cleanair’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Climate Change and the U.S. Senate

  The U.S. Senate has no interest in seeing any climate change legislation or treaty come their way.  The Byrd-Hagel Resolution of July 25, 1997 that said Kyoto was unacceptable passed 95-0.  That is zero nay votes.

  The climate change issue ranks up there with abortion and social security as something to steer clear of.

  Would you tell a constituent that the U.S. has to trash its economy but China, India, and developing nations get a free pass?  Their opponent in an election is going to make sure this factoid is not forgotten.

  Now the question everyone should be asking is why business is suddenly interested in climate change, and climate gets mentioned in the State of the Union address.

  Business "demands action".  The only off-the-shelf technology available today is nuclear energy.  Nuclear reduces imports of middle east oil, and solves a big nat'l security problem.  Nuclear is clean and emits no CO2 (and no SO2, mercury, dioxins, etc.).

  So there you have it.  With nuclear, the U.S. reduces dependence on foreign oil imports, improves nat'l security, provides clean energy, and puts environmental activists in a real bind.  

  If climate change is really as important as activists say, they have to rollover on nuclear.  If activists block nuclear, then climate change maybe wasn't important in the first place.

  Business looks environmentally correct, gets a stable energy supply (that happens to be clean), and gets to bash activists.On Run out of a Senate committee, no less posted 2 years, 9 months ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Free "An Inconvenient Truth" DVDs

  If NSTA wants to maintain any credibility, they cannot distribute free copies of "An Inconvenient Truth" DVDs.

  Otherwise, they will be deluged with offers of free DVDs they should distribute.

  Probably starting with creationists that want THEIR video distributed.

  And there is very little pedagogical value in the DVD.  Students learn scientific principles, perform experiments, draw graphs, and see if they can report accurately and concisely.

  Scientific findings are not published via a video that is narrated by a past presidential candidate.On In case you thought Sundays were lazy! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Texas

  Gov. Perry was accurate in his statement:

  ---"Absolutely," Gov. Rick Perry replied when asked recently by the Star-Telegram whether there is scientific doubt that human activity causes global warming. "I am not going to put the state of Texas in a competitive economic disadvantage on some science that may or may not be correct."

  There are scientists who doubt mankind is a significant contributor to climate change,  whether you agree with these scientists or not.

  And Gov. Perry is not going to trash the economy of Texas regardless.  (Texas is supposed to take an economic hit while China pollutes without limit?)

  Remember that politicians in the U.S. are interested in getting elected, and otherwise have little interest in any of the issues.

  Until Texans discern a problem with climate, that is unlikely, no action is going to be taken by the gov't or business, except flooding the media with hot air.
   On And it ain't pretty posted 2 years, 9 months ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Environmentalism

  The overall problem I see with the environmental movement is that activists are focused solely on making a media splash rather than sustainable progress.

  Within the U.S. there is a critical mass of environmental awareness and stewardship that continues, through a laborious grind-it-out process, to make the environment a little cleaner and healthier each year.  Results are slow, sustainable, and there is no backsliding.  It also does not make for very riveting reading.

  Unfortunately, the climate change issue has turned the environmental movement into a laughingstock.  The farm is bet on this issue, and there is a strong likelihood it will lose big.

  Prohibition in the U.S. (alcohol illegal) was a huge disaster.  Given the choice, people would rather drink and accept all the problems, and there are A LOT of problems, rather than give up drinking.  By an overwhelming margin.

  The same is true of climate change.  People are going to keep their standard of living and deal with whatever climate changes occur.  Especially if the changes are somewhat uncertain, nebulous, and far into the future.

  The bottom line is that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning will continue to rise over the coming years.  Regardless of how much is said about the issue by the media, business, government, the UN, scientists, or anyone else.

  Why the environmental movement wants to glom onto this hugely unpopular issue that has no solution, is beyond me.On Yes posted 2 years, 9 months ago 36 Responses