In the wake of the Live Earth concert series yesterday, it occurs to me that we need to have a conversation about global warming. Oh please, not again, you reply. Yes my friends, for this has been a slow week for Paris Hilton.
Live Earth was a public entertainment, and it was also an effort to publicize the need for action to combat the process of climate change that has been driven in recent decades by our fossil fuel consumption. So what is global warming about? And what is it not about?
It is not about Al Gore, though he is a leading figure in the international effort to educate and energize our public response to it. Al is a private citizen, who is doing something that is not his public trust. In the meantime, those in whom our public trust is invested (especially GWB) chose to ignore that trust on this topic. Leave it to future office holders. Al talks alot about carbon offsets. He is silly in that regard, because we are not going to solve global warming by planting a tree each time we generate thousands of pounds of CO2 flying around the planet in a jet. I will criticize Gore for his optimism- yet paradoxically optimism is our last best hope to deal with Global warming, because if we are going to be pessimists we might as well roll over and die now.
It is about science. Yes, and no. Science is our best tool to understand it. Those who chose to understand it solely in religious or political terms are less likely to understand it than those who incorporate the data and habit of thought that science cultivates. On another level, global warming does not care about your opinion, scientific or other. It is what it is. If your science is wrong, your will not understand it much better than if you shot from the hip. But having said that, it seems foolish to accept that climate change sceptics' minority view of climate science is equally valid as mainstream science. I could claim to be a scientist, but that would not make me one. So why should I waste my time hunting for the one climatologist in a hundred who says it is no big deal? Do not tell me how to be a librarian (yes that is my profession), and I will not tell you how to be a scientist.
Is global warming about public relations and hyping and movies and concerts? Well, no and yes. Those things have a potential to increase public awareness by allowing it to compete with Paris and Britney in terms of public awareness. We are less than halfway along the learning curve, however, despite the recent spike in public concern about climate change. It used to be: "don't give me that crap, you just want to raise my taxes". Now, it's: "This is a real concern and I am terrified about what kind of planet I am handing off to my great-grandkids. And being green now makes me look sexy to my friends. But gas costs too much as it is."
Notice that there is a world of difference between those two positions. But also note that in terms of collective public action to address the problem, there is practically no difference. The conversation will need to continue before we start to bite some bullets. The ultimate responsibility for the solution lies with each and every one of us as consumers, but also even more critically, as voters. Do not expect for a politician to ride in on a white horse and make it all better, painlessly and without the spending of a dime. There are times when citizens must lead so that leaders will follow. This is one of those times.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 37
Didn't Ted Danson say the Earth would die in Ten years? Wasn't that about 27 years ago?
There are too many other options and reasons for this "Global Warming". The most likely is normal temperatures returning to the Earth after a short cold spell. Increased solar activity and moving magnetic fields give better explanations than increased greenhouse gasses. FYI, 97% of greenhouse gasses are H2O(water, not CO@, Carbon dioxide).
The people who claim Man caused the earth to warm, are only seeking either job security, power or attacking someone else. Facts just don't support the claim man made the earth's temp increase.
Does anyone have a reply for Mike?
Yeah he's an ignoramous. And I am a scientist and in that vein suggest a logic course for freshman.
False. Your misgided logic doesn't. All answers to this full skeptic bingo card can be found here.
I'll address this one though:
Water vapor is feedback and CO2 is forcing. A molecule of CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years, H2O a few days.
Deal with that fact or do you deny chemistry?
real climate
Yes, you have the facts at your command. And while we are at it, let's also debunk those goofy old chesnuts regarding the idea that we are heading into an ice age, or that increased solar radiation is responsible for the observed increase in temps. Neither of those two concepts are supported by observations, though the Exxon crowd loves to spout on them.
Can anyone offer more views on my central point- what climate change is and what it is not? In my view, Mark has discussed what it is, and Mike has shown by example what it is not (by spouting about how imaginary it is).
