The EPA has declared carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide?!!! Before examining the politics and science behind this, lets set some perspective through a simple question: Is this a good or a bad thing? Seriously. Some may state that it is really a complex question, with too many factors to consider.
One test I like to apply in situations where a simple question isn't so easy to answer, is to "test it at the extreme". Often there is clarity in extrapolating
the action in question to a larger scale. So for example, if carbon dioxide is a pollutant, pollutants are bad and we want to eliminate all of them - what happens if we eliminate all the carbon dioxide?
Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring substance on the Earth. It is required for all plant life. If it is completely eliminated, all plants die. If all plants die, no more oxygen is produced and we die. Sounds like a bad thing to me.
Not so fast you say? Its not that simple? Just reduce it by some amount? To all those questions, I would respond - how much is enough?
This is not a science question. This is a political question that will claim science as its justification. We will now be faced with the question of who do we trust to set that amount? The answer will drive governmental fines, penalties and fees (taxes). Fairness and justice will be tossed around as ideals not to be opposed, upon fear of character assassination. The funds collected will be redistributed to those "in need".
The basis of the original question has now changed from CO2 to dollars.
Domestically, the EPA bureaucrats, government funded scientists and elected politicians will now attempt to create new regulations to transfer funds from the private sector to the government. On the global level, the Copenhagen Climate conference is attempting to function as a world government and transfer wealth, using a similar rationale.
It might again be a good time to ask - how much is enough?
One test I like to apply in situations where a simple question isn't so easy to answer, is to "test it at the extreme". Often there is clarity in extrapolating
the action in question to a larger scale. So for example, if carbon dioxide is a pollutant, pollutants are bad and we want to eliminate all of them - what happens if we eliminate all the carbon dioxide?Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring substance on the Earth. It is required for all plant life. If it is completely eliminated, all plants die. If all plants die, no more oxygen is produced and we die. Sounds like a bad thing to me.
Not so fast you say? Its not that simple? Just reduce it by some amount? To all those questions, I would respond - how much is enough?
This is not a science question. This is a political question that will claim science as its justification. We will now be faced with the question of who do we trust to set that amount? The answer will drive governmental fines, penalties and fees (taxes). Fairness and justice will be tossed around as ideals not to be opposed, upon fear of character assassination. The funds collected will be redistributed to those "in need".
The basis of the original question has now changed from CO2 to dollars.
Domestically, the EPA bureaucrats, government funded scientists and elected politicians will now attempt to create new regulations to transfer funds from the private sector to the government. On the global level, the Copenhagen Climate conference is attempting to function as a world government and transfer wealth, using a similar rationale.
It might again be a good time to ask - how much is enough?
No comments:
Post a Comment