Winters in Vermont have become warmer and shorter, threatening the livelihood of ‘sugar makers’ as maple syrup producers are called. Several weeks of cold, below freezing, temperatures are necessary for maple trees to produce sap, which in turn is made into syrup. However, since 1971, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, winter temperatures in the Northwest have increased by 2.8 degrees.
Burr Morse, a Vermont sugar maker, tapped his trees a month early last year, but instead of producing his usual 1,000 gallons of syrup, he only made 700 gallons. In an interview with the New York Times, Mr. Morse said, “You might be tempted to say, well that’s a bunch of baloney – global warming. But the way I feel, we get too much warm. How many winters are we going to go with Decembers turning into short-sleeve weather, before the maple trees say, ‘I don’t like it here any more?’”
That is exactly what the maple trees might be saying. Barrett N. Rock, a professor of natural resources at the University of New Hampshire, stated, “The climate that we used to have here in New England has moved north to the point where it’s now in Quebec.” As a result, a larger percent of syrup production has shifted to Canada. (N.Y. Times)
But it’s not just the sugar makers who would suffer from the demise of maple trees in Vermont. Tourism is a significant part of the economy, from fall tours to view the colorful changing leaves, to maple syrup festivals and trips to sugar maple orchards.
“It appears to be a rather dire situation for the maple industry in the Northeast if conditions continue to go toward the predictions that have been made for global warming,” said Tim Perkins, director of Proctor Maple Research Center at the University of Vermont. (N.Y. Times)
However, not everybody is embracing the idea that global warming is important.
Richard Cizik, vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, has begun to speak out and lobby on behalf of environmental issues, including global warming, and as a result has drawn the ire of several conservative Christian leaders.
In a January “All Things Considered” interview on NPR, Cizik, recalls a revelation he experienced after attending an environmental conference at Oxford University.
“I came away absolutely convinced not only of the science but that I should do my part in this, in helping to persuade other evangelicals of their rightful role.” Cizik stated.
He went on to say, “If coal-burning utility plants emit nitrous oxides, mercury, which is then transmitted into our rivers and lakes, ingested by fish eaten by pregnant women who then pass it along to their unborn children and babies, then isn’t that a sanctity-of-life-issue?” (NPR)
James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, Gary L. Bauer, president of Coalitions for America, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and Paul Weyrich, chairman of American Values (none of whom belong to the National Association of Evangelicals) have written to Cizik, asking him to stop speaking on global warming. They feel he is diverting attention from more important issues, such as abortion and homosexuality. Because of this, and even though they don’t belong to Cizik’s organization, they think he should be asked to resign.
In their letter to Cizik they wrote, “We have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis from the great moral issues of our time. Those issues are a need to campaign against abortion and same-sex marriage and to promote ‘the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.’” (N.Y.Times)
Shift the emphasis from the great moral issues of our time? Isn’t global warming one of the great moral issues of our time? Aren’t we taught that we are stewards of the earth, and therefore responsible for its care? Isn’t the demise of our planet as we know it an important issue to address, and as Cizik pointed out, a sanctity-of-life-issue?
Perhaps these same “leaders” should pull their collective heads out of the sand and encourage their followers to help in the fight against global warming with the same zeal they address sexual issues. As Christian soldiers they could lead the fight against environmental abuse and be a mighty force.
Global warming isn’t an important issue?
Explain that to the generations to come why we so recklessly damaged the environment beyond repair.
Tell that to Burr Morse, who is fearful of losing a sugar bush farm that has been in his family for over 200 years because the winters have become shorter and warmer.
Tell that to the maple trees of Vermont.
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics”, published every Tuesday, will reflect on how the life of a 57 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. The articles will be posted to Politics.gather.com as part of Gather Essentials.
Cheri is a single teacher and writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children, one in Iowa and one at Columbia University, and is the proud grandmother of two. Cheri is also a purveyor of fine coffee, warm chatter and dry wit.
You can find all of Cheri’s columns on Personal About Politics at ccabot.gather.com. Keep up with Cheri’s other postings and Gather activity by joining her Gather network at ccabot.gather.com, and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You’ll find Cheri and other Politics Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other Politics experts at Politics.gather.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 46
Devin....I love your correlation to Wiley Coyote!
