View Full Version : White house report on climate change
Gardenarian
5-6-14, 1:47pm
National Climate Assessment (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/)
It's bad news.
I read it and found it most interesting. "Weather disruptions" instead of "climate change" is more understandable.
I routinely wonder at the number or percentage of the people I know well enough to have discussions who still either 1. Do not believe in climate change or do not think it is related to man's activities, or 2.) Believe all of it but see no need to change how they consume, how many children they might have, or as a significant issue when they vote.
Yes, thanks for sharing. It's great that the Federal government has undertaken this and is clear about the message about climate change. Unfortunately half of the country is bound to think this is Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda.
Unfortunately half of the country is bound to think this is Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda.
I don't know what percentage of the country think it's propaganda, although I can tell you what percentage of the country think it's a serious problem. According to Gallup, it's 34%.
Polls over the past several years have consistently shown that climate change is not a major concern for a majority of our citizens, probably because of the overstated propaganda used to sell various redistribution schemes which promise to positively impact global change. Perhaps if the much vaunted climate models used to forecast global calamity, the ones behind the often repeated "the science is settled" claims, accurately predicted real world results, perceptions would be different.
Until that time, people will naturally see much of the political climate change debate for what it is, a method to balance economic growth between rich and poor countries. If that causes some people to suspect "Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda", well, would they be wrong?
ApatheticNoMore
5-6-14, 6:21pm
Yes, thanks for sharing. It's great that the Federal government has undertaken this and is clear about the message about climate change. Unfortunately half of the country is bound to think this is Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda.
Maybe, but I'm told it doesn't matter what we citizens think anyway (but maybe they only tell us that to get us to shut up). But anyway this very White House has been sabotaging global climate agreements for years. Didn't the U.S. sabotage the most recent global climate talks? Oil is flowing down from the Canadian tarsands by an alternate route RIGHT NOW - Obama ok-ed that route in an executive order - an executive order does not go through congress. The Canadian tarsands ARE being exploited. While useless environmental leaders had us only focusing on Keystone XL (not that I'm in favor of Keystone XL. I'm not). Where is McKibben when you need him? Is it game over now already because tarsand oil is flowing?
So what will the half (what if it's much more than that that believe in taking action on climate change? do you think our corporate informers would even tell us?) of the country that DOES NOT think it's all a "Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda" DO? Isn't that the important thing? By the way any given announcement might even be "Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda" especially as I dont' see a lot of evidence it is being backed up with action from our government. But climate change itself is not.
ApatheticNoMore
5-6-14, 6:33pm
I routinely wonder at the number or percentage of the people I know well enough to have discussions who still either 1. Do not believe in climate change or do not think it is related to man's activities, or 2.) Believe all of it but see no need to change how they consume, how many children they might have, or as a significant issue when they vote.
How they consume - but changing consumption is not enough. Granted I feel guilty when I feel I'm contributing "too much" to the destruction of the world via consumption ("too much" - well as a U.S. citizen I realistically don't have that small a footprint just living my life). Maybe our power as consumers should be better leveraged as targetted boycotts. So I'll throw that out there when things get dire enough, and enough people are on board. How many children they might have? Well if you believe the worse case scenarios maybe it's best to have none, since it's a horrible world they are being brought into and whether it's better to be brought into existence in such a world I can't say (is it to be or not to be, oh I replied: oh why ask me?). However people who are aware and care about the issues do have kids so. A significant issue when they vote. But that's assuming the game isn't already rigged. If there are good choices in the primary or general elections then vote for them, but if all we have is the choice of two aweful evils, it's hardly worth bothering with.
I don't know what percentage of the country think it's propaganda, although I can tell you what percentage of the country think it's a serious problem. According to Gallup, it's 34%.
Polls over the past several years have consistently shown that climate change is not a major concern for a majority of our citizens, probably because of the overstated propaganda used to sell various redistribution schemes which promise to positively impact global change. Perhaps if the much vaunted climate models used to forecast global calamity, the ones behind the often repeated "the science is settled" claims, accurately predicted real world results, perceptions would be different.
Until that time, people will naturally see much of the political climate change debate for what it is, a method to balance economic growth between rich and poor countries. If that causes some people to suspect "Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda", well, would they be wrong?
