For global warming non-believers, can you tell me why we shouldn't reduce pollution in general?

Question

For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that humans are not a factor in global warming.

Can you tell me why we should not have laws on the books limiting the amount of greenhouse gases anyway?

People often say that the earth's climate is too complex for us to understand. Then shouldn't we do our best to limit our effect on the environment? If don't understand what we are doing to the climate, wouldn't it be best to reduce our contribution of any particular type of gas to the atmosphere?

For example, what if we increased water in the atmosphere from <1% to 3%? Do you know what would happen?

Why don't we say that the composition of the Earth's atmosphere is x and human activity should not alter it by more than y%?

I just don't understand why people are seemingly in favor of polluting the environment. Pollute in this case meaning to make less pure.

Answer 1

I don't buy into the man-made global warming hype, but do believe in saving and preserving our environment.

Years ago, I began conserving, planting new trees and feel that everyone can contribute to keeping a clean environment. I'm not at all apposed to mandating control of pollutants. It makes common sense.

Answer 2

In economic terms, polution is an example of a 'negative externality.' That is, it's a 'bad' that's the result of beneficial economic activity, and it gets spread around the economy, in general, instead of being 'paid for' by anyone in particular.

That creates even a free-market rationale for the government stepping in and dealing with large-scale polution. (Local polution can still be handled by the market - the real estate market - as land near obnoxious poluters would simply be less valuable).

Unfortunately, assessing the impact of such polution in economic terms is difficult. For the most part, most forms of polution just don't have substantial or measurable impact.

That's where global warming comes in. It's a global phenomenon, which means it affects everyone, and every government thus has a right to get involved in the regulation of the polution causing it. It's caused by a form of polution - CO2 emmission, that virtually any form of economic activity produces directly or indirectly. It is, in fact, a perfect rationale for the imposition of a global command economy. If it's severe enough, and, if it's real.

This fits a pattern we've seen with environmental activism before. Environmentalists wanted to save 'old growth forests' which for whatever reason, they believed were of particular importance, but, the law offered no particular protection to trees. It did offer protection to species with dwindling numbers, however. The environmentalists did some research and located an animal - the infamous spotted owl - that, because of it's particular traits, could only really live in old-growth forests. They used that one insignificant species as a legal pretext to halt logging in thier sacred forests.

Today, there is growing evidence of that global temperatures have risen slightly over the last fifty years, and some evidence to suggest they might continue doing so, and some rather popular theories that suggest human activities may be contributing to that trend. There are also more alarmist theories that suggest that the slight trend might trigger various apocalyptic scenarios.

By focusing on the most extreme possible conclusion - that global warming is a man made phenomenon that will destroy the world in our lifetime - envirnomentalist create a logical pretext for impossing much more draconian regulation on polluting technologies (and that include just, like, raising large herds of cattle for meat). While the pretext is reducing CO2 emmissions to reduce global warming, the objective is to curtail the use of modern technology, the eating of meat, overpopulation, and other issues of traditional concern to environmentalists. Just like the spotted owl and the old growth forest, just with international law instead of American.

Answer 3

I've been saying that all along. Whether man makes a significant contribution to global warming, an insignificant contribution, or none at all ... isn't it common sense to reduce pollution for the greater good and overall health of humanity?

Answer 4

taking humans out of the current global warming argument, YES we should use less of the earth than we do now. Because of our habits, we have made millions of species on the planet extinct. Where is the harm in trying to conserve energy? If anything we could find a source of cheap, renewable energy to run the crap we have.

Answer 5

Nobody is for pollution, in fact we've made massive reduction in the amount of pollution released in the last 30 years. And yes there is far more we could be doing, but it's a completely different set of actions than the global warming "chicken littles" are calling for.

Answer 6

No reason not to reduce pollution in general.

Have you see any of the hundreds of studies on the past climate.
NOAA lists the most common green house gas as water vapor.

Answer 7

Nope but I'd rather focus on known toxins, mutagens, and other bio-active chemicals. It seems to me that CO2 is a distraction from the real issues.

Answer 8

I fill my gas tank once every 2 weeks. I bike to work as much as I can, and I'm Republican. People have to be willing to change, but change is hard for most.

Answer 9

once again liberal points of view with a narrow view, blame anyone who isn't me