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.

I'm probably older than you think.

Answer 1

I am not sure what to believe with the whole global warming issue. All I know is that if it is true, I don't want to be one who helped kill our planet. There is no need for excessive pollution. If everyone would do their part in protecting the environment and its natural resources, global warming may or may not still be an issue. But at least the people who cared enough about their environment to try, would sleep a little better.

What's wrong with recycling? What's wrong with conserving energy? What wrong with using less water? NOTHING!
What's wrong with saving money? NOTHING!

The possibility of global warming shouldn't scare people into having concerns about the environment, they should protect their home without being scared into it.

Answer 2

"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%?"

Every bit of CO2 that we release into the atmosphere has been there before; that is, the atmosphere had already been altered millions of years before man hit the scene.

What if, somehow, all the carbon-fixing organisms had been sentient and organized and decided NOT to alter the atmosphere they had back then, forever preventing the evolution of oxygen breathers, such as ourselves?

I'm not saying that this should give us carte blanche to pump whatever gases we wanted into the atmosphere, but there is something essentially wrong with expending tons of money chasing after a "pollutant" like CO2, and basically turning our heads and ignoring all the KNOWN TOXINS with KNOWN HARMFUL EFFECTS that we pump into the environment every day.

I have a hard time seeing Global Warming Alarmists as people concerned about the environment. It seems like they are ready to abandon real problems facing the Earth for the sake of "winning" a largely political argument.

Answer 3

I don't think that those realists among us have said anything about not reducing pollution. I certainly have been a pollutant reducing activist for many years.
The problem with blaming pollution for a natural phenomenon is that the wrong thing gets the blame.

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.
It's been happening for millions of years.
Humans did not cause it.
Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 4

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 5

I agree one hundred percent that we need to reduce pollution! Just because I dont go along with the official chicken little doctrine on global warming does not mean I dont believe we need to be good stewards. I am disgusted with the waste that the typical human unit inflicts on this environment. We need to reduce pollution and waste, but from what I have seen (and I used to be a liberal, and even a socialist) we DO NOT want government involved in any large way with it. I think that we need to quit dumbing down people in public indoctrination mills ( our alleged "schools), and with mindless entertainment and such and then present them with the truth. Then I think most people will make the right decision and maybe not be so worried about impressing everybody with big wasteful houses, vehicles, pets, etc.
We can still continue our activities in a responsible manner without ruining the environment, but legislation inflicted by brainless politicians is not the answer. A decision making public capable of analytical thought and armed with REAL science is the solution.

PS, this is a really good question!

Answer 6

The fact of the matter is that the EPA is a model that all nations could benefit from. A modern automobile traveling down the road at 55 M.P.H emits less emissions than one from the seventies sitting in someones garage without the engine running. This is because of the E.P.A. and scientific analysis of the harmful effects of Acid rain that was disccovered, and policies developed and implemented by american industries. That is just one of many examples available of how careful government policy has been applied to make our local environment better. So I think that people do care, and it shows.

Their is another reason to develop new technology for energy, and it is not climate change. Currently half of the oil has already been consumed by humanity, there will not be enough to make it to the end of this century. The exponential growth of the population will force humanity either to begin using more coal or possibly methane hydrate. At some point in the not to distant future Nuclear Fusion will become a reality or humanity will continue to rely on internal combustion to support a population of 15 billion people. There is currently no technology available other than using fire to support our way of life. If a new technology is not discovered to produce energy other than internal combustion, humanity will have another world war over the remaining natural resources that will make the last one look like a cat fight.

In the last World War over 40 Million people died.

Answer 7

The laws that have been proposed would drastically raise the price of goods. I’ve read a lot of the laws that have proposed, from raising gas priced to reflect it “true” cost, to a carbon tax, to pay for the damage that the goods have caused. But the question is what good would the law do? We could only enforce it on citizens of the US (I’m assuming you’re talking about the US) or are you going to attack China for not following the laws you think should be in place? Really it would only hurt business in the US, read loss of jobs.

Could you go to any 3rd world county and tell them not to increase their CO2 output? After all you already lead a good life you got your’s, why should you care if someone else’s kids, or grand kids die. It’s easy to sit back and say you should do such, after you already have it all.

