The Glade 4.0

Monte -- so you don't have an issue with keeping coal plants open, then? That's an interesting departure from people I associate you with, if so.

If we can generate the power via wind and solar - I'm there.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Why the support for systems that create near immediate and easily documented environmental damage? Solar farms are horrible for their local ecosystems.

...you accept the general consensus on climate change, vastly less global damage.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Moreover, tell me why we should pursue mitigating said global impacts by increasing local environmental damage or ignoring known and reversible man-made environment damage, such as Urban Heat Islands in Colorado and the depletion of the American Long Leaf Pine Forrest?

Now, tell me why it's prudent to make drastic changes in economic and energy policy in the pursuit of preventing incalculable and unknown global damage?

Moreover, tell me why we should pursue mitigating said global impacts by increasing local environmental damage or ignoring known and reversible man-made environment damage, such as Urban Heat Islands in Colorado and the depletion of the American Long Leaf Pine Forrest?

Manmade Global Warming: The Solution

Pat Sajak · Jul. 25 at 11:49am

Manmade global warming, like so many other social and economic issues, has become hopelessly politicized. Each side has dug in its heels and has accused the other of acting irresponsibly and dishonestly. For the believers, the other side has become the equivalent of Holocaust deniers; and for the doubters, the other side has become a cult intent on manipulating mankind to remake the world in some sort of natural Utopian image.

The divide has become so great, it seems virtually impossible to bridge the gap. However, I’m not writing for Ricochet merely to outline problems; I’m here to offer real solutions. And I’m not just blowing carbon dioxide.

Let’s assume that a third of the world’s population really believes mankind has the power to adjust the Earth’s thermostat through lifestyle decisions. The percentage may be higher or lower, but, for the sake of this exercise, let’s put it at one-third. Now it seems to me these people have a special obligation to change their lives dramatically because they truly believe catastrophe lies ahead if they don’t. The other two-thirds are merely ignorant, so they can hardly be blamed for their actions.

Now, if those True Believers would give up their cars and big homes and truly change the way they live, I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be some measurable impact on the Earth in just a few short years. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles, but truly simplifying their lives. Even if you were, say, a former Vice President, you would give up extra homes and jets and limos. I see communes with organic farms and lives freed from polluting technology.

Then, when the rest of us saw the results of their actions—you know, the earth cooling, oceans lowering, polar bears frolicking and glaciers growing—we would see the error of our ways and join the crusade voluntarily and enthusiastically.

How about it? Why wait for governments to change us? You who have already seen the light have it within your grasp to act in concert with each other and change the world forever. And I hate to be a scold, but you have a special obligation to do it because you believe it so strongly. Then, instead of looking at isolated tree rings and computer models, you’d have real results to point to, and even the skeptics would see the error of their ways and join you.

So start Tweeting each other and get the ball rolling. We’ll anxiously await results. See, I told you I had the solution. My work here is done.


More from Pat Sajak

UF, out of curiosity, what exactly is the argument being made in that article? What is it you find persuasive or convincing, and what is it persuading/convincing you of?

False dillema. Alternative energy production need not be in sensitive environmental areas. A balance must be drawn, obviously. Energy is needed, and local environmental damage will occur regardless of the type of manufacture. It is also not simply the case the coal causes global but no local environmental damage. Coal mining causes tremendous local environmental damage.

So no matter what, be it wind, solar, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear, whatever - significant local environmental damage will occur.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

That said, solar farms and wind farms...have their own complications and in some cases worse impacts than in place methods.

It's not a false dilemma, actually. Current policy is pursuing carbon taxes and non-viable energy sources in lieu of solving solvable problems. We can do things about Urban Heat Islands in Colorado. We can do things about deforestation in the South Eastern United States. Instead, the solutions we're considering and proposing merely increase long term damage and promote different sorts of immediate and global changes in the environment. At what point does that become the prudent solution?

And the aggregation of that damage is global environmental damage. Consequently, the current policies do not provide a solution to the problem they are proposing to fix. Practical and practicable conservation is the first step in a long chain of events that need to occur. Research and understanding also need to expand. That said, solar farms and wind farms are not immediately viable alternatives. They have their own complications and in some cases worse impacts than in place methods. Ecological restoration has to play a part in the process, or we are merely treating the environment like we treat the economy: as a problem we can delay but not fix.

Can you elaborate on this point, Khross? I'm not aware of any environmental impacts from wind and/or solar that are even close to the damage caused by coal and gas operations.

However, what I disagree with, is the assertion that moving to alternative energy will cause any more local environmental damage than current policies. It won't.