Politically-based climate activists change the name of their cause

First, "their" cause was called global warming, then climate change, and now in May 2014, it's called "climate disruption." I give them points for creativity.

The problem is, we like air conditioning. We like receiving goods that are shipped quickly by planes and semi trucks. And we like to access the Internet with multiple devices, which require energy to manufacture, ship, and recharge.

Plus, the Internet requires a lot of equipment, such as servers, routers, cable, warehouses, etc.

We like plastic. It's used widely, and most of it is made from petroleum.

We like food that is produced all over the world and transported by fossil fuels.

We like coffee.

The solution may be a lifestyle that's closer to the earth than how the Amish live. The solution may be giving up nearly everything we enjoy today. These ideas, however, don't get promoted because we enjoy our standard of living, and we continually try to improve it.

Is the warming caused by solar activity?

If the climate disruption is caused by human-induced or human-accelerated global warming, and since humans are a species of this planet, a mammal, then could this climate change be called a "natural" warming?

If the thinking is that humans will destroy themselves someday, then could human-induced global warming be a natural part of our evolution or destiny?

If humans are the cause, then more humans could make it worse. And while fewer humans may not resolve the problem entirely, fewer humans could slow the affects. Therefore, fewer humans are a positive.

If human-induced global warming leads to catastrophic disasters that could reduce the human population, which is a good thing, then it's possible that given a couple hundred years or more, this naturally occurring global warming problem could resolve itself, naturally, and the climate will cool or stabilize to a "normal" level that is unknown to humans.

The problem is that the rest of nature cannot evolve and adapt fast enough to human-caused changes.

Anyway, unless some people start advocating a lifestyle in the U.S.A. that is similar to what the settlers experienced, then this climate disruption is nothing more than political extremism and moronic alarmism.

Blanketing the land with wind turbines and solar panels does not end our obsession with plastic.

How much fossil fuel is used in the production of our big screen TVs, cell phones, tablets, and laptops?

How much plastic exists in our automobiles?

Can air travel for humans and freight be conducted with electricity, generated by "green" energy sources?

How do we tell developing countries not to improve their standard of living?

It's entirely possible that this issue is too complex to boil down to short, catchy phrases that fit on a bumper sticker, fit in a political sound byte, or fit in a Tweet.

But this issue or cause is humorously interesting. I've always felt that humans were the most fascinating species to observe on this planet.

I like the sham called carbon offsets, which were created so people could buy a clear conscience, regarding the amount of energy that they consume.

Regardless of how many carbon offsets a person buys, the energy was still used. It's gone.

It's infantile for a massive energy hog to think that he can pay enough money so that in his warped mind, he believes that he "uses" less energy than a homeless person.

The real solution would be to travel as little as possible by automobile and plane. Buy more items locally. Live in a small abode. Reduce, reduce, reduce.

Sorry, but living large and traveling all over the planet with fossil fuels and then claiming a low carbon footprint because of carbon offsets is hypocritical and demented. Only rubes subscribe to such a scam.

But that's what makes humans fascinating to observe.

#humor - #activism - #climate - #environment - #politics - #moronism -