Also it appears that CO2 is already hitting the limit as far as warming goes. CO2 is logarithmic, that is the more you put out the less effect it has.

So which of the gasses do you propose we limit; water vapor which makes up a total of 95% of the greenhouse gases or some other gas, which ones? All of them? How much would you charge someone for breathing? What if they work out, do you charge them more? After all they are sweating, and breathing harder and that is adding green house gases into the air.

What in CO2 is a pollutant? CO2 is not a pollutant, without it you would die. With no CO2 ALL life as we know it would end. Are you saying water vapor is a pollutant? That would make rain pollution. I can kill you if CO2 is too high, but the same could be said for pure H2O or Oxygen for that matter. Most of what people are now calling pollution is NECESSARY for life.

Now how are you going to enforce the laws you want to pass, and who is exempt? Does Al Gore get a pass? Do you or anyone else have the right to say how big of a house, how big of a car I need? Do you want me telling you how to live your life? Do you walk if its closer then a mile? I think you should, and I’ll pass a law saying you have too. It helps you and the environment. If it’s raining or snowing too bad, walk. Can’t barbeque either, think of the pollution you are putting out, and barbeque causes cancer too, so you can’t do that. And you better not use air-conditioner either, people lived for thousands of years without and you can too. And the nice camp fire, well you shouldn’t have driven out to the camp ground anyway so no camp fire.

I could go on but I think I made my point.

You really need to think about the “laws” people want to pass, you could ruin the very things you think are important.

Answer 8

Pollution controls have a price. We have been reducing pollution and in fact the US has less pollution than 20 years ago thanks to improvements in technology. No one wants dirty air or dirty water. What does that have to do with the human caused global warming debate. Those who doubt humans causing global warming, myself included, do not want dirty air or dirty water. I also do not drive a Prius because there are costs to consider not to mention there are some problems with them. Limiting greenhouse gases will have extreme costs and without accurately judging costs and benefits, resources cannot be reasonably allocated. The problem with the GW alarmists is that they only see the glass half empty. They fail to see the benefits of warming as well as the costs to reducing CO2 and the actual benefit to limiting CO2. Why do something you know is harmful if you cannot predict how much good will come from it?

Answer 9

I am a man-made global warming non-believer. It is arrogant of humans to think we could have this effect on this planet. But to the point, I see nothing wrong with having a cleaner environment, I support alternative, cleaner running fuels. But this politician (Al Gore) wants the American worker to pay for the development of alternative fuels. See the proposed tax involving global warming ($4,500 a year for a family of 4 and probably $1,500-$3,000 for smaller families and singles). I am against this tax because it will fund the development of alternative fuels, which the energy companies should pay for. They can't take any of that $34 billion profit from last year and put it towards research and development? Also, if the IPCC is so sure of man-made global warming, why won't they say they are 100% sure rather than 90%? because when it is all said and done, they can back out of it with no recourse.

These are some reports that mainstream media won't publish, because they are invested into this global warming scare too:

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/media-ignore-al-gore%e2%80%99s-financial-ties-to-global-warming/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000522/silverstein

There are a bunch more to post, but I just want to open a few eyes. This guy is invested in making money for himself, not concerned with the global climate. America uses hybrid techonology and cleaner burning fuels, Al Gore makes billions of dollars. Before anyone jumps on the bandwagon, look at what is going on behind the scenes. If they decide not to enact the GW tax bill, let these companies pay for the R&D and I will gladly purchase the products. If they enact the tax, I am going to be part of the rebellion because you will pay for it at the pump and you will pay for it's development. That's going to get real pricey!

Answer 10

I'm a conservation minded individual who drives a Prius and uses CF light bulbs in most of my house. I believe that wisely using our natural resources is a good thing. But how clean do you want it? How clean can water be if fish poop in it? How much carbon in our air is caused by volcanoes and cow farts? Even if we went back to the stone age, we still affect the environment by living in it.

I also have not see any real hard evidence that humans and CO2 emissions are the cause of "global warming." In fact, the number of bald eagles has been increasing dramatically since the 60's which corresponds with the latest increases in global temperatures so I think it's all the bald eagles causing temperatures to rise. Who can trust them anyway, they're not even bald?