Yes, global warming is especially about the long view. You do hear people saying things like "it will take 200 years for global warming to change anything so I would rather talk about things that are important today." Yet some of these people will leave descendants here to inhabit that tortured world of 2207. This lack of understanding is appalling, but all too common. It is the same thought process responsible for people taking adjustable rate loans in order to purchase a home. Then the interest rates rise, and whoops you're evicted.
Apply this analogy to global warming. If we are evicted from this home, there is no other. It is not realistic for us to build enough spaceships to move the human race to Mars- and even if it were realistic, Mars is uninhabitable.
I got this one. The people who are claiming that it is caused by increased radiation from the sun., etc... and fail to admit to the fact that it is generated by very irresponsible behavior on the part of some of us humans are in it for one thing and one thing only, GREED.
These very wealthy and powerful men are not morons (well, except for w). They know what is happening and are preparing a buffer for themselves.
When the rest of us are eating soylent green they will be the ones in the penthouses eating steak.
They are lining their pockets and looking out for their own. w bought property down in (i believe) Paraguay because there is a huge resevoir of fresh water under it. A trade agreement with Paraguay (a very poor country ) would force privatization of the water (which with warming and changing climate patterns will become very valuable) making him an even richer man.
The joke was w refused to admit climate change was happening and the pentagon has a plan for it. The poorest countries, the ones that have had the least impact on creating the problem, will be the first and hardest hit. They are already experiencing it.
Now, the goofy, tinfoil hatters, who refuse to believe documented scientific evidence should perhaps step aside, and stop standing in the way of technological, economic, and global environmental advancement. The anti-earth crowd has lost this argument, in the face of bald facts. Thankfully.
Michael Peltier: GOP warms up to global warming summit in Miami
Called by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, panelists including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Kennedy Jr. and Theodore Roosevelt IV will lead what is billed as a bipartisan and nonpolitical get-together to set an agenda in the face of a warming planet.
"I am confident that every person who cares about Florida's environmental and economic future will want to join us for this summit," Crist said recently in a statement highlighting the event.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/jul/08/
michael_peltier_gop_warms_global_warming_summit_mi/?breaking_news
There was once a time that the Republican party stood for industry and finance obeying a moral and legal code. Yeah, could happen again someday.
Thanks for your comments as well. Now it is time for our sceptics to take a turn. But sceptics, please remember, no shots at Gore. It's not about Al, remember? Please express yourselves in some other way.
All the rest of what Chevron, Exxon, and anyone else at that level claims to be doing to help the environment is miniscule by comparison.
Those who claim there is no real global warming are already behind in the debate. The EU doesn't even debate the science anymore...they've already begun arguing about what steps to take at the government level to deal with these issues.
Rose: meaning they're do-able
Lovins: not only do-able, but they're profitable and they're fun
Amory Lovins on Charlie Rose on energy solutions (about the 31 minute mark):
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/1/0719/59319
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/1/0719/59319
"Here we are, just one species on the earth, and we're grabbing a quarter of the renewable resources … we're probably being a bit greedy."
Well I guess solar power is out now.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/human-greed-takes-lions-share-of-solar-energy/2007/07/02/1183351126304.html
This will give you insight into how our weather folks view global warming and greenhouse gases....looks like Al just might be onto something.
Go figure:>)
Don't worry. There's plenty solar power to go around.
"Each day, more solar energy bathes Earth than its 5.9 billion inhabitants consume in equivalent electric power in 27 years, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo." (This article was written in 2000, before the world population hit 6B. It's now pushing 7B.)
Solar power: the great untapped energy source
http://www.enn.com/archive.html?id=31654&cat=archives
PJ L. Thanks for the link to the AMS. AMS is but one of many scientific organizations that have similar climate change positions. One exception is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
I usually designate it as simply w.
Bent: "We don't have to be dwelling like "ignorant" cave people to also respect the earth we stand on."
You are familiar with the works like these?
