Some of us get incensed at the "environmental whackos" who want to save the Spotted Owl, or the Snail Darter Fish while putting thousands of loggers or fishermen out of business.  Environmentalists get a very bad name when they take joy in people starving to death even though food is readily available.

Green groups and European bureaucrats aren't conspiring to starve millions of sub-Saharan Africans, but according to Andrew Natsios of the U.S. Agency for International Development, they may as well be. (source)

Others of us get upset when sheep farmers allowed their sheep to graze, eating the grass down so far that cattle couldn't eat any, and eventually all the grass died -- leaving dead sheep AND dead cattle.  This is the well-known concept of the "tragedy of the commons."

Truth must be here somewhere.

The moral issue here is one of balance.  It is GOOD to save the environment as there is a balance between the benefits and the costs. That is the case for ALL moral issues.  What is good for the sheep farmer is bad for the cattle rancher.  Eventually what had been good for the sheep farmer turns out to also be bad for the sheep farmer -- through lack of concern for the FUTURE.  Morals have to take into account FUTURE SURVIVAL as well as present day survival.

When you survive well today, at the expense of an early doom, the today-action is NOT moral.

Protecting the environment is a complex issue for many reasons, but contemplation of the future is a large part of this complexity.

The biggest issue of divide on the planet just now is between those who claim that we are in a "warming cycle" that requires the reduction of use of fossil fuels before the planet runs out of air.

The other side on this has hardly had any proponents, mostly because it has been the blind environmentalists who see a danger where there is not one, and see a solution that would destroy society.

Finally, the cooling trend cause has a new champion.  He is certainly not the first to espouse this cause, but he is the first to put lots of money into this type of research.

According to this article from the Wall Street Journal, we are near the end of the "normal weather" pattern, and soon to enter a new ice age -- this disrupts climates so much that there are, indeed, areas on the planet that are getting warmer, but other areas getting colder, and in the years ahead it will be the cooling trend that most damages the enviornment.

In May, billionaire Gary Comer and four climate experts boarded his Cessna Caravan and took off in search of a catastrophe.

Flying low over southwestern Ontario, the group scanned the ground for boulders left behind by an ancient flood. The deluge, involving 2,000 cubic miles of fresh water from a prehistoric lake nearby, sent temperatures over the North Atlantic plummeting about 12,700 years ago, according to a theory advanced by scientists on the flight.

The cataclysm -- triggered by the melting of glaciers at the close of the last ice age -- poses an urgent question for the present: Could global warming also set off unexpected and extreme climate shifts, such as substantial regional drops in temperature or long droughts?

. . . .

This is an "opinion" by me, Karl Loren, in the face of thousands of "scientists" who claim that we have a global warming trend occurring, and that only reduced economic activity will prevent disaster.

I take the opposite view -- that we are facing a global cooling trend.  Obviously the choice between these two viewpoints is based on science, but there is a great deal of improper, immoral behavior going on by those who want to suppress the entire population by advocating reduction of the industrial activity that produces our high standard of living.  These people threaten literally millions of people in poor countries with starvation and/or our own economy with stagnation and decline.

Here is another nail in the "liars warming coffin:"

One of the pillars of the case for man-made global warming is a graph nicknamed the hockey stick. It's a reconstruction of temperatures over the past 1,000 years based on records captured in tree rings, corals and other markers. The stick's shaft shows temperatures oscillating slightly over the ages. Then comes the blade: The mercury swings sharply upward in the 20th century. (source)

The moral issue is plain here, even if the underlying science is not yet agreed on.

There are many links below -- every one of them is well worth reading to gain knowledge of this vastly important subject.  There are very deep issues here to ponder.

The Tragedy Of The Commons -- Where Environmentalism SOMETIMES Makes Very Good Sense

Garrett Hardin -- Most Famous Writer On The Tragedy Of The Commons

The Global Cooling Trend -- Valid In 1975, But Not Today

Increase in the Amount of Carbon Dioxide Emissions Into The Atmosphere

What Happens If CO2 Percentages Increase Greatly?

More Carbon Dioxide In The Atmospheric May Affect Crops in the Future

Volcanic Ash Increases Plant Growth -- But Fools Give Credit to Some Mysterious Force

Cattle and Sheep Grazing

Effect of Cattle and Sheep Grazing In The North Cascades

The Spotted Owl Wins Against Humans

The History of the Endangered Species Act

The Snail Darter's Victory In The US Supreme Court -- And Final Defeat By The God Committee

Why Africans Are Starving -- Environmental Extremists

Finally The "Global Cooling" Cause Gets A  Champion!