Global Catastrophes

Malott's Blog has an interesting post about the latest Global fill-in-the-blank disaster. This time it's Global Dimming. He quotes an article in the July 29, 2006, CTVNews (Canada):

Global dimming seems to be caused by air pollution. As pollutants from vehicles, factories, power plants and the like make their way into the atmosphere, they carry with them tiny particles such as ash and soot compounds.

Those particles reflect sunlight away from the earth, and the greater the presence of these particles, the greater the effect on the amount of solar radiation that reaches the surface.

So now cleaning up air pollution is bad, because less pollution means more Global Warming? But with air pollution, we get less sunshine to grow the plants that feed the endangered animals that are more important than people, so cleaning it up is good. But if we clean it up, more people could get skin cancer, so cleaning it up is bad. But if we don't clean it up, it harms the trees and makes it bad for people and animals to breathe well, so cleaning it up is good. I'm so confused!

Not to fear! Former President Clinton (that would be Bill) is working with 22 major cities, so far, to "work together to limit their contributions to global warming." This is from a Washington Post article yesterday.

The Clinton Climate Initiative -- which will create an international consortium to bargain for cheaper energy-efficient products and share ideas on cutting greenhouse gas pollution -- includes Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and New York as well as Cairo, Delhi, London and Mexico City. While the group is not setting specific targets for reducing emissions, Clinton said he is confident the effort will both cut pollution and create jobs in the cities that contribute most to higher temperatures.

Isn't he working at cross-purposes? If they cut pollution, won't that contribute to higher temperatures (see above)?

Climate experts said the effort could help but by itself it will not achieve the major reductions needed to curb global warming.

I suppose if you don't live in one of those major cities, you won't be impacted much, other than reaping the benefits/problems Clinton's efforts will produce.

Looking toward the horizon, though, are some warning signs of coming socialist programs. The Guardian (UK) reported Tuesday about a newly released report.

People living on their own consume more energy and create more waste than individuals sharing a home which could cause an environmental crisis in the near future, according to a report published in the journal "Environment, development and sustainability".

The report's author, Dr Jo Williams, said: "Previously, the typical one-person householder was the widow, often on a tight budget and thrifty. The rise in younger, wealthier one-person households is having an increasingly serious impact on the environment."

It's bad enough they want us to carpool ("rideshare"). Now they're going to start pressuring us to house-pool as well. And all the illegal aliens who live with ten people in a one-bedroom condo are going to be the heroes, while the hard-working folks who can finally afford their own place will be the bad guys. All because "the environment" needs protection from us selfish, polluting, space-hogging, environment-destroying miscreants.

I'm sick of being brow-beaten about the environment, about global warming / cooling / dimming, about endangered animals, and about all the rest of the socialist-wannabe alarmist topics. They've been hitting me over the head with it since Junior High or earlier.

Let the globe take care of itself. It's done a fine job for thousands of years (or is that billions and billions of years?). It'll do a fine job in the future. There are more important things to worry about right now.