As I listen to world leaders from today's International Climate Summit, I am once again struck by a gross error in their logic.
Fundamental premise: It is unequivocal that use of non-renewable energy sources (primarily oil, natural gas, and coal) is ultimately catastrophic for earth, its only a matter of when, not if. The catastrophe could come from economic, political, or scientific bases, but it will come.
Arguable premise: It is debatable whether global warming/global cooling/climate change is the result of human activity, there are scientific data and scientists on both sides of this issue. If you accept this arguable premise as true, it is also unequivocal that such climate change is primarily a result of the use of non-renewable energy sources.
If we focus our efforts on renewable energy, we solve both the fundamental problem as well as the climate change problem if indeed it exists.
If we focus our efforts on climate change, we risk solving the wrong problem (or not a problem at all, depending on the outcome of that premise). More importantly, many of the methods being put in place to solve climate change are wrong or short-sighted at best (carbon sequestration, carbon tax trading, Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, etc.).
Regrettably these are politicians and self-serving individuals (not scientists) bringing much more attention to climate change than that of use of non-renewables. Will we look back 50 years from now and have missed the mark?
No comments:
Post a Comment