Global Climate Change (Natural or Man Made)

Life is good today. Technological advances have done wonderfull things. But to ignore the things that aren't good in and about our modern world, just because life is relatively comfortable would be foolish, IMO.

 

If ?

If America was so advanced that we were a zero sum polluter, would it make a measurable difference? It is not possible because of natual pollution . If the countries that have the worst pollution index number were to comply, would we do the right thing by sharing technology ? If at the end of fifty years we had accomplished indexing the world to an acceptable tolerance would we be able so slow globale warming by any significant amount ?
Steven Hawking made a comment that if the human species were to survive, it would have to be off this planet. Is he right ? He was wrong about black holes and it took him thirty yeas to acknowledge his error.
What ever technology is delivered to us for zero sum automotive fuel, the oil companies will not give away their strong position of producing a finished product and distributing that product or series of products.
I like alternative energy sources. Energy should not be used as a lever to make all conform to an ideal they do not agree with.
Many of the resources that we see as viable are viable. They will come to pass when it is in the interest of those in power to see that they do not loose their vast hold on the energy sector.

 

Natural disasters or man-made disasters constitute enormous problems for the people of this planet. We can't do very much about the natural disasters but I'd like to think we were able to restrain ourselves every now and then and avoid the man-made disasters. I can't say for sure what is going to happen to our environment over the next couple of centuries but it does sadden me somewhat to know that though our collective ignorance we have brough whatever consequences befall us upon ourselves and our descendants. Life is good as you say but I have to wonder about the life we are leaving for our kids and their kids. I think every generation wants something better for the next generation. I think they will look back at us and our selfish activities and shake their heads. Live it up while you can guys it's the eleventh hour and last call.

 

I recently watched the film GANDHI and was struck by a couple of things. First was the fact that the British were far more restrictive in protecting their markets that I had known... they even prohibited Indians from making or selling salt! Second was the fact that they used the "free market" to destroy India's homegrown textile industry. Gandhi therefore made it a cornerstone of his policy of independance for Indians to spin their own yarn and weave their own cloth. The free market had been used against them as a tool of oppression, and only by refusing to buy the cheap imported British cloth could that oppression be cast off.

Today the free market is being used to oppress us with cheap oil. Yes yes, I know you think it's expensive. Perhaps one of our European people can chime in on what they pay... and how they view whiny-bagger Americans moaning about the price of gas when it's half what they pay. If it weren't so cheap we'd be more careful with it.

People criticize Gore because he flys around in a jet. So maybe what we need today is another Gandhi... one who will lead the way... refuse to buy the cheap imported product and undertake the more difficult task to make our own... somebody who will LIVE the life he/she preaches and SHOW that it is a good life, a rich life, a life with as at least as much potential for growth and development as the fantasy of the one in which we choke to death on our own fumes.

 

this is the umpteenth time you have brought up the free market system in conjunction with this issue...and it seems ALL the problems in the world...then you act all shocked when I mention that you would see the free market system abolished...you arent being very honest with us Tom...


I wouldnt call what happened in India the free market...I call it colonialism...you seem REAL confused as to what a 'FREE' market system is (or you are just trying real hard to vilify it by equating it to other systems that were, indeed awful but NOT free market)...first it was Nazi Germany (a fascist system where the GOVERNMENT controlled the means of production...by no means free) now you are calling colonial oppressed India as a free market system...where the UK held by force a a country and fed off its resources...neither of these examples are 'free market'. I agree than colonialism is the root of many problems we see today...but it was hardly what would be called a free market system...It was simply holding a country by force and robbing it of its resources...something those Europeans did all over the world...

I dont need to hear from Europeans about their gas prices...I heard from them while I was over there...in Britain when they were striking again high gas prices...and as those in Norway 'whined' that they pay out their ass for it when they are producing one of the largest fields right off shore...they were not happy at all about it...