Which Don is talking today? And are you brave enough to leave your comments on line and not delete them?
Good stuff. Please check out Andrew Revkin's article in the Saturday issue of the New York Times (front page). He notes that the Bush administration just issued a climate report to the United Nations a year late, stating that they are making great progress dealing with global warming. Yup, they are making advances in the "greenhous gas intensity" project. You have to read this carefully to get it. Over the next ten years they propose to limit the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the USA to around 14%. Yes you read that right- INCREASE of 14%, not decrease, not even holding the line. One scientist reading the report noted drily that if you set a hurdle one inch high, anyone should be able to clear it with little effort.
It is amusing to contrast this effort with the extraordinary effort that Bush and Frist made to save the "life" of Terri Schiavo, who had been brain dead for ten years, and whose autopsy revealed how much effort had been wasted on her behalf. Yes, work hard to save the dead, expend no effort to save the lives of our great grandchildren. This is the wonderful result of the kind of theocracy we dread in Iran, but have pretty much gotten in the USA without major complaint.
Nothing personal Don. I am sure that Dobson and Bauer and Weyrich are fun at a party, but they really have not the slightest interest in science.
Dobson, Perkins, and the effeminate Gary Bauer, are drunk with their close ties to the White House (helps them feel "close to God"), and need the culture wars issues to keep the holy rollers fired up.
They seee the fraud and corruption of this administration driving evangelicals from the Party, and are increasingly desperate.
Fortunately, this country also has significant numbers of Christians deeply concerned about the moral dimensions of the ecological crisis.
Chris and Peter...thanks for your comments...good points all. And as for Don H., Chris...I find him very amusing....like a little gnat.
Nowhere in the Bible, not one scripture, specifically states to be a good steward of the earth. Scriptures say, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My word will never pass away." God commands us to worship Him, not the earth. Isaiah 24:4-6, "The earth dries up and withers, the world languished and withers, the exalted of the earth languish. The earth lies under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt." Perhaps this is the reason we are seeing our planet facing such environmental disarray.
The issue with the maple trees seems to be economic. Climates are changing, shifting industry from one region to another. Economic consequences are suffered in the region losing their source of economic profit. This happens and we must adapt by finding new sources of income. Industry movement and changes happen all the time in the US--we just have to learn to adapt and move on---not blame Christians???
While we need to be concerned about our environment and recycling, there are greater issues at stake here. Each year over 1 million people are killed in the United States!! We are killing innocent children through abortion. Jeremiah 1:1 says, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." These Christian leaders, Dobson, Perkins, etc. are interested in science. Science proves that true life exists inside the womb, not at birth! They are fighting for what is right, but yet global warming is more important??!! Where are America's values? It seems our country no longer has a sense of what is wrong or right.
If we could teach our children (through example) not to hop in the bed with everyone and wait till marriage ( as intended by God), we might not have so many people wanting to have arbortions. I believe Dobson and others are trying to stress that if we don't pass along morals to the next generations, our world is in serious trouble. What will our society be like in 100 years. Maybe by that time everyone will be dead from global warming and it won't matter.
Note: Not every news article or book you read is the truth. Seek the truth for yourself.
Global warming is not a "great moral issue." It is an important issue. I tend to look at global warming in the same manner I would look at a person who is somewhat overweight. Being overweight is only one factor in a person's health, but in any event not being overweight is better than being overweight. Whether or not global warming is due mostly due to solar radiation, CO2 increases or some other factor is not the point; addressing each condition is the point. The earth could stand to loose a little CO2 weight as it were.
And one last thought. We "recklessly" damage the environment in many ways. Global warming is probably the least of them.
And, could someone please tell me how many time over the last 4 BILLION years the climate in Vermont has changed? (Hint: quick Google search will reveal the figure to be in the mid-four figure range.)
Bush Disses Global Warming Report
Someone should tell Clark "Nice try, Clarky".
do you wonder if the human race has a future when you read some of these responses? I know I do.
I'm very glad that you were careful to designate that the people unconcerned with global warming were, specifically, evangelical Christians, and even then, of a certain ilk and few denominations. I'm a Christian myself and I'm horrified by what so many people do and say and raise the name of God like a banner behind it. If God left man in dominion over the earth, we've done a pretty sorry job, haven't we?
