Status Quo Pro HS

Status Quo:Pro Heidi Schreiber, Eveready
STATUS QUO: PRO
INDEX
1. GENERAL
1.1 Everything is peachy
2. AIR POLLUTION
2.1 US in “post-pollution era”
2.2 Air pollution decreasing
2.3 Data shows all types of pollution decreasing
3. WATER POLLUTION
3.1 Water quality increasing
4. GLOBAL WARMING
4.1 Scientific community doesn't believe GW is a threat
4.2 Even IPCC scientists unsure about GW
4.3 Science does not prove global warming
4.4 GW is a political farce to raise money
4.5 GW theory doesn't make sense
4.6 Increased CO2 levels benefits ecosystem
4.7 Hydrocarbons (created from burning fuel) important
4.8 Observed climate change is within bounds of natural change
4.9 Computer climate models unreliable
4.10 GW fails experimentally as well as theoretically
4.11 No reason to regulate GHG's
4.12 Significant number of scientists reject GW theory
4.13 Ludicrousness of past GW prophecies
4.14 Major companies drop out of USCAP
4.15 Foundational GW studies found to be deceptive
4.16 Public belief in GW declining
5. FOSSIL FUEL
5.1 Depletion of fossil fuels not a threat
5.2 Ideas about oil depletion are mistaken (historical example)
5.3 Acting on nonexistent problem will be disastrous
5.4 Oil will become irrelevant before running out
6. PRIVATIZATION
6.1 Private organizations pwn government
6.2 Utilizing private sector makes sense
6.3 Privatization works
6.4 Private sector motivated by market
7. MISCELLANEOUS
7.1 Prioritization in environmental policy is necessary
7.2 No need to sacrifice rights to government in name of “environmental protection”
1 of 17
7.3 Environment (especially GW) is decreasing priority to citizens

7.4 Source indictment—left-wing environmental groups
1. GENERAL
1.1 Everything is peachy

Heartland Institute (one of the nation’s best-known and most highly regarded think tanks), “Common-
Sense Environmentalism,” by Joseph Bast (President of The Heartland Institute), September 2002
http://www.heartland.org/full/10269/CommonSense_Environmentalism.html
Total air pollution emissions in the U.S. fell 34 percent between 1970 and 1990, and today are
lower than they were in 1940, some 62 years ago. During the 1990s, the number of “bad air” days—
when air quality falls below federal air quality standards—fell 76 percent in Boston, 78 percent in
Chicago, 54 percent in Los Angeles, and 88 percent in San Diego.
For people sincerely committed to the goals of a cleaner and safer environment, these are truly
the best of times. The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat are all safer than at any
previous time in our lives. Wilderness areas in the United States are expanding, wildlife is flourishing,
and once-endangered species have been saved.
2. AIR POLLUTION
2.1 US in “post-pollution era”

Heartland Institute (one of the nation’s best-known and most highly regarded think tanks), “Heartland
President Addresses Common-Sense Environmentalism,” by Joseph Bast (President of The Heartland
Institute), May 29,2004
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15197/Heartland_President_Addresses_CommonSense_Env
ironmentalism.html
For example, the world is getting cleaner and safer over time. Not just a little: dramatically. All
six air pollutants tracked by the EPA--sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead,
and particulate matter--have all fallen to levels below what they were back in the 1940s, when reliable
measurements first started. Other bad things, like dioxin, PCBs, and pesticides have dropped to levels
so low we could not have even detected them a decade ago. All these compounds are now present in
concentrations too small to be reliably associated with any health effects on humans. Cancer rates are
falling and life expectancy continues to lengthen. We in the U.S. are in what Gregg Easterbrook calls
the “post-pollution era.”
2.2 Air pollution decreasing
2 of 17
Total air pollution emissions in the U.S. fell 34 percent between 1970 and 1990, and today are
lower than they were in 1940, some 62 years ago. During the 1990s, the number of “bad air” days—
when air quality falls below federal air quality standards—fell 76 percent in Boston, 78 percent in
Chicago, 54 percent in Los Angeles, and 88 percent in San Diego.
2.3 Data shows all types of pollution decreasing

