Thought of the Day: An annoying untruth

Being relatively passionate about the environment and development issues, I keep something of an ear to the ground on anything making waves in the field and am routinely shocked at how poorly both sides of the argument are making their case.

For those doubting climate change, if you can't see the link between increased carbon emissions and global warming, then there is little hope for you. But for one last attempt:
Carbon emissions create SMOG
IF smog goes UP,
HEAT gets captured in ATMOSPHERE,
TEMPERATURE increases in ATMOSPHERE,
EVERYTHING in the ATMOSPHERE changes (ice bergs melt, winds alter etc).

And if you dont believe me, try the voice of everyone's lounge room; David Attenborough.

And now, on the other side we have the 'Greenies' or whatever derogatory name you'd like to give them. The shame about this naming convention is that it is often cast over a swathe of people, regardless of the extremities of their views, which can drive well-intentioned people away.

For example, I would be pretty upset with being categorised with Annie Leonard, the presenter of 'The Story of Stuff'. 'The Story of Stuff' is a video detailing how consumerism is bad for the environment, which is true enough. Unfortunately, a lot of the facts that Annie goes into from there are more than misleading.

For instance, she claims that we dont need to replace an entire computer to keep it up-to-date but simply a chip within it. This not only displays a lack of understanding of computing, but also respect for her audience and the truth. By telling one ignorant lie, she completely ruins her entire argument.

What's more, the solutions that Annie presents are optimistic at best (lets all move to communes! etc) and common sense at worst (lets all recycle and buy less). This is another issue with the 'Greenies', that they use preachy solutions (e.g. its BAD to buy STUFF) that arent thought through.

Its similar with the new Prius. Now, I know I have banged on about this before, but what Id like to see is the carbon emissions associated with producing and marketing a new type of car. Wouldnt it be better to convert your current car to a cleaner engine? Even better, shouldn't governments impose taxes related to emissions so that all components of production and usage are covered (rather than make empty promises on food supplies and emissions while enjoying 8-course meals)?

I know that economic theory isnt always that popular left-of-the-centre, but to get any credibility with the middle ground, the 'Greenies' are going to have to lift their game. It might be very well for the likes of GWB to deny global warming, but Annie should know better.