My personal concern about climate change has nothing to do with any political agenda.. and in fact, I'm inclined to agree with some who think the whole climate change discussion is misguided because it's attacking the symptom instead of the root cause of the problem, which is we simply are so out of touch with our true nature that rather than living in tune with supportive natural systems, we thumb our noses at them, and think we're going to get away with it. I fail to see the plain old common sense in how we live as a culture. Nature gives us everything we need in a seamless, symbiotic give-and-take. All we have done is take. It's nonsense, the way we act, in total mindless arrogance. THAT's the real problem.
And yes, ANM, you're right. I'm not giving the White House praise for their work on climate. I'm surprised this report is as candid as it is, frankly. But I'm sure they're banking on the fact that no one will read it. And really no one will heed it.
I don't know what percentage of the country think it's propaganda, although I can tell you what percentage of the country think it's a serious problem. According to Gallup, it's 34%.
Polls over the past several years have consistently shown that climate change is not a major concern for a majority of our citizens, probably because of the overstated propaganda used to sell various redistribution schemes which promise to positively impact global change. Perhaps if the much vaunted climate models used to forecast global calamity, the ones behind the often repeated "the science is settled" claims, accurately predicted real world results, perceptions would be different.
Until that time, people will naturally see much of the political climate change debate for what it is, a method to balance economic growth between rich and poor countries. If that causes some people to suspect "Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda", well, would they be wrong?
The actual recent statistics by gallop are 39% concerned believers, 36% mixed middle, and one in four are cool skeptics. The last number, cool skeptics is sort of interesting. A third are female and two thirds are male. The numbers are about reversed for concerned believers, but less of a divide. Interesting, since both males and females are presented the same information. The closest I can come up with as a concerned believer for an analogy would be, say you take your car to 1000 mechanics, mostly honest, all with access to state of the art diagnostics, and ask about it's mechanical condition. 999 of them say there is a complicated electrical problem that will most likely cause the brakes to fail. Then you ask a bunch of doctors, brewery workers, politicians, and teachers what they thought and only 39 percent believe the mechanics. Who is most probably to be correct. Not that I intend to sway you Alan as I know that is impossible.
What I would say could sway me to the mixed middle would be if, say, only 80 percent of the climate scientist thought climate change was real, serious, man caused. I might think, oh a pretty decent chance they are wrong. Then I would be in the mixed middle. But reality is that something like 99% of the climate scientists are saying the same thing. So, what I am wondering is, what would it take to change the minds of the cool skeptics? Why are they so distrustful of scientists? I'm sure a few are in it for personal glory or perpetuation of grants, but can 99% of them so inclined to mislead the world over a serious issue? I can't even imagine politicians as being that dishonest.
It's probably a futile argument, but those are the things I wonder, and have read extensively on both sides of the argument to try to understand.
The actual recent statistics by gallop are 39% concerned believers, 36% mixed middle, and one in four are cool skeptics. The last number, cool skeptics is sort of interesting. A third are female and two thirds are male. The numbers are about reversed for concerned believers, but less of a divide. Interesting, since both males and females are presented the same information. The closest I can come up with as a concerned believer for an analogy would be, say you take your car to 1000 mechanics, mostly honest, all with access to state of the art diagnostics, and ask about it's mechanical condition. 999 of them say there is a complicated electrical problem that will most likely cause the brakes to fail. Then you ask a bunch of doctors, brewery workers, politicians, and teachers what they thought and only 39 percent believe the mechanics. Who is most probably to be correct. Not that I intend to sway you Alan as I know that is impossible.
What I would say could sway me to the mixed middle would be if, say, only 80 percent of the climate scientist thought climate change was real, serious, man caused. I might think, oh a pretty decent chance they are wrong. Then I would be in the mixed middle. But reality is that something like 99% of the climate scientists are saying the same thing. So, what I am wondering is, what would it take to change the minds of the cool skeptics? Why are they so distrustful of scientists? I'm sure a few are in it for personal glory or perpetuation of grants, but can 99% of them so inclined to mislead the world over a serious issue? I can't even imagine politicians as being that dishonest.
It's probably a futile argument, but those are the things I wonder, and have read extensively on both sides of the argument to try to understand.
Interesting--I'm going to look up that Gallup Poll. And I really like your analogy, Rogar.
Problem is, science has been spectacularly wrong over and over again throughout history. The oft-quoted aphorism is "Science progresses one death at a time." The mossy old guard dies off, allowing new ideas their due. Science is easily manipulated by politics, money, fashion, personality--all the usual suspects. Innovation isn't promoted unless someone can make money off it. "Peer-reviewed" publication is mostly a joke when forward-thinking scientists go up against the old guard. That having been said, I'm willing to support technological (and low-tech) methods to address climate change, though I'm skeptical that they will make much difference in the long run.