US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Assessment Division, “National Air Quality: Status and trends through 2007,” November 2008
http://epa.gov/airtrends/2008/report/TrendsReportfull.pdf
Since 1990, nationwide air quality for six air pollutants for which there are national standards
has improved significantly. These air pollutants are ground-level ozone (O3), particle pollution (PM2.5
and PM10), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Nationally, air pollution was lower in 2007 than 1990 for:
− 8-hour ozone, by 9 percent
− annual PM2.5 (since 2000), by 11 percent
− PM10 , by 28 percent
− Lead, by 80 percent
− NO2 , by 35 percent
− 8-hour CO, by 67 percent
− SO , by 54 percent
3 of 17
4 of 17
3. WATER POLLUTION
3.1 Water quality increasing

Water quality—measured by miles of rivers and percentage of lakes that are drinkable and
swimmable—is up around the country, and in some cases dramatically so. Sports fishing has returned
to all five of the Great Lakes; the number of fishing advisories has fallen; and a debate has started
concerning the scientific basis of many of the remaining advisories.
4. GLOBAL WARMING
4.1 Scientific community doesn't believe GW is a threat

5 of 17
ironmentalism.html
Mr. Pope also talked a little about global warming, which is the fourth thing I’ve learned
something about. The audience nearly shouted him down when he claimed, during the question and
answer session, that 95 percent of climatologists believe mankind is causing global warming. The
audience was right: 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Institute petition saying there is no need
to adopt policies to prevent or postpone climate change. The last survey of state climatologists in the
U.S. found a large majority of them didn’t believe global warming was a threat.
4.2 Even IPCC scientists unsure about GW

ironmentalism.html
Are all those scientists wrong? I don’t think so. The scientists who contributed to the prestigious
reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made it abundantly clear that we
know too little about how the global climate works to predict future warming. You don’t hear much
about that because the media only quotes the “summary for policymakers”--which was written by UN
bureaucrats, not the actual authors of the reports. The scientists weren’t even asked to approve the
summary ... but all their doubts and qualifiers are preserved in the full reports. Both the former
chairman of the IPCC, Bert Bolin, and the lead author of the science chapter of the 1995 report,
Benjamin Santor, which did a lot to trigger the global warming scare, have both admitted (in Bolin’s
words) the “science is not settled.”
4.3 Science does not prove global warming

ironmentalism.html
Satellites recording the planet’s temperature for the past 24 years have found no warming trend,
or at worst a warming of a tenth of one degree Celsius ... or about half a degree a century. You can go to
NASA’s Web site and look it up yourself, or go to Heartland’s Web site at www.heartland.org and
download a recent issue of Environment & Climate News. We print graphs in every issue showing the
entire satellite database for the planet and separately for the Northern and Southern hemispheres. The
land-based temperature stations that alarmists and their allies in the media often cite can measure only
6 of 17
about 20 percent of the planet’s surface, mostly in areas close to cities and airports where they are
contaminated by urban heat. Rural temperature stations show no warming at all.
4.4 GW theory doesn't make sense

ironmentalism.html
The global warming theory just doesn’t make sense:

- Carbon dioxide is too small a player in atmosphere dynamics to cause the changes predicted by the
alarmists. Water vapor is the major player, and the latest science says it is not amplifying the minute
amount of warming caused by rising carbon dioxide levels.
- Paleoclimatologists say the world entered ice ages at time when carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere were higher than those currently predicted for the next 100 years.
- And even experts who think some global warming will take place have concluded it will have a net
beneficial effect on animal and plant life, since it will occur mostly at night, during the winter, and in
the coldest parts of the world.
4.5 GW is a political farce to raise money

ironmentalism.html
The anti-capitalist, anti-technology wing of the environmental movement can’t let go of the
global warming scare for the same reason is can’t give up the population explosion scare and the
resource depletion scare. Do you know why? It’s because it relies on scare tactics to raise money. Did
you know that Greenpeace alone mailed 43 million fundraising letters in 1990? At one time,
environmental groups accounted for more than 10 percent of all the junk mail delivered in the country.
I guess they’re not so opposed to landfills as they say they are.
4.6 Increased CO2 levels benefits ecosystem

