Despite the steps we've taken to reduce gas emissions, recycling and this "Go Green" frenzy, some people concerned about the Environment who still argue for Global Warming say that we cannot wait for the market to speak for itself, because by the time that happens, we'll all be dead or living in very horrible conditions.

You know, I don't even get into the whole Global Warming Argument anymore. The Global Warming crowd wants us to be more environmental and to conserve energy. That's great! Even if we lived in a World people didn't believe in Global Warming, who can be against energy conservation and environmentally safe alternatives? That's why I'd push for. Especially if the benefits are economical and practical too. The Global Warming Alarmists like to pick science facts to put faith behind their Global Warming belief, but unfortunately, the amazing science that first theorized global warming is not worth supporting by a lot of Alarmists in terms of influencing the market with economic benefits for practical environmentally safe alternatives. They say that this kind of science and market development will take too long and it will be already too late for us and our precious Earth.

When people say things like that, I begin losing support for their cause. What should we do then? Ban? Restrict? Nationalize? Sorry, my freedom and our investments are more important than that. This Country use to shoot for the Moon, and we actually made it once! Other Countries are the ones that would shoot to regression, not us. That's just something we wouldn't do. Right? Right? I don't know anymore. I mean, if we'd truly rather resort to unconstitutional restriction making than to turn negatives into positive, that is.

Let's just drop the whole Global Warming debate and just find new innovative, economical, practical and marketable alternatives and methods of conserving energy. If Gas Emissions truly are the reason why the Earth is warming up, then why not do this? What would the people who believe Gas Emissions is the root Cause of Global Warming lose? Unless they actually believe that we can control Global Warming by reducing Gas Emissions and not necessarily human activity then lets do this! We're Americans! Aren't we? If we're unable to progress then I guess not, and then I'll know what your real interests are.

Well, Nguyen, you just hit on the reason I lost respect and support for the cause of global warming---the idea that restrictions and regulation, not technology, should be the preferred method to stop greenhouse-emission fed climate change. When someone turns the matter over to politicians, they'll sell it out to the highest bidder, and the environmentalists know it---yet they insist on doing it for global warming. Why is still a mystery to me.

__________________
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely----Lord Acton

They want it done as soon as possible, and they also probably think that once Global Warming becomes an indisputable science truth, generally agreed by everyone (like the Earth being round), the more we can do to save it. What better way to make something fact than by having the Government tell us it is and then do things to us based on that generally agreed upon fact.

I think the problem with your argument is that you're looking for a magic technological bullet to the problem. What if we never find that? What if internal combustion is the best we can do in the next 100 years? We can't wait around and expect that some researcher is going to solve the issue. We need to be proactive in the meantime.

Now thats not to say we shouldn't be looking for other alternatives to our current engines and power generation. And, in fact, we are. There are scores of firms out there working on just those problems. But to twiddle our thumbs in the meantime is foolish. If practical clean cars are created in the future, great, we can reevaluate our policies. But until then, we need to be limiting the pollution we are creating.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

...the problem with your argument is the fact that all our leaders, dem or rep, do not move to at least reduce our consumption. The Ford Fiesta diesel is sold in 11 countries throughout the world, it is the most popular commuter car in Europe. On their standard model with a Peugeot 1.4 liter diesel, it gets a whopping 73 miles per gal. Where is the US? Why has our gas mileage increase been dismal at best for the last 40 years?

http://www.zercustoms.com/news/2008-...etec-Blue.html

Our dilemma of alternative fuel is crucial, our extreme dilemma of running out of a finite resource as oil, is critical, and the scenario of running out would cause world collapse.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Here is what United States Representative from Michigan John David Dingell, Jr., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee had to say about the distribution of any carbon tax or cap and trade revenue:

If they were serious about how in peril the earth was, wouldn't they put ALL of the carbon tax money into carbon reduction and alternate energy strategy's?