Stop Breathing! You're Destroying the Planet!
Ever wonder what the difference is between a rational and irrational environmentalist? Well, here's an example. A rational environmentalist would just call this silly. Trying to declare Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant is inane. CO2 is a naturally occuring compound. It's the by product of Life! Anyone who wasn't brain dead in school would know that we breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. If the government is forced to treat CO2 as a pollutant, then every living thing on this planet becomes a polluter! Even plants switch over at night.
And what about volcanoes? Although infrequent, they certainly spew out tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases when they erupt.
Will it mean that people can't have camp fires? What about barbecues? Will I still be able to use my wood stove to heat my home?
If this goes through, there will be the usual outcry of, "Judges are trying to legislate from the bench!" Of course I don't see that as being any different than the President making them up as he goes along.
But more importantly, if this goes through, we'll be allowing an inept bureaucracy to regulate something else. Maybe there will be an exemption for living things, but maybe there won't. I don't know how much carbon dioxide a person exhales over the course of a year, but given the propensity of government to screw things up, I can see someone arguing in court that obese people generate more carbon dioxide than people within acceptable weight limits. Granted, cutting down on obesity is a good thing, but having the government enforce it flies in the face of Freedom.
As absurd as all this sounds, it really isn't far fetched. "Common sense" has been legislated all over the country. We've got smoking bans, DUI laws, and recreational drugs are illegal. All those things are obviously harmful to individuals and even the people around them, but we also need permits to go fishing. Where's the harm in that? Oh, too many people are taking away too many fish. Yeah right, someone needs to tell that to the drift netters.
You want pollutants? How about polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), dioxins, pesticides, and volatile organic compounds (VOC's). You can even throw sulfur compounds in there too, even though they occur in nature, since they do more harm than good. You run the risk of cancer, renal failure, or asphyxiation, depending on which pollutant you're dealing with. Now those are pollutants.
I realize that reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a good thing, and that it's imperative we get a handle on it sooner rather than later, but getting carbon dioxide labelled as a pollutant isn't the way to go. You might piss off the trees. But seriously, this administration is hopeless. If you want the government to act responsibly towards the environment, vote for an environmentally friendly congressional candidate no matter what party they're in, though make sure they've got a record to back it up. And check your own CO2 output. No one likes a hypocrite.
\_/
DED
And what about volcanoes? Although infrequent, they certainly spew out tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases when they erupt.
Will it mean that people can't have camp fires? What about barbecues? Will I still be able to use my wood stove to heat my home?
If this goes through, there will be the usual outcry of, "Judges are trying to legislate from the bench!" Of course I don't see that as being any different than the President making them up as he goes along.
But more importantly, if this goes through, we'll be allowing an inept bureaucracy to regulate something else. Maybe there will be an exemption for living things, but maybe there won't. I don't know how much carbon dioxide a person exhales over the course of a year, but given the propensity of government to screw things up, I can see someone arguing in court that obese people generate more carbon dioxide than people within acceptable weight limits. Granted, cutting down on obesity is a good thing, but having the government enforce it flies in the face of Freedom.
As absurd as all this sounds, it really isn't far fetched. "Common sense" has been legislated all over the country. We've got smoking bans, DUI laws, and recreational drugs are illegal. All those things are obviously harmful to individuals and even the people around them, but we also need permits to go fishing. Where's the harm in that? Oh, too many people are taking away too many fish. Yeah right, someone needs to tell that to the drift netters.
You want pollutants? How about polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), dioxins, pesticides, and volatile organic compounds (VOC's). You can even throw sulfur compounds in there too, even though they occur in nature, since they do more harm than good. You run the risk of cancer, renal failure, or asphyxiation, depending on which pollutant you're dealing with. Now those are pollutants.
I realize that reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a good thing, and that it's imperative we get a handle on it sooner rather than later, but getting carbon dioxide labelled as a pollutant isn't the way to go. You might piss off the trees. But seriously, this administration is hopeless. If you want the government to act responsibly towards the environment, vote for an environmentally friendly congressional candidate no matter what party they're in, though make sure they've got a record to back it up. And check your own CO2 output. No one likes a hypocrite.
\_/
DED
Labels: environment
posted by DED at 4:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home