Jump to content
Pssst. Shell's gone. They left. Now I'm no expert but it looks to me like they collaborated with environmental groups like CAYV and WCC to effectively raise production standards and environmental compliance costs, and then, left. Now why would they do that? Hmm.
And I remember the 1980's. Wasn't that the prosperous period when taxes were cut, GDP growth was strong and sustained, unemployment fell as 20 million new jobs were created, inflation was reversed and the foundation for the longest peacetime economic expansion we'd seen occurred? The one that carried the nation's economy clear into and through the Clinton administrations? The one that not coincidentally was built under the leadership of the last real conservative we've seen in the office of the President? Yeah. I remember that.
But I will agree with a particular perspective CAYV highlighted during their air quality protection campaign. And that is that we are fortunate to enjoy very clean air right here in Routt County, some of the cleanest in the nation.
Mark and Dan, great points to highlight and end this round of debate on. And Scott, there is another alternative. We can adapt. If we need to. Lots of information out there suggesting adaptation and mitigation strategies are far more cost effective alternatives than trying to eliminate or drastically reduce CO2 emissions. It really is a question of how best to allocate limited resources. As Mark points out, we've got all sorts of challenges to face and like it or not, we need to wisely choose which battles to fight and how agressively (and expensively) to fight them.
And though highly unlikely in my opinion, if things were to get desperate on the climate change front, we could always just... evolve ;).
Case in point: "Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere. And for millions of years – literally millions of years – we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket for the planet – trapping the sun’s heat and warming the surface of the Earth to the ideal, life-sustaining temperature. Average temperature of the Earth has been about 57 degrees Fahrenheit, which keeps life going. Life itself on Earth exists because of the so-called greenhouse effect. But in modern times, as human beings have emitted gases into the air that come from all the things we do, that blanket has grown thicker and it traps more and more heat beneath it, raising the temperature of the planet. It’s called the greenhouse effect because it works exactly like a greenhouse in which you grow a lot of the fruit that you eat here."
Ah yes, the fabled fruit greenhouses of Jakarta...
A philosophical question: If a political spokesperson proves - not just leaves the door open to make you question or maybe gives you reason to doubt - but gets up on a world stage and PROVES that he/she has no idea, none at all, about what he/she is talking about, should that spokesperson ever be paid any heed about anything whatsoever?
Bingoh-so-close Dan! Your question almost gets to the crux of the issue. I'm of the opinion that "access to health insurance" is clearly not a right. In response to those who'd argue it is I'd ask, "Says who or according to what?" Do we hold this right to be self evident? That all men should have access to health insurance? Is it a god-given right? Is it a logical outcome of the application of some sort of natural law? Is it a right only for Americans? A right of freedom? A human right? A property right? If it's a right then why should it be limited in any way shape or form and why should different degrees or levels of the right be granted to different people (bronze v. platinum)? Do the unborn have this right? No Dan, it's not a right. It's a nice thought, and one facet of the utopian's unsustainable dream, but in my opinion it's not a right.
I wonder whether you really mean "access to health insurance." I think what you really might be arguing for is the idea that access to health care is a right. And then the question becomes if access to health care is a right, why should anybody, ever, anywhere have to pay for any of their healthcare needs to be met? After all, it's a right! It seems that approach hasn't worked out so well say for example in Great Britain with the NHS. The internet is filled with stories of "subpar" healthcare being provided to people under that system. Unless of course you mean to argue that we all have the right to crappy health care and the duty to our fellow man to put up it.
Jack I know you're not a comrade and that was a cheap shot. Please accept my apology and thanks for writing a letter that fostered some thinking and an informative exchange of ideas. Merry Christmas to all!
I agree with Comrade Jack. We simply cannot tolerate profit-taking in a free market economy. Why next thing you know some people will have nice places to work with good benefits and maybe even completely unnecessary and socially unjustifiable perks! And then they'll want nice places to live and before you know it we've got resort communities. I say we need even more "government-facilitated programs" (good phrase - I'm going to use that) that ok, just might increase costs for everyone a teensy little bit, but more importantly limit private profit taking! That, after all, is what government should be doing. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need!
ODIOT (Our Debate Is Over Too). But here’s my response to you: surely you don’t mean to infer that because the government once may have been on the right side of a tobacco debate decades ago that you are now comfortable deferring to their judgment in all things? Learning tobacco health chronology is without a doubt on my list of things I no longer have time for - so I’m going to take your word for it. Perhaps you’re older than me but I just don’t remember the decades of national prosperity or the very foundation of the industrial revolution being built on the tobacco industry. On the other hand, I think affordable energy did have a little something to do with those things. I was 12 when I started smoking (I was stressed from my folks apologizing to me about Kennedy’s nuclear war). It took me maybe 2 days to figure out that it may not be a good thing for me to do. That was many years ago and my memory’s not what it once was, but I don’t recall being contacted by the federal government to tip me off about their health concerns pertaining to tobacco. Maybe that is why I quit, but I honestly don’t think so.