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide,” by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon, published by the Journal of
American Physicians and Surgeons, 2007
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
7 of 17
The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however, had a substantial environmental
effect. Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants. Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to
live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and
diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.
Increased temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth. As atmospheric CO2 increases, plant
growth rates increase. Also, leaves transpire less and lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are
able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases
proportionally.
4.7 Hydrocarbons (created from burning fuel) important

Our industrial and technological civilization depends upon abundant, low-cost energy. This
civilization has already brought unprecedented prosperity to the people of the more developed nations.
Billions of people in the less developed nations are now lifting themselves from poverty by adopting
this technology. Hydrocarbons are essential sources of energy to sustain and extend prosperity. This is
especially true of the developing nations, where available capital and technology are insufficient to
meet rapidly increasing energy needs without extensive use of hydrocarbon fuels. If, through
misunderstanding of the underlying science and through misguided public fear and hysteria, mankind
significantly rations and restricts the use of hydrocarbons, the worldwide increase in prosperity will
stop. The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives.
Moreover, the prosperity of those in the developed countries would be greatly reduced.
4.8 Observed climate change is within bounds of natural change

All of the observed climate changes are gradual, moderate, and entirely within the bounds of
ordinary natural changes that have occurred during the benign period of the past few thousand years.
There is no indication whatever in the experimental data that an abrupt or remarkable change in any of
the ordinary natural climate variables is beginning or will begin to take place.
4.9 Computer climate models unreliable
8 of 17
The computer climate models upon which “human-caused global warming” is based have
substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a
coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex. Figure 19 illustrates the difficulties by
comparing the radiative CO2 greenhouse effect with correction factors and uncertainties in some of the
parameters in the computer climate calculations. Other factors, too, such as the chemical and climatic
influence of volcanoes, cannot now be reliably computer modeled.
4.10 GW fails experimentally as well as theoretically

In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century – an
experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth’s
temperature and climate. Since 1940, hydrocarbon use has risen 6-fold. Yet, this rise has had no effect
on the temperature trends, which have continued their cycle of recovery from the Little Ice Age in close
correlation with increasing solar activity. Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed
experimental tests, it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling from
negative physical and biological feedbacks to greenhouse gases nullifies the slight initial temperature
rise (84,86).
4.11 No reason to regulate GHG's

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon
use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to
cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit
human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed
(82,83,97,123).
9 of 17
4.12 Significant number of scientists reject GW theory

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Global Warming Petition Project, accessed February 15,
2010 http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an
overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent
climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the
petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a
few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic
human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs,
are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is
evident that these 31,486 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is
without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would
unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of
the Earth.
Actual text of petition:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written
in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on
greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and
damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce
many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
4.13 Ludicrousness of past GW prophecies

WORLD Magazine, “Snowed,” by Timothy Lamer (journalist), January 30, 2010
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16314
In March 2000, climate scientist David Viner made a bold prediction. Within a few years,
because of global warming, snowfall in Britain would become "a very rare and exciting event," the
senior research scientist at Britain's Climatic Research Unit told the Independent. "Children just aren't
going to know what snow is." Almost 10 years later, they know. All of them do. A NASA satellite
image in early January showed snow covering the whole of Britain—and the British weren't alone. The
Rutgers University Global Snow Lab reports that the Northern Hemisphere in December had the
second-greatest snow cover for that month since 1966, when records began.
10 of 17
4.14 Major companies drop out of USCAP

Washington Post, “ConocoPhillips, BP and Caterpillar quit USCAP,” By Steven Mufson (Washington
Post Staff Writer, February 17, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605543.html
ConocoPhillips, BP and Caterpillar have dropped out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership
(USCAP), the coalition of corporations and environmental groups that has been most prominent in
pushing Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation. The loss of three major companies has dealt a blow
to the now 28-member group and further dims prospects for the cap-and-trade bill that passed the
House last summer and is awaiting action in the Senate.
4.15 Foundational GW studies found to be deceptive

