Global Warming Debate

[bestfriend]

Originally Posted by artbyjody

We can't - but that particular statement is derived from the fact we are the only species on this planet that does create machinery, power plants, engines, etc, or active producers and consumers of (beavers may produce damns but they do not generate electricity and they have predators) ...when compare to the rest of the world if we were not here and everything else was the same - the argument would be much much different. So in effect compared to the 99% of other life forms we are 'un-natural elements' in regards to the environment....

Who's to say that if we were not here that things would be any better? Who's to say that this isn't what is supposed to happen? Who's to say that this route won't lead to a better world in the future? This planet is so much greater than us and will squash us in the end, not the other way around. What is your definition of nature and natural? Trust me, I don't think that waste is a good thing that we should just put up with. There are better ways, I agree. We are capable of so much more.

Edit: Thoroughly enjoying this topic and discussion by the way. I respect all of your opinions and think that this subject is so important and wide open for the future. The potential for us and this planet are amazing at this time.

[artbyjody]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Let me put this a bit differently Jody. What should we be doing? How should we change things, without a negative impact on humankind? Or, should we even care if there is a negative impact on humankind?

That is the point of contention. The remedies offered to this point have one central end, the disruption of the economies of the Western world. The amount of actual change they would make is miniscule at best.

Fair question, with no one answer I imagine as previously pointed out - there is no way we can make the WORLD change. I hate the word "going greener" as to me it is nothing but a marketing scam...

The reason I do not have an opinionated stance as like everyone I enjoy my gas guzzling Mustang and in the end my enjoyment of such supersedes any guilt I have...But - if I didn't have it....would it kill me no....And that is the hypocritical stance I think I share with many....

What we can do however, is force the governments to get rid of the profiteering solution of carbon credits and only give incentives to companies that pioneer new solutions, that reduce either the footprint on a consumer basis (and affordabley) or new systems that allow manufactuering process to do it cleaner and without waste (Frito-Lay plants are a good example look up what they do they are almost 90% "green and recycle practically everything). As it stands with carbon credits being more or less a trading market that allows one company to make cash by allowing another company to get underneath what EPA regulations we have now - that is one start.

Instead of offering car pool lanes, perhaps a better incentive is where it is felt in the pocket book - ie: purchasing fuel at discount for ride share groups... Car pool lanes in general back up traffic and only give benies to a few....(Evidenced in Seattle where car poolers stop main traffic to get in and out of car pool lanes..)

But I agree with you - if we all could put thought into how we can make transitions to limit our contributions and at least minimize our impact - that is a way better discussion than trying to prove which position is right or wrong....

[artbyjody]

Originally Posted by bestfriend

Who's to say that if we were not here that things would be any better? Who's to say that this isn't what is supposed to happen? Who's to say that this route won't lead to a better world in the future? This planet is so much greater than us and will squash us in the end, not the other way around. What is your definition of nature and natural? Trust me, I don't think that waste is a good thing that we should just put up with. There are better ways, I agree. We are capable of so much more.

Edit: Thoroughly enjoying this topic and discussion by the way. I respect all of your opinions and think that this subject is so important and wide open for the future. The potential for us and this planet are amazing at this time.

I am watching History Channel right now and they are doing a whole series on it today...(way more entertaining than Al Gores movie as well)...

The fact is there is nothing we can do about nature....If the lava underneath the Yosemite erupts...not much we can do. But for now - we do know it is going up and we do know we contribute to it (the rate or amount scientifically unknown but can computer modeled...)...If the oceans continue warming - there will be huge amounts of methane gas that gets released (methane is 28.6% more potent of a greenhouse gas)...

So your right, who says this is not the process... at least we can make sure we reduce the amount of accelerent we add into the process and give us time to learn to adapt to the environment if predictions are right - big if but we are smart enough to see that the climate is changing....

[bestfriend]

Originally Posted by artbyjody

But I agree with you - if we all could put thought into how we can make transitions to limit our contributions and at least minimize our impact - that is a way better discussion than trying to prove which position is right or wrong....

You know one thing that really bugs the heck out of me? I go surfing at ocean beach in SF. Everyday the wind picks up in the afternoon, well almost everyday, anyway. I look up at the houses, and there are no wind generators. One of the windiest cities in the world, now wind power. I fly into phoenix to see my parents. As we fly over, I see thousands of roof tops and there are no solar panels. One of the sunniest cities in the country, no solar panels. Waves crashing along thousands of miles of coastlines, no wave power. We now have the technology to make it all happen.

[artbyjody]

Originally Posted by bestfriend

You know one thing that really bugs the heck out of me? I go surfing at ocean beach in SF. Everyday the wind picks up in the afternoon, well almost everyday, anyway. I look up at the houses, and there are no wind generators. One of the windiest cities in the world, now wind power. I fly into phoenix to see my parents. As we fly over, I see thousands of roof tops and there are no solar panels. One of the sunniest cities in the country, no solar panels. Waves crashing along thousands of miles of coastlines, now wave power. We now have the technology to make it all happen.

But is it affordable? - if Energy Companies were truly "good citizens" they would aide in getting such to the consumer...it boils down to politics and consumers not able to make a 20K investment.... it actually should be mandated that new houses / buildings are built to "energy efficient - energy recupment standards".....is there a push for it? No because companies that produce such are enjoying the high profit margins....maybe in 20 years it will change as more awareness - kinda like the computer industry - I used to make 40% profit building systems until computers became mainstream....now I wouldn't dare get involved in that business as the profit margin is so low...and its cheaper for the consumer to purchase elsewhere...

[bestfriend]

No excuses anymore. Somebody has got to stop being greedy and step up to the plate.

