Global Warming

[Leif]

Mod -- Split from Things that Annoy you

I also kinda hate how half of America still thinks global warming isn't real.

I think the real debate is whether we are causing it or not.

I am annoyed at my own lack of motivation.

[Enitharmon]

I also kinda hate how half of America still thinks global warming isn't real.

I think the real debate is whether we are causing it or not.

When the Mid-West becomes an uninhabitable desert, that will scarcely matter, will it?

[Leif]

I also kinda hate how half of America still thinks global warming isn't real.

I think the real debate is whether we are causing it or not.

When the Mid-West becomes an uninhabitable desert, that will scarcely matter, will it?

I think it matters very much whether it's preventable or a natural cycle...

[Somewhat]

I also kinda hate how half of America still thinks global warming isn't real.

I think the real debate is whether we are causing it or not.

When the Mid-West becomes an uninhabitable desert, that will scarcely matter, will it?

I think it matters very much whether it's preventable or a natural cycle...

Of course. Then we can stand in the middle of the desert, raise our arms and shout "It wasn't our fault the world's uninhabitable, and we have proof!" This is why I love scientists.

[Enitharmon]

I think it matters very much whether it's preventable or a natural cycle...

If it's a natural cycle, there's nothing that can be done about it. If it's preventable, then steps can, and should, be taken to prevent it. If, as I believe, it's gone beyond prevention, then it's a matter of damage management and being prepared to adapt.

The best that can be said is that the issue is disputed. In that case, there's no excuse for doing nothing and carrying on as before. If it should turn out to have been preventable, or at least containable, then those who insisted on doing nothing will be culpable.

But then, it would seem that the weight of considered scientific opinion is in favour of the man-made hypothesis. Those in the natural-cycle-can't-do-anything-about-it camp appear to have a vested interest, in that they are advocates of a rush for economic growth as a panacea. To these people, climate change and global warming are no more than an anti-capitalist plot.

In the end, those who survive climate change most successfully will be those best able to adapt to changing circumstances. There's a lot of evidence from scenes of war and natural disaster around the world that those who cope best are the elderly and the very young. Those in between, who have become dependent on the consumer society, don't know how to do basic things like make bread.

[bee]

I also kinda hate how half of America still thinks global warming isn't real.

Have you read the article in Newsweek? The most recent Newsweek, I think. I haven't yet, but I thought it looked very interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

[Leif]

But then, it would seem that the weight of considered scientific opinion is in favour of the man-made hypothesis. Those in the natural-cycle-can't-do-anything-about-it camp appear to have a vested interest, in that they are advocates of a rush for economic growth as a panacea. To these people, climate change and global warming are no more than an anti-capitalist plot.

I disagree. It seems to me that those on the other side of the argument have a vested interest. Just look at Al Gore...

In the end, those who survive climate change most successfully will be those best able to adapt to changing circumstances. There's a lot of evidence from scenes of war and natural disaster around the world that those who cope best are the elderly and the very young. Those in between, who have become dependent on the consumer society, don't know how to do basic things like make bread.

Whoa there, you're acting the world is going to completely change over night. In the absolute worst case scenario, we're talking centuries before it comes to that apocalyptic-type situation.

I also think it's quite stupid to pour billions and billions of money into preventing global warming. Sure, lowering emissions and researching new energy sources is perfectly fine and key to advancing technology, but we should also be focused on more important issues. I think Bjorn Lomborg sums it up nicely...

[Enitharmon]

I disagree. It seems to me that those on the other side of the argument have a vested interest. Just look at Al Gore...

What about Al Gore? Does Big Al fancy his chances against Hills? I thought he was a shrewder operator than that, but if you think that's the reason he promotes action against climate change, then presumably you must also think that he sees votes in it. On the other hand, and this sems more likely to me, he has chosen to use his clout to devote himself to a cause which he believes in.

This is really neither here nor there. Global warming may be a major political issue in the United States, but it isn't anywhere else. Here in Europe there are fanatics on the fringe who make a song and dance about it, but generally politicians accept the scientific consensus. Or at least the scientific consensus that is independent of oil interests. I can guarantee that the winners of the next general election in Britain will regard global climate change as an issue to be addressed.

And a point that isn't made anything like often enough to those who make the blunderbuss charges of 'anti-Americanism': the USA is a foreign country to which we Europeans, Canadians, Australasians and other non-Americans owe no allegiance.

Whoa there, you're acting the world is going to completely change over night.

Never said it was. But it is changing at a rate which can be observed.

In the absolute worst case scenario, we're talking centuries before it comes to that apocalyptic-type situation.

You may be, I'm not. It's changing at a rate which is observable. Agricultural practices are changing.

I also think it's quite stupid to pour billions and billions of money into preventing global warming.