WORLD Magazine, “Cooking up a heat wave,” Timothy Lamer, December 19, 2009
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16179
Just as world leaders were preparing to meet in Copenhagen to discuss climate change,
thousands of hacked emails and documents from one of the world's leading climate research institutes
raised fundamental questions about the science behind global warming theory. The emails came from
the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England, and they revealed a
pattern of groupthink and deception among influential climate scientists.
The "Climategate" scandal that ensued has three main elements:
• The manipulation of (often poor) data. In one email, CRU director Phil Jones discusses a "trick" he
used "to hide the decline" in some temperature readings. In another lengthy document, a computer
programmer for CRU laments "the hopeless state of our databases," which were riddled with false
information and guesswork: "It's botch after botch after botch." Another emailer, Kevin Trenberth of
the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, shows an intense desire for the science to
produce a specific result: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and
it is a travesty that we can't."
• The manipulation of the peer review process to freeze out critics. In one email, Jones discusses some
critical research: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next [UN] IPCC report. Kevin and I will
keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Several
emails show Jones and others discussing ways, including a boycott, to pressure journal editors not to
publish articles by skeptical scientists. "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing
more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones writes about the journal
Climate Research after it published research that he didn't like.
At first, the mainstream press in the United States largely ignored the story and environmental
activists tried to shrug it off, but the CRU is not some backwater outfit. Both the UN's Intergovern
mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency use its
research extensively; the scandal would not just go away. Penn State announced on Nov. 30 that it
would conduct an inquiry into the emails involving Michael Mann, and the next day Jones said he
11 of 17
would step down as CRU director while the University of East Anglia investigates the scandal. Sen.
James Inhofe, R-Okla., is pushing for a Senate hearing on the matter.
What's clear now is that the wind is at the back of scientists who are skeptical about catastrophic
global warming. "After reading the Climategate emails," joked atmospheric physicist Fred Singer
during a Dec. 2 briefing in the European Parliament, "we have realized that global warming may be
'manmade' after all."
4.16 Public belief in GW declining

Pew Academic Research Center, “Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming,” October
22, 2009 http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming
There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there
is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very
serious problem – 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008. The latest national survey by the
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults
reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average
temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there
was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.
5. FOSSIL FUEL
5.1 Depletion of fossil fuels not a threat

ironmentalism.html
A third truth I’ve discovered is that we will never run out of fossil fuels. According to Robert
Bradley, president of the Institute for Energy Research, estimated global reserves of oil are sufficient to
last 114 years; natural gas, 200 years; and coal, 1,884 years. What kind of person doesn’t think the
human species will have figured out a way to switch over to fusion or some other yet-to-be-discovered
fuel source 18 centuries from now? Someone who hasn’t read Ayn Rand or watched a Star Wars movie,
I’ll bet.
5.2 Ideas about oil depletion are mistaken (historical example)

Robin M. Mills (Petroleum Economics Manager for the Emirates National Oil Company in Dubai),
“The Myth of the Oil Crisis,” (book) Ch. 1, Published by Praeger Publishers, Copyright 2008
12 of 17
Now consider another news item: a leading economist, supported by an even more famous
colleague, has proposed that the energy supply of the greatest country in the world is in imminent
decline. He can see no solution to this problem. He predicts a future of energy deficits, industrial
collapse, and national decay. His ideas are taken seriously enough to induce the country's leader to
reduce the national budget accordingly. The date was 1865; the economist was William Jevons and his
supporter was political thinker John Stuart Mill, the nation was Britain, the leader was the renowned
Prime Minister William Gladstone, and the fuel was coal.
Today, inspired by high oil prices, a disparate group is repeating similar arguments. The “peak
oil” camp argues that the point is imminent when the world's extraction of oil (and some contend, gas)
sill begin a rapid decline. Som conclude from this that an era of “resource wars” is approaching, and a
subset of them believes therefore that commercial, political, and military means should be used to
secure the remaining limited supplies for their favoured nation. Others welcome the onset of decline,
seeing in it a solution to global climate change, caused by emissions of CO2 from burning coal, oil, and
gas. Yet others, some with an element of Schadenfreude, welcome the inevitable collapse of industrial
civilization and a return to a more “natural” way of life. In this book, I will argue that these ideas about
petroleum depletion and their consequences are mistaken and often grossly overstated.
5.3 Acting on nonexistent problem will be disastrous

