Should Global Warming be a Priority?


I am not saying it is not a valid issue. But… When we look at return on investment and the alternative issues facing us I think it is our responsibility to take a step back and analyze how we can actually make a difference.


When I hear people throw out blanket statements about climate change and the virtues of the Kyoto Protocol, my gut reactions is skepticism. How many people out there can actually tell me what the Kyoto Protocol would actually do in hard numbers? What would the result be? Can anyone tell me?

What if we focused on clean drinking water with the same slick media hype? What about eradicating malaria? How many lives could we save if we could get food to the people that need it?

How many people would be saved now and in the near future if we focused on prescient issues? How many people would be saved if we all pulled together and slowed global warming by lowering the projected trend by 0.07°C in 2050?


Left or Right it don’t matter, look at the money and where it will be used to greatter effect…


4 responses to “Should Global Warming be a Priority?

  1. I like your analysis because it focuses on the economics of this issue, rather than the emotional save the planet screamers.

    PRO: Kyoto implmentation could cause innovation such as the scuderi engine, hydrogen, etc. to Could also speed up the “coal gassification” Dept of Energy project, increase reliance on natural gas, increase nuclear power generation.

    CON: Why are Mewxico, China, Pakistan, India, and Brazil excluded and allowed to pollute at will under Kyoto?

    Oh my, it looks like the EU and Japan also won’t be penalized under Kyoto because they already are under the ceilings.

    Kyoto is designed to punish the United States and the United States alone. The only way for the United States to comply with Kyoto – short of economic suicide – will be for the United States to purchase credits for our polluting from Mexico, Brasil, China, Pakistan, and India. Sound ridiculous to you as well?

  2. I think the high prices at the pump will do more to inspire innovation and demand for new technology than the Kyoto Protocol.

    Compressed air, or hydraulic hybrid engines could be here next year. That would do a hell of a lot more than mandating emission levels and trying to decrease the overall temperature by .07*c in 2050.

    I hate to say this but maybe high fuel prices are the best thing that could happen to us at this point. We have a history of innovation and hopefully we’ll use it to get past this fossil fuel conundrum.

  3. I agree with your points. In addition to price though, I think the governement can play a good role such as in Brazil 2006. Brazil rely’s only on domestic sources of fuel. They told the Arabs we don’t need your oil!

    What about the CAFE standards? Should they exist? Weren’t they partially responsible for increased fuel economy from the lazidazical BIG 3 in the late 70’s?

    Thanks for blogoshere!

  4. Well, back in January the average price of gas in Brazil was $4.06 a gallon. I don’t know how much is taxes and how much they use to subsidise ethanol but 4 bucks per gallon is pretty steep when you consider that they are self sufficient.

    I do think that the CAFE standards should keep setting the standard for the fuel efficiency. I think the technology exists to push those standards even higher.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s