Living Car Free - Inspiring speech by Bill McKibben (global warming)

I just heard Bill McKibben (http://www.billmckibben.com/) speak here in Traverse City, sponsored by the Michigan Land Use Initiative. I've enjoyed his books a lot, and I was pleased to find that he's also a great speaker.

Bill made a good case that we must treat global warming as an emergency, or it will be too late to prevent major suffering for millions of people all over the planet. He's calling for an 80 % cut in carbon emissions by 2050, as part of a global effort to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million. He said the scientists are convinced that 350 ppm is the maximum concentration that's comaptible with human civilization, as well as many species of plants and animals. CO2 levels are currently above 380 ppm, and rising rapidly.

McKibben believes that the only way we can accomplish 350 ppm is for the people of each nation to work together to convince our own local leaders that we must enact strict worldwide cuts of at least 80% in CO2. Convincing our politicians must be accomplished before the Copenhagen Climate Treaty talks start in 2010. He is asking people in every location around the world to organize local protests and rallies in October of next year.

If any of this makes sense to you, you should go to the 350.org (http://www.350.org/) website. Also check out the bikes (http://www.350.org/]350.org[/URL] to learn more.</p><p> </p><p>And checl out the [URL="http://www.350.org/en/animation) in their little cartoon.

I don't know what to think of the global warming debate. A couple of decades ago I remember hearing about the impending problems with global cooling. It couldn't shift that fast. It depends on who you listen to. If there truly is global warming, I'm more inclined to think it's because we're in a warming cycle. I'm not sure we have as much control over it as some would like us to think. That said, cutting back on CO2 emissions couldn't be a bad thing.

A couple of decades ago I remember hearing about the impending problems with global cooling. It couldn't shift that fast. It depends on who you listen to. If there truly is global warming, I'm more inclined to think it's because we're in a warming cycle. I'm not sure we have as much control over it as some would like us to think.

+1 In the '70s the Ice Age was coming. In the '90s it was Global Warming. :rolleyes:

Weather is cyclic. It gets cool ... it gets warm. Right now, we're starting to cool off again.

But there's nothing wrong with trying to take some care with our environment.

Guess I'll believe the consensus of climate scientists across the world, and leave the arguing to the people who know what they're talking about. There really can be no reasonable doubt, and I'll leave it at that.

Guess I'll believe the consensus of climate scientists across the world, and leave the arguing to the people who know what they're talking about. There really can be no reasonable doubt, and I'll leave it at that.

You could say the same for helmet usage, seatbelt usage, peak oil, quality of life in relation to healthcare coverage, and a number of other "obvious" issues related to modern life. But as long as people go with their "gut" instead of, you know, empirical observations and things like science, there will always be debate between the people who acknowledge 1 and 1 make 2, and those who believe the theory of 1 and 1 producing 3 should be open to debate and given equal discussion.

You could say the same for helmet usage, seatbelt usage, peak oil, quality of life in relation to healthcare coverage, and a number of other "obvious" issues related to modern life. But as long as people go with their "gut" instead of, you know, empirical observations and things like science, there will always be debate between the people who acknowledge 1 and 1 make 2, and those who believe the theory of 1 and 1 producing 3 should be open to debate and given equal discussion.

Or we could debate the sphericality of the moon.

Some "expert" opinions .....

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_glaciers.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/7/192721/175

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antarctic_020822.html

Anyhoo, the last thing I want to do is open a debate about global warming. For those who do believe it's a real catastrophe, I wanted to inform you that there's finally a grassroots (or netroots) organization that's trying to stir up some meaningful action to get our politicians moving in the right direction. The idea is to start multitudes of local actions, all with one global agenda. As McKibben said tonight, it doesn't make much sense to have millions of people driving or flying to their capitol to protest carbon emissions. :)

Some "expert" opinions .....

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_glaciers.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/7/192721/175

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antarctic_020822.html


Sorry, not really interested in debating factual issues. Maybe somebody else will swallow your bait.

+1 In the '70s the Ice Age was coming. In the '90s it was Global Warming. :rolleyes:

Weather is cyclic. It gets cool ... it gets warm. Right now, we're starting to cool off again.

But there's nothing wrong with trying to take some care with our environment.