And something else: I'm glad that Cizik came to see the need for change in the way these groups perceive and discuss global warming, but I'm so very, very tired of hearing everything that's done by these groups trace its roots to helping a fetus or stigmatizing a gay person. Is that really the biggest reason our water should be cleaned up -- to save the fetuses inside pregnant women? What about the millions of people walking around the earth right now, drinking contaminated water and eating mercury-poisoned fish?
I'm glad I don't belong to a sect that looks to the likes of Dobson and Bauer for leadership, religious, political, or otherwise. But it's saddening to see how many people blindly follow them because they're the ones chanting the name of God the loudest.
BTW Canada already has a thriving and prosperous Maple Syrup industry...the only reason that's not so visible here is due to the duties charged when the US imports Canadian Maple Syrup... you can get it in some specialty stores, gourmet food outlets and Whole Foods stores at 11/2 times the cost of US Maple Syrup... although if the situation continues to deteriorate in Vermont the cost of US produced Maple Syrup may soon catch up with and surpass the cost of Canadian produced Maple Syrup.
Again this is just one example of how global warming is going to affect us all.
Sean McMorris commented Mar 8, 2007
I'd be glad to provide you that information, Sean. Thanks for asking.
The last time Earth expericenced a significant rise in global temperatures, the phenomenon lasted approximately 500 years (800-1300 AD). This was followed by a relatively cold period of 450 years (1400-1850). This cycle has occured thousands of times of the four billion year history of this planet.
I agree with Sean, the last session of global warming as David pointed out happened in 1400-1850, probably was not induced by humans as much as it is now. Although, I am sure coal burning was signifigant during that time period, there were not the vehicles that we have now.
It is time for us to accept responsibility for the damage we have done - not pretend it isn't happening - and try to make corrections.
I want Emma and Ruby, and their children and their children, to enjoy this beautiful planet!
Wine and global warming
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/218/popup/index.php?cl=2064309
The point I've made, and which you've either missed or chosen to ignore, is that huam activity has very little, if any, effect on global climatic cycles. Notice I've said GLOBAL CLIMATIC CYCLES. Contrary to what those who support position say, there is NOT an overwhelming scientific consensus on human causation of global warming. Any objective researcher will find just as many published scholarly studies seriously calling into question the conclusion that human activity is THE cause of global warming -- or even a significant factor.
This is not to say ... and I have NOT said ... that we should not be vigilant in keeping our (humans) deterimental effects on our environment to a minimum. We should be constantly on the look out for new technologies and processes to maintain our collective lifestyles and also be environmentally responsibile. Conservation, efficiency, and economic prosperity do not have to be mutually exclusive concepts or goals. My point is that there is nothing to suggest that we need to cripple ourselves as a species for a hypothetical catastrophy that is far from having been proven to be reality, much less theoretically.
As far as my argument goes, I am simply relaying the facts David, which you choose to ignore. The stats, studies, and science show that we are in big trouble in the future. Now, like you, one can pooh-pooh it off because there is no human record of anything like this before, or you can take what the Majority, yes I said majority, of credible scientists in this field believe seriously; that global warming if not altered will have catastrophic consequences.
I simply disagree with you that just as many scientists believe that human's releasing CO2 into the atmosphere does not promote global warming. But if you would like to believe there are because it makes you feel better than go ahead, but based on your view "it is best to ignore variable facts", which also applies here.
And since, based on your last paragraph, you do seem concerned about the planet then why not take these so-called unsubstantiated scientific theories about global warming seriously instead of choosing to side with big oil and neo-con Bush science? Who has an agenda to push now David? What is the harm I ask in believing these scientists who promote a change in how human's release co2 into the atmosphere? What is the worst that could happen if they are wrong? Nothing. What is the worst that could happen if your science is wrong? An unlivable planet. So your reasoning is not sound David – even if you feel you have non-recorded history on your side. And, like you said, change does not have to mean that human's have to cripple themselves to curb CO2 release into the atmosphere. It can be done, and alternative forms of energy can pick up the slack of coal and oil. I find it fascinating as to how many people buy into this line of bull that we cannot live comfortably without oil and low emission standards. But, big oil will loose out, and that is the real issue for most people who choose to believe global warming is a myth. Are you one of those people David? Hmmm…
There's your agenda again, Sean. Whose definition of "credible" are we to use? Are the "credible" scientists only those that supports your point of view? I can only assume that to be the case. Because, anyone who seriously asks the question about scientific proof, as opposed to supposition (known as a hypothesis, in scientific jargon, Sean), will have a hard time coming to the conclusion you propound. It's simply not there.
