What's better for the environment?

I'm on a plane, flying to Cancun to join Americans for Prosperity in their Hot Air Tour during the United Nations conference on climate change. (I love the free internet service Delta is offering through the end of the year!)

As we've learned in various news reports, some of the people at this conference want to impose taxes on some countries - like America - in order to pay other countries. We're supposed to 'pay' for the privilege of using the energy we produce. Who are we supposed to pay? Well, the UN, of course, who will then use our money to pay for their programs.

Now, they say this is all to help the environment because we should be scared to death over their predictions of the temperatures rising a couple of degrees. Personally, having left snow showers and below freezing temps on the first day of December, I really wouldn't mind a couple of extra degrees now and then.

But my wants are certainly not anything the UN concerns itself with - it only cares about the wants of the bureaucrats that run it. And they want control - control of production and manufacturing, control of funds, control over our lives because, as we should know, they're so much more qualified to make decisions for us.

So these bureaucrats and control freaks are gathering in Cancun to 'save the environment' from certain destruction caused by man.

Now, as I'm on a plane flying to Cancun, I suppose some would find it hypocritical of me to condemn others for flying to this conference. However, I'm not one of those who believe that man-made warming is harming the environment. Yes, I do believe in global warming. I also believe in global cooling. Living on the edge of Lake Erie, I'm very familiar with the glacial grooves on our islands and know that at some point in time, this area had to have been cold enough for glaciers to exist here. Common sense also dictates that, since there aren't any glaciers here now, the temperature has clearly warmed.

The earth is a magnificent thing and it has cycles it goes through that cover centuries, so what little impact we may have on the temperature certainly won't make a difference one way or the other. Besides, the temperature was much warmer in the Middle Ages and there was no manufacturing to blame it on, so....

Which leads me to my point. All the people participating in the UN Conference believe man is to blame for the temperatures and they have various proposals and taxes and treaties and rules they want to impose to limit the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet nearly all of the participants are flying to this event.

So what would be better for the environment: to expend a bunch of carbon to attend in the hopes of coming up with something everyone will agree to in order to limit carbon - or to participate in an electronic format so no one would have to expend the precious carbon they want to regulate?

I believe the latter is better - especially with today's technology.

We've all seen the commercials touting the connectivity provided by the internet. We have distance learning websites that allow students from all over the world to join a class taught by a professor at a university we'd never be able to attend in person. GoToMeeting.com advertises almost non-stop, promoting the ability to hold a meeting with any number of people anywhere.

So why can't the UN use this technology to hold their conference - especially a conference devoted to addressing the 'devastating' impact of carbon dioxide on the environment? If the participants really cared about the environment and reducing their carbon footprints, wouldn't they be demanding the use of such available options?

Well, if they're not hypocritical, they would.

Instead, they're taking a junket to a resort area to discuss how they're going to impose draconian measures on the rest of the world. Correction - on countries like the United States, because, according to too many at the UN, some countries are more equal than others (thanks, George Orwell).

Again, using common sense, I look at the very existence of a conference in Cancun and conclude that it's really not about the environment, so it must be about control. And being the independent, conservative/libertarian, tea-party supporter, personal responsibility person that I am, I'm 'offended'!

Well, actually, I'm much more than that, but 'offense' seems to be the thing that so many seem to care about these days.

Over the next several days, I'll be trying to ascertain just why it is the conferees are really at this meeting. Do they really believe man is to blame for a slight change in the earth's temperature and that developed countries need to pay a tax so that non-developed countries can continue to develop without restrictions? Do they really think that those of us who don't believe man is to blame are akin to heretics for having the temerity to doubt and/or question? Why did they travel if they're so concerned about the amount of carbon in the atmosphere? Would they be willing to participate via internet and would they lead a charge for doing such meetings electronically in the future? Do they really think that laid-off Americans should pay billions (collectively) more for energy just to prevent the temperature from rising a fraction of a degree? Do they believe we need to turn to a World War II type of rationing as one scientist has suggested?

What happens if the scientists are wrong and nothing man does impacts the temperature in any discernible way?

These are the questions I have and I hope some of the attendees won't be afraid to answer these questions - after all, I'm not Phelim McAleer.