Actually, it's most emphatically not cooling off again. Vast swaths of NA, the Mediterranean, Africa, and Asia were ridiculously hot and dry this year. Large cracks are appearing in the Greenland Ice Shelf, and really big chunks appear ready to slide off into the ocean. The Arctic ice cap is much smaller and thinner than ever recorded. Forgive me for being so blunt, but you're sticking your head in the sand. I'm confident that we can fix this problem, either through a technological breakthrough or through a WWII-style emergency mobilization, but fix it we must, and that won't happen if large numbers of people keep pretending that everything's okay.

Sorry, not really interested in debating factual issues. Maybe somebody else will swallow your bait.

That's fine ... all I'm saying is that there are definitely two sides to the "climate change" story. :)

After hearing so much about the global warming side ... I found the sites I've posted to be very interesting.

That's fine ... all I'm saying is that there are definitely two sides to the "climate change" story. :)

After hearing so much about the global warming side ... I found the sites I've posted to be very interesting.

But Machka, at least 2 of the sites you posted (realclimate and grist.org) are very strong supporters of the scientific consensus. Realclimate is a blog of climate scientists, including some who won the Nobel Prize last year with Al Gore. Grist.org is an old and trusted site for environmental news. Try reading more in those two sites and you will have a better understanding of reality.

I'm confident that we can fix this problem, either through a technological breakthrough or through a WWII-style emergency mobilization, but fix it we must, and that won't happen if large numbers of people keep pretending that everything's okay.

Yes! McKibben also pointed out that we must have large numbers of people pressuring their politicians and leaders to do something meaningful about global warming. This has to happen all over the world, and it has to happen quickly. He said the only way we can do this is to use the internet, but it still comes down to ordinary people acting in their own communities and nations.

Yes! McKibben also pointed out that we must have large numbers of people pressuring their politicians and leaders to do something meaningful about global warming. This has to happen all over the world, and it has to happen quickly. He said the only way we can do this is to use the internet, but it still comes down to ordinary people acting in their own communities and nations.

One of the things that disconcerts me is that we really need to not only tell the politicians to act, but we also need to tell them exactly *what* to do. This is a big issue and the resolution is not exactly clear. For some folks, it means buying a hybrid car and eating more vegetables. To someone else, it might mean getting the country to adopt a strong nuclear energy policy (:eek:).

What I've noticed about politicians -- even the few I admire -- is that they are very much susceptible to a lot of false information.

Elizabeth Kolbert wrote an interesting article on sustainable energy initiatives in Denmark's Samso island, The Island in the Wind
A Danish community’s victory over carbon emissions. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_kolbert)

In it, she describes the recommendations of the 2000 Watt goal, which is an interesting measure for both individuals and countries and a goal to which we might all aspire. Whether or not you agree with climate change, these goals seem to recommend themselves to any society that wants to maintain a high (and yet sustainable) standard of living. More importantly, it provides a metric for getting there.

Seems to me, we would need to approach politicians with something very concrete... something they can't work around or bypass.




One afternoon, Stulz took me to visit the headquarters of an aquatic-research center known as EAWAG, which was designed to meet the 2,000-Watt Society’s energy-efficiency goals. (EAWAG is an acronym for a German name so complicated that even German speakers can’t remember it.) We drove over in his Volvo, which runs on compressed natural gas produced in part from rotting vegetables. When I first caught sight of the place, I thought it was covered with banners; these turned out to be tinted-glass panels. Inside, hanging from a set of chains in a large atrium, was what I took to be a sculpture of a bug. This turned out to be a model of a water molecule, enlarged some ten billion times.

Among the many unusual features of the EAWAG Center is a lack of usual features. The building, which opened in 2006, has no furnace; it is so tightly insulated that, on most days, the warmth thrown off by the office equipment and the two hundred people who work inside is enough to keep it comfortable. Additional heat is provided by the sun—in winter, the outside panels tilt to allow in the maximum amount of light—and by air sucked in from underground. The building also has no conventional air-conditioners: in summer, the panels tilt to provide shade, and if the building gets hot during the day, at night the windows at the top of the atrium open, and the warm air rushes out. It supplies about a third of its own electricity with photovoltaic panels installed on the roof, and gets its hot water from solar collectors. Its bathrooms are equipped with specially designed “no mix” toilets that separate out urine, which contains potentially useful phosphorus and nitrogen. (“Exploiting common waste as a resource is a mark of sustainable civilization,” a booklet on the building observes.)