The point is its apples and oranges. The benefits derived from cheap energy are in no way comparable to the benefits derived from tobacco. The commonality that there are companies and employees involved in both endeavors and the government is opposed to both means NOTHING when it comes to a logical assessment of whether CO2 emissions are likely lead to dangerous global warming. A more meaningful correlation from my perspective is: Al Gore’s family raised tobacco. Al Gore promotes global warming alarmism. Therefore Al Gore is wrong about everything and only interested in profiteering (I find this truism actually works pretty well!).
Same thing applies to your North Atlantic observations. Climate changes. Just because you once saw some ice melt or just because someone makes an entire movie of glaciers melting, it does not mean CO2 emissions are the primary cause. If you had instead flown over the South Atlantic, would you now be a skeptic because the polar ice cap there has grown to a record extent? Lastly, I’m afraid it has everything to do with politics Robert, everything.
It boils down to a question of how to wisely allocate resources –in this case financial resources. I ask you, would the planetary environment be better served by spending kajillions of dollars, sacrificing GDP here in the states, and imposing economic hardships on ALL of us and our kids for the sake of what is going to be, at least according to the experts, a completely ineffectual effort - a mere gesture really - to combat so-called global warming? Or by sending just a fraction of that proposed expense to China for the express purpose of adding pollution control equipment to the power plants there? Plants is dire need of emission controls as highlighted in another post on this page. The answer is pure politics. You have a good weekend too.
ODIO. But in my opinion you’re being way too hard on yourself and may well be freaking the kids out a bit too. Seriously, here in the Yampa Valley things really aren’t too bad environmentally speaking. In fact, they’re pretty good. Too many eurasian doves but other than that, few complaints. Thank goodness I wasn’t raised with my folks apologizing for having already screwed things up. I’ll bet yours didn’t do that either. Personally I had enough issues to grow through without that anxiety thrown into the mix. I’m curious, what’s a kid supposed to say to something like that? Gee pops, that’s ok? No wonder kids today spend hours and days escaping to Call to Duty land or Facebooking as though they’ve lost all hope for a meaningful existence.
Better in my view that we educate them about the relationships between existential needs (food, water shelter), lifestyle choices (such as choosing to become a permanent inhabitant in a once pristine mountain valley), resources (raw materials, energy, ag products) and environmental impacts. Better to tell them the world’s not perfect but it’s manageable and with their help and some wise decision making, things can and will continue to improve. Oh, while you’re at it, tell them wind and solar power aren’t the answer in spite of their parents generation’s manic insistence that it be so. Teach them to think for themselves, let them draw their own conclusions, and trust them to meet the challenges they’ll face. Do that and we’ll all be amazed at the results.
Or we can continue to teach them that somebody else has already figured out what the answers are and here’s what they need to do. Continue to reinforce the idea that centralized government intervention is the best mechanism available to them to improve their lives and the state of the world and we should simply trust and support certain officials, especially unelected bureaucrats, because after all they know best. Do that and we’ll all be amazed at the results too. Millions upon millions of people have already been amazed at those results.
Personally, if the day comes when I feel compelled to apologize to my kids or grandkids for an attribute of the world that develops or worsens to their detriment on my watch, it's more likely it will be for failing to protect and preserve their liberties and personal freedoms to the same extent that I was able to enjoy mine. That’s the legacy that was gifted to me by my predecessors and the one that I’ve far too long and far too easily taken, and allowed my children to take, for granted. But that’s just me. Have a good weekend Dave.
A third recall effort in Colorado is gaining traction. The crosshairs are now trained on Senator Evie Hudak of Westminster. If you did anything at all to support the successful recall efforts of Senators Morse and and Giron, you know your voice and your signature and your financial expression of support can and in fact did make the difference. The battle was won, but the war continues on.
I'd urge everyone with an ongoing interest in this issue to educate themselves about Senator Hudak's role in the same political debacle that Senators Morse and Giron have already been held accountable for. In the interest of fairness alone, Senator Hudak should receive the same treatment.
I prefer the term "post-constitutional representative republic" as the best descriptor of our current form of governance. Not my phrase, but the most accurate I've come across.
Last login: Friday, February 28, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.