While waiting for my breakfast (which was insanely delicious) at the Alpine House in Jackson Hole I picked up a copy of the Jackson Hole Daily. I love reading the local papers to get a real feel of the atmosphere. I certainly didnt think I'd find an article as interesting as the one I did.
I've had a lot of internal debate with myself on whether to post articles on Global Warming, but I just dont think it is possible to have a blog focusing on energy conservation without at least touching on the subject, so here I go...
The article in the paper focuses on retired U.S. Geological Survey scientist Peter Ward and a talk he is giving on the effects of SO2 on Global Warming. Mr. Ward's argument is that sulfer dioxide has a greater impact on the warming effefcts in the atmoshpere than carbon dioxide.
So where am I going with this?
Too many people focus on Global Warming and what is actually causing it (believe it or not, there is more scientific debate on this than the media wants us to believe) and NOT enough time discussing why conservation is important for us for a myriad of other reasons.
In other words, this blog would still be in existence with or without Inconvenient Truth. I'm not diminishing the impact that people fighting for GW have had. I'm trying to point out that too many people are too busy debating (analysis paralysis) and not enough time taking action.
So if you have friends who look down on environmental or conservation efforts because they think Global Warming is a sham, tell them: "So I guess that means you like smog, cutting down forests, running out of water, buying oil from our enemies, wasting money, brown-outs, acid rain, etc, etc, etc,".
Bottom Line: Global Warming or no Global Warming, conservation and efficiency efforts are worth undertaking, and there is ZERO debate about that!
Post new comment