Overpopulation is a problem, but developed countries are doing fine in that department--IMO--and developing countries will automatically produce fewer offspring--if history is any indicator. I read somewhere that world population is expected to stabilize at a relatively high but manageable level.
...... Not that I intend to sway you Alan as I know that is impossible......
That's interesting, as I didn't take a stance on whether Global Cooling or Global Warming or the Climate Change catchall is real or not, so I'm not sure which way I'm not capable of being swayed. If it helps, I've lived through both the Cooling and Warming scares, both of which were supported by the best science of the day.
I was addressing the percentage of people who may or may not attribute all the hub bub to "Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda" and a possible reason for it, if it were true. The one thing I feel strongly on is the way the climate change industry has hurt itself by its history of overstating the near-term threat and its questionable manipulation of data to influence public opinion. If you were to strip those two observations out of the equation, and if the climate change models which predict the effects of higher levels of greenhouse gases trapped in the atmosphere duplicated real conditions over the past 15 or so years, I'm sure there'd be less skepticism.
Also, from a political perspective, if governments hadn't locked onto the premise of global warming/climate change as a means of regulating a global economy, most people could probably then focus on the pure science, whatever that may actually be.
Problem is, science has been spectacularly wrong over and over again throughout history.
I'd probably want to see statistics on that. They have also been spectacularly right. Which is most probable.
Alchemy, phrenology, eugenics, the lipid theory...Pure science is a wonderful thing, and it's always being built upon--but the potential for harm is great (chemical weapons, the Tuskegee experiment) when the rewards are sufficient.
That's interesting, as I didn't take a stance on whether Global Cooling or Global Warming or the Climate Change catchall is real or not, so I'm not sure which way I'm not capable of being swayed. If it helps, I've lived through both the Cooling and Warming scares, both of which were supported by the best science of the day.
I was addressing the percentage of people who may or may not attribute all the hub bub to "Democratic, liberal, left, treehugger propaganda" and a possible reason for it, if it were true. The one thing I feel strongly on is the way the climate change industry has hurt itself by its history of overstating the near-term threat and its questionable manipulation of data to influence public opinion. If you were to strip those two observations out of the equation, and if the climate change models which predict the effects of higher levels of greenhouse gases trapped in the atmosphere duplicated real conditions over the past 15 or so years, I'm sure there'd be less skepticism.
Also, from a political perspective, if governments hadn't locked onto the premise of global warming/climate change as a means of regulating a global economy, most people could probably then focus on the pure science, whatever that may actually be.
The Gallop Poll I found did indeed align conservatives as cool skeptics and liberals as concerned believers. I don't remember the numbers and how strongly it correlates. If I'm reading you right, your saying that the scientists from the most respectable academic institutes all over the world, many of them independent of each other, are corruptible and have colluded to a false conclusion to benefit the politicians, and additionally have ignored obvious possibilities of why they might be wrong? I could see that for a smaller percentage than 97% or more. Or I might have misunderstood.
Another interesting statistic is that Americans are outliers. Quite generally over 50 percent of those in industrialized nations are concerned believers. Or at least that's how I read it. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/upshot/americans-are-outliers-in-views-on-climate-change.html?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=The%20Upshot&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article And actually, poor countries are more likely to be believers than rich ones.
The Gallop Poll I found did indeed align conservatives as cool skeptics and liberals as concerned believers. I don't remember the numbers and how strongly it correlates. If I'm reading you right, your saying that the scientists from the most respectable academic institutes all over the world, many of them independent of each other, are corruptible and have colluded to a false conclusion to benefit the politicians, and additionally have ignored obvious possibilities of why they might be wrong? I could see that for a smaller percentage than 97% or more. Or I might have misunderstood.
No, you didn't misunderstand, although you may have possibly misinterpreted. I do believe that many researchers are corruptible, as their conclusions are susceptible to the influence of grants. Collusion isn't so much to benefit politicians as it is to receive funding from a political apparatus which requires a specific conclusion. I also believe that contrary opinions have a lesser chance of being presented in peer reviewed journals than Condoleezza Rice has of being universally welcomed to speak at Rutgers. Academia doesn't have a stellar reputation for diversity of opinion.