Now you're getting silly. What are those billions and billions to be spent on? Restraint is the key. In general, planet-friendly options cost less.

[zemarl]

I also think it's quite stupid to pour billions and billions of money into preventing global warming.

Now you're getting silly. What are those billions and billions to be spent on? Restraint is the key. In general, planet-friendly options cost less.

and that, i think, is what most logical people ought to be in favour of, rather than the cost issue. example, there's at least one supermarket here that's started to charge a small price for the use of plastic bags, thus to discourage the use of them, and provides instead durable reusable ones. buses are plastered with posters commending the use of public transport for all the reasons it benefits the individual, the collective society, and the environment. the 100-mile-diet was "invented" to diminish extensive transportation of goods. it might not have the tremendous impact people push for when they want to decide where to spend money and why, but it shows a conscious society and puts the blame on those who choose to ignore it. and as rosie says, it doesn't cost anything but a little thought.

to get to the topic, in case someone starts caring, i'm annoyed i have to work tonight, otherwise i am perfectly cheerful

[Leif]

What about Al Gore? Does Big Al fancy his chances against Hills? I thought he was a shrewder operator than that, but if you think that's the reason he promotes action against climate change, then presumably you must also think that he sees votes in it. On the other hand, and this sems more likely to me, he has chosen to use his clout to devote himself to a cause which he believes in.

I absolutely think he's politically driven. If not, why does he own three extremely large mansions and a private jet? If he sincerely believes in the cause, surely he would be able to make a few personal sacrifices.

This is really neither here nor there. Global warming may be a major political issue in the United States, but it isn't anywhere else. Here in Europe there are fanatics on the fringe who make a song and dance about it, but generally politicians accept the scientific consensus. Or at least the scientific consensus that is independent of oil interests. I can guarantee that the winners of the next general election in Britain will regard global climate change as an issue to be addressed.

Again, the main consensus in the US is the same. The argument is not whether global warming is happening, but rather its cause.

And a point that isn't made anything like often enough to those who make the blunderbuss charges of 'anti-Americanism': the USA is a foreign country to which we Europeans, Canadians, Australasians and other non-Americans owe no allegiance.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Explain?

You may be, I'm not. It's changing at a rate which is observable. Agricultural practices are changing.

Just because it is observable does not in any way mean it's an immediate threat. We both agree that it is a problem, but we disagree on its degree of severity.

Now you're getting silly. What are those billions and billions to be spent on? Restraint is the key. In general, planet-friendly options cost less.

Kyoto alone would cost about 150 billion a year...

We're a bit off topic, how about a new thread? Maybe a current issues thread or something?

[Qu Klaani]

I didnt know there were people who bought into the whole "Omg, liberal conspiracy!" interpretation of global warming who were smart enough to operate a PC...fascinating. Oh and no I wont be making a serious contribution to this thread, except for maybe pointing out that whatever the cause, us dramatically cutting down on our energy use is a must for reasons other than the health of the planet, and America could really do with realising that.

[the31337ofPurgatory]

Now you're getting silly. What are those billions and billions to be spent on? Restraint is the key. In general, planet-friendly options cost less.

Kyoto alone would cost about 150 billion a year...

We would have 150 billion dollars and more if we weren't too busy wasting it by grossly overpaying military contracting companies.

[Laura]

Americans need to break out of the oil dependency. There needs to be better--and more efficient--mass transit in US cities, and a higher emphasis placed on vehicles that run on fuel other than petroleum. I think the biggest problem is just indifference. Talk to the average person here in Oregon where we're all supposed to be "gung ho environment!" and they won't care a bit about conserving resources and preventing global warming.

What really hurts is that the western US is really built for cars. We're very spread out over here. There are no trains hitting all the small cities between big ones unless we're talking about a major metro area, and let's face it, in Oregon and Washington, that's really just two places: Portaland Metro and Seattle Metro. It is impossible to get around without a car. I'm a firm believer in public transit and hybrid cars. Unfortunately implementing these costs money, and state politicians aren't interested in the spending their horded cash on protecting the environment. We just have to look at the last few Oregon elections and the cut funding for state parks.

[Rachaman]

What about Al Gore? Does Big Al fancy his chances against Hills? I thought he was a shrewder operator than that, but if you think that's the reason he promotes action against climate change, then presumably you must also think that he sees votes in it. On the other hand, and this sems more likely to me, he has chosen to use his clout to devote himself to a cause which he believes in.

I absolutely think he's politically driven. If not, why does he own three extremely large mansions and a private jet? If he sincerely believes in the cause, surely he would be able to make a few personal sacrifices.

Why does he own things?

