Why Environmentalists are to Blame for Global Warming

By mcenulty | May 6, 2008

Printer Friendly Comments (8)
Login to Bookmark Email to a Friend
Rating Number of Ratings: 1

Login to Rate

Environmentalists are to Blame for Global Warming

 


By listening to Al Gore, other environmentalists and the media you start to get the impression that the United States is almost solely responsible for Global Warming through it's production of greenhouse gases. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We do, as a nation produce more greenhouse gas on a per capita basis than any other country, but that very fact can be directly attributed to the workings of those same environmentalists who for years have blocked every attempt to generate nuclear power - the only efficient way to generate power on a large enough scale to meet the needs of the world that does not create greenhouse gases.

 

Let me be clear, "Environmentalists" are the main reason we, as a country, produce so much greenhouse gas on a per capita basis. Because of their 30-year stance (and the lack of political will to go against that stance) against the development of nuclear power in this country we produce almost double the greenhouse gases that we would be producing with a strong nuclear generating capacity.

 

Approximately 50% of the greenhouse gases produced in the United States are the result of the production of electricity and it is probably just as high or higher in other parts of the world. Nuclear power generates no greenhouse gases and global warming may not even be occurring at this time if the nuclear power industry had been allowed to develop in the United States and around the world as it has in places such as France and Lithuania.

 

Just think of the billions of tons of Greenhouse gases that would not have been produced if we, as a nation, would have continued to build nuclear power plants instead of the oil, coal and gas powered plants we and the world rely on now for our power. But the environmentalists wouldn't let us and our politicians, ever afraid of losing votes, went blindly along.

 

Nuclear power is much stronger in Europe with about forty-two percent of their energy produced by nuclear fission. Nuclear generation provides about 17% of world electricity, avoiding the emission of up to 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. France produces 76% and Lithuania produces 85.6% of its energy by nuclear fission. (http://infoweb.magi.com/~dwalsh/wfsesr.html)

 

In the United States, a lot of people and almost all environmentalists are antinuclear because of 3 Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. However, many experts say that it is a safe, clean, and reliable source of energy as proven by it's long history in France. Nuclear Fission produces no greenhouse gases, but does produce highly toxic radioactive wastes (which can be safely dealt with). (www.umich.edu%2F%7Egs265%2Fsociety%2F... target="_blank">http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm)

 

As President, I would immediately call for the United States to embark on a strong nuclear power building program. We have the land upon which to build the power plants (here in California we could throw a half dozen plants in Eastern San Bernardino County alone and no one would ever see them), we have technology that is extremely safe and we have an extremely safe depository for the waste in the Yucca Mountain facility that would be opened very soon if the politicians would quit being politicians and become statesmen and do what is right for the United States and the World.

 

If we converted almost all of our electrical power generation from oil, coal and natural gas to nuclear we would go a very long way towards lowering our greenhouse gas footprint and show the rest of the world that we will do what must be done to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas production.

 

One of the biggest problems facing this country has been it's absolute lack of a comprehensive energy policy. One of the main purposes of a Government should be to plan for the future. Our Government and politicians refuse to do so because all they care about is the next election. The "future" will be the next guy's problem after we are out of office is what they seem to be thinking. We need a comprehensive energy policy in this country that makes good, long-term sense. Not one crafted by environmentalists, the media, big oil and other special interests that is designed solely to garner votes in the next election or contributions to their cause.

 

Thanks,

 

Frank McEnulty

frank@frankforpresident.org

www.frankforpresident.org%2F" target="_blank">www.frankforpresident.org


 

Why Environmentalists are to Blame for Global Warming
Started May 6, 2008 - First 2 of 8 comment(s)   View all comments
May 9, 2008 09:58 AM
Member Since:
February 17, 2007
What I find disturbing about the global warming issue is the lack of a coherent discussion of the issue. This article, "Why Environmentalists are to Blame for Global Warming" is an example. Is global warming a fact? Most assuredly! Are humans causing it? Definitely not! Do we contribute to it? To a very small and insignificant degree! The physical characteristics of CO2 limit its ability to absorb heat in any quantity that would affect atmospheric temperatures. Can we stop global warming? Definitely not! The warming we are experiencing has been occurring since the end of the last ice age and is caused by many things which include solar radiation and the shape of our journey around the sun. If history is any indicator, the earth will experience further warming, further melting of the polar ice caps, and sea level changes significant enough to inundate coastal cities. All of this COULD occur within the next 100 years. We are wasting our time trying to figure out ways to stop the unstoppable when we should be searching for strategies which will ensure that mankind can survive not only the increased warming, but can also survive the long, slow plunge into another ice age. I understand that it is difficult to think about things that are unlikely to occur during our lifetime and that is precisely why demagogues try to use global warming, a perfectly natural occurrence, to further their political agenda. Mr. McEnulty's apprach is to blame environmentalist for this natural occurrence and his agenda appears to be increased use of nuclear power.
May 9, 2008 10:19 AM
Member Since:
September 19, 2007
Would not seeking nuclear power be looking to the future as you eschew? Perhaps global warming is unstoppable. We can at least slow it down and give ourselves more time to secure a viable future. You're chopping off your nose to spite your face.

Post New Comment to the Discussion

You must login to discuss this item.