The "scientific consensus" in 1491 was that the Earth was flat and was the center of the universe, with the Sun, the other planets, and the constellations – all revolving around this planet. Mind you, there was no scientific proof that either was the case, but a majority of the greatest scientific minds of the times had reached a "consensus" that both hypotheses were undeniably true.
I'm all for further scientific study of the issue and a monitoring of the situation. But, there is nothing so conclusive in the global warming hypothesis to warrant a dramatic upheaval of the entire civilized world to attempt to prevent the Sun from revolving around our flat planet.
Now, as far as your reasoning of the earth is flat as opposed to round example, that same reasoning can be used in my defense as well - against your argument (as well as just about any argument one can think of). This is a analogy often used by people who don't have reason on their side. So, once again David, you have not given any information which supports your point of view over mine.
And you are simply misstating me when you say that there is no evidence to prove that the sun will stop revolving around the earth. Did I every say that? No. You are using theatrics for lack of an argument. I said that (once again, because you seem to keep ignoring this fact) that the stats, science, and reason based on what is currently happening to the planet and its correlation to what we are doing to it, and scientific studies and test that prove that CO2 does damage the atmosphere - all of which show that we are creating a catastrophe. And there is evidence that shows that a dramatic upheaval of the entire civilized world is at risk in the future if what we are doing is not altered. But as far as the sun continuing to revolve around the earth, the sun doesn't care if there are people on the earth or not to continue to revolve around it.
However you are one of those people that require an event to actually happen before evidence and theory that the event will happen have credibility. But do you see how absurd that is? If we wait for the event to happen David, we will all be in sorry shape if those theories are correct (not us, but our posterity), and it won't matter if you were right or wrong. That type of reasoning is the same as if someone went to get a restraining order over someone who over a period of weeks has consistently left more and more messages on a persons machine that they are going to kill them, but the judge denies the restraining order because there is no proof that this person will kill the other person until that person is actually killed by the threatening person. See how absurd your reasoning is David? When America found out that the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons did they say, "oh, but they aren't a threat unless they actually use one of the nuclear weapons against us to prove that they are a threat." No, America did not take that type of attitude, David; they took a precautionary attitude – a worse case scenario attitude. That way they were sure to have all their bases covered incase the Soviet Union DID use those weapons on the U.S.
So it's very easy for you to throw around your line about no objective proof when it is posterity, not you who is in jeopardy. And unless you are unfamiliar with science David, a theory is credible without objective proof. It's how science works and it's called inductive logic. What you are using as an excuse to ignore these credible theories is simply a tactic uneducated and stubborn people have always used when they have no argument, but it holds no clout in the scientific world. You can continue try and prove your point using the same type of flawed reasoning you have used already, but you are wasting your breath.
You've made my point yet again. Credible=agrees with me. Not credible=corporate lackeys. You're right, Sean ... no bias there.
"...so how can my view of a credible scientist be based on my agenda when my agenda was created by the credible scientific world!?
Sounds like a classic feedback loop, Sean. You believe what you believe because you listen to people who believe what you believe and believe you believe what they believe .... all the while re-enforcing each others believe in'other.
Notice a problem here?
Faith is a very good thing in spiritual matters. But, it really has no place in scientific arguments. Neither does supposition. The FACTS don't support your position Sean.
But, you are right. I've come to the conclusion (scientifically proven by repeated tials returning the same result) I am wasting my breath (or finger dexterity) trying to have a reasoned and factual discussion with you based upon proven science.
Therefore, if human activity in general, and industrial activity in particular, combined with the massive deforrestation since that time can still result in global temperatures COOLER than was occuring between 900 and 1,300 years ago speaks volumes as to the illogical agruments put foward in support of human causation -- chiefly human causation -- for an increase in global temperature.
