[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

SG-W:/ Global Warming



         This letter to the editor was written in response to a guest editorial in the Ann Arbor News which debunked Global Warming. It followed the kind of propaganda that coal interests are putting out. I don't know if and when it will be printed.
 
                                         Kermit Schlansker
 
 
Clim801                              Climate Change
 
       The odious article on Global Warming by Rodney Anderson in the Aug 10 News is an example of the kind of propaganda that Coal and other fossil fuel interests are spending large amounts of money on. The author neglects to mention some of the risks associated with Global warming such as melting of an ice plug in the Arctic thus causing a temporary ice age, regenerative increases in Global Warming caused  by methane release, and diversion of the Gulf Stream. He doesn't mention the fact that droughts in such places as the Oregon, Brazil, and New Zealand have already seriously curtailed hydropower and caused energy shortages. For some island nations even a small increase in sea level is disastrous. Do we really have the right to either murder or displace millions of people? We can't take them in because we are already in serious trouble from too many immigrants and must stop the flow. Risk analysis says that even if there is a relatively low probability of a disaster occurring then we must take countermeasures if the disaster is serious enough. Surely the possibility of killing a billion people including perhaps our own Grandchildren is serious enough to warrant action.
          The real decision here is whether to conserve energy and spend money on alternate energy or whether to continue wasting fossil fuels as we are now. Global Warming is difficult to predict but the 100% probability that we will run low on fossil fuels within the next 30 years is a no brainer. Our economy will be changed forever and people will starve if the right measures are not taken. We must immediately start spending as much as $500 billion a year on conservation measures and alternate energy. Solar energy is expensive and impractical by present standards but we can't survive without it.
           Another significant reason for cutting back on fuel consumption is the trade imbalance that acts like the national debt and is transferred to our Grandchildren. Again they are the losers. Drilling for oil in the US is not an answer because such supplies will last only a short time. We must not use these reserves until we are desperate.
            Still another reason is that planting trees, making solar energy systems, building railroads, building energy efficient apartments, and windmills will make many jobs and will help to absorb the unemployed that will result from inevitably higher energy prices. Proper action to take care of the children will increase taxes but that wealth will be transferred into essential manufacturing. Presently we are a nation of bureaucrats, lawyers, athletes, casino operators, and hot air specialists. Only a small portion of the work force is supporting the country. That situation will change drastically as energy supplies diminish. We must change or die.
           Psuedoscience does not replace morality. We must take immediate action to reduce fossil fuel consumption even though we don't know all of the answers.
 
                                                      Kermit Schlansker PE   971 5283