Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
I am scared of global cooling...
This keeps me up at night. Better start stocking up on the firewood, people.
I bring this up the day after Al Gore announced his candidacy won two Oscars for An Inconvenient Truth. While I think that global warming certainly exists, I remain skeptical about 1) the degree that people contribute to the overall creation of global warming, 2) that controls on civilian emissions will make a dent in the problem while corporate emissions remain largely untouched, 3) that it is not simply being played for political gain, and 4) that the problem is as extensive as we've been led to believe.
We like to panic about end-of-the-world scenarios. We like the idea that common goods and common practices are evil in disguise. In the past, there have been media scares about global cooling, avian flu, killer bees, Y2K, asteroids colliding with earth, comets colliding with earth, West Nile, mad cow, breast implants, coffee causes heart disease, coffee cures heart disease, eggs are bad for you, eggs are good for you, cell phones cause cancer, super-viruses...
These things have become a religion for many people. With so many studies and reports and numbers and fearmongering newscasts flooding the marketplace of ideas, choosing what to believe about these often contradicting "scientific" phenomena is very much like picking a god from the disaster pantheon to worship.
So what do you think?
I bring this up the day after Al Gore announced his candidacy won two Oscars for An Inconvenient Truth. While I think that global warming certainly exists, I remain skeptical about 1) the degree that people contribute to the overall creation of global warming, 2) that controls on civilian emissions will make a dent in the problem while corporate emissions remain largely untouched, 3) that it is not simply being played for political gain, and 4) that the problem is as extensive as we've been led to believe.
We like to panic about end-of-the-world scenarios. We like the idea that common goods and common practices are evil in disguise. In the past, there have been media scares about global cooling, avian flu, killer bees, Y2K, asteroids colliding with earth, comets colliding with earth, West Nile, mad cow, breast implants, coffee causes heart disease, coffee cures heart disease, eggs are bad for you, eggs are good for you, cell phones cause cancer, super-viruses...
These things have become a religion for many people. With so many studies and reports and numbers and fearmongering newscasts flooding the marketplace of ideas, choosing what to believe about these often contradicting "scientific" phenomena is very much like picking a god from the disaster pantheon to worship.
So what do you think?
Comments
I'll start "going green" when someone proves that humans are the source of any of this.
[Edit] Oh, and Jesus Camp should have won.
While Mr. Gore zips around in his private jet, I'm being asked to carpool to reduce the carbon footprint of my Toyota. While I am forced by the state of Ohio to have an annual emissions check on my little, energy-efficient car, next door to the testing facility is a food manufacturing plant with dozens of semi trucks belching out visible ash as they mill in and out.
Twenty years after the move toward pollution controls began in earnest, there are still relatively few corporate controls in place, and the focus looks to be shifting to controls on ordinary citizens instead. That is one reason why I believe global warming is as much a marketing ploy and campaign gambit as it is a bona fide environmental concern.
And does anyone know the actual process behind converting a coal burning plant to low emissions? I understand it costs up-front, but how much does it cost over time? is the maintenance cost higher?
No matter what the answers to problems like these are, I don't see that many real solutions. I don't think that changing the habits and mindset of western consumers to be more "green" will make a significant difference. Even if we are the cause of the problem, what's recycling going to buy us, a few extra years? If there is a problem, all of the real answers are on the large scale. Move completely over to nuclear power. Increase the efficiency of solar power to the point at which it is usable. Shut down factories that spill poison all over the place. Get other countries like China, Russia and India to adapt the same policies. These are the types of things that can make a meaningful difference.
Ever since first grade I have been fed this green mentality. I remember specifically in 1st grade there were two big boxes of stuff that I now realize were paid for by some companies somewhere. One box was full of anti-drug material and the other was full of pro-green material. Regardless of the facts I think it is painfully obvious that there is a marketing effort over a decade old to make the western consumer feel guilty for being the cause of everything wrong with the environment. Many companies realize that if you put some green marketing speak on your products you can get a lot of hippies to buy it because it makes them feel better about themselves. Look at something like the electric car or bio-diesel. These technologies simply move the environmental effects to a different location, the power plant and the corn field. Yet, people buy them and act like they are saving the world. I'm not saying that every environmentally friendly product or activity is meaningless. Many of them do have incredibly tiny effects that can add up to something that may or may not be significant over time. But in the western consumer marketplace greenness is primarily a marketing tactic to sell overpriced goods to hippies, and to make them think they are better than other people.
The fact of the matter is that we live in a complex world we can't understand. All the real long-term solutions to make sure the human race continues to survive and earth continues to be a happy place involve a large amount of scientific achievement. We're either going to crack this egg in time or not. Donating some money to real scientists studying this stuff is probably going to do more direct good in the end than recycling for your entire life. Personally, I just don't have enough time or patience in my life to worry about these problems. It is highly unlikely the world will end before I meet my natural end. Life is too short to worry about huge problems which I will likely never have the power to help solve. I'm just going to continue paying attention to my geeky shit, and you are not going to succeed in trying to make me feel guilty.
Nothing I do, or fail to do, is going to save, or end, the world.
