Why is the environment a political issue?

[zimmer]

Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?

Energy evolution hasn't been government mandated, it has always been the market. Now it's a political football thanks to the leftists.

I'll let an African speak for the idiocy of "alternate energy":

One clear thing that emerges from the whole environmental debate is the point that there's somebody keen to kill the African dream. And the African dream is to develop.

The question would be how many people in Europe, how many people in United States are already using that kind of energy ? And how cheap is it ? You see, if it's expensive for the Europeans, if it's expensive for the Americans, and we are talking about poor Africans, you know, it doesn't make sense. The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy, but for us we are still at the stage of survival.

The challenge we have when we meet Western environmentalists who say we must engage in the use of solar panels and Wind Energy, is how we can have Africa industrialised. Because I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry. How a solar panel, you know, is going to power some railway train network. It might work maybe to
power a small transistor radio.

James Shikwati, Economist and Author.

.

 

[VanceMack]

I was going to answer that, but I had to go drop a deuce. Sorry...conversationally...where were we?

 

[Demon of Light]

And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?

Science is political, despite what some might tell you. Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and Albert Einstein are just a few examples of scientists that have stepped directly into the political debates of their time. Never mind that the various sciences are all political fodder. From scientists attempting to "prove" people are "born gay" to studies about the potential for nuclear winter it is not possible for science to avoid becoming political.

When a group of scientists say humanity is potentially kicking off a mass extinction event by driving SUVs it is political from the start.

Also, there is always someone out to make money from an idea. Consider this cap 'n' trade system and the boon it would be to the financial industry. They're gonna need some new ponzi scheme to funnel people's retirement money into after all. If it turns out the notion scientists have about the role of carbon dioxide is wrong that potential area for manipulation goes out the window with it. British Petroleum actually loves the idea, hell they're part ponzi scheme anyway, so don't let anyone tell you the oil industry is out to deny it because it lines their pockets.

If we go by that logic, we'll find that all anti AGW work is funded by industries with a vested interest in people not believing in AGW, while neutral sources like universities often publish work supporting AGW.

I disagree with your characterization of universities as "neutral sources" of information. They are just as, if not more, susceptible to the corruption and bias that drives some industry-funded sources to say it is wrong.