Natural Capitalism, Hawken, Lovins and Lovins
http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Capitalism-Creating-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0316353000/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5196657-3497410?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183900805&sr=1-1
Cradle to Cradle, McDonough and Braungart
http://www.amazon.com/Cradle-Remaking-Way-Make-Things/dp/0865475873/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/103-5196657-3497410?ie=UTF8&qid=1183900805&sr=1-1
I agree with your view that animism, the "primitive" religious/cosmological belief that spirits inhabit the natural world, is more beneficial in its consequences than our advanced, but complacent, obsession with digital fun and creature comforts.
observe our Hummers, fast food Amazon cowburgers, and habit of spending the evening with Paris Hilton on TV followed by a movie with plenty of explosions and special effects. An animist looks at that and says its not sustainable for one thing and for another what does it have to do with the Tribe?
Our tribe is now the human race, or it should be if we expect to have live great grandchildren.
Chris, you are so right on. The toughest part of that brilliance you have is the transmission of it to people who tend to kill the messenger. 10++++ for this brilliant way to at least lay the landscape out for people still in the dark ages.
"Is global warming about public relations and hyping and movies and concerts? Well, no and yes."
Here I think is your most intriguing point. As a society, we have to have sexy. Sex sells. How many movements had to become pop culture before they became ideals? It had to become cool to be gay before movement was made toward insuring fair treatment. (Of course, there's a long way to go.) JFK was practically a brand name for ideals. If he believed it, it became popular. Why? In my opinion, because he made it sexy. The Peace Corp became this cool thing to do with a year or two of your life. If it takes Brittanys and Ashleys up there showing their milkshake to make it cool to be green, So be it! I couldn't be happier. Well, I could , but it is unlikely we'll shake the shallow nature of our society anytime soon.
I also couldn't agree more that it is and isn't about the science. There may be no time to confirm the science. Since we all know that asthma and smog and allergies are on the rise and are directly connected to air quality, let's solve those problems. Guess what? It 's the same solution as the one for global warming. There, now everybody's happy.
Though I give Gore a pretty mixed review above, I only do so in the cause of fairness. He is doing a good job of keeping it on the front burner despite the myriad ways our society has of killing debate and replacing it with flavor of the month nonsense. And it is darn hard to be perfect on this topic, because it is new territory and we are really struggling to wrap our heads around it even after 20 years.
But still, we do not have another 20 years. In fact, we may may not have even had the first 20 years, the years we already wasted.
The walk to less stupidity will happen, it's a when not an if.
Yep. So do I (Honda Insight). But the real problem has to do with how our communities are planned. They are planned around the car, and much of the car's operations are subsidized - e.g., real costs of using gas, roads, parking, etc. If we had to pay the real costs, alternatives would emerge fairly quickly. As it is, our zoning laws are a great tool to "de-socialize" our behavior around the car. And for all of the criticism of "social engineering" that many (conservatives?) talk about, zoning laws are among the most powerful "anti-socializing" tools that government has.
In "Natural Capitalism", the authors discuss all of the environmental advantages of the "hypercar"
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid191.php
Yet they also state that transportation patterns are highly inefficient. They don't use the term "smart growth, " but that's what they're talking about when they note that much more efficient patterns would come about with more enlightened zoning patterns. People should be within a 5 minute walk of groceries, for example. How many cities/towns actually encourage the use of a bike? (Also, think of what these would do for our healthcare costs, as well!!!)
Chris: "and yeah, the electricity that is running through this terminal as I type this probably came from burning coal, and that is even worse for carbon loading."
Well, at least Google "gets it".
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49007
Chris: "He (Gore) is doing a good job of keeping it (global warming) on the front burner...."
That is his stated purpose - to build public pressure on politicians to take action, and he is doing a pretty good job, I agree. I don't really get his critics - what IS the basis for such venomous hatred of the man? I've never understood it.
Good point, Steve. I think it has a lot to do with how very influential people in and around government have their *ass*ets totally tied to the current state of the oil industry. Someone like Gore coming along and empowering people to wisely invest his or her capital in ways that are more egalitarian as well as putting a far less CO2 footprint into the planet really threatens some people's control over that whole industry, so there is a huge PR campaign right now to engorge any nuance or whispered intimation of imperfection.
Case in point:
http://foxattacks.com/