Egads--Alan and I agree on something. I must have slipped into an alternate universe...
The Gallop Poll I found did indeed align conservatives as cool skeptics and liberals as concerned believers. I don't remember the numbers and how strongly it correlates. If I'm reading you right, your saying that the scientists from the most respectable academic institutes all over the world, many of them independent of each other, are corruptible and have colluded to a false conclusion to benefit the politicians, and additionally have ignored obvious possibilities of why they might be wrong? I could see that for a smaller percentage than 97% or more. Or I might have misunderstood.
Another interesting statistic is that Americans are outliers. Quite generally over 50 percent of those in industrialized nations are concerned believers. Or at least that's how I read it. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/upshot/americans-are-outliers-in-views-on-climate-change.html?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=The%20Upshot&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article And actually, poor countries are more likely to be believers than rich ones.
The climate watchers I have a chance to interact with generally manage to keep their integrity in tact and from what I've seen they are the norm. It is the interpretation of their research that can be skewed to reveal almost any desired cause and effect relationship. Once the required results have been prepared that information can be disseminated through channels that are by their very nature completely corrupt and typically controlled by those with motives other than the pursuit of pure science.
The outliers are (or should be) the group that questions whether or not the climate is warming. You are correct if you meant that 97% or more of the climate crowd believes it is. Why wouldn't they? Almost all the available evidence says it is. What it doesn't say is how much of that shift is due to human activity. Common sense says some of it probably is. If you throw a bucket of salt in the ocean it WILL raise the salinity to a degree. If you throw the same bucket of salt into a pitcher of water the result would be more dramatic. Which analogy is more accurate when comparing our activity to the global climate? Nobody knows for sure, even the 97%. That's the corruptible part and so the part politicians on either side of the issue latch on to in order to support their agendas.
No, you didn't misunderstand, although you may have possibly misinterpreted. I do believe that many researchers are corruptible, as their conclusions are susceptible to the influence of grants. Collusion isn't so much to benefit politicians as it is to receive funding from a political apparatus which requires a specific conclusion. I also believe that contrary opinions have a lesser chance of being presented in peer reviewed journals than Condoleezza Rice has of being universally welcomed to speak at Rutgers. Academia doesn't have a stellar reputation for diversity of opinion.
I understand. That's pretty much the stance I've heard elsewhere among my cool skeptic associates.
My education is in the sciences and in my working days I worked with quite a few highly educated science types and some in academia. My take was mostly that they had a higher level of integrity than other professions I've known and many were proud to be unbiased . If they could disprove a popular theory it not only would be a great feather in their hat but an income gateway. To have a David slay a Goliath of some theory or another was a sure way to fame and riches. Some of the sciences are highly competitive and involve big egos, so they develop various following out to disprove each other, rather than to agree with the consensus. At least that's my experience. To have so many agree upon one thing is very convincing and almost seems like an anomaly to me.
iris lilies
5-6-14, 10:42pm
Egads--Alan and I agree on something. I must have slipped into an alternate universe...
I had the same thought, wondered if you'd pick up on that! haha, and I agree with both of you.
If we could take the judgey judgeness out of the discourse about climate change, I would like it all better.
I foolishly decided a few years ago to look with my own eyes.
I went on an expedition to the shore of the Arctic Ocean (admittedly, in my diesel-fueled Hummer H1).
I made it to Tuktoyaktuk:
http://i1.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/400/draft_lens18111914module151242683photo_1309647974t uktoyaktuk_sign.jpg
There I found considerable evidence of a qualitative change in permafrost characteristics in the region, and erosion of native sites that had been there for thousands of years, caused by increased storm strength and open ocean fetch.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tuktoyaktuk-on-front-line-of-climate-change-1.845397
Clearly there is *something* going on, and I believe it is reasonable to be prudent.
Now, here where I live, I have hairshirt greenies demanding we restrict building within 20 feet elevations of high high tide, because of "sea level rise predictions". I think they are not so interested in preservation, as prevention of human activity within the shoreline region.
I also believe that contrary opinions have a lesser chance of being presented in peer reviewed journals than Condoleezza Rice has of being universally welcomed to speak at Rutgers. Academia doesn't have a stellar reputation for diversity of opinion.
