide
emissions from all sources. Only about 7 billion (or 5%) of this
tonnage is the result of human activity. The remaining 95% are from
natural, i.e. non-human, sources. Less than 3/10ths of a billion tons
of CO2 are emitted by autos in the U.S. So, if every car in America
were permanently parked, global carbon dioxide emissions would be
reduced by less than 2/10ths of 1%. That is, 99.8% of the emissions
would be untouched by this draconian strategy against American
mobility. Lesser impacts like "no-drive days" or mass transit
subsidies would have triflingly tiny impacts.

In general, then, an effort to prevent CO2 from getting into the
atmosphere by restricting mobility and retarding industry does not
appear very promising as a means of reducing the concentration of that
particular gas. The cost would be huge and the results minuscule.

A better approach might be to focus on strategies aimed at absorbing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Plants use it as an input to their
growth. Consequently, a strategy that promotes plant growth would act
to convert carbon dioxide into vegetative biomass. Growing more trees,
harvesting mature wood and converting it into durable wooden products,
and replanting new trees would promote a sustainable cycle that would
remove CO2 from the air and reduce whatever contribution it is, in
fact, making to global warming.

But just as environmentalists of today crusade to decrease CO2
concentrations, so the same folks crusade to recycle paper, without
even considering that one goal may be counterproductive from the point
of view of the other. Putting discarded paper products into landfills
where they will be buried and prevented from oxidizing in itself
reduces carbon dioxide output. Further, it stimulates the use and
replanting of more virgin timber for the production of more paper,
which would contribute to the strategy of converting CO2 into biomass.

Another solution to the problem of greenhouse gas concentrations (and,
again, one which is not wrenching to American lifestyles and
industries) is the fertilization of the oceans with iron-based
compounds, which would extract CO2 from the air by stimulating plant
growth. After all, some of my readers probably put iron-based
fertilizers on the ground in front of their homes to get a lusher lawn
-- i.e., to stimulate plant growth. Spreading fertilizer in the oceans
could also substantially increase food supplies for aquatic animals
throughout the food chain -- possibly aiding in the preservation of
some endangered species. Neither the increased planting and harvesting
of trees for wood, nor the fertilization of the oceans, would require
the kinds of sacrifice being demanded by environmentalists like Vice
President Gore.

Neither would they require that we yield our valued freedom to live
our lives as we think best to some environmental czar or bureaucracy.
The fact that more practical, cost-effective, and less intrusive
options for dealing with the perceived threat of global warming are
ignored in favor of schemes that would place broad new powers in the
hands of government persuades me that saving the planet is, at best, a
secondary concern of those demanding that we sacrifice freedom and
prosperity. More likely, the continuing stream of environmental crises
are pretexts for the acquisition of more government power over how
people live their lives. As the violent history of the twentieth
century's governments has amply demonstrated, there are few things
worse for human and other life forms than expanded government power.

John Semmens is a member of the Arizona Advisory Council on
Environmental Education. Reprinted courtesy of The Pragmatist, Box
392, Forest Grove PA 18992.

EDITOR'S NOTE: How can Libertarianism solve America's problems? Each
issue, LP News will showcase how "Libertarian Solutions" -- or interim
steps in a libertarian direction -- can help improve our nation.

IS this figure of 5% CO2 releases being anthropogenic accepted? If
so, advoccates of anthropegenic warming have some "splainin to do.

On the off chance that you are wrong, who takes care of the consequences?

I see TV adds now from a tobacco company, warning that smoking is addictive
and can kill. They are the one of the tobacco companies who kept dsaying,
"It hasn't been proven". Do you, perhaps, recognize yourself?

Funny you should mention the Tobacco Lobby.

Parallax wrote:

IS this figure of 5% CO2 releases being anthropogenic accepted? If
so, advoccates of anthropegenic warming have some "splainin to do.

Please see:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

Marvin Margoshes wrote:

On the off chance that you are wrong, who takes care of the
consequences?

I see TV adds now from a tobacco company, warning that smoking is
addictive
and can kill. They are the one of the tobacco companies who kept
dsaying,
"It hasn't been proven". Do you, perhaps, recognize yourself?

Funny you should mention the Tobacco Lobby.
Many of the PR firms that the fossil fuel
industry has hired to blunt efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas global warming have a history
of working for the tobacco lobby. Today, the
Heartland Institute still works for both
clients.

Parallax wrote:

IS this figure of 5% CO2 releases being anthropogenic accepted? If
so, advoccates of anthropegenic warming have some "splainin to do.

