If we live in an urban or suburban center, we have put ourselves in a place where we have to consume vast amounts of energy to survive and are no friend of the environment. We are hypocrites and fake environmentalists. If we live in a rural environment we are still dependent on energy to get products to us, even though we probably use less energy, and as the election demonstrated, are most likely republicans. Do you know how much oil is consumed to produce and deliver a wind generator or even a single light bulb? If we were really serious about the environment, we would get rid of all urban centers like San Fransisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Washington D.C., and New York, but we won’t because we are fake environmentalists.
We spend billions on Global Warming projects the yield immeasurable results in reducing CO2 or temperature or whatever we are trying to reduce. NASA data from 2010 indicates that the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen, not risen, by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C. A 2013 report from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, assessed more than 9,000 scientific publications, chose around 400, and concluded: “The science now shows with 95% certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.” but 95% of these chosen 400 publications observed warming, but made no conclusions as to the cause. 400 out of 9,000, that’s 4%.
We can argue if Global Warming is true or not, but that is irrelevant since we all agree that we want the best environment we can get. If we were serious about reducing CO2, we would stop breathing and kill every living animal including people, but we are not, we are just hypocrites. Climate Change is a natural and positive occurrence and cannot be controlled. I personally like the difference between summer and winter. Reducing the Carbon Dioxide of the air will slow plant growth. Without any CO2, all the plants would die and we would get the very results that we are trying to prevent.
It is the height of man’s arrogance to believe that we can effect the whole planet either for good or for bad, but that is not to say that we should stop trying to live in harmony with what God has given us to tend. We need to stop just protecting our environment and preventing any further damage but work on building an environment where people can live in a future world that has all the conveniences we desire, while still maintaining harmony with nature. I think that is what we all want. It is the consensus that this can not happen without the use of oil, gas, and coal, until at least 2030. We have yet to imagine how we are going to travel around without oil. Trains use diesel and electric cars need power plants that run on diesel or coal. Let’s think this through.
That is why I think that The Environmental Protection Agency should have a paradigm shift and be renamed The Environmental Management Agency. An agency that helps encourages, and, yes, even rewards enterprise and technology for their environmental efforts, rather than a regressive reactionary government that stands in the way of the inevitable progress we make to a future world. We need an agency with a management plan that lays out steps to get where we all want to be going, and will implement regulations that will help us get there, and not just stop growth.
In the past, The current Director of The EPA , Gina McCarthy, a radical environmentalist, has had a stated goal of killing off the entire American coal industry, oil, fracking, and any other industry she finds objectionable. The EPA has used what’s called it’s “settlement fund.” requiring settling defendants to donate money to non-victim third-parties. These Environmental groups are more interested in the cash flow than the environment.
Fortunately these corrupt and possibly illegal practices are going to stop with the appointment of Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt advocating for sensible energy policies that benefit everyone, instead of policies that simply react to alarm-ism. The EPA has been scandalously radical. The result isn’t a healthier environment; it’s increased antagonism between the interests of environmentalists and industry. The EPA should be a mediator, aiming to balance as well as possible the competing interests of environment and energy policy. The EPA currently incentivises costly, intrusive and stupid alternative sources of energy without considering the consequences, like the following: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/08/costly-wind-turbines-projected-to-yield-1-50-in-daily-savings.html
One of the first steps is to realize that we are going to need coal and oil for a long time into the future because we are not going to give up our all-consuming lifestyle, regardless of being pressured to change. We are not going to bicycle, paddle, sail, or ride horses to where we want to go, and stop producing bicycles boats and buggies to help us get there. We can not protest a gas pipeline, without getting there using some of that gas. We need to stop being so reactionary, petty and small minded and start planning and managing our direction for a clean, safe, environmentally friendly, future world.