A lot of scientists, economists, politicians, and just about everybody else has a lot to say about global warming, its causes, and what needs to be done to slow it down or reverse it.
But very few address the real culprit to global warming and fewer, if any, who do address it aren't given a second of mainstream airtime to intelligently debate the issue.
What is the culprit to global warming?
Population growth. In simple terms, there are way too many people in this world.
No, I'm not talking about the doom and gloom predictions of the seventies where people lived stacked on top of each other all starving to death because there won't be enough greenspace left to grow enough crops to feed them all.
I am talking about the effects of over six and a half billion people has on the increased energy needs to clothe, house, and feed all those hungry mouths.
While the US can boast that it has more trees today than in 1900, on a global scale, the world has lost over half of its forests. Trees absorb CO2, a major greenhouse gas. As we clear the forests for more farmland, houses, roads, firewood and...well, you get the picture. It's the same as poking pinholes in your water filter. The filter can only take so many pinholes before it starts letting dirty water get through the faucet.
Six and a half billion people running around need to heat their homes in the winter, cool them in the summer, get to work (translation - drive) and factories need to burn more energy to manufacture more clothes and food, which means more greenhouse gasses are pumped into the atmosphere.
It's time to reign in uncontrolled population growth. We could start by mandating those who are slowly unraveling the moral fabric of our society be sterilized to prevent them from reproducing. In this country alone, think of the millions of births that would be prevented to the likes of rapists, murders, theives, religious fundamentalists, serial killers, and child molestors. Expand that policy to a global scale and population growth may actually be reversed.
With less people in the world, we could reforest many areas that would no longer be needed for housing or farmland. Energy companies and factories wouldn't have to produce as much, reducing pollution and greenhouse gasses.
And there will be less people on the road, which is not only good for the environment, but it would mean I might get to work on time tomorrow instead of sitting for an hour in a traffic jam.
Good night all. Time for me to duck on out of here.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Real Culprit in Global Warming
A lot of scientists, economists, politicians, and just about everybody else has a lot to say about global warming, its causes, and what needs to be done to slow it down or reverse it.
But very few address the real culprit to global warming and fewer, if any, who do address it aren't given a second of mainstream airtime to intelligently debate the issue.
What is the culprit to global warming?
Population growth. In simple terms, there are way too many people in this world.
No, I'm not talking about the doom and gloom predictions of the seventies where people lived stacked on top of each other all starving to death because there won't be enough greenspace left to grow enough crops to feed them all.
I am talking about the effects of over six and a half billion people has on the increased energy needs to clothe, house, and feed all those hungry mouths.
While the US can boast that it has more trees today than in 1900, on a global scale, the world has lost over half of its forests. Trees absorb CO2, a major greenhouse gas. As we clear the forests for more farmland, houses, roads, firewood and...well, you get the picture. It's the same as poking pinholes in your water filter. The filter can only take so many pinholes before it starts letting dirty water get through the faucet.
Six and a half billion people running around need to heat their homes in the winter, cool them in the summer, get to work (translation - drive) and factories need to burn more energy to manufacture more clothes and food, which means more greenhouse gasses are pumped into the atmosphere.
It's time to reign in uncontrolled population growth. We could start by mandating those who are slowly unraveling the moral fabric of our society be sterilized to prevent them from reproducing. In this country alone, think of the millions of births that would be prevented to the likes of rapists, murders, theives, religious fundamentalists, serial killers, and child molestors. Expand that policy to a global scale and population growth may actually be reversed.
With less people in the world, we could reforest many areas that would no longer be needed for housing or farmland. Energy companies and factories wouldn't have to produce as much, reducing pollution and greenhouse gasses.
And there will be less people on the road, which is not only good for the environment, but it would mean I might get to work on time tomorrow instead of sitting for an hour in a traffic jam.
Good night all. Time for me to duck on out of here.
But very few address the real culprit to global warming and fewer, if any, who do address it aren't given a second of mainstream airtime to intelligently debate the issue.
What is the culprit to global warming?
Population growth. In simple terms, there are way too many people in this world.
No, I'm not talking about the doom and gloom predictions of the seventies where people lived stacked on top of each other all starving to death because there won't be enough greenspace left to grow enough crops to feed them all.
I am talking about the effects of over six and a half billion people has on the increased energy needs to clothe, house, and feed all those hungry mouths.
While the US can boast that it has more trees today than in 1900, on a global scale, the world has lost over half of its forests. Trees absorb CO2, a major greenhouse gas. As we clear the forests for more farmland, houses, roads, firewood and...well, you get the picture. It's the same as poking pinholes in your water filter. The filter can only take so many pinholes before it starts letting dirty water get through the faucet.
Six and a half billion people running around need to heat their homes in the winter, cool them in the summer, get to work (translation - drive) and factories need to burn more energy to manufacture more clothes and food, which means more greenhouse gasses are pumped into the atmosphere.
It's time to reign in uncontrolled population growth. We could start by mandating those who are slowly unraveling the moral fabric of our society be sterilized to prevent them from reproducing. In this country alone, think of the millions of births that would be prevented to the likes of rapists, murders, theives, religious fundamentalists, serial killers, and child molestors. Expand that policy to a global scale and population growth may actually be reversed.
With less people in the world, we could reforest many areas that would no longer be needed for housing or farmland. Energy companies and factories wouldn't have to produce as much, reducing pollution and greenhouse gasses.
And there will be less people on the road, which is not only good for the environment, but it would mean I might get to work on time tomorrow instead of sitting for an hour in a traffic jam.