I would totally agree with you on that one.. and, just as an aside, being a Rutgers Alum parent twice over I am really disheartened by the University community's treatment of Condoleeza Rice.
iris lilies
5-6-14, 11:50pm
Sometimes in an idle moment I wonder what activities the pious green brigade will partake in when they've converted everyone to their point of view. All of the marching and scolding and Occupying has got to take up a lot of their time. When the Recalcitrant Deniers come 'round to right thinking, what then?
I totally get that it is easier to rail on people via the internet than it is to, oh, I don't know, give up a car.
ApatheticNoMore
5-7-14, 12:04am
I totally get that it is easier to rail on people via the internet than it is to, oh, I don't know, give up a car.
is it easier or harder to give up a car than to lobby say city hall for greener policies? And does it matter if something accomplishes something or only how hard it is? Digging holes and filling them up again might also be very hard ... and contribute as much to fighting climate change as giving up one's car perhaps.
I can't imagine getting involved in the nitty gritty of politics (not debating politics for the intellectual exercise, I mean actual activism) in the world such as it us (not some utopia democracy where it's endlessly gratifying) as something anyone would choose because it's the most enjoyable way to spend their free time. Although the people involved in such are far more likely to give up their car (because the only other reason I've seen people around here give one up besides environmental concern is because they are flat out broke pretty much).
I guess pious may drive some people, but what I'd prefer to do on earth is just to explore it (and the universe if so inclined), and build human solutions yea but focused on human problems. But if the earth is deteriorating around one, posing a threat not just to natural beauty but to who knows how many species in existence INCLUDING your own, it may make other action seem desirable/necessary. Caring about other peoples thoughts requires a strong belief that one can change them (maybe some people. but denialists? I really think why bother even debating them) and a strong belief that the reason public policy is messed up is because of mass opinion (because other people's views only cause problems (rather than just annoyances) if they affect that which you and others share with them ... like say the planet for instance).
Charlie WA
5-7-14, 12:10am
I recently watched the movie Soylent Green from 1973. The story took place in New York City in the year 2022. The earth had gotten warmer due to "the greenhouse effect". I wondered how many other people were thinking about the consequences of a warmer earth in back in 1973. Here is a short clip from the movie on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xo7yZ9kG9A
The Archdruid talks about just this issue and the thinking of the 70's in his blog at: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.ca/
Lots of information that is quite interesting in his blog if you look at the archives.
Sometimes in an idle moment I wonder what activities the pious green brigade will partake in when they've converted everyone to their point of view. All of the marching and scolding and Occupying has got to take up a lot of their time. When the Recalcitrant Deniers come 'round to right thinking, what then?
I totally get that it is easier to rail on people via the internet than it is to, oh, I don't know, give up a car.
It's ironic that people on a simple living forum would be critical of the greeny lifestyle. In practice they share many of the same ideals around reduced consumption and living with less as was idealized in YMOYL. The motives are different, but very compatible.
It's ironic that people on a simple living forum would be critical of the greeny lifestyle.
Oh, I don't know about that. Simple living means different things to different people. Let's take me for example:
I became interested in the concept of simple living in the late 90's when I started becoming dis-illusioned with my career path. The hours, the workload, the dedication which must be maintained in order to continue advancing, etc. I started thinking more and more about quality of life and how it could be enhanced. It had nothing to do with an ideology such as "the greeny lifestyle".
Individuals are unique, how boring would it be if we all had to follow the same path.
Well, if you look at the Amazon summary of YMOYL, these are bullet items. "get out of debt and develop savings. reorder material priorities and live well for less. resolve inner conflicts between values and lifestyle. save the planet while saving money". Though I respect the idea that simple living may be different for people, those are the values the book presents.
Gosh, I hope I don't get kicked out of the club for not prioritizing properly.
Gosh, I hope I don't get kicked out of the club for not prioritizing properly.
I think you get to stay because you challenge the some of the ideals many of us have and offer a chance to think about things. If we all thought the same thing it would be a boring place where we are all just singing to the choir. Plus, I think you pay your dues:)
Well, if you look at the Amazon summary of YMOYL, these are bullet items. "get out of debt and develop savings. reorder material priorities and live well for less. resolve inner conflicts between values and lifestyle. save the planet while saving money". Though I respect the idea that simple living may be different for people, those are the values the book presents.
While the book, YMOYL, is an important discussion resource, it would be unfortunate if one felt that one book would limit the approaches in how to view Simple Living.
As I have mentioned before, IMHO, SL varies with stages of life, geographic area, choice/understanding of options, affordability, etc.