“It’s not a miracle, such a building,” Stulz told me when we went to have a cup of coffee in the center’s cheerfully modernist cafeteria. “It’s just putting smart elements together in a smart way.” Outside, it was rainy and forty-three degrees; inside the temperature was a pleasant seventy.

One way to think about the 2,000-Watt Society is in terms of light bulbs. Let’s say you turn on twenty lamps, each with a hundred-watt bulb. Together, the lamps will draw two thousand watts of power. Left on for a day, they will consume forty-eight kilowatt-hours of energy; left on for a year, they will consume seventeen thousand five hundred and twenty kilowatt-hours. A person living a two-thousand-watt life would consume in all his activities—working, eating, travelling—the same amount of energy as those twenty bulbs, or seventeen thousand five hundred and twenty kilowatt-hours annually.

Most of the people in the world today consume far less than this. The average Bangladeshi, for example, uses only about twenty-six hundred kilowatt-hours a year—this figure includes all forms of energy, from electricity to transportation fuel—which is the equivalent of using roughly three hundred watts continuously. The average Indian uses about eighty-seven hundred kilowatt-hours a year, making India a one-thousand-watt society, while the average Chinese uses about thirteen thousand kilowatt-hours a year, making China a fifteen-hundred-watt society.

Those of us who live in the industrialized world, by contrast, consume far more than two thousand watts. Switzerland, for instance, is a five-thousand-watt society. Most other Western European countries are six-thousand-watt societies; the United States and Canada run at twelve thousand watts. One of the founding principles of the 2,000-Watt Society is that this disparity is in itself unsustainable. “It’s a basic matter of fairness” is how Stulz put it to me. But increasing energy use in developing countries to match that of industrialized nations would be unacceptable on ecological grounds. Were per-capita demand in the developing world to reach current European levels, global energy consumption would more than double, and were it to rise to the American level, global energy consumption would more than triple. The 2,000-Watt Society gives industrialized countries a target for cutting energy use at the same time that it sets a limit for growth in developing nations.

One of the things that disconcerts me is that we really need to not only tell the politicians to act, but we also need to tell them exactly *what* to do. This is a big issue and the resolution is not exactly clear. For some folks, it means buying a hybrid car and eating more vegetables. To someone else, it might mean getting the country to adopt a strong nuclear energy policy (:eek:).

What I've noticed about politicians -- even the few I admire -- is that they are very much susceptible to a lot of false information.

Elizabeth Kolbert wrote an interesting article on sustainable energy initiatives in Denmark's Samso island, The Island in the Wind (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_kolbert)
A Danish community’s victory over carbon emissions. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_kolbert)

In it, she describes the recommendations of the 2000 Watt goal, which is an interesting measure for both individuals and countries and a goal to which we might all aspire. Whether or not you agree with climate change, these goals seem to recommend themselves to any society that wants to maintain a high (and yet sustainable) standard of living. More importantly, it provides a metric for getting there.

Seems to me, we would need to approach politicians with something very concrete... something they can't work around or bypass.

Gerv, thanks so much for posting your thoughtful comments and the excerpt about the 2000 Watt goal. McKibbens said some things that were similar. His overall goal is 350 ppm CO2, of course, and one way to do this is to reduce carbon emissions by 80 %. He agrees that we don't need to have a primitive or unsatisfying standard of living to do this. The only way we will go back to horse & buggy technology is if we don't reduce warming. And of course the point of his book Deep Economy is that people will be happier if they are living in a sustainable and localized way. If we act quickly and decisively, global warming might be the best thing that ever happened to humanity, and a boon to technology that helps rather than hurts.

You mentioned advocating for nuclear power to reduce carbon. McKibben said that besides the obvious dangerousness, the worst thing about nuclear is that it's expensive and wasteful. For the cost of only one reactor (about 6 to 8 billion with a b dollars), we could probably insulate every building in the country, and save more energy than many reactors could produce.

