As for Marquise Phil, where is this parallel universe where "natural fuels" have not been used?
actually, natural fuels have shortened lifespans. It wasn't until fairly early into the 20th century that lifespans started increasing again, but the biggest contributer was getting infectious disease under control. The health hazards that come with using fossil fuels is a very good reason to ditch the primitive technology and move to better ones all in itself. So your point is moot. Where natural fuels have been used, respiratory illness rates have always sky-rocketed.
So no, I don't thank you on behalf of my children for deliberately contributing massively to air pollution when it's unnecessary and inferior compared to modern alternatives.
OK I'll type it in capital letters this time. INFECTIOUS DISEASE.
Your assumption that "progress" is linear is a common one as well as the inevitable consequences that come from living in a closed system. Sanitation practices have a little more to do with improving the quality of our lives than inexpensive energy. And our concern isn't about the planet, it's about our lives on the planet, the planet will continue whether we're here or not most of the time.
We have to move forward, allow third world countries to use cheap energy, so they can stop destroying the environment just to stay alive, so they can be educated, and reduce their birthrate from choice,
we need fossil fuels until we can come up with a better alternative, going backward is not an option without killing billions of people.
So far Planet Earth has been saved. Global Warming was implemented by a set of ALIEN SCOUTS to kill off as many species as they could for their incoming species that was years away from our universe. Later The Hubble Telescope detected what they called a large ASTEROID 23 years from our Universe. In 2012 My Global Teams and I along with the Nation that implemented my Triple Output solution =RUSSIA= turned off Global Warming, thus sending a equasion to Haley's Comet to actuate the exact target it was out in deep space to destroy by collision. Within the last 30 days I civilian Global Command received indirectly from The Hubble Telescope picture's of a collision 13 years from our Universe in deep space called THE BIG BANG showing that the incoming object had been struck and 10 large chunks were drifting in different directions destroyed away from our Universe. Today our planet is safe and our lifespan should either remain the same or be improved on for our children's, children's future. Mike
Yes. of course. Natural gases have redced our life span, Our ancient relations were having a long life span, but now due to health hazards and other problems, our life has become shortened. Now coming to the second part of your question, it may be added that if we save this environment our children right now they will get fruits of our savings which is also a plus point. If you assume that if our forefathers had not done any efforts to give better life to us, we would not have been given such improved inventions and our life would have been miserable. Hence we should save our environment from becoming polluted so that our children become safer and enjoy their life. This cycle is going on and will continue to go on and on and on.
AGW cultists will refuse to accept the fact that natural and fossil fuels are nothing more than solar energy stored in chemical form. Sure they demand we rape the natural world to build 'green renewable energy' such as Harry Reid's $5 billion Chinese solar sellout in Nevada. Libtards and AGW cultists can call strip mining the earth creating the extremely caustic chemicals to make all the materials for glass, photovoltaic cells, wire, batteries, etc. to make the solar farm green while calling a hole in the ground that pumps natural gas and oil dirty. These people are delusional and mentally ill.
The Maurice Strong's, Al Gore's, and the George Soros's of the world.
Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: "Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
Notice Maurice is not cutting back on his consumption. He clearly states it is for the middle class chumps, only, and not him.
Alarmists want us to stop using natural fuels but probably nothing has increased the quality of our lives or is more responsible for increasing our lifespans than natural fuels.
So is it a good tradeoff to die younger but save the planet? If so, then who or what are we saving the planet for? Would our children thank us if humanities's lifespan was reduced, including theirs?
[This question assumes that natural fuels are 'killing the planet' which of course is not true.]
-----------------------