While I was over in Scotland...they were reporting gas strikes in England...people blocking the entrances to gas stations in protest to high gas prices...you call it whining...I call it them fed up with their government taxing the hell out of them and making their life harder than it should be. Your idea of taxing the crap out of the common man to 'punish' them for using gas is the worst idea I have ever heard, thank god most people in this country would not stand for it...there are other ways...taxing as punishment is not it...and america will be a socialist country over my dead body....or if I wanted to be dishonest...I could say 'if america became socialist...we would see the starvation of millions and the death of million like in russia under Stalin because Socialism is the cause of all the awful things in the world'

 

Yes, future generations will look back on us and curse us for what we have done... just as we wake up every morning cursing those who came before us for having developed plumbing. I mean after all, they used LEAD for their pipes. It's like the way we spend our days cursing those who came before us for their coal based economy... factories, homes, locomotives, ships all spewing dark plumes of coal smoke into the atmosphere.

Or perhaps we realize and understand that those technologies were some of the reasons that we have what we have today. Maybe we realize that without the innovations of that time, we would never have developed the cleaner and safer innovations of this time. We could be living in drafty uninsulated homes burning wood for heat (300 million folks in America all relying on wood for heat... we'd see our forests shrinking rapidly), running out to the outhouse in the cold winter nights, that's if you're fortunate enough to live in an area that you can have an outhouse.... in the city they'd still be dumping buckets of excrement out the window onto the road below. What a load of crap that would be. You can't get from A to Z without stepping through B,C,D.... Technology is constantly advancing. Each generation DOES improve on the innovations of the preceding generation. The innovations in home insulating and heating and cooling efficiency are far greater than those of my parents and grandparents. The technologies driving our autos are much cleaner than they were 25 years ago. The trend will continue as we make each step. I don't think that our descendents will curse us. I think that they will be as thankful for the technologies we created that they have to improve upon as we are of the technologies of our ancestors that we have improved upon. If you are not thankful for the innovations of your fathers, then I suggest you give up your cars and homes, store bought food and clothing and go try to live life the way it was lived before.

What are the scientists giving us? Are we going to be extinct in 10 years? 20? 50? I believe that they are not so grim as to believe these issues will destroy us quite so soon, but as I read about the current advancements in alternative systems, I believe that technology will rise in plenty of time.

Hey, no worries, you know... If it gets too warm, we can always balance it out with a highly calculated nuclear detonation to induce a mild nuclear winter. That's a joke... sort of... I believe that threat of a nuclear holocost brought on by some lunatic who gets their hands on one of these weapons vastly outweighs the threat to humanity that we face by our energy use. We WILL advance beyond our oil economy. Have no doubt about it.

 

The man-made disaster with the greatest negative consequence is war. The natural disasters with the greatest negative consequences are related more to illness and disease than the weather. The life we are leaving for our kids is better than the one left to us by our parents, and that's how it should be. The biggest future problem to overcome for the West will be peak oil since cheap energy is the blood and oxygen of civilization. The people alive in the 22nd century will have to work out the details for themselves. I think it is far more likely that our children will be more disappointed in us for squandering their liberty in a cowardly manner than they will about the impact on the temperature, real or imagined.

 

Disease can often be directly linked to instabilities caused by climate on large populations. Reduce rainfall, water shortage, cholera. Increase rainfall, standing pools, dengue. Increase humidity, fungi on wheat stalks, famine. Sure, all can be fixed with today's technology....in places where that technology can easily be applied, rapidly.

Having a legacy as a coward on this issue is the least of my worries. Perhaps we are talking about incompatable worldviews again.

 

Another thing that I hear frequently is how much energy the US uses in comparison to other countries because oil is so cheap here... Which countries? France, Germany, Italy??? Anyone consider how much smaller these other countries are? We can try putting a little more perspective on this if you wish to consider the attached image.

Considering that this image puts all of Europe into one basket and all of North America into another... North America being MUCH larger than all of Europe combined, I'd say that oil consumption here is not doing so badly... in comparison.