This is certainly a good example of useful and true information that politicians don't have, but must be provided with. Politicians (and the rest of us) really do need to start listening to the scientists. They're the ones who do know what's going on, and although they can be biased, the scientific method mostly guards against the propagation of bad science.

McKibben said that recently, for the first time, the scientists he knows began to sound very frightened about global warming. It's haappening much faster than they had originally predicted. And yet global warming is barely an issue in the current campaign! That is unthinkable to me.

Anyhoo, the last thing I want to do is open a debate about global warming. For those who do believe it's a real catastrophe, I wanted to inform you that there's finally a grassroots (or netroots) organization that's trying to stir up some meaningful action to get our politicians moving in the right direction. The idea is to start multitudes of local actions, all with one global agenda. As McKibben said tonight, it doesn't make much sense to have millions of people driving or flying to their capitol to protest carbon emissions. :)


I can tell you that the commodities markets are all a twitter and ready to rip the Maroons a new one with their "Carbon Trading Unit" contracts.

Let the fleecing of the ignorant begin!!!

I personally walked through 1500 linear miles of evidence that climate change has already happened. In the first 700 miles not more than a day went by that I did not walk through burned forest. Not once in those 700 miles did I see a single large tree regenerating even in burn areas a decade old. In the next 800 miles the forest was actively on fire and there was so much smoke for hundreds of miles I could not see the next ridge over. When forest burns and is not replaced it is called desertification and is the result of climate change. The climate no longer supports trees so drier plants replace them.

I also live in the same place I was born and have lived here all my life. I can tell you the climate is different now than it was. Oddly it is both warmer and cooler.

The problem is calling it global warming when what it is is global and rapid climate change. Even the US military understands the threat. Politicians and their lobbyists, the corporate interests, want you to be confused so you'll keep consuming and making them rich.

But don't believe me. Think for yourself. Go for a long walk somewhere in nature and you'll see.

I personally walked through 1500 linear miles of evidence that climate change has already happened. In the first 700 miles not more than a day went by that I did not walk through burned forest. Not once in those 700 miles did I see a single large tree regenerating even in burn areas a decade old. In the next 800 miles the forest was actively on fire and there was so much smoke for hundreds of miles I could not see the next ridge over. When forest burns and is not replaced it is called desertification and is the result of climate change. The climate no longer supports trees so drier plants replace them.

I also live in the same place I was born and have lived here all my life. I can tell you the climate is different now than it was. Oddly it is both warmer and cooler.

The problem is calling it global warming when what it is is global and rapid climate change. Even the US military understands the threat. Politicians and their lobbyists, the corporate interests, want you to be confused so you'll keep consuming and making them rich.

But don't believe me. Think for yourself. Go for a long walk somewhere in nature and you'll see.
God Diane, that is so horrifying. The effect on other plants and animals is one of the worst things about climate change. And you're right--we can see it all around us.

When I was a kid, the Michigan trees leafed out the week of my birthday (April 28). I remember because I liked to imagine that their leaves were a birthday gift. Now, the gift is for somebody else, because the leaves are out a good two weeks before my birthday. Just last week it was announced that for the first time in at least 165,000 years, the Arctic ice has melted entirely along the shoreline, opening both the Northwest and Northeast passages. The ranges of many species of butterflies has extended northward many miles in recent years--they would have to move 30 feet north every day to keep up with warming, according to McKibben.

I know what you're saying about greedy politicians and corporations. But soon, they are going to have to realize that they can't escape climate change, no matter how rich they are. They're in the same lifeboat we're all in, and even if they're the ones holding onto the oars, they're still going to sink as soon as the rest of us. The trick right now, as gerv said, is getting them to realize this, and to act on it.

His overall goal is 350 ppm CO2, of course, and one way to do this is to reduce carbon emissions by 80 %.

This is probably a good goal, but what I'm saying is that we need to spell out how to get there. I'm afraid that as we start to make national and even international agendas for dealing with climate change, some of them may be subject to obfuscation. For example, in the US you have strong lobbies who seem currently on a track not to deny climate change, but to embrace it and put their own spin on a solution.