Add to this factual evidence that all terrestrial planets in the solar system are experiencing increased temperatures, when there are no humans ... no SUVs ... no industrial activities throwing carbon dioxide into the atmospheres of those planets.
All this information is avaiable to any lay person who cares to take the time to do just rudimentary research. I'm no expert, and I haven't claimed to be. But, I can read and understand plain English. The is ample credible scientific evidence -- from independent scientists -- saying that yes, average global temperatures are rising, but not outside the expected cyclical range and not primarily due to human activity.
Should we be unconcerned about our effect on the global climate? No, and I've said as much:
This is not to say ... and I have NOT said ... that we should not be vigilant in keeping our (humans) deterimental effects on our environment to a minimum. We should be constantly on the look out for new technologies and processes to maintain our collective lifestyles and also be environmentally responsibile. Conservation, efficiency, and economic prosperity do not have to be mutually exclusive concepts or goals. My point is that there is nothing to suggest that we need to cripple ourselves as a species for a hypothetical catastrophy that is far from having been proven to be reality, much less theoretically.
But, in order to have effective policies that accomplish our mutually agreed upon goals without inflicting unnecessary harm on human lives, those policies must be based on verifiable facts and not politically correct, but dubious science and faulty conclusions.
Secondly, I find it amusing that you believe it is impossible to define a credible scientist (However this line of thought is very convenient for neo-cons). I also find it amusing that you cannot understand my sentence, "And furthermore, my view is based on the majority of credible scientists in the world (and their view is consistent with mine, and you can do your own homework to find this out), so how can my view of a credible scientist be based on my agenda when my agenda was created by the credible scientific world!?" I think that explains my view quite clearly. And anyone who can't see the logic in it... well, let's just say you'll have a hard time in the scientific community – or in school for that matter.
And just for giggles let me quote what you wrote, "You believe what you believe because you listen to people who believe what you believe and believe you believe what they believe .... All the while re-enforcing each others believe in'other." You clearly are not smart enough to understand a logical argument, but I never expected you to be, so it is therefore senseless to try and explain it to you further. I treat five year olds like five year olds, and this David, is beyond a five year olds mentality, and thus, it is pointless for me to even speak of things one has no sense of. What you said by the way is not at all what I wrote. I wrote (I will this once lay it out as if I am speaking to a five year old) that I never had a view on the subject until I heard all sides, and then found out what the majority of credible scientists in the world thought, and then I chose a side. I chose the side of credibility. Is that a feedback loop? No. It is called the process of learning and making a decision (I know that's hard for neo-cons to fathom, given that they have their choices already made for them). That David B., is research, and that is what creates credibility – not money or a particular party view. If you don't know that then you better go back to school David B. Nice try on the spin though.
One more time, the facts do not support your assumption David B. Science does however support my view.
And "proven science?!" (As you speak of) You are really hopeless David B. Your science is corporate lackey science, which has an agenda, and therefore is not credible. Real scientist's don't have an agenda other that the truth. I'm glad you decided you're out of your league here though and won't be wasting your breath further on a futile endeavor.
And as far as you're second posting of you having a credible argument… well, I've all ready responded to all of what you said in that posting early. It's just as fractured as it was the first time you wrote. You can go back and read my responses if you want. But it is pointless arguing with one who lacks reason and common sense - and has an agenda. Have a good life living in the clouds David B. Your grandchildren should be so lucky.
Rev. Wallis points to other possible great moral issues to include, and I quote, "Is the fact that 30,000 children will die globally today, and everyday, from needless hunger and disease a great moral issue for evangelical Christians? How about the reality of 3 billion of God's children living on less than $2 per day? And isn't the still-widespread and needless poverty in our own country, the richest nation in the world, a moral scandal? What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS that wipe out whole generations and countries, or the sex trafficking of massive numbers of women and children? Should genocide in Darfur be a moral issue for Christians? And what about disastrous wars like Iraq?"
This quote can be found on Jim Wallis' blog at http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/ March 7th was the date of his "moral issue" commentary.
What kind of rectal thermometers were they using during the "Medieval Warm Period", David?
The neo-cons are like sheep to the slaughter, they will believe anything their administration tells them because they are too naive to believe that our leaders could ever lie to us, or that they could be influenced by big business. HA!