 

Free Market

This whole thing about the "free market" system is getting out of hand here... almost worth another thread since we've strayed so far off topic. I do understand what a true theoretical "free market" is supposed to be. I don't have a problem with it as a mechanism for adjusting supply and price of goods and services. In fact, I believe wholeheartedly in the free-market system, as long as it is allowed to function freely. I most certainly do NOT wish to abolish the free market, I wish only that the market acknowledged true costs in pricing goods.

The problem is that we do not have and NEVER HAVE HAD a true free-market system. The free market can only function when costs are honestly figured as components of price. I tried to point out that the Nazi system USED a distortion of the free market to legitimize their wholesale genocide-for-profit scheme. They did so by externalizing labor and capital costs onto a suppressed population. And you're correct that the Brits in India had imposed a colonial suppression on many aspects of the Indian economy... and then used simple free-market economics to destroy portions of the Indian economy by flooding the country with textiles too cheap to resist. The costs to the Indian economy of this process were externalized and not acknowledged in the price paid for goods.

You've mentioned that you live far from your work and MUST therefore drive long distances to do all the things you must do each day. Is it difficult for you to see that a purposeful distortion of the free market system (i.e. subsidized cheap gasoline) has caused you to make these decisions? In the US we have externalized huge portions of the true cost of fuel. Just as the British distortion of the textile market in India caused Indians to buy British cloth instead of their own, a distortion of the American free market for energy has caused individual people to abandon efficiency in favor of convenience and to give up any control of their own energy future into the hands of others.

The free market is subject to intentional distortions caused by those who have the muscle to do it. The Brits did it with cheap textiles in India, and a consortium of government and corporate interests is doing it now in the United Startes.

I'm all for the free market... as long as all costs are incorporated into price. THAT's how it is supposed to work.

 

Borrowed from an OT post on a paleoanthropology list...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On
Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as
expected, it's predictions are dire. According to the report: "Warming of
the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting
of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level." Yeah right...we've heard
all this before.
But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global
warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this
report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I
guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global
warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not
doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this
conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist
enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global
warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States
for? They'd have to find some other reason.

Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of
the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

a.. The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I
don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise
that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

b.. Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism
many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to
continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest
proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.

c.. Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to
be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

d.. The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get
all the way to Mars?

e.. It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

f.. It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were
warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

g.. How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree.
Now that's frightening.

h.. Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a
sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored
previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

i.. The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2
polluters, including China and India.

j.. The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt
to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

k.. Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming
scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant
money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

l.. Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those
who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no
need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

m.. What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic
change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming
period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001
the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period
was missing. Why?

n.. Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming
been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

o.. Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is
getting warmer?

p.. In the United State, the one country with the most accurate
temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3
degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

q.. There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never
been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are
growing, not melting.

r.. Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West
Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a
melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

s.. Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice
age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the
sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been
going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2
emissions.

t.. Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

u.. Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended
periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

v.. During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide
levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ...
decreased.

w.. Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview
David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying
global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being
caused by man?

x.. Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled
and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of
additional information?

y.. On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another
Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the
past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect
that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually
part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from
place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of
temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing
gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication
of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly
apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the
harbinger of another ice age."

Just know that many of the strongest proponents of this "man-made" global
warming stuff are dedicated opponents to capitalism and don't feel all that
warm and fuzzy about the United States.

 

It is only here because you continue to blame the worlds problem on free market systems and then naming things that aren’t free market system as examples…they are not even distortions of free-market systems you are using as examples.

The fact is, the price of oil, whether the government subsidizes it or not, is very close to actual price in the US. Subsides are used, more often than not, for new exploration in an attempt to more remove ourselves from existing sources that are controlled by OPEC. If ANYTHING oil could be CHEAPER without the taxes that are on each gallon we buy. You do not seem to WANT it at its actual price as you wish the government to ‘punish’ us for consuming what you deem too much with higher taxes…which would artificialy hike prices further.