If you live in the colder part of the world, you use more energy to keep warm but less to keep cool; desert living is not as conducive to organic gardening but arguably generates greater independence in solar power, etc.
Thoughts that have been rattling around in my head...nothing too cohesive but basically:
Oil usage is a major contributor to climate change, we get a majority of our oil from volatile places such as Middle East, Nigeria, Venezuala, Russia (?), what if we stopped sending our money to these places for oil and spent it on alternative energy sources? Setting up a great public transportation system?
Remove the money, thus removing the resources available to terrorists such as Bin Laden. Reduce the need for such huge military expenditures. Put those who may have gone into the military to work on building the public transportation infrastructure, etc.
It seems that whichever side one falls on the climate change debate, it could be a win/win for both sides to get away from using oil. Like I said, not a super cohesive thought yet. We could debate the nuances and sources of info regarding the climate change debate but forget look at it from other perspectives. A third solution may be the answer.
Yeah, I think that developing a robust and diversified energy policy that deemphasizes coal, oil, and natural gas would be of obvious benefit to all of us. Germany is up to 25% renewables now, and moving toward 40%--though they're struggling to get industry to pay their share.
ApatheticNoMore
5-7-14, 6:57pm
Oil usage is a major contributor to climate change, we get a majority of our oil from volatile places such as Middle East, Nigeria, Venezuala, Russia (?), what if we stopped sending our money to these places for oil and spent it on alternative energy sources? Setting up a great public transportation system?
I think those would be great spending priorities. But factually the majority (over 50%) of U.S. oil is predicted to soon be produced in the U.S.. Now this doesn't mean the U.S. doesn't still need to import oil to meet it's "needs". It does, just that's not where over 50% will come from. This will be produced by shale and the like (yes it's dirty)
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/20/us-oil-production-set-to-surpass-imports-for-first-time-in-20-years
Remove the money, thus removing the resources available to terrorists such as Bin Laden.
if they wanted to. Who is they? The "50% that thinks climate change is a liberal conspiracy"? Well shrug, they might want to defund Bin Laden (as might the liberal conspiracy :) ). But I mean if the U.S. government wanted to, since it hasn't been above funding Al Queda when it suits them (pretty much the situation in Syria, money is flowing to Al Queda and has long been). :\
Reduce the need for such huge military expenditures. Put those who may have gone into the military to work on building the public transportation infrastructure, etc.
I think a "lean" military (things like drones) is an attempt to reduce some need for the miliary (without reducing foreign intervention) but the military still churns through massive amount of money.
It seems that whichever side one falls on the climate change debate, it could be a win/win for both sides to get away from using oil.
Sides perhaps, it would be good public policy. Interests though? (don't we need to get money out of politics to even really talk about sides?) I don't know about interests. The fossil fuel industry wouldn't like it :~)
When the Recalcitrant Deniers come 'round to right thinking, what then?
I totally get that it is easier to rail on people via the internet than it is to, oh, I don't know, give up a car.
Maybe by the time the Recalcitrant Deniers come round, we will likely all be thinking "what now?" because it will be a new world.
I accept that I may be arrogant myself, espousing holier-than-thou attitudes and for that I'm sorry. But I get frustrated by the fact that change is slow. It took us hundreds of years to get to where we are--at least from the time of the Protestant Reformation when "work ethic" became the be-all and end-all.
So it will probably take a few hundred years to reverse some of the unintended consequences of our cultural inheritance of work-grow-achieve-exploit. And I admit to being a product of this culture and I definitely have bought into some of the values. While I haven't given up my car (a Prius, which assuages my conscience), I also haven't given up my fat paycheck from pharmaceutical companies. I'd make a lousy farmer, despite my passion for permaculture, so I feel stuck doing what I do best, although in doing so I feed the Big Pharma machine. Yesterday I read One Straw Revolution and that fueled my frustration with myself and my culture. Railing on people? No, really railing on the entire system and simply wishing we could put on the brakes right now, but we can't.
So, I do feel in my heart that we are going to wear out our welcome with Mother Nature, and it will be interesting to see what happens next.
And, despite my pious attitudes, IL (I assume you were reacting to my post) I love you and Alan, and welcome your difference of opinion.
As for climate-deniers, as always, it's best to ask "Cui bono?"
http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/
Follow the money.
It's ludicrous to suggest that the 99% of scientists who agree on man-made climate change are simply doing it a) for the money and/or b) some grand conspiracy to let the underdeveloped countries economically harm and then surpass the developed countries.