Please see:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

On the off chance that you are wrong, who takes care of the consequences?

I see TV adds now from a tobacco company, warning that smoking is addictive
and can kill. They are the one of the tobacco companies who kept dsaying,
"It hasn't been proven". Do you, perhaps, recognize yourself?

"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6930a3c6.0401081006.4929a726@posting.google.com...
Libertarian Solutions: Non-governmental solutions to the "problem" of
global warming

By John Semmens
I recently had the opportunity to appear in a televised debate on the
state of the environment. My debate opponent announced that she had
just participated in a telephone conference call set up by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The main focus of this call was
global warming.

I was informed that the scientific consensus is that there is a
warming trend and that this is bad news. It was also asserted that the
cause of this undesirable warming is our love affair with the
automobile. It is this line of thinking that has inspired our Vice
President, Al Gore, to assert that we must endure a wrenching change
in our lifestyle by doing away with the internal combustion engine.

Before we give up our cherished mobility, wreck our economy, and hand
dictatorial powers to government so it can deal with this purported
crisis of global warming, let us consider the issue from a more
dispassionate perspective.

First, there is the question of whether there is, in fact, a warming
trend. While many climatologists believe so, others are not convinced
that this is the case, or that a human-caused increase in greenhouse
gases is responsible. The climate of the planet has always been
variable. The magnitude of these climatological changes has far
surpassed anything that might be the result of recent human activity.
This alone would seem to create a good deal of uncertainty about in
which direction the global temperatures might be headed and whether
anything that humans do has a significant part to play.

There are other reasons for uncertainty. In the 1970s, some of the
same people who are now demanding drastic action to prevent global
warming were demanding drastic action to prevent global cooling. They
seem to have a fixed idea that SOME global disaster must be underway.

Second, though, even if we accept the proposition that the earth is
getting warmer, it is by no means clear that this would, on balance,
be a bad thing. The current climate is relatively warm compared to the
norm over the past several million years. We are in the midst of a
warm interlude between ice ages. For 90% of the last 100,000 of those
years, a mile-thick sheet of ice covered half of North America and
substantial portions of Europe and Asia. It seems doubtful that a
plunge into another ice age, even if it were a natural occurrence,
would be favorably perceived by most human beings.

After all, the warming of the planet after the last ice age seems to
have coincided with the rise of human civilization. Maybe warmer is
better. Growing seasons might be extended. Agricultural output might
increase. Our ability to overcome hunger and malnutrition could be
enhanced.

Third, even if we accept that global warming is taking place and is a
bad thing, it does not follow that wrenching changes are appropriate.
The much-maligned automobile, for example, is responsible for only a
small fraction of the greenhouse gases blamed for the current
reputedly unnatural warming trend.

Each year, there are about 150 billion tons of carbon dioxide
emissions from all sources. Only about 7 billion (or 5%) of this
tonnage is the result of human activity. The remaining 95% are from
natural, i.e. non-human, sources. Less than 3/10ths of a billion tons
of CO2 are emitted by autos in the U.S. So, if every car in America
were permanently parked, global carbon dioxide emissions would be
reduced by less than 2/10ths of 1%. That is, 99.8% of the emissions
would be untouched by this draconian strategy against American
mobility. Lesser impacts like "no-drive days" or mass transit
subsidies would have triflingly tiny impacts.

In general, then, an effort to prevent CO2 from getting into the
atmosphere by restricting mobility and retarding industry does not
appear very promising as a means of reducing the concentration of that
particular gas. The cost would be huge and the results minuscule.

A better approach might be to focus on strategies aimed at absorbing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Plants use it as an input to their
growth. Consequently, a strategy that promotes plant growth would act
to convert carbon dioxide into vegetative biomass. Growing more trees,
harvesting mature wood and converting it into durable wooden products,
and replanting new trees would promote a sustainable cycle that would
remove CO2 from the air and reduce whatever contribution it is, in
fact, making to global warming.

But just as environmentalists of today crusade to decrease CO2
concentrations, so the same folks crusade to recycle paper, without
even considering that one goal may be counterproductive from the point
of view of the other. Putting discarded paper products into landfills
where they will be buried and prevented from oxidizing in itself
reduces carbon dioxide output. Further, it stimulates the use and
replanting of more virgin timber for the production of more paper,
which would contribute to the strategy of converting CO2 into biomass.

