Coping Pagans In Copenhagen

     It's a stifling fourteen degrees--just a smidge' over two feet away from my left hand--at this moment.  Yesterday it was arctic as well.  December (2009) has proved to be quite an unusually cold month for much of the country -- including regions which usually don't see much cold weather.

     There's also been several reports of snow falling in states (or parts of states) which never get snow; like Texas, for example.

     True, Bolivia's once ample glaciers are dissipating faster than America's moral values.  But is it possible that the earth's homeostatic climate is basically just 'rearranging the furniture' (so-to-speak)-?

     I'm angering some people who once thought me to be in Al Gore's camp.  There was a time when I thought I was in Al Gore's camp--until I found myself repeatedly arguing with 'the other side.'  The 'global warming is a myth' camp is typically made up of conservatives.  But I think to bandy about statements like "humans have no affect on the climate whatsoever" is not only irrational, but downright retarded.

     Our very presence within the climate affects it -- that's not --(nor should it be)--the argument.  The question should be phrased precisely this way; "What is the measure of human impact on the earth's climate?"

     In Copenhagen this week, there are a bunch of well-meaning (but ultimately self-serving & self-righteous) individuals proclaiming some very foolish ideas, such as the 'fact' that carbon dioxide is a 'pollutant.'  So their collective exhale at the summit is having quite a negative impact on the climate, I'm afraid.  We'll have to kill them all (and ourselves) to save the planet from making a bad old movie starring Kevin Costner into cinematic prophesy!

     Carbon emissions feed the trees, lest we forget our sophomore biology classes.  Green plants consume carbon dioxide (the so-called 'pollutant' according to the Al Gore camp) and 'poop-out' (if you will) breathable oxygen.  So it would most certainly be fair to say that without carbon dioxide, we'd have a very difficult time breathing.

     It's not the carbon from the smoke-stacks (etc.) which is the problem.  It's the sulfur, arsenic, methane, and myriad other real pollutants which do not occur naturally in our atmosphere; and those are the real enemies.

     And whether this is just one big charade contrived by world leaders to confuse us or not, we should treat it as such.  Because they're wasting our time.

     What we should be working on is a more common sense approach.  Look around; particularly in this popped balloon that is our economy, there are thousands of long-vacant buildings in this country.  Yet there are still esurient developers out there constructing new buildings sure to have "going out of business" signs in their windows within a year or two.  If we had any damn common sense at all in this country, the focus would shift and the effort would be to halt such over-development so that we could instead plant some damn trees on these precious parcels of land.

     Hollywood is the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the entire world on this issue.  They're trying to seize a huge parcel of land in Plymouth, Massachusetts to construct a 'new Hollywood,' dubbed "Hollywood East."  The land in question has long been the Waverly Oaks golf course; and all of that green, green grass has been munching on carbon dioxide for years now.  If Hollywood East finds the funding it's looking for (the funding they had recently fell through to my delight) it will destroy the pristine land, and replace it with movie studios which are sure to film plenty of action sequences involving explosions (are those 'eco-friendly?') and other exercises sure to have more of a negative impact on the planet than anything else.

     Despite the fact that I find most of the Hollywood ilk to be hypocritical, vain, shallow and evil, I applaud people like Cameron Diaz who has been instrumental in promoting hydrogen cars.  She and Edward Norton have been seen driving the BMW-7, which is a vehicle which can run on either gasoline or hydrogen.

     You can bet that Exxon/Mobil has been responsible for disseminating the myths about hydrogen vehicles.  "What about the Hindenburg?"  -- The flames we've all seen in that infamous piece of film were from the skin of the zeppelin -- not the hydrogen.  Hydrogen flames are very small and burn very cool -- emitting very little heat.  Not to mention the fact that we've come light years in the technology.  Plus the 'duh' factor when trying to pit gasoline against hydrogen -- anyone remember the Ford Pinto-?  Gee, gasoline isn't volatile at all...now is it? [sarcasm]

     Hydrogen cars could be part of rebuilding America and creating enough jobs to end this recession outright.  Clean energy technologies in general could collectively be exactly what we need to mitigate some of the heavier burdens on America's (and the world's) shoulders.  But make no mistake; I DO NOT include either nuclear or coal in the category.  Never has there been a bigger oxymoron than 'clean coal.'  It's about the same as 'pure poison.'

     Unfortunately, I have heard no common sense talk from anyone on these issues really.  I get plenty of people to agree with me when I dispatch these ideas, but have heard no one in the media address them or consider them at all.  Instead, we have to hear about all of the hot air coming out of Copenhagen.  We really are doomed; but global warming has nothing to do with it.