May 25, 2009

Not So "Hidden Agenda"

FROM-UK Guardian

Climate change summit hijacked by biggest polluters, critics claim

You read an article like this and you realize just how much the entire Global Warming mantra is a not so hidden agenda for environmentalist . Consider this sentence, right near the top of the article.

There is concern that the big energy companies will be pushing carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a way of keeping the oil-based economy running.

If the concern really is the emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere and the supposed destruction it will have, it would seem that the major fossil fuel companies willingness to invest in carbon capture would be great news. Here you would have the richest corporations in the world investing in technologies to curb the supposed negative influences of greenhouse gasses without wreaking havoc on the global economies, while alternatives could be developed. The fact that they have no interest in these companies investing in carbon capture technology,in fact condemn them for even putting it on the table, shows the duplicity of the environmental movement when it comes to global warming.

In condemning these companies they use the following argument:

Shell is almost solely focused on CCS as a mechanism for tackling climate change, sources at the company say, although most independent advisers believe CCS, which has still not proved itself to be commercially or technologically possible on a large scale, will not be ready until 2020 at the earliest. Yet the talks this weekend and the formal climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December are geared to tackling global warming from 2012 – when the Kyoto Protocol runs out – to 2020.

And what pray tell is going to fuel the world's economies until 2020? No thinking person can seriously see an alternative to oil and coal before then and most experts expect we will be dependent on them well into the twenty first century.

Rather than welcoming the idea of large investments in carbon capture by industries fully capable of funding it, the environmental movement would have them and their contribution to society shut down. Their lack of cocern for human advancement and the human suffering this will cause is contemptable.They then would somehow have governments tax the world's citizenry into poverty to subsidize energy sources incapable of fulfilling the world's needs. Theirs is a pathetic and an indefensible argument of common sense.

This combined with their extreme positions on the use of nuclear energy is going to be their undoing. People are catching onto this and the backlash against the environmental movement is going to be a serious setback to their cause which ultimately may do more harm to the environment that they proclaim such concern for.


No comments:

Post a Comment