I read two articles on Page 11 of the Seaway News January 21st, 2010, and wish to make some observations.
The "Environmental Travel" article was a self explanatory critique of environmental gobble-de-gook. What, pray, is "environmental travel"? Ms. Kennedy might wish to sate her conscience with "making a donation" to offset her participation in carbon generation through travel but that does not change the reality - she has deliberately involved herself in an action of carbon generation. If this 'environmentalist' truly believes that carbon is destroying our planet then SHE SHOULD HAVE RECONSIDERED HER TRAVEL ACTIVITIES.
The second article applauds one of the actions of the Cornwall Carbon Reduction Initiative [CCRI]. What is missed in this article is the total waste of tax dollars in the manner through which this local organization leeches public funds for its existence.
Both these articles point up the error of allowing self appointed environmentalists to lead our society down the wrong roads to the future. As a person qualified to teach environmental studies and someone who has practiced actual environmental activities I have tried to provide solid information. I have written a complete explanation to the CCRI, on why we should NOT be trying to interfere in the carbon cycle to which I have had no response. Of course there can be no response to reality. I personally tried to access data from all the world's environmental organizations, including the United Nations Climate Committee [IPCC], in order to make a determination from where they were coming, to no avail. There does not exist data to support the concept these people are wasting our tax dollars on.
What does exist is the basis of all science on this planet, John Dalton's 1803 Atomic Theory from which we might deduce there are just three elements - hydrogen, oxygen and carbon and these are the basis of all chemistry. To quote Johnny Ball, the Englishman who made science accessible to generations of youngsters, "If we burn methane [carbon and hydrogen] with oxygen, the methane breaks up. The carbon joins the oxygen to make carbon dioxide. The carbon joins more oxygen to form water. Nothing is lost or gained but energy is released - that is the Atomic Theory. Human energy comes from our food, carbohydrate[hydrocarbon and water] and the oxygen we breathe. As we burn energy, we break up the hydrocarbons and release water and carbon dioxide in the same way."
Johnny Ball asks, "how can we say that one form is bad and ignore the others?"
Following the same thought it is worth mentioning that carbon dioxide, unless heated, is heavier than air and thus falls back to earth - this is completely the opposite of what the carbon opponents claim. It is a fact of science that cold carbon dioxide, the most prevalent, goes to earth and hot carbon dioxide, the least prevalent, goes to the atmosphere. Since most carbon dioxide is cold rather than hot it does not combine with our atmosphere and rise to the ionosphere. So how can the carbon opponent organizations find it to be harmful?
The simple fact also exists that governments have been persuaded to fall for the same misinformation. The federal government has given the CCRI thousands of dollars as has the Ontario Provincial Government [the prompt for this letter]. Were governments to actually attempt to create data for the so-called 'man-made global warming' then, perhaps, just perhaps, they might come up with strategies to assist the people and the nations that may become affected by the global warming caused as a natural phenomenon, nature's cycle. As someone who has passed the old yardstick of a human lifespan I know I will not be around to witness that those opposed to the concept of 'man-made global warming' will be clearly proven to have been correct in their argument. However, many of your readers will be alive - providing the carbon zealots do not destroy the Earth with their unfounded knowledge. Should the young folk of today be allowed to live, with no eco-terrorist intervention, then they will be the judges.
I would challenge the self appointed environmentalists to provide alternative evidence, not emotional nonsense. John E. Milnes