The left are now assigned as the alarmists. The right is doing everything possible to undermine anything that might cause more regulation of industry emissions outputs.
The focus of Tobin Harshaw's Weekend Opinionator article is on man-caused Global Warming issues. Both sides present lots of views. The problem, like most urgent American causes, is that people get tired of the alarm, the steady resistance of moneyed interests finally wears down the opposition. It reminds me of a scene in “Who Killed the Electric Car”, when the head of the EV-1 program at GM met another executive whose job was to work against electric cars. Moneyed interests do not settle on principles or causes. Their interest is money. If Global Warming awareness folks can find avenues that are more profitable than coal and oil, then the right might see that it is really happening when they buy in. Politics and money…not science, here.
The best quote of the article:
"Or, as Truthdig’s PZS would have it, perhaps it means that Americans are simply idiots...."
Anna Clark says:
Very sad indeed. Can affluence really be this poisonous? It's as if our comfort has impaired our ability to reason. What happened to us?
Greg I. says:
Anna,
The fact is that the temperature has not gone up in ten years despite large increases in anthropogenic CO2. The movement must be based in facts and I can think of no greater reason for skepticism than the fact that the most often repeated prediction about the future has failed to come about.
Here is an article from the BBC that reaches the same conclusion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
The funny thing is in the entire blog piece that is linked here no one mentioned the even-more-inconvenient-truth that the planet appears to have stopped warming. No one is even talking about it!
When the predictions don't come true and the zealots refuse to acknowledge that that looks to be a major hole in the theory they have been pushing, who can blame the rest of us for being skeptical?
Anna Clark says:
Greg, thanks for sharing the BBC article. It's always nice to read something from an international source. Even so, after reading this it sound like more of the same media hype that is out there confusing the issue. The IPCC report is the product of hundreds of leading scientists around the world. Even they say that climate change does not happen consistently some areas will get hotter, some colder, and weather may become more erratic. That is why I prefer the term climate change because if people expect warming, then they can become altogether skeptical of efforts to reduce CO2 emissions once they hear news like this. There is so much other evidence that we are hurting our planet. Indicators range from species decline (anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural rate) to the startling rise of cancers and infertility resulting from contaminating toxins. Americans need to better understand the many contributors to these problems, some of which we can mitigate through conservation and better consumer decisions. Headlines like this one allow Americans to shrug off the environmental problems as left-wing hysteria, when in fact there is much that we should and could be doing to improve things. Regarding the opinion of Americans on this matter of global warming, I don't put much stock in it. The average American only reads one book a year, and I seriously doubt that it is a book about science.
Greg I. says:
It sounds like you are making an argument for prioritizing some kinds of harms over others.I also believe that it is naive to assume that all people who are concerned about the environment have the same set of interests.
For instance, take forests. There are more forests in the US than there has been at any time since colonization. Moreover most of these forests are young and so are providing a habitat for many animals (old forests tend to have all of the carbon locked up in trees not animals) and this has meant an explosion in deer population. There are more deer in the US today then there has ever been in human history. Now many people who care about the environment and the outdoors are hunters, they see this increase in forest cover as a boon to their way of life. The are likley to argue for selective cuts and the creation of meadow lands to support these animals. But it also true that there are many environmentalists who oppose hunting and so will argue for a 'hands off' policy with respect to forest management and others still who think that we should try to recreate the 'old' forests which had greater populations of elk, moose and wolves which can live in deep old forests. So many positions with much to recommend all of them it is not clear that any single one is best and even less clear that all these groups can find common cause with one another.
I suspect similar results can be found on issues like climate change. I advocate a wait and see policy because it seems justified by the data. It is obvious the the change is not occurring as quickly as we were told it would in the 90's and early 00's and it seems clear that biotech might be able to pull carbon from the air. If so, we might be able to burn fossil fuels and wood to our heart's content since we can just suck that CO2 back out. Others see this as dangerously misguided and advocate a huge Manhattan project to deal with the catastrophe.
I don't lack reason, I just have different ideas.
Anna Clark says:
The quandary about forests mirrors many of the other problems we're seeing. It is really so hard to balance all the interests. I'm certainly not the man for that job, as it requires a deeper understanding of economics, public policy, and science than I have. Even the experts argue about what to do. What I am certain of is that we need to conserve energy and resources; we need to clean up our air and water; and we need to reward companies for good corporate responsibility. People still aren't doing enough on that level, so it looks like I've still got my work cut out for me.