1. He can afford them

2. He purchases carbon offsets up to the limit he can afford, which for him is considerable.

This argument that Al Gore doesn't really care because he generates carbon himself is really specious, and ignores most of the facts.

The facts are that the scientific consensus is that it does exist and it can be alleviated by the actions that people take.

As far as costs go, what are your priorities? We spend something like $195 million per day in Iraq.

Businesses need incentives to take actions. Auto manufacturers outside the United States already make cars with greater fuel efficiency, and make a profit at the same time, because there were incentives to produce them. Ultimately there will be money to be MADE from taking on this effort.

Take the moon landing as an example. Many new technologies and innovations came form that effort which ultimately stimulated job growth and the economy during the 60s. A global warming Apollo program would likely be a net boost to the economy as well.

It is also a moral issue. If we fail to act, we are responsible for the consequences future generations will face.

[Vicinity of Obscenity]

Well for one when you have an entire country that's nearly the size of all of Europe. The fact that we're one country with a small population density makes public transportation (no matter how ideal) a little illogical. IMHO. I laugh in the face of whoever wants to go door to door and ask everyone to give up their cars for buses or bikes. Like Laura said there are far too many rural areas for such a solution. Maybe in another century or so things will change.

On the subject of global warming...I think that its a bull crap process used to make money in America, for the most part, and that climate change is inevitable...though we probably have sped up the process. In my area at least....it was MUCH hotter in the 80's than it is now. But thats just here.

[Leif]

I really appreciate everyone putting words in my mouth...

First of all, I never said global warming is a liberal conspiracy or unimportant nor am I for the war in Iraq. All I'm saying is that I don't think global warming should be our first priority. I would rather spend money that would be guaranteed to save millions and millions of lives now. Yes, in a perfect world we could have used to Iraq war money to help solve all the world's problems, but it's not a perfect world and that money is gone.

Also, like I've said, I'm not against citizens taking action (such as changing paper bags, carpooling, etc.) which, like Rosie said, would cost virtually nothing.

As for Al Gore, just because he can afford a private jet doesn't mean he should have one or needs one. Especially given his supposedly strong beliefs on global warming. Why can't he fly with other people? Can you imagine if every person who could afford to only used a private jet? And, just because I don't like Al Gore doesn't mean I think all environmental activists are full of ~*pineapples*~.

[Mockingbird]

In my area at least....it was MUCH hotter in the 80's than it is now. But thats just here.

Are you quite serious? Do you think the entirety of this debate can be influenced by where it is hot and where it isn't? It was pretty cold here yesterday, so clearly, global warming, global schwarming!

I think that this attitude may be the main problem in middle America; a basic skepticism that global warming is an actual, immediate, and catastrophic reality. This country is too laughably divided on whether global warming is real or not for us to force our government to take any action. The right draws people's attentions to niggling details like the fact that Al Gore spends a lot of money on his jet!1!!---it reminds me of when George Bush planned trips to Mars while the war in the Middle East was at its worst, he might as well as waved colorful flags and yelled 'Look over here! Look over here!'---just to avoid taking necessary actions. It's unbelievable to me that people are driven to even debate this issue, when at this stage in the game, the government should be taking the actions that people here list---breaking the oil dependency, enforcing businesses and citizens to change their habits through fines, laws, etc...

I understand what you're saying, Leif, and yes, we should take the small actions, but how can we, when some people are still debating the necessity of those actions, when this kind of dissension is encouraged and propagated by parts of our government?

[Leif]

The right draws people's attentions to niggling details like the fact that Al Gore spends a lot of money on his jet!1!!

Like I said, Al Gore is just one person. True, I don't like him for reasons stated, but his image doesn't affect my views on the issue as a whole.

I understand what you're saying, Leif, and yes, we should take the small actions, but how can we, when some people are still debating the necessity of those actions, when this kind of dissension is encouraged and propagated by parts of our government?

Well then we agree. I don't know what to tell you; I'm not accountable for those people.

[zemarl]

i personally am all for taking the advice of leif's avatar and saying that's that. this is a silly debate when you bring in what they ARE doing about it (nothing) because if someone could convince governments to stop funding wars and start supporting sane causes like prevention of the spread of aids, i think they would have done it already. it's not like the idea has never been suggested to them.

[bee]

In my area at least....it was MUCH hotter in the 80's than it is now. But thats just here.

Are you quite serious? Do you think the entirety of this debate can be influenced by where it is hot and where it isn't? It was pretty cold here yesterday, so clearly, global warming, global schwarming!

This is the most annoying argument I hear. It snowed this winter in my town for the first time in 9 years and a girl I know wrote this whole thing about how it never snows here and since it did, global warming can't be happening.

That said, I haven't gotten a change to really sit down and go through this thread, but I'm very interested in reading opinions, especially non-Americans.