Another solution to the problem of greenhouse gas concentrations (and,
again, one which is not wrenching to American lifestyles and
industries) is the fertilization of the oceans with iron-based
compounds, which would extract CO2 from the air by stimulating plant
growth. After all, some of my readers probably put iron-based
fertilizers on the ground in front of their homes to get a lusher lawn
-- i.e., to stimulate plant growth. Spreading fertilizer in the oceans
could also substantially increase food supplies for aquatic animals
throughout the food chain -- possibly aiding in the preservation of
some endangered species. Neither the increased planting and harvesting
of trees for wood, nor the fertilization of the oceans, would require
the kinds of sacrifice being demanded by environmentalists like Vice
President Gore.

Neither would they require that we yield our valued freedom to live
our lives as we think best to some environmental czar or bureaucracy.
The fact that more practical, cost-effective, and less intrusive
options for dealing with the perceived threat of global warming are
ignored in favor of schemes that would place broad new powers in the
hands of government persuades me that saving the planet is, at best, a
secondary concern of those demanding that we sacrifice freedom and
prosperity. More likely, the continuing stream of environmental crises
are pretexts for the acquisition of more government power over how
people live their lives. As the violent history of the twentieth
century's governments has amply demonstrated, there are few things
worse for human and other life forms than expanded government power.

John Semmens is a member of the Arizona Advisory Council on
Environmental Education. Reprinted courtesy of The Pragmatist, Box
392, Forest Grove PA 18992.

EDITOR'S NOTE: How can Libertarianism solve America's problems? Each
issue, LP News will showcase how "Libertarian Solutions" -- or interim
steps in a libertarian direction -- can help improve our nation.

"Marvin Margoshes" <physnospamchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:<vvrc1fck26nq40@corp.supernews.com>...
On the off chance that you are wrong, who takes care of the consequences?

On the off chance that you are wrong, who takes care of those
consequences?

I see TV adds now from a tobacco company, warning that smoking is
addictive
and can kill. They are the one of the tobacco companies who kept dsaying,
"It hasn't been proven". Do you, perhaps, recognize yourself?

Err... no. The evidence wrt tabbacco is overwhelming and has been for
some decades. The evidence wrt global warming has been overwhelming for
much less time, if at all.

"Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6930a3c6.0401081006.4929a726@posting.google.com...
Libertarian Solutions: Non-governmental solutions to the "problem" of
global warming

By John Semmens
I recently had the opportunity to appear in a televised debate on the
state of the environment. My debate opponent announced that she had
just participated in a telephone conference call set up by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The main focus of this call was
global warming.

I was informed that the scientific consensus is that there is a
warming trend and that this is bad news. It was also asserted that the
cause of this undesirable warming is our love affair with the
automobile. It is this line of thinking that has inspired our Vice
President, Al Gore, to assert that we must endure a wrenching change
in our lifestyle by doing away with the internal combustion engine.

Before we give up our cherished mobility, wreck our economy, and hand
dictatorial powers to government so it can deal with this purported
crisis of global warming, let us consider the issue from a more
dispassionate perspective.

First, there is the question of whether there is, in fact, a warming
trend. While many climatologists believe so, others are not convinced
that this is the case, or that a human-caused increase in greenhouse
gases is responsible. The climate of the planet has always been
variable. The magnitude of these climatological changes has far
surpassed anything that might be the result of recent human activity.
This alone would seem to create a good deal of uncertainty about in
which direction the global temperatures might be headed and whether
anything that humans do has a significant part to play.

There are other reasons for uncertainty. In the 1970s, some of the
same people who are now demanding drastic action to prevent global
warming were demanding drastic action to prevent global cooling. They
seem to have a fixed idea that SOME global disaster must be underway.

Second, though, even if we accept the proposition that the earth is
getting warmer, it is by no means clear that this would, on balance,
be a bad thing. The current climate is relatively warm compared to the
norm over the past several million years. We are in the midst of a
warm interlude between ice ages. For 90% of the last 100,000 of those
years, a mile-thick sheet of ice covered half of North America and
substantial portions of Europe and Asia. It seems doubtful that a
plunge into another ice age, even if it were a natural occurrence,
would be favorably perceived by most human beings.

After all, the warming of the planet after the last ice age seems to
have coincided with the rise of human civilization. Maybe warmer is
better. Growing seasons might be extended. Agricultural output might
increase. Our ability to overcome hunger and malnutrition could be
enhanced.