1. The supply of oil and, even more, gas, from conventional and unconventional sources, is much
larger than that imagined by the pessimists.
2. Seeking political, military, or commercial control of oil supplies is unnecessary, self-defeating,
and exorbitantly expensive.
3. Oil is merely one reasonably convenient source of energy. Opportunities exist to decrease
radically global consumption of oil while maintaining a healthy economy and bettering
standards of living in both rich and poor countries.
4. The environmental impact of fossil fuels, particularly in causing climate change, although the
most serious problem the world faces today, can be tackled by a portfolio of solutions, some
hydrocarbon based, some not.
From these propositions, I will argue that believing the fallacious arguments about the “end of oil” will,
ironically, lead the world into flawed policy decisions, environmental and economic damage, and
international conflict.
5.4 Oil will become irrelevant before running out

We have, therefore, no imminent shortage of oil and even less of gas, although we have
13 of 17
numerous substitues that will become increasingly competitive, and, as we begin to use them, we will
appreciate their cleanliness and convenience. As former Saudi Oil Minister Sheikh Zaki Yamani wisely
observed, “The stone age did not end for a lack of stones, and the oil age will end, but not for a lack of
oil.” Ultimately, oil will not run out; it will simply become irrelevant.
6. PRIVATIZATION
6.1 Private organizations pwn government

ironmentalism.html
There’s a whole literature in economics, called public choice theory, that explains why
government doesn’t work. Governments can’t tap the knowledge of millions of consumers and
investors the way markets can with price systems and profit signals. Government rules and regulations
aren’t self-enforcing, the way voluntary contracts are. Special interest groups are able to control and
manipulate government agencies, while the general public is too uninformed and unmotivated to stop
them. The result is we have national, state, and local government environmental protection agencies
spending billions of dollars and imposing regulations that cost hundreds of billions of dollars more, all
of it based on flawed information, relying on levels of bureaucracy and reams of rules and regulations
to try to prevent evasion and corruption, all subject to manipulation by polluters and rent-seekers. It’s
no wonder this approach doesn’t work.
6.2 Utilizing private sector makes sense

Radical environmental groups denounce the very idea of relying on the private sector to protect
the environment, but it should be no more controversial than having a private company collect your
garbage or repair potholes in your street.
6.3 Privatization works

14 of 17
Privatization—shifting goods and services out of the public sector and into the private sector—
has spread to every corner of the globe. Nine out of ten municipalities in the U.S. now use private
businesses to manage their parks or water treatment facilities or provide janitorial, accounting, or some
other service. Over 90 percent report that contracting out saves them money, produces a higher quality
of service, or both.
6.4 Private sector motivated by market

In the private sector, business owners have an equity stake in getting the job done on time and
under budget. If they can find a way to reduce costs or produce a better service, they earn more money.
If they don’t, a smarter competitor will take business away from them. In the public sector, bureaucrats
don’t have an equity stake in their departments or agencies, and if they fail to keep costs under control,
there is no competitor out there to which disappointed customers can switch.
7. MISCELLANEOUS
7.1 Prioritization in environmental policy is necessary

Third, we need to prioritize problems, admitting some are more serious than others, and
admitting also that we have limited time and resources to invest in environmental protection. We might
as well get the most “bang for the buck” by addressing real, rather than imaginary, problems. That’s all
“cost-benefit analysis” means. It’s a good idea.
7.2 No need to sacrifice rights to government in name of “environmental protection”