As is often the case, their solutions may serve to introduce as much CO2 into the atmosphere than it releases. A good example is ethanol (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/08/taking_the_fizz.php), which, on the surface, is an excellent solution. Problem is, as you dig deeper into it, you realize it isn't a solution at all... at least for reducing carbon emissions. It may even be true that some of the other proposed solutions may not be as effective as we think.

My thought is that, as a society and a planet, we need to develop a strong sense of what is ethical and effective. That what I like about the 2000 watt initiative, a good benchmark for conservation. (Although conservation is certainly only one of the required elements in any plan...)

This is probably a good goal, but what I'm saying is that we need to spell out how to get there. I'm afraid that as we start to make national and even international agendas for dealing with climate change, some of them may be subject to obfuscation. For example, in the US you have strong lobbies who seem currently on a track not to deny climate change, but to embrace it and put their own spin on a solution.

As is often the case, their solutions may serve to introduce as much CO2 into the atmosphere than it releases. A good example is ethanol (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/08/taking_the_fizz.php), which, on the surface, is an excellent solution. Problem is, as you dig deeper into it, you realize it isn't a solution at all... at least for reducing carbon emissions. It may even be true that some of the other proposed solutions may not be as effective as we think.

My thought is that, as a society and a planet, we need to develop a strong sense of what is ethical and effective. That what I like about the 2000 watt initiative, a good benchmark for conservation. (Although conservation is certainly only one of the required elements in any plan...)

I think one of the answers is that we should start listening to the scientists and engineers.

We must develop, as you're saying, concrete and practical guidelines to deal with this global crisis. Scientists, engineers and other techno-geeks are probably the only ones who are smart enough to provide this. Since lot depends on intelligently targeted funding, I think we need scientifically trained administrators. These are people who can set research goals, and then facilitate and coordinate efforts by universities, entrepaneurs, corporations and inventors all around the world. They've already started to do this in some areas of medical research, and it's working well. We should use that as a model for research in climate change research.

Unfortunately, we have a strong anti-intellectual streak in America. We need to get over our mistrust of science. I think we also need to abandon our politics of cynicism and self-delusion. It's hard to accomplish lofty goals when there's no belief in basic human co-operation on local, national and global levels.

Anytime consensus is mentioned a scoundrel is afoot.
I am all for cleaning up our act but throwing money at global warming in order to make the rich richer is not the way to make change.
Spending money on real alterable problems is the only way to go.

Anytime consensus is mentioned a scoundrel is afoot.
I am all for cleaning up our act but throwing money at global warming in order to make the rich richer is not the way to make change.
Spending money on real alterable problems is the only way to go.

I totally agree. However, it is going to cost a lot of money to solve global warming. I suppose that some people will profit, but isn't that the way an economy is supposed to work? Those who find new and better ways of doing things should be rewarded. As you suggest, the trick is making sure that it actually goes that way. That's what I had in mind in my last post when I suggested we need administrators who can coordinate research efforts and distribute money effectively. We also need politicians and economists who can create tax policies that encourage helpful businesses, like alternative energy. Too many of our current tax policies encourage harmful businesses like big oil and dirty coal.

One thing McKibben talked about is the economic catastrophe if we do nothing. Well before the end of this century, millions of people will be forced to relocate because of rising waters and changing rainfall patterns. Many crops will fail so farm economies will be ruined. There's a good chance that the world economy will totally crash when this happens.

On the other hand, if we work to eliminate carbon emissions (as well as plan and adapt for the climate changes that can't be prevented), the effect on the economy could be more good than bad. One example that McKibben gave was insulating buildings. Spending several billion dollars on insulation would be a big step toward reducing carbon. That money would be spent to create a lot of jobs. And since you can't send your house to China to get it insulated, those jobs will be created right here in our country.

One thing McKibben talked about is the economic catastrophe if we do nothing. Well before the end of this century, millions of people will be forced to relocate because of rising waters and changing rainfall patterns. Many crops will fail so farm economies will be ruined. There's a good chance that the world economy will totally crash when this happens.


In fact, we are seeing a number of climate disasters rights now which have been predicted by scientists for some time now. The frequency of hurricanes (http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm#freq) in North America is on the rise. The North Pole will almost certainly be ice-free in summer time within the next 5 years (first time in 165,000 years.) Forest fires are on the increase (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060710084004.htm) in the US.

