Economics, Freedom, Environment

When self-called “Real-Liberal” conservative economist Milton Friedman said in 1971 that national forests should be sold off, people were aghast (Perc.org. Friedman’s Legacy to Freedom and the Environment, par 4). Like he, many people believe that governments should stay away from the business of controlling and regulating, and leave all in the hands of the individual and private industries. No truer is the emphasis of the individualist as in the opposition to government control of the environment. Not long ago a man spoke of freedom and of its positive effect on a country’s economy. President Ronald Reagan would have opposed perhaps any extreme regulatory measure to control the apparent cause of global warming, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Not surprisingly, Friedman was Reagan’s economic adviser.

The opponents and proponents of global warming will have a great impact on our economic and political freedoms, depending on which side prevails. Global warming proponents have or say to have determined that CO2 has risen to too high a level to be ignored, and that its emission may only be curbed by high government regulation of businesses and of consumer practices. They claim that regulations are good for the planet and healthy for the people. Many scientists stand behind these claims, stating that Global Warming is a reality, since that is what all experiments show. These experiments are said to be based on the knowledge of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, whose function is to trap heat and not release it. The use of cheap sources of energy, such as oil, coal and fossil fuel that are released into the atmosphere, increase the level of carbon dioxide, thus making the planet hotter.
Both sides—those in opposition and those in favor of global warming—can be easily contrasted by giving the argument of one side—in a manner of speaking, if one says yes, the other will likely say no, as predictable as the laws of physics. The opposition states that CO2 levels are normal, and that though they may have had a hand in warming the weather some, the effects of this warming are not of the catastrophic nature that those in favor enjoy painting. Yet others, noted scientists that used to believe in CO2 as the cause of global warming, go further, saying that CO2 levels are not the cause, but simply solar activity—as a matter of fact, that more carbon dioxide is needed to sustain a healthy planet, not less (UsNews.com. Washington Whispers, Paul Bedard).

Opponents also rise to the occasion of a political move, asserting that Global Warming is more likely to undercut humanity’s liberties through cap and trade, through “rationing” of one’s CO2 consumption, to what food we’ll be allowed to eat in order to preserve Mother Earth. (Washingtonindependent.com, Cap and Trade Biggest Threat to Democracy and Freedom).

Regardless of argument, it is my belief that global warming is true, but that it is normal; it is true but exaggerated; that both arguments are too highly politicized to lay the foundation of accurate data. Pollution is a fact, and there’s no better reason to go green than by protecting ourselves from noxious fumes in the air; by doing that and until we are certain that the global warming issue has stopped being political, we will not only be protecting ourselves from heating up the atmosphere, if it’s true we are the cause of global warming, but we will also arrive at the real truth one way or another, eventually. I highly believe deforestation heats up a climate, at least for now, more than C02 high up in the air. But that’s just me.