Good night all. Time for me to duck on out of here.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
I'd Rather Share the Road with a Drunk
You heard me right. I'd rather share the road with a drunk because at least a drunk is trying to drive. That's more than can be said for the makeup queen, the cell phone jabber, the old lady who barely peers above the steering wheel, the lost couple in an argument because he won't stop for directions and the map he's trying to read keeps flapping all around, the cow searching for that open bag of cookies in the back seat, the Mom yelling at her unruly kids in the backseat, or the nine out of ten zombies going to work or home from work.
And while a drunk pales in comparison to these drivers, none of them can hold a candlestick to the most fearsome road monster, the common idiot jerk, referred to as the agressive driver in professional circles.
The annoying ones are those who see the warning signs for a lane closure, but insist on speeding pass the slowed down traffic and then fully expect to be able to cut in line further ahead. The bad ones are those who weave in and out, cutting people off to get ahead. But if any of them deserve the full penalty of the law, and I mean license revocation for life, minimum ten years in jail, and possibly the death penalty is that assinine jerk who always manages to get behind me.
Why is it everytime I am in the fast lane doing a good fifteen or so over the limit, keeping a safe distance from the car ahead of me, this jerk manages to find me and start flashing me to get over? First, if you expect me to get over, then you get over and pass me. I'm already speeding so I don't need to go faster. Bottom line is you aren't going to go any faster than me because of the car in front of me so get over in the other lane. But if I can't go any faster because of the car in front of me, and I can't get over because of the cars next to me keeping pace, just where the Hell do you think I can move over to and just where the Hell do you think you're going to go with all those cars still in front of me?
MADD needs to expand to MAAD - Mothers Against Agressive Drivers and get these dangerous drivers off the road.
And while a drunk pales in comparison to these drivers, none of them can hold a candlestick to the most fearsome road monster, the common idiot jerk, referred to as the agressive driver in professional circles.
The annoying ones are those who see the warning signs for a lane closure, but insist on speeding pass the slowed down traffic and then fully expect to be able to cut in line further ahead. The bad ones are those who weave in and out, cutting people off to get ahead. But if any of them deserve the full penalty of the law, and I mean license revocation for life, minimum ten years in jail, and possibly the death penalty is that assinine jerk who always manages to get behind me.
Why is it everytime I am in the fast lane doing a good fifteen or so over the limit, keeping a safe distance from the car ahead of me, this jerk manages to find me and start flashing me to get over? First, if you expect me to get over, then you get over and pass me. I'm already speeding so I don't need to go faster. Bottom line is you aren't going to go any faster than me because of the car in front of me so get over in the other lane. But if I can't go any faster because of the car in front of me, and I can't get over because of the cars next to me keeping pace, just where the Hell do you think I can move over to and just where the Hell do you think you're going to go with all those cars still in front of me?
MADD needs to expand to MAAD - Mothers Against Agressive Drivers and get these dangerous drivers off the road.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
What Does Win Mean?
Well over three thousand Americans dead in Iraq. Apparently, that’s not enough so we are sending 20,000 more targets over there. Maybe with the increased targets, the insurgents will have more practice and get better at killing. We should be bringing our soldiers home, not adding to the casualty list.
Damn, that’s a liberal leftist thing to say. It might even be a quotable quote from the Democrat Party.
One thing I notice in all the debates is a lack of a “win” plan. On the left is “Bush lied to get us in the War and we need to get out” and on the right is “Bush was right to try to bring a democratic state to the Middle East and end terrorism”.
Everything since has been "Bush is wrong" or "Bush is right".
Let me be upfront. We were wrong for taking on Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20, but I even had my doubts prior to our invasion. Now I know we made the wrong decision.
But that doesn’t take away from the fact that we are there, made a mess of the country, and need to “win”. The question is “What does win mean?” Is ousting Sadam a win? If so, we won. How about forming a democratically elected government? If so, we won.
The bigger question is "How long do we give the new Iraqi government a chance to form a self-sustaining government?" Six more months? A year? Five years? And if the new Iraqi government turns into an iron-fisted dictatorship or theocracy, did we lose the war?
And is winning everything?
As long as we debate along partisan lines about exactly what we are doing in Iraq, we'll never win. Even if we withdraw our troops tomorrow and the new Iraqi government manages to establish a thriving democratic government in spite of us, we still lost the war.
We're there so now how do we ensure that we leave with a solid Iraqi govenment in place that will best serve the Iraqi people? Bush failed to give a clear plan. The Democrats fail even worse.
Damn, that’s a liberal leftist thing to say. It might even be a quotable quote from the Democrat Party.
One thing I notice in all the debates is a lack of a “win” plan. On the left is “Bush lied to get us in the War and we need to get out” and on the right is “Bush was right to try to bring a democratic state to the Middle East and end terrorism”.
Everything since has been "Bush is wrong" or "Bush is right".
Let me be upfront. We were wrong for taking on Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20, but I even had my doubts prior to our invasion. Now I know we made the wrong decision.
But that doesn’t take away from the fact that we are there, made a mess of the country, and need to “win”. The question is “What does win mean?” Is ousting Sadam a win? If so, we won. How about forming a democratically elected government? If so, we won.
The bigger question is "How long do we give the new Iraqi government a chance to form a self-sustaining government?" Six more months? A year? Five years? And if the new Iraqi government turns into an iron-fisted dictatorship or theocracy, did we lose the war?
And is winning everything?
As long as we debate along partisan lines about exactly what we are doing in Iraq, we'll never win. Even if we withdraw our troops tomorrow and the new Iraqi government manages to establish a thriving democratic government in spite of us, we still lost the war.
We're there so now how do we ensure that we leave with a solid Iraqi govenment in place that will best serve the Iraqi people? Bush failed to give a clear plan. The Democrats fail even worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