The price of oil in Europe and Britain is NOT actual price and you seem well aware of this…it is artificially high because of high socialist taxes…and the people (at least the ones I spoke to that had cars) did NOT like it…and resented the government…many work in the oil industry, know the price of a barrel and KNOW they are paying WAY more than they should.

I assume such a thing wont affect you much which is probably why you think it’s a great idea to over tax us in this area…screw those people whose livelyhood depends on it.

so·cial·ism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

It seems to me the Nazi system is far more a distortion of a socialist system. Not in any way a free market system…Government plans and controls economy…means of production in the hands of the government…its socialism…just as Russia under Stalin was Socialists…there was nothing ‘free-market’ about the totalitarian government of Nazi Germany….If you are looking to blame a governmental system…blame socialism…or if you want to be honest you can blame dictators which both were…

This may be…not because gas is subsidized, but because it IS cheap…or was. But I don’t blame the free market, I blame the fact that the city I live in is HUGE, 4th largest in the world and was planned poorly and has a poor public transportation system and Texas is large… it is so spread out…and cheaper housing is outside this huge city so I live there. I do not want to live in the sticks…I do not want to live in an apartment in the city…I want to live where I am…

This is how it is for many people, so we must come up with a way (hydrogen fuel cells) that will accommodate this fact, more public transportation, etc…. Not start over taxing and already over taxed society…or telling people they need to move or are wrong…I do my part…I work, pay taxes, and am, on the most part, environmental conscious…

On the whole we agree that people (and governments) need to be working towards a common goal, that is weening ourselves from fossil fuels as much as possible...where we seem to disagree is the method in which it should be done...that and I think your bias causes you to incorrectly paint a true picture of causes, reasons, and solutions....

 

It sounds like you are asserting that if we stop using oil, gas, and coal, it will somehow drastically decrease the incidence of disease and illness around the world. This demonstrates the lengths that the radical environmentalists will go to "win" their point. But I agree that what is needed is the spread of technology to remedy the situation.

Regarding cowardness, my take is that living in fear and demonstrating the willingness to forfeit liberty in the hope that some group of experts will protect you from your fears is about as cowardly as anyone could possibly be. Why anyone would voluntarily choose to live in fear is beyond my comprehension. In case nobody ever told you before, your're going to die someday. Everyone is going to die someday. Do you really want to spend the time God gives you between now and then being afraid and forfeiting your liberty to the very same people who want you to be afraid?

You don't have to answer. We all make our choices and live with them.

 

There is a difference between fear and caution. Fear is a paralyzing physical reaction that often causes one to act incorrectly in a dangerous situation. Caution is the application of wisdom to a situation in which some level of risk must be acknowledged and managed. People who routinely face danger must train themselves to suppress fear, but they would never want to suppress caution.

I do agree with your earlier quote that "Life is Good!". Yes, I think we have the signal honor of living in what will someday be known as a great pivotal moment in the history of our planet and species. How we choose to act in this crisis will define us as a generation and a people. Robert Heinlein (science fiction author) once said that the best way to go through life was to be an "optimist by temperament and a pessimist by policy". I take that to mean that we adopt a "life is good" attitude towards any situation.... the old lemons to lemonade idea. But I also take that to mean that a sunny disposition does not cause you to fail to acknowledge possible hazards or problems.

With the global warming situation, there are several possible reactions we can have:
1. We can choose simply to deny reality and go on as if it does not exist.
2. We can deny the situation AND seek to hinder those trying to fix it.
3. We can accept the situation but become paralyzed with fear and despair.
4. We can accept the situation and face the challenge of doing something about it.

A lot of people choose from among the first three. Some of those posting on this forum may recognize themselves there. Accepting that there is a problem is the first step. Some people never make it there. But it's true that just acknowledging the problem is not enough if all that knowledge does is paralyze you with despair. There must be hope of a better life and I think that this hope is not unfounded. Among the options for those who accept option#4 is a revision of the capitalist free market in which all costs of goods are acknowledged in the price structure of both goods and services. I could go on at length about what theat means... but Amory Lovins has written a book called NATURAL CAPITALISM in which he outlines how such a system is now being developed, and how it may eventually become the dominant economic model. The book is available as a free download at http://www.natcap.org/ There are also reviews there... both good and bad... if you want to see what others have to say about it.

