By now, nearly every American knows (or represses) the fact that the world is facing an international dilemma. Due to a lack of movement by the government (both Democrats and Republicans) in the area of energy and global warming, the world is facing probably the biggest problem in the history of the planet. Every election since 1972 (thanks Barack) has contained candidates who promised to give the USA energy independence and get us off of fossil fuels. As gas is skyrocketing past $4 a gallon right now, the past 36 years hasn't done much in this area. Sure, we have done research in certain areas, but nothing substantial enough to make a revolutionary movement in this country. With Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, many more people found out about this problem and have vowed to do something about it. On Facebook alone, there are 1,860,764 members of the cause to stop global warming. This is serious, but what are we going to do about it? Before we analyze the different standpoints and evaluate them, lets take a look at the issues in this area.
Oil. Gasoline. Coal. The big band carbon dioxide-emitting monsters. We have all heard about the problems caused by these chemicals. Because of the reduced amount of these substances, many families are having to choose between feeding their cars and feeding their families. In the past, politicians used to see oil as the save-all that would push America into the future as a leader in world technology, but we became complacent. And with our complacency, we became irrelevant. We (along with the world) have fallen far behind where we should be in energy technology because we deemed it possible that oil would last forever. Now we realize that its running out and fast. Also, the areas rich in oil have been at war for many years and will likely remain at war for many years. Our country's oil addiction is quickly ruining the planet, so what other options are there?
One of the least climate-friendly ideas put forth by Republican Candidate John McCain and Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton is a gas tax. This will give Americans a three-month vacation from high gas prices by eliminating the national tax on gas. This will come out to around 18 cents a gallon cheaper gas for the individual, but will end up hurting the planet as well as the individual. The somewhat-cheaper gas will end up giving a false hope to the individual that gas prices are now attainable, even though they are more than twice as high as they were two years ago. Then, more families will go on those summer road trips. This will end up costing families more in total gas costs and the climate crisis will in no way be averted. More carbon dioxide than ever will be emitted during this vacation, and not one step will be taken towards getting our country off of oil.
Another alternative idea supported by Democratic Candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is biofuel. This is ethanol and biodiesel formed by renewable resources such as corn and other plants. The main reason that this form of alternative energy has gained so much support is that it greatly reduces carbon emissions when burned. Many musicians use biodiesel to power their tour buses for the eco-friendly tours, however, this may not be the save-all to the climate problem. In order to get enough grain and corn to make biofuels, there has to be a lot of farmland. This promotes deforestation and habitat destruction, which is one of the world's greatest storers of carbon dioxide. When cut down, more carbon dioxide is released into the air than can be saved by the new type of fuel. 20% of the world's carbon emissions come from the deforestation of rainforests. Not only is this destructive to the climate, but it is also destructive to the wildlife of the area. They are losing their homes just so an American can drive to the city to see a sporting event. Rainforest preservation used to be a huge incentive for green politicians, but now the destruction of it for biofuel has taken the reins, and this could have drastic effects on the world. Biofuel also creates another global problem, and this is hunger and starvation. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. A YEAR! This is outrageous. Also, because of this grand amount of grain needed, the price of food is going up. There have been riots all around the world because of the rising cost of grain and flour. Is it really worth it to starve ourselves in order to feed our SUVs?
There are other types of energy that are often overlooked by the candidates because of the negative outlook towards them by the general uninformed public. The main type is nuclear power. Although fission has been dangerous only once in the past (well one and a half), it is looked at as the grim reaper of energy. Barack Obama and John McCain both mention it, but as a back-project to biofuels and cap and trade systems. However, if enough money is put into research and development, Nuclear Fusion could be realized and our country would be easily energy independent a few years after its discovery. This has been said for the past fifty years, always with a projection of 40-50 years more, but not enough funding has gone to this type of energy. Government funds should be concentrated on this type of research, because it actually could be the save-all needed, with only a few pounds of helium waste produced along with unbelievably vast amounts of energy. Other sorts of energy that are being looked at by the candidates include hybrid energy (electricity/oil), solar power and wind power, but all of these would produce insufficient energy and our country needs to take the good old American innovative look and see what's the next big thing. I have heard good things about carbon sequestration, where carbon is pulled out of the atmosphere and reused, but this is in no way ready to be industrial, but with proper attention, it could be ready in the future. Our government needs to look at global problems such as these and do so immediately.
After reading this, I hope that you are more well-informed on our nation's climate crisis and energy options. Although no candidate is completely qualified to tackle the problem head on, the most funding and the most promising ideas go to Barack Obama. He has a care for the government rarely seen. He also believes in the will of the people, that we can tackle a problem if we set our mind to it, and this is a problem that we are just beginning to set our mind to. Electing Barack in November is our next step to becoming a world energy leader.
After Barack, it has to be Hillary because she has many ideas similar to those of Barack. Although she does not see climate as one of the most important issues (but you could argue neither does Barack) she realizes that it has to be dealt with. She will give more funding than the current White House Staff, and would also be a step in the right direction.
If you are concerned about the climate, there is no possible way that you should vote for John McCain. His ideas are solely based off of oil and only take a half-step into other opportunities. Right now in this country, the U.S. Government has the highest carbon emissions. This is mainly due to the U.S. Military with their planes and tankers and other gas guzzling military machines. If John McCain remains in office and our troops remain stationed in Iraq, there will be a substantial amount of carbon emissions. McCain would most likely look past the oil problem due to his ties with oil mongers in the Republican party and we'd have the same four years as the last four years, as far as energy goes.
The first step to overcoming a problem like this is research, so become informed and help out governments at all levels to give our children the world they deserve.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I'd like to see some proof that there actually is a crisis. The evidence I've seen so far is totally unconvincing.