The only such things I hear about these days are global warming and astrology. All the rest seem to have receded into the background. I'm sure there are still people messing around with them, but I don't hear about them as much as I used to.
I have two ideas as to why we're so interested about the doomsday stuff. I think that, no matter where we are on the social ladder, we suspect that we might end up in a better spot if there was a drastic social reshuffling caused by a disaster. Also, I think that, as a nation, we retain enough puritan sensibility to be happy with the end of the world.
All that aside, I agree with Scott. The weather is royally screwed.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,†said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
This was found at Tennesseepolicy.org.
I remember being terrified about the killer bee's back in the 70's. That and Jaws...
On Al Gore - The problem with Gore is that he is doing the old "Do as I say not as I do" bit. Because he is "important" and has money it is OK for him to have a carbon footprint that is too big but me, Mr. Middle Class, can not do as he does and pay for my larger footprint. I am supposed to use mass transit and such things.
The math is simple enough. For $x, the government can fund the research and development of effective alternate energy sources. For $y, the government can fund a switch to non-carbon-emitting energy sources in all sectors. If you don't like the government subsidizing private interests, then they could at least greenify all public energy sources for $z.
This logic is not argued. Therefore, opponents of climate change policy instead argue that climate change doesn't exist, or that it we can't do anything about it, or that it isn't bad enough to warrant the cost. If any of those arguments were true, it would make sense for the government not to spend any money. All we have now is an indecisive puzzling debate. If and when the smoke clears, and a decision is made, no major action will be taken.
Anyone who says the people should take it upon themselves to fix the problem is living in a fantasy world. Crime is up; maybe the people should patrol the streets! Poverty is getting bad; maybe the people should individually fund the homeless. We're at war; let's all individually go over to Iraq and start shooting. There's a reason government exists, and that is to organize the efforts of "the people", when mass, individual action is not practical. What's to stop 9 people from lying back and relaxing in their climate-controlled, gas-guzzling SUV's while 1 guy buys a hybrid? There's no incentive or pressure for any given individual to buy into a public good. That's why we tax everyone, and pay for the public good in that way.
But, before tax money is used, the people in charge have to reach a consensus. Right now, those in power oppose spending anything on climate change. I don't think they're doing it for the right reasons. I doubt it's about the money--this administration spends money like it's going out of style. Instead, I think it's honestly based on the personal ignorance of those making the decisions. They "know" climate change is bullshit. They aren't interested in the facts. It doesn't even have to support some secret, evil agenda...it just has to contradict our leaders' personal, ignorant biases. Most people who argue against it are guilty of the same thing.
Those of us who are in our 20's or younger have grown up in a world where global warming was assumed. Our whole lives, we have heard a fairly consistent rhetoric on the topic. Global warming is happening. There's a hole in the ozone layer. (It took them a while to realize those two were unrelated, but still). So none of us doubt it. Only in the 21st century did real science emerge to strengthen the position...and more science appear to contradict it.
We obviously don't know the whole story. But the worst part is that the people making the decisions don't even know half the story. Just because they have personal feelings, they ignore the facts. That's where we've gotten ourselves politically. That's the real problem.
Al Gore is taking the argument out of the realm of rational debate by making it a moral crusade. Once something becomes a moral issue (war on terror anyone?) it becomes something that when you criticize it you get tarred and feathered.
Because of the inconclusiveness of the debate, the battleground has shifted from fact to opinion. The players seek to gain mindshare, since science isn't on anyone's side. It's no different than Apple vs Microsoft or Nintendo vs Sony. There are some facts and figures to throw around, but they are not self-evident, so each side can decide what they mean.
I tend to lean slightly toward the "climate change is happening and we're partially at fault" side, but I've never imagined that Al Gore has only the public good at heart. It's all about politics. It's something else to stick to Bush and his party.
That's why I disagree with the sentiment that we individuals are morally obligated to fight climate change by buying new cars. The best thing a truly concerned person can do is contribute to the research. What we need is more science, not more implementation of unproved solutions.
However, I figured this should be pointed out: ...
I rest my non-existent case.
I read that Gore's house was carbon neutral, but that's not my point.
a) I don't believe it. It's a an unsubstantiated shell game.
b) My major point is that it's easy to be an environmentalist when you are rich. He's a hypocrite because he is going to continue to live his grand lifestyle whereas he expects the middle class and the poor to take it up the ass. The technology he proposes doesn't come cheap.
On another note... the Vermont environmentalists drive me nuts. We have access to all of the electricity we need through Hydro-Quebec. (Key word: "Hydro") It's renewable and carbon free. Yet this power is specifically excluded from carbon neutral power by our legislature. Why? Political correctness. It was a controversial project that had a significant environmental impact and reclaimed a lot of Inuit land. Nonetheless... it's been built and it is clean. I know that you can't turn back time, so why not at least use the clean energy?
If you mean Australia, well that's just weird. Isn't Australia just one giant desert and some beaches? =Þ
That's my two cents.
We have other weather, its not unusual to snow there in WINTER, but our winter isn't now.