The other day I found myself in a conversation with a few friends. CNN had just ran its hourly quota of gulf news coverage. That coverage sparked a debate amongst us about environmental disasters, which ultimately ran into climate change. I’ll call my friends Steve and Rick. Both are moderately conservative and both moderately religious. I only say that because even their moderate religious beliefs play an instrumental role in their political, social and environmental views. Steve begins the debate by saying that crude is just a necessary evil we have to contend with in order to maintain our way of life. Now this is a big deal, wars have been fought, just to maintain ‘Way of Life’ Steve then goes on to ask of us, “Do we just throw away 50 years of technology simply because some scientists say what we’re doing is wrong?” And Steve’s point is that not all environmental scientists agree with man-made climate change. And as Steve pointed out, that just the Iceland’s Eyjafjoell volcano is emitting more co2 daily than all the S UV’s in the world. And that is true. It is also true that the oceans contain over 34,000 gigatonnes of carbon. On top of the 2,000 3,000gts of co2 in the biomass. So with humans contributing a paltry 26gt. This opens it up for Rick to jump in. No surprise to me that Rick backs up Steve with another interesting fact. Global Warming is happening all over the solar system. So that would imply the sun has more to do with our climate change than anything we do. And again I can’t argue that. Its true the sun goes through 11-15 year cycles called solar maximum, and most likely a great contributor to Climate Change. SO now it was my turn. I first addressed Steve’s misinformed information about the need for oil. There are no such things as necessary evils. And we do not need crude oil for anything at all. The more than 25,000 products made from crude, can be made just as easy and a lot cheaper from hemp. The reason it isn’t is a matter of simple greed. And the Oil lobbyists makes sure the moral compass in America points away from hemp. Now for the front line assault. While I have to concede that their points are valid, they really didn’t think their argument out so well. Lets accept that Eyjafjoell does emit more co2 daily than all the S UV’s that still doesn’t account for the other 300 million vehicles on the road. And as far as the vast amounts of CO2 released by nature as compared by man. Remember the natural cycles of release and absorptions are regulating by nature. Yes there are periods where the earth releasing more co2 than it can absorb, however those always follow periods of light release and the rate of absorption is able to regulate the CO2 levels.When we add to that, we are heavily contributing to the imbalance. And we continue to do this right through each Solar Maximum. So each period of natural imbalance is being further imbalanced by our actions. Which is why the co2 is at levels not seen in 800,000 years. While on the surface it may not seem like we are contributing all that much, what we are contributing is upsetting the balance. Why can’t we make the switch back to hemp based products and fuels? The answer came to me from another friend in a completely different conversation. People can no longer tell the difference between actual needs and instant gratification.
Climate Change: Man vs Nature