The models that project global warming are not believeable. They have been projecting steadily warming tempuratures but it has not been happening.
there is definite proof that there is a climate crisis. Check out Al Gore's website climatecrisis.net. How else do you explain the ultimate extremes in weather in the past couple of years? Al Gore predicted them in the film "An Inconvenient Truth." If you go in with an open mind to the movie (which I highly predict that you do in the futuer), your mind will be blown. Please watch the movie or read the book or better yet, do both and get back to me. I would love to have a discussion with you regarding this topic
Al Gore's movie just came out last year. How could weather extremes that happened before that be a "prediction"? I'm not going to base my opinion on a propaganda film or a propaganda website. I'd actually prefer a little science. And I'm not talking about the hockey stick kind of science either where the "scientists" mysteriously erase the Midevil warm period because it does not fit conveniently on their pretty graph.
There have always been extremes in weather. I am 50 years old and every year, somewhere on earth there are extreme weather events. Some places get drought. Some places the monsoons fail or the monsoons are exceptionally strong. What people don't realize is that weather and climate are not the same thing. Lots of global warming alarmists tried to claim that Katrina was caused by global warming. That fine. I'll accept that as long as they will also accept the last two years where we were supposed to have severe hurricane seasons but actually had exceptionally mild hurricane seasons as evidence that global warming is not happening.
The greenhouse gas models make essentially one prediction. That greenhouse gases will trap the sun's heat in the earth's atmosphere and it will cause the climate to warm. It has only been in the last decade when it became apparent that the warming had STOPPED that the alarmists and hucksters stopped talking about WARMING and started talking about CHANGE. What exactly is the theory that CO2 in the atmosphere causes snow in Buenos Aires and severe winter in China? Do greenhouse gases cause cold? The hoax is unraveling!
Where is the evidence that CO2 causes warming. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up significantly in the last decade. But the warm-up seemed to peak a DECADE ago. NASA quietly revised all theri tempurature records last year which were erroneous due ironically to a millenium bug. Here are the revised rankings for the 10 hottest years: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939. The era around the 1930's, before significant man made appears to have been just about as hot as the era around the 1990s. And despite having record high concentrations of CO2 that were supposed to be warming us up, 2007 was nearly a record cold year and 2008 is off to a cool start.
All of this begs the question: If CO2 causes global warming and if CO2 concentrations are steadily rising why is there no significant warming and why was the most recent warm decade about the same as the last warm decade back in the 1930s? And why are we getting record cold years? Of course the answer is that the global warming models aren't worth shit! They have never been able to forecast the past and they can't forecast the future either.
The most powerful evidence of climate change that the alarmist have been able to cite in recent years was the ice melt in the Arctic last summer. The problem is that most of the people repeating this recent example of alarmism are too stupid and lazy to look at history to see if in fact that melt was unprecedented. Probably a few of their gurus know the facts but they are too DISHONEST to spoil their alarming propaganda with INCONVENIENT TRUTHS. The fact is that in 1904 the ice in the Arctic melted to the point where a wooden fishing boat sailed the Northern Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That boat is preserved in a museum in Norway I think. In 1940, the Arctic ice melted to the point where a small Navy ship sailed the Northern Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And in 1942, the Arctic Ice melted to the point where the same Navy ship made the return trip from the Pacific to the Atlantic.
It turns out that the ice melt in the Arctic last year was far from unprecedented and the previous three melts in slightly over a century all occurred prior to significant human CO2 emmisions and they were MORE SEVERE because they actually opened the Northern Passage. The failure of the global warming alarmists to mention these historical precedents as they cry that the "sky is falling" has the strong stench of propaganda.
I twould be nice if the global warming religious zeolots would read a book now and again. Maybe they would not be quite so easy to fool.
Similar propaganda is being spread about the demise of the polar bears and it was specifically staged in Al Gore's Inconvenient Lie. Polar Bear populations are thriving. In 1950 these populations were at about 5000 animals and they are now at about 25,000. Nature has a way of dealing with over-population. If a few bears have died recently it is probably because their population has expanded to beyond the carrying capacity of there harsh environment. If the situation with the polar bears were anything but propaganda, the alarmists would be expressing the situation with reference to that animal's historical numbers. In fact they are not and that leaves us with the stench of propaganda.
I responded to your comment in my newest Climate Crisis Blog...and if you are going to quote studies, could you give sources? I could not find half of your data. Thanks.
Check it out at http://www.progressiveu.org/142416-climate-crisis-3-global-warming-fact-...
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
18 cents a gallon, huh? I'd be saving a huge $2.34 at the pump, if I pulled in with an empty tank. And I only fill my tank maybe once every couple of weeks. If the idea is to make gas prices more attainable, I'm not sure I see a big impact. I guess I could use the money I saved over the 3 month period to buy a cheap bike or a bus pass?
I know this idea has benefits, but just looking at the money the consumer will save, the idea seems about as silly as the people who drive across town because gas is $3.97 instead of $4.01 per gallon.
Read my Blogs!
This is Why I'm Hot
And My Other Blogs
Yeah...I also love it when people also subscribe to online services that will tell them where the cheapest prices are. You end up paying more for the service than you could make in a year.
wait... people pay money for that?! Why? When so many websites give you that exact information free?
Read my Blogs!
This is Why I'm Hot
And My Other Blogs
i could be wrong...i've never done any research into that area
my bad....but its still a waste to even look at it
oh I agree. It's a total waste. I've looked at those websites and seen that the cheapest gas in my area is $3.96 and I think "oh really? Cuz the station down the street from me is $3.89."
Those websites are pure b.s.
Read my Blogs!
This is Why I'm Hot
And My Other Blogs