[sailaway21]

If the people in those houses BF is viewing found it economically desirable to derive power from alternative sources I'm sure they'd do it. I am dismayed that some think the way to do so is by government fiat or that, somehow, the oil companies have a moral imperative to develop such things. Government is woefullu inept at such matters or do we not remember all of our tax dollars the fed's wasted back in the seventies trying to develop synthetic fuels. The oil companies have enabled us to enjoy a standard of living and health previously thought unattainable on this earthly realm. For this they should feel guilty?

I'd like to address one of Jody's first points and that was the CO2 component of the problem. Excuse me, what problem? Don't include me in any group willing to admit that what is taking place is not just part of the earth's natural cycles. To assume otherwise is to get science, and nature, completely bass-ackwards. Your diesel exhaust is just the type illustration to illustrate the point. It smacks of the radon scare. Radon, the second leading cause of lung cancers in America. Except that the numbers are so low as to be almost meaningless. Anything in sufficient concentration can be cancerous. Much of our new enviornmental standards are based upon what we can measure and not on hard epidemiological evidence of harm.

Just a side note. We now have more trees in the US than when the Pilgrims set foot ashore. I'm not sure we should plant more, for fear of upsetting the natural ecology.

There is a tremendous amount of hubris surrounding matters both ecological and climatological. It would seem, to the casual observer, that the place to start would be in establishing some norms for the climate. In the process of doing so, we are confronted with the difficult proposition that the norm is of a transitory nature. During the ice age, cold was the norm. Today it is not. We talk of tree rings going back one thousand years. In the big picture, one thousand years is a drop in the bucket. Deciding what is natural is rather more difficult than what it appears to be on the face of it.

Man's hubris is what drives us to put out forest fires and should result in massive government programs to stop volcanic eruptions. That is where the logic of the environmentalist movement takes us. Our very definition of pollution is one that involves man. We're only concerned about ground water pollution because we intend to drink that water. We conveniently overlook the fact that nature, all on her own, "pollutes" that same water. This is not a polemic for industry rampant and no pollution standards, but a call to rationality. If man is the problem, it is interesting that man is the only creature on earth capable of making that determination. The rest of God's creatures amble along with no sense of mortality at all.

I happen to believe that man should be a good steward of the earth, in fact, a conservationist. But I believe that because I regard it to be in man's best interests. I do not believe, and emphatically reject the notion, that man's presence is somehow a moral harm to the earth. It's not as if the other creatures on the earth are actively involved in keeping things just as they are now, either. Natural disasters, disease, and pestilence wipe out entire species and populations of creatures with great frequency. Someday nature may do the same to us, or a good portion of us, and that'll just be the way it is. In my lifetime, we've seen the eruption of Krakatoa and the recent tsunami, both natural events. Neither were regarded as unnatural. Nature is kind of lax on issueing memos on such things.

From where I'm sitting, change seems to be a natural event. What the norm is, the rate of change, the nature of cataclyzmic change are all questions worth asking and answering. To the extent that we do not, and are not willing to admit that we don't know or are just guessing, we are deluding ourselves that we think we are on the right path. The earth appears to be warming, tell me why it's not natural.

[PBzeer]

But, but ...... Sway, if it's natural, then we're faced with no reason to waste huge amounts of money on unworkable solutions, drastically alter economys, and make draconian changes to our lifestyle to appease the apostle of doom and gloom. For crying out loud, if carbon offsets aren't necessary, what will become of Algore's offset business? Think of the economic impact of putting those 5 or 6 people out of work!

[bestfriend]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

If the people in those houses BF is viewing found it economically desirable to derive power from alternative sources I'm sure they'd do it. I am dismayed that some think the way to do so is by government fiat or that, somehow, the oil companies have a moral imperative to develop such things. Government is woefullu inept at such matters or do we not remember all of our tax dollars the fed's wasted back in the seventies trying to develop synthetic fuels. The oil companies have enabled us to enjoy a standard of living and health previously thought unattainable on this earthly realm. For this they should feel guilty?

I would have to say two things are lacking for the people in those houses. First, information/education. Second, government incentives. Yes they are inept a running programs, and thats not what I would suggest. But tax breaks do work, especially for the middle class. Prove it? Look at Mexico. They have very big incentives to build houses that are off the grid, and it is working. I have seen it first hand. The incentives here are too small, and it takes too long to recoup your investment.

I don't expect big oil or the big three to make the move. They have never provided ingenuity before and I don't expect it now. Too bad for them, because they stand to make a fortune in the long run. But as it stands, they will be left behind. In fact, I think it is safe to say that government tax incentives are so low because of the marriage of government and oil. I don't blame them for being resistant, it is, by the way, what our country lives on. It is difficult to invest in a change that may destroy everything you have worked so hard for, and end up a failure. There is no guarantee.

As for a standard of living and health, what I do know is this. It has been proven that the high cancer rate in my job was in large part due to the amount of diesel exhaust in the stations. In addition to filling up the lower quarters, at night the exhaust would fill the dorms. We now have extractors hooked up to the rigs. We even have a station next to a freeway and the cancer rate at that station is higher than any other. Back when they had asbestos brakes, guys were dropping like flies. The freeway is on a downhill grade, upwind, and the brake dust would engulf the station.

Standard of living is very much a personal thing, but health is pretty universal and our refinement of oil and the products it makes are not healthy.

[bestfriend]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

But, but ...... Sway, if it's natural, then we're faced with no reason to waste huge amounts of money on unworkable solutions, drastically alter economys, and make draconian changes to our lifestyle to appease the apostle of doom and gloom. For crying out loud, if carbon offsets aren't necessary, what will become of Algore's offset business? Think of the economic impact of putting those 5 or 6 people out of work!

PB - drastically alter THIS economy? Are you kidding? Until we export more than we import I don't expect much from this economy. It needs to be drastically altered.