... (a Prius, which assuages my conscience) ...
I've never been convinced that when you look at the total life cycle cost of a Prius, including the battery production and disposal, that it really accomplishes much if you want to be green, especially in the case of someone who doesn't drive very many miles a year.
I went through this a couple of years ago when I bought our most recent vehicle, and ended up getting a stripped base model Mini Cooper instead. (Which would have been an even better decision at the time if the USA allowed imports of the diesel versions.)
Still, technology marches on.
I've never been convinced that when you look at the total life cycle cost of a Prius, including the battery production and disposal, that it really accomplishes much if you want to be green, especially in the case of someone who doesn't drive very many miles a year.
Still, technology marches on.
Yeah, I heard about that this year--how the battery production mitigates some of the benefits of the hybrid technology from an environmental perspective. Oh well. I bought the car 7 years ago, and will drive it until it falls apart, and by that time, we'll see what's on deck.
I didn't read the report, but if it came from the White House can it really be trusted?
I'm going to continue to burn fuel as long as its available. I'm all for the rest of you to conserve, it make's it cheaper for me. And I don't plan on wasting any. But I'm not going to worry till I start seeing our leaders stop jet setting all over the world, especially on vacation's.
The climate has changed in the past, and it will change in the future. We will adapt or die. Some may die anyway, but I'm more worried about the amount of people in the world. Maybe we need to thin the herd.
iris lilies
5-7-14, 9:38pm
Maybe by the time the Recalcitrant Deniers come round, we will likely all be thinking "what now?" because it will be a new world.
And, despite my pious attitudes, IL (I assume you were reacting to my post) I love you and Alan, and welcome your difference of opinion.
haha not at all, there a a lot of the pious on this board (thought not nearly as many as in days of yore.)
ApatheticNoMore
5-7-14, 10:06pm
Maybe by the time the Recalcitrant Deniers come round, we will likely all be thinking "what now?" because it will be a new world.
I accept that I may be arrogant myself, espousing holier-than-thou attitudes and for that I'm sorry. But I get frustrated by the fact that change is slow. It took us hundreds of years to get to where we are--at least from the time of the Protestant Reformation when "work ethic" became the be-all and end-all.
but I don't think one fights those things to be pious. If one fights the world to do something about climate change (such as one sees opportunities). Then yes there might be some moral gratification there, but it also seems just as a fight for a decent survival for oneself and ones descedents if one has them. It's like if one was worried about nuclear war and therefore fought for nuclear disarmment. Is it pious? Well maybe it is, again there may be some moral satisfaction there (but perhaps the alternative to ever engaging in such is nihilism?), but one doesn't necessarily do it just to be "in with the in crowd" (I'm sorry if one only does it for that reason that's completely pathetic), one does it because they don't want a @#$#ing nuclear war and sees such as a real threat. It's really not about other people's thinking either, if someone believes little green men visit them every night well what's it to me really (maybe they do :) ) , but if someone with the power to push the button had beliefs that humanity would easily survive nuclear war I'd get pretty rationally scared. So whether people believe AGW is a certainty or not, meh, it seems enough of a reasonable threat to take serious precautions, if I was a betting woman .... It's actions that matter.
And I admit to being a product of this culture and I definitely have bought into some of the values. While I haven't given up my car (a Prius, which assuages my conscience), I also haven't given up my fat paycheck from pharmaceutical companies. I'd make a lousy farmer, despite my passion for permaculture, so I feel stuck doing what I do best, although in doing so I feed the Big Pharma machine. Yesterday I read One Straw Revolution and that fueled my frustration with myself and my culture.
Yea I feel that too. Ok I drive a bit too much for work now, I don't feel great about it, I doubt it's permanent, and I know me driving or not driving to work will have a whit of any effect at all on the *global* (oh yes global, although the U.S. govt is a power player and have completely dropped the ball) climate (and I drive a small car even). But it can make one morally sick to even be any part of the system. It hurts the heart you know. It's painful. For most things I would say I don't even BELIEVE in guilt (as a philosophy I would say I don't even believe in guilt) but the destruction of the world ... I curse myself for not being involved enough politically either.
Railing on people? No, really railing on the entire system and simply wishing we could put on the brakes right now, but we can't.
Yes, I'm not sure we "can't" (other than natural feedback loops) but there are strong forces are against that yea.
I didn't read the report, but if it came from the White House can it really be trusted?
