Should We Pollute the Earth to “Save It”?
Brought to you by the same people who think you can spend your way out of debt: the solution to global warming is more pollution!
Via Wall Street Journal:
The president’s new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth’s air.
John Holdren told the Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. Mr. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
Hey, this sounds a little like “cut a tree, plant a tree” philosophy, except that this one sounds a little dumber.
What happens if this works?
Well, we’d send pollution to the upper atmosphere, where I guess the laws of pollution don’t apply and we’d block some of the sun’s rays out. I guess in the upper atmosphere the greenhouse effect doesn’t apply? I don’t know. Then we can continue to pollute the lower atmosphere because the upper atmosphere’s got us cover.
What if this doesn’t work?
We’d just be polluting because of pollution.
If this really is a viable solution, I’d like to point out that my stance on global warming has been lassez-faire, essentially saying that even if it were true, and even if mankind was doing it, we’d be fine because we’d figure out a way to counteract it.
I didn’t get worried when we pumped tons of pollution into the air and people started saying that the globe is warming. But now the liberals’ solution for our tinkering with the atmosphere is more tinkering? Huh? Now I feel like an environmentalist.