There is a lot of talk at the moment about climactic change and global warming and how a lot of it may indeed be just scare mongering and misinterpretation. Many people will hurriedly point out that the planets surface and ocean temperature is rising steadily year on year. And that’s quite true. But what environmentalist pressure groups always fail to mention is that it has been climbing by the same percentage rate since the early 1800’s – long before the planet was overrun with automobiles and heavy industry with the exception of the early 1960’s where it levelled off and stabilised for a while. I am of the opinion that whilst it is certain that we as a race aren’t doing the climate any favours – we aren’t damaging it to the extent that is portrayed in the media as well. Rather that, for the most part, the differences we are experiencing are more to do with the planet’s 40 millennia cycle of full climactic change.
Indeed many of the measures we take to try and combat our negative effects seam to backfire on a regular basis such as planting renewable forests of trees that often produce more greenhouse gases than they do oxygen because we plant the wrong species or encouraging the use of ‘greener’ diesel fuels in our cars because they have lower sulphur emissions but as anyone who has driven behind one will tell you they churn out masses of carbon based pollution. We focus all this attention on cars whilst the animals we breed for food produce more carbon dioxide annually into the atmosphere than cars by a huge percentage.
There are obviously major things that we have done to stir things up like the ozone depletion over the poles but that is a virtually unrelated issue to greenhouse effect arguments and these things are a worry to be sure but I find myself increasingly curious with this issue as to how much of it is a real cause for concern or how much of it is sabre rattling from our nanny state masters? I would be interested to hear your views on the matter…..
Indeed many of the measures we take to try and combat our negative effects seam to backfire on a regular basis such as planting renewable forests of trees that often produce more greenhouse gases than they do oxygen because we plant the wrong species or encouraging the use of ‘greener’ diesel fuels in our cars because they have lower sulphur emissions but as anyone who has driven behind one will tell you they churn out masses of carbon based pollution. We focus all this attention on cars whilst the animals we breed for food produce more carbon dioxide annually into the atmosphere than cars by a huge percentage.
There are obviously major things that we have done to stir things up like the ozone depletion over the poles but that is a virtually unrelated issue to greenhouse effect arguments and these things are a worry to be sure but I find myself increasingly curious with this issue as to how much of it is a real cause for concern or how much of it is sabre rattling from our nanny state masters? I would be interested to hear your views on the matter…..