In the face of these events, we should have a strong societal vision of where we want to go, what we have to achieve. This needs to come from our politicians (who consult with experts.) Instead what I see is our politicians consulting with big business to figure out where the most money can be made. We seem to be headed in a cycle where things will spiral into this type of behaviour:

everyone will ditch their large SUVs and buy hybrids
everyone will ditch their hybrids and buy electrical vehicles
someone will realize that a strong train system could reduce carbon emissions enormously


Unfortunately, it may be 15 years from now before the third point is realized and that will be too late. That's where a strong vision would come in.

Unfortunately, that vision is very slow in arriving.

In fact, we are seeing a number of climate disasters rights now which have been predicted by scientists for some time now. The frequency of hurricanes (http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm#freq) in North America is on the rise. The North Pole will almost certainly be ice-free in summer time within the next 5 years (first time in 165,000 years.) Forest fires are on the increase (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060710084004.htm) in the US.

In the face of these events, we should have a strong societal vision of where we want to go, what we have to achieve. This needs to come from our politicians (who consult with experts.) Instead what I see is our politicians consulting with big business to figure out where the most money can be made. We seem to be headed in a cycle where things will spiral into this type of behaviour:

everyone will ditch their large SUVs and buy hybrids
everyone will ditch their hybrids and buy electrical vehicles
someone will realize that a strong train system could reduce carbon emissions enormously


Unfortunately, it may be 15 years from now before the third point is realized and that will be too late. That's where a strong vision would come in.

Unfortunately, that vision is very slow in arriving.

I have been a train advocate for years and still continue to write letters to various and sundry politicians to that point. Good news is that Amtrak has been funded (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/amtrak.congress.ap/index.html) for a few more years. Bad news is it needs to be 2-3 times that! I am convinced that very few politicians can see any further than their pocketbooks and what they stand to gain from being in office.

One of the elephants in the room that I have yet to see discussed in any circles is the aging of the American population as it comes to transportation. We don't need highways full of people that have lost their edge and are marginal drivers. Some will do just fine, but way too many won't know or won't be willing to put down the keys, because they have no other options for transportation. I know...I try...

Aaron:)

When I was a kid, the Michigan trees leafed out the week of my birthday (April 28). I remember because I liked to imagine that their leaves were a birthday gift. Now, the gift is for somebody else, because the leaves are out a good two weeks before my birthday.

It has changed here, too, but the other direction. When I was young, leaves would start changing in early October, sometimes even late September. By Halloween they would usually be mostly gone. Last year there were still leaves on the trees in December, and they hadn't even started changing until the end of October. I have a picture of my family when I was little on a day trip in September, and we are wearing jackets! Now we don't see jacket weather at all until the end of October. Last August we had more days over 100 degrees than I had seen in the rest of my life combined. Maybe this is just a normal cycle, but it seems more drastic than that.

Personally, i've been seeing things like... rain. In December. In Alaska. Used to be that we'd have to plan our Halloween costumes around trudging through snow that would stay on the ground until May.

I think one of the answers is that we should start listening to the scientists and engineers...

You mean only the ones that support your belief on global warming.

Here are 400 that don't (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb).


...Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore....If those scientists aren't worthy of listening to, perhaps we could learn a lesson from kids! (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62598).


Al Gore's global warming philosophy has been debunked by many scientists and studies, and now it has met the same fate at the hands of children...

I work for the 2nd biggest oil company, and even here, global warming is now accepted as scientific fact. Even the people who have the biggest incentive to deny it are now accepting that it is happening, and most of the scientists that deny it in academia are really "fringe" academics not taken seriously in the community. Even Exxon has accepted it. If they admit it you know the evidence must be too strong to deny.
Its easy to debate something like global warming, and there are even schools of thought that say that global warming may be a positive thing in many respects. I personally don't think its positive, though. Regardless, it is not really a subject that true climate scientists are debating. They may debate why it is occuring, and there is a huge amount of debate over how to fix it or adapt to it, but no serious climatologist debates whether or not it is occuring, and as for the websites, very few of the articles on the web could really be counted as academic journals. They hold very little cited evidence, cited research, experimentation, etc. They are mostly just opinion and commentary.