 

Tom,

I think it's a bit naive to believe that the global climate can be altered by revising the free market system into something else. But I'm sure there are people who will try and actually convince themselves that it's a good idea.

 

Then I haven't been clear. Nothing can happen quickly. Affects take years to show themselves. Over time we've built momentum into a process, over time the momentum can be slowed. Or we can just let the ball roll and adapt to whatever new reality we may face (those who have the resources, anyway). You are correct that we live in the good times, we have a position of strength from which to make decisions. Decisions that involve several future scenarios, of which we can at least determine the ones we definitely don't want.

 

I'm not talking about "something else" I'm talking about a REAL free market system... which is rather unlike anything we have now. Please check out "Natural Capitalism" before you trash it.

 

Tom - I checked out the website and was completely unimpressed. I guess I've dealt with too many similar people in the past. After awhile, they become easy to spot.

acanthite - Everyone is free to do what they want [for now], you included. I doubt you will have the effect on the future that you hope for, but go for it.

 

So what failed to impress Cloudsweeper was the book Natural Capitalism, which is all about rethinking markets to internalize costs and eliminate waste. Waste means profits lost, and externalized costs lead you into faulty decisions and eventually come back to bite you.

So for instance... Lovins uses the example of Interface Corp. ( http://www.interfaceinc.com/ ) ... manufacturer of carpet and provider of floor covering services. Most carpet is made of sysnthetic fibers, processed from natural gas or petroleum products. There are fairly large inputs to the system to create those fibers and the carpet product. The carpet is sold to a dealer, who resells and installs for the end-user. The carpet performs its function for some period of time and is then replaced, whence it finds its way to a landfill. The total true cost of the carpet includes not only the cost of materials, making, transporting, and installing it, but also the cost of disposing of it.

Now we start the rethinking process. What is it that people WANT when they buy carpet? Do they actually lust after ownership of the fibrous material? Does anybody actually "collect" modern synthetic carpet? Probably not. What people actually WANT is "floor covering services"... that is... we want a nice looking, nice feeling floor covering that provides the sound-deadening and foot friendly that we seek when we are in the market for carpet. So we really don't want to OWN carpet... we just want the services that the carpet provides. And when the carpet has outlived its usefulness, it simply becomes a problem of disposal for us.... the ownership has become a burden.

Okay so Ray Anderson, founder of Interface, had an idea. What if, instead of selling carpet... he sold floor covering services? A commercial building can easily figure out what its recurring annualized floor covering costs are by dividing the installation cost of the carpet by how many years it will last in service. Ray offered to provide floor covering service at or below that same cost. It was good for the consumer because they no longer had to think about carpet and could turn their attention elsewhere. Interface would do routine inspections, and any parts of the carpet that were worn would be replaced. (they use carpet "tiles" so that entire floors do not have to be torn up) The company benefits because (aside from the business) they can take those worn carpet pieces and feed them back into the process as feedstock, eliminating the landfill entirely. Increased customer satisfaction, decreased waste, decreased pollution, increased profits. Win win. What's not impressive about that?

That's just one example... the IDEA... the rethinking of products and services... can be applied to many other areas of business, from energy to transportation to agriculture and beyond.

 

Tom - The concept of recycling isn't new, and companies have been making lease vs buy comparisons for many decades to maximize the return on capital. When energy costs are high enough to make recycling economically feasible, it has happened and will happen with or without environmental considerations. When energy costs were so low that a return on investment couldn't be earned by recycling, it wasn't done. This might be new to you, but the rest of the world has been doing this all along. However, I am impressed with the author's ability to actually sell a book to someone that "recycles" an old concept by merely adding some new jargon.