We now know that prosperity, private property rights, and freedom from an overly intrusive
government, all values that we share, need not be sacrificed to save the environment. We can have them
all, but it requires a new approach to environmentalism that relies more on science and less on hype.
15 of 17
7.3 Environment (especially GW) is decreasing priority to citizens

Pew Academic Research Center, “Environment, Immigration, Health Care Slip Down the List:
Economy, jobs trump all other policy priorities in 2009,” January 22, 2009 http://people-
press.org/reports/pdf/485.pdf
As Barack Obama takes office, the public’s focus is overwhelmingly on domestic policy
concerns – particularly the economy. Strengthening the nation’s economy and improving the job
situation stand at the top of the public’s list of domestic priorities for 2009. Meanwhile, the priority
placed on issues such as the environment, crime, illegal immigration and even reducing health care
costs has fallen off from a year ago. Of the 20 issues people were asked to rate in both January 2008
and January 2009, five have slipped significantly in importance as attention to the economy has surged.
Protecting the environment fell the most precipitously – just 41% rate this as a top priority today, down
from 56% a year ago. The percentage rating illegal immigration as a top priority has fallen from 51% to
41% over the past year, and reducing crime has fallen by a similar amount (from 54% to 46%). And
while reducing health care costs remains a top priority to 59% of Americans, this is down 10-points
from 69% one year ago.
16 of 17
7.4 Source indictment—left-wing environmental groups: Sierra Club, Greenpeace,

Environmental Defense, Union of Concerned Scientists (can be applied to other such
organizations)
ironmentalism.html
The anti-capitalist, anti-technology wing of the environmental movement can’t let go of the
global warming scare for the same reason is can’t give up the population explosion scare and the
resource depletion scare. Do you know why? It’s because it relies on scare tactics to raise money. Did
you know that Greenpeace alone mailed 43 million fundraising letters in 1990? At one time,
environmental groups accounted for more than 10 percent of all the junk mail delivered in the country.
I guess they’re not so opposed to landfills as they say they are. You don’t think the Sierra Club,
Greenpeace, Environmental Defense, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the other left-wing
environmental groups rely on fear to raise money? Check you mail box when you get home tonight.
17 of 17

Status Quo Pro HS

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Status Quo Pro HS

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Status Quo:Pro Heidi Schreiber, Eveready

STATUS QUO: PRO

7.3 Environment (especially GW) is decreasing priority to citizens

1.1 Everything is peachy

2.1 US in “post-pollution era”

2.2 Air pollution decreasing

2.3 Data shows all types of pollution decreasing

3.1 Water quality increasing

4.1 Scientific community doesn't believe GW is a threat

4.2 Even IPCC scientists unsure about GW

4.3 Science does not prove global warming

4.4 GW theory doesn't make sense

The global warming theory just doesn’t make sense:

4.5 GW is a political farce to raise money

4.6 Increased CO2 levels benefits ecosystem

4.7 Hydrocarbons (created from burning fuel) important

4.8 Observed climate change is within bounds of natural change

4.9 Computer climate models unreliable

4.10 GW fails experimentally as well as theoretically

4.11 No reason to regulate GHG's

4.12 Significant number of scientists reject GW theory

Actual text of petition:

4.13 Ludicrousness of past GW prophecies

4.14 Major companies drop out of USCAP

4.15 Foundational GW studies found to be deceptive

4.16 Public belief in GW declining

5.1 Depletion of fossil fuels not a threat

5.2 Ideas about oil depletion are mistaken (historical example)

5.3 Acting on nonexistent problem will be disastrous

5.4 Oil will become irrelevant before running out

6.1 Private organizations pwn government

6.2 Utilizing private sector makes sense

6.3 Privatization works

6.4 Private sector motivated by market

7.1 Prioritization in environmental policy is necessary

7.2 No need to sacrifice rights to government in name of “environmental protection”

7.3 Environment (especially GW) is decreasing priority to citizens

7.4 Source indictment—left-wing environmental groups: Sierra Club, Greenpeace,

También podría gustarte