Whether one believes it to be true or not, surely no one would think that reducing as many kinds of pollution as possible is a bad thing. On the other hand, I know quite a few people who make it a point not to care about the environment, apparently so they won't appear "too liberal". :rolleyes:

In fact, we are seeing a number of climate disasters rights now which have been predicted by scientists for some time now. The frequency of hurricanes (http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm#freq) in North America is on the rise. The North Pole will almost certainly be ice-free in summer time within the next 5 years (first time in 165,000 years.) Forest fires are on the increase (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060710084004.htm) in the US.

In the face of these events, we should have a strong societal vision of where we want to go, what we have to achieve. This needs to come from our politicians (who consult with experts.) Instead what I see is our politicians consulting with big business to figure out where the most money can be made. We seem to be headed in a cycle where things will spiral into this type of behaviour:

everyone will ditch their large SUVs and buy hybrids
everyone will ditch their hybrids and buy electrical vehicles
someone will realize that a strong train system could reduce carbon emissions enormously


Unfortunately, it may be 15 years from now before the third point is realized and that will be too late. That's where a strong vision would come in.

Unfortunately, that vision is very slow in arriving.

The speed that's required was a major point of McKibben's talk. The changes that we're currently causing in the atmosphere will be with us for thousands of years. That's how long it takes the bosphere to return to equilibrium after a big chemical upset. McKibben said that this urgency--and the possibility of total failure--makes the global warming struggle diferent from previous big struggles. In the civil rights movement, for example, there was a feeling that eventually justice would win, no matter how long that took. That's a source of optimism that we don't have in the current struggle.

I can tell you that the commodities markets are all a twitter and ready to rip the Maroons a new one with their "Carbon Trading Unit" contracts.

Let the fleecing of the ignorant begin!!!


++1

Maybe some good investment opportunities down the road. I want in on that. Carbon Credit ETF's anyone?

There's really no need to lose any sleep. The population will stop driving gasoline motorcars when the last drop of oil is sucked from the earth. I suspect that won't happen until the first quarter of the next century. Until then, the environment will have to wait for the world to exhaust all it's petrol/carbon fuels. Seriously. It's hopeless.

In fact, it wasn't until the price of gas hit $4.00 that we began to see large numbers use public transportation and buy fuel efficeint vehicles. It's the high price of fuel and nothing else that will have a greater effect on the environment than any legislation. To save the environment, the price of gas has to go through the roof.

As for Amtrak, if John McCain gets elected, it's doomed! Eveyone knows John was one of the biggest anti-Amtrak Senator there ever was.

Some "expert" opinions .....

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_glaciers.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/7/192721/175

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antarctic_020822.html
Machka, I "took the bait" as Roody says, and randomly clicked on your second link, and it debunks the global cooling strawman - it was never a mainstream idea, just a speculative hypothesis that enjoyed a period of brief and skeptical attention.

Whether one believes it to be true or not, surely no one would think that reducing as many kinds of pollution as possible is a bad thing. On the other hand, I know quite a few people who make it a point not to care about the environment, apparently so they won't appear "too liberal". :rolleyes:
I sometimes wonder if we have the same neighbors.

If those scientists aren't worthy of listening to, perhaps we could learn a lesson from kids! (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62598).



enviropreneurial

LOL... just keep spending money. The corporations will fix everything for you. :rolleyes:

I sometimes wonder if we have the same neighbors.

Do you live in Tennessee? If so it's highly possible! :D

Machka, I "took the bait" as Roody says, and randomly clicked on your second link, and it debunks the global cooling strawman - it was never a mainstream idea, just a speculative hypothesis that enjoyed a period of brief and skeptical attention.

I've given up reading up on some of these articles., like the Grist article , "How to talk to a climate warming skeptic". I could point them to some mainstream reading on this topic, but I'm convinced that you can lead a horse to water, but that doesn't mean she will drink.

I'm quite surprised with the large number of dollars that have been committed by the US Federal Goverment in the guise of "disaster relief" would be some sort of clue to the essentially clueless. There's a serious environmental issue happening right under our noses and we still are in denial mode. You don't need to read about this in books or web blogs. It's happening right in front of you. Just open your eyes!