Global Warming Blown Out of Proportion

1124 Words3 Pages

Global Warming Blown Out of Proportion The United States by no means should consider complying with the Kyoto Protocols. My conviction in the negation towards passing this bill is that the whole Global Warming idea is highly blown out of proportion by politicians and the mass media. Global warming, as it may exist in the most gentle form, is the result of natural changes and could yield positive benefits. It is a predictable, quantifiable process. Thus the Kyoto plan is flawed in many ways. The actually origin of such ideas of global warming come to us from computer generated predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 1990 that there would be a 5 degree Celsius boost by 2100. The new 2001 report by the same firm has calculated a measly 1-degree increase. Why would the Kyoto panel suggest the most costly solution to the Global Warming? The reducing our use of fossil fuels. Seeding the oceans with iron dust to launching sunlight-reflecting particles into the stratosphere would also help the supposed greenhouse effect. These solutions would cost from 0.1% to 1 % of the conventionally estimated $100 billion per year the Kyoto protocols would cost the U.S. to reduce fossil fuel usage back to 1990 levels. What a figure! This funding could be used for health care, homelessness, and starvation. There are also economical flaws of the Protocol. The United States could only meet the Kyoto Protocols by rising natural resource prices. Gasoline prices would rise more than 50 cents per gallon. The Kyoto Protocol if established in the United States would implement a mandatory taxation costing citizens $2... ... middle of paper ... ...s what Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, a free-market think tank, wondered. It turns out that Gore and Browner were referring to a cautionary letter by the environmental group Ozone Action, signed by 2,611 people with quite varied backgrounds. The CSE Foundation did some research on those backgrounds and found a few experts on weather and climate - but not many. It also found lawyers, two landscape architects, a philosopher, a dermatologist and a diplomat. In all, the foundation found that only 182, or 11 per cent, of the signatories were in specialties that might have some bearing on the study of climate. And most of these were in geology, oceanography, geography and physics - fields that focus mainly on other subjects. Just a handful - 15 - clearly specialized in climate, weather or other atmospheric science.

Open Document