Third, even if we accept that global warming is taking place and is a
bad thing, it does not follow that wrenching changes are appropriate.
The much-maligned automobile, for example, is responsible for only a
small fraction of the greenhouse gases blamed for the current
reputedly unnatural warming trend.

Each year, there are about 150 billion tons of carbon dioxide
emissions from all sources. Only about 7 billion (or 5%) of this
tonnage is the result of human activity. The remaining 95% are from
natural, i.e. non-human, sources. Less than 3/10ths of a billion tons
of CO2 are emitted by autos in the U.S. So, if every car in America
were permanently parked, global carbon dioxide emissions would be
reduced by less than 2/10ths of 1%. That is, 99.8% of the emissions
would be untouched by this draconian strategy against American
mobility. Lesser impacts like "no-drive days" or mass transit
subsidies would have triflingly tiny impacts.

In general, then, an effort to prevent CO2 from getting into the
atmosphere by restricting mobility and retarding industry does not
appear very promising as a means of reducing the concentration of that
particular gas. The cost would be huge and the results minuscule.

A better approach might be to focus on strategies aimed at absorbing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Plants use it as an input to their
growth. Consequently, a strategy that promotes plant growth would act
to convert carbon dioxide into vegetative biomass. Growing more trees,
harvesting mature wood and converting it into durable wooden products,
and replanting new trees would promote a sustainable cycle that would
remove CO2 from the air and reduce whatever contribution it is, in
fact, making to global warming.

But just as environmentalists of today crusade to decrease CO2
concentrations, so the same folks crusade to recycle paper, without
even considering that one goal may be counterproductive from the point
of view of the other. Putting discarded paper products into landfills
where they will be buried and prevented from oxidizing in itself
reduces carbon dioxide output. Further, it stimulates the use and
replanting of more virgin timber for the production of more paper,
which would contribute to the strategy of converting CO2 into biomass.

Another solution to the problem of greenhouse gas concentrations (and,
again, one which is not wrenching to American lifestyles and
industries) is the fertilization of the oceans with iron-based
compounds, which would extract CO2 from the air by stimulating plant
growth. After all, some of my readers probably put iron-based
fertilizers on the ground in front of their homes to get a lusher lawn
-- i.e., to stimulate plant growth. Spreading fertilizer in the oceans
could also substantially increase food supplies for aquatic animals
throughout the food chain -- possibly aiding in the preservation of
some endangered species. Neither the increased planting and harvesting
of trees for wood, nor the fertilization of the oceans, would require
the kinds of sacrifice being demanded by environmentalists like Vice
President Gore.

Neither would they require that we yield our valued freedom to live
our lives as we think best to some environmental czar or bureaucracy.
The fact that more practical, cost-effective, and less intrusive
options for dealing with the perceived threat of global warming are
ignored in favor of schemes that would place broad new powers in the
hands of government persuades me that saving the planet is, at best, a
secondary concern of those demanding that we sacrifice freedom and
prosperity. More likely, the continuing stream of environmental crises
are pretexts for the acquisition of more government power over how
people live their lives. As the violent history of the twentieth
century's governments has amply demonstrated, there are few things
worse for human and other life forms than expanded government power.

John Semmens is a member of the Arizona Advisory Council on
Environmental Education. Reprinted courtesy of The Pragmatist, Box
392, Forest Grove PA 18992.

EDITOR'S NOTE: How can Libertarianism solve America's problems? Each
issue, LP News will showcase how "Libertarian Solutions" -- or interim
steps in a libertarian direction -- can help improve our nation.

physnospamchem@cloud9.net> wrote:

On the off chance that you are wrong, who takes care of the consequences?

On the off chance that the global warming alarmists are wrong, who
makes up for the lost wealth and income due to reduced economic
growth?

On the off chance that you are wrong, who takes care of the consequences?
We would.

Roger Coppock <rcoppock@adnc.com> writes:

Parallax wrote:

IS this figure of 5% CO2 releases being anthropogenic accepted? If
so, advoccates of anthropegenic warming have some "splainin to do.

Please see:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

Thanks for the informative link. However, the conclusion that
the increase in atmospheric CO2 is "anthropogenic" seems to be
founded on the assumption that only the burning of fossil fuels
can release CO2 that is free of carbon-14.

It seems to me, for example, that the carbon emitted in a volcanic
eruption would also be free of C14. Large quantities of methane
ice are found at the bottom of the ocean, and these probably contain
"old carbon" where the C14 has decayed. Could changes in ocean
currents cause this old carbon to be released?

-SEan
It could be.