Ok, so this is a few weeks old at this point, but I got a kick out of reading it on Slashdot when it first came out.  http://politics.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=story&sid=10/02/16/2346202 I even went to the source and read some of the first and second report written by the IPCC, or at least the parts that were referenced to in the by the Utah Assembly.

Apparently, the Utah Assembly seems to think that if they pass a resolution denying global warming or global climate change based on one inconstancy between two different 600+ page reports written by 2 separate groups, then this denial will make an actual difference with what everyone else thinks.  Uhh, yea, I’m going to change my mind about how I feel about global warming based on something that some state I don’t live in has as a resolution.

As for what I really think… well I know there’s a lot of controversy surrounding what’s been said and determined.  So rather than fighting over the details, is it really going to hurt for us to conserve energy where ever we can?  I know that if I conserve electricity my bill will go down.  If I conserve gas by driving more, I’ll be healthier because I’ve been walking more and/or I’ll save money on gas.  With trying to pay off all of my bills before I turn 40, I can’t see how either of these options is going to hurt anything.  Neither will starting my own garden, whether it be container gardening or square foot gardening.  I save money and have more plants around that’ll absorb CO2.

Let’s face it, the whole thing with carbon offsets is bogus anyway.  There’s no way to track what’s actually being done, so why do we look up to those who buy these carbon offsets instead of using Ed Beagley, Jr as an example and making their homes truly ‘green.’  Just because they have the money doesn’t mean they should waste it instead of conserving our resources?