Well, the National Climate Assessment isn't a White House product: http://www.globalchange.gov/ncadac
I believe Ronald Reagan kicked off the effort.
Well, the National Climate Assessment isn't a White House product: http://www.globalchange.gov/ncadac
I believe Ronald Reagan kicked off the effort.
The thread title is , White House report on climate change, thus my question.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2014/05/07/airport-flooding-climate-change-white-house-report/8804761/
Report includes multi-million dollar projects to, among other things, prevent airport flooding - something you'd be interested in, dmc.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2014/05/07/airport-flooding-climate-change-white-house-report/8804761/
Report includes multi-million dollar projects to, among other things, prevent airport flooding - something you'd be interested in, dmc.
We have had floods before, we will have them again. We should look at new projects being on higher ground.
I've never been convinced that when you look at the total life cycle cost of a Prius, including the battery production and disposal, that it really accomplishes much if you want to be green, especially in the case of someone who doesn't drive very many miles a year.
I went through this a couple of years ago when I bought our most recent vehicle, and ended up getting a stripped base model Mini Cooper instead. (Which would have been an even better decision at the time if the USA allowed imports of the diesel versions.)
Still, technology marches on.
I am with bae on this one. I have always questioned if Pirus was good for the environment because of issues with the batteries. This comes from a liberal green person.
I didn't read the report, but if it came from the White House can it really be trusted?
I'm going to continue to burn fuel as long as its available. I'm all for the rest of you to conserve, it make's it cheaper for me. And I don't plan on wasting any. But I'm not going to worry till I start seeing our leaders stop jet setting all over the world, especially on vacation's.
The climate has changed in the past, and it will change in the future. We will adapt or die. Some may die anyway, but I'm more worried about the amount of people in the world. Maybe we need to thin the herd.
A very compassionate and open minded post.
I am with bae on this one. I have always questioned if Pirus was good for the environment because of issues with the batteries. This comes from a liberal green person.
That's all I ask, some thoughtful analysis of all of the "save the earth" solutions. There is too much herd mentality in the greenie movement, it strikes me. But in many issues there is no one right answer.
When I analyze which is more earth friendly, faux Christmas trees or real ones, there are cases for both. If that controversy has been settled, tell me. I imagine it was to do with how long one keeps the faux tree.
When I analyze which is more earth friendly, faux Christmas trees or real ones, there are cases for both. If that controversy has been settled, tell me. I imagine it was to do with how long one keeps the faux tree.
In my case, I harvest real trees off my own land, trees that will have to be culled anyways for forest health. I walk out with a saw, and 5 minutes later I have a Christmas tree. Once Christmas is over, I usually use the tree for a pole for expedient construction, or it becomes part of the firewood pile. I have to think that's better than a fake tree.
Pretty much zero impact, since if I didn't harvest it, it'd burn down or decay anyways on its own. Net carbon change: zero.
In my case, I harvest real trees off my own land, trees that will have to be culled anyways for forest health. I walk out with a saw, and 5 minutes later I have a Christmas tree. Once Christmas is over, I usually use the tree for a pole for expedient construction, or it becomes part of the firewood pile. I have to think that's better than a fake tree.
Pretty much zero impact, since if I didn't harvest it, it'd burn down or decay anyways on its own. Net carbon change: zero.
That's great. When I was young I used to cry when the tree was dragged out to the curb--SO ignominiously. I had come to think of it as my friend and it was being treated with no respect whatsoever. And I still think it is so ridiculous to put them in landfills. When we lived in a rural area, we just "recycled" the tree in the woods behind our house.
There are definitely two ways to look at it, but at this point, now that my kids are adults, I'd almost rather have no tree than an artificial one. I did have an artificial one for several years, because my MIL worked in the Macy Trim-A-Tree shop and I got it for free, so it's not that I'm hard-core against them. I just don't want to be bothered with a fake tree at this point. It would just be another thing in the garage 11 months of the year.
I am with bae on this one. I have always questioned if Pirus was good for the environment because of issues with the batteries. This comes from a liberal green person.
The study I remember was looking at total environment costs from manufacture to disposal and pretty much agreed that it was not better, or maybe worse than an efficient all gas vehicle. Some of those environmental costs were not associated with greenhouse emissions, so if you only looked at that aspect, the Prius came out on top as being better. At least that's how I remember it. Not to defend the Prius, but one could argue in it's favor.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.