I am still seeing so many people go with the cheapest, fastest, easiest lifestyle choices to the detriment of the plant and even their health. Americans need a lot of education about the environment, but instead they are getting slammed constantly with inflammatory headlines either for or against global warming. In response to the need for concrete reasons to conserve, I've written a book called Green, American Style (to be released in April 2010). I'm hoping that by emphasizing points like saving money and living healthier, I can help readers find a comfortable way to make a contribution. I think one reason why so many people continue debating the science is they feel helpless about what to do about it. You may disagree and say that they debate the science because the science is unclear (and if so, that's fine - we're free to disagree). Regardless on where we land on the global warming point, I think we can both agree that there are a lot of people who are still doing nothing at all to improve things. It seems a shame to live that way.
Cliff B. says:
Greg has a point. The wait and see priciple has many advocates. When I lived in Southern California as a child, the oil being pumped out of the ground was endless. I could go at any time to a local creek and find small amphibians. The Colorado River provided limitless supplies of water. Honduran mahogany was so plentiful that local could dynamite giant tree and make charcoal. Local water tasted good and was plentiful.
Today, we still have lots of Brazilian rainforests. There is so much water in the Himalayan mountains that the Chinese are building a giant pipeline to bring its water to Bejing. The Chinese are bringing 2 coal fired power plants on-line per week to total 20 million tons of coal burning per year.
Species extinction, the bushmeat destruction of primate species? Water tables dropping, and water table pollution and salinization? Environmental migration of peoples due to loss of habitat?
The well in my yard was artesian 30 years ago. The local water table has dropped so much that it went dry and I had to drill a new, deeper well two years ago, and I live in rainy, rural Oregon.
Greg does have a good point. We should just keep doing what we all are doing, and wait to see what happens. The native Indians that honored and protected their resouces that fed them had it all wrong. They lost to us didn't they?
Look at the indigenous peoples in Brazil whining about a little oil in their rivers and cancer in their children. They can just move somewhere else can't they? All those trees just protect panthers and snakes and icky things? We can use the open fields to make bio-fuel crops and when that field loses its fertility, we can make more fields.
Wait and see is a terrific viewpoint, and it's so easy to do.
Greg I. says:
You are right, wait and see is easy. But notice that I didn't advocate it as a response to all problems as your sarcastic reply seems to imply but only to the issue of climate change. i.e a domain where the science and plausible industrial advances support that stance. Besides I think that stance is far more preferable than being pulled in a variety of directions by the inconstant advice of the green movement.
I too have a memory. I remember being told that plastic bags were better than paper, until they weren't. I remember being told that all of Santa Monica was going to be underwater by now, until it wasn't. I remember being told that peak oil was imminent, until we found more. And I remember being told that GM crops were going to cause widespread allergy and death, until they didn't.
I also recall scientists stating that evolution is the best explanation for the range of species we see today. Unlike yourself I think that is a good explanation. Though I wonder how one can be so vocal about what is obvious, while being so picky about the science one chooses to put stock in.
I also recall at least one of the myths you cite having been debunked. You know the one about the noble native living in perfect harmony with his surroundings. I only mention it because that pesky fossil record shows it to be bunk. Native peoples slaughtered mega-fauna at a rate never before seen in human history. The killed off the sabre tooth cat, the cave bear, the ground sloth, the mammoth and the Neanderthal. They cleared forests by burning them to the ground and the record of massive defensive wounds found on the skeletons of women and children speak to the forms of discipline they exercised in thier own communities.
I welcome being corrected but lets do that in a way which does more than presents a list of gripes about the perceived narrow mindedness of the other side- cause I have a list of my own!
Cliff B. says:
I think the jury is still out on GM food. Peak oil? It will some day...it is not infinite. We could argue evolution all day, but as a designer, every basic premise of evolution is nonsense to me, and not able to be duplicated....which is why it is still a theory.
Yes, there are destructive indigenous peoples. I should have explained that I had some tribes in the northern mid-west in mind that developed sustainable harvests on their own. A better example would have been Pacific Lumber in Northern California / Southern Oregon...where they had a town entirely supported by the mill and all production rates were ordered around the growth rate of the vast acreage that they owned. It was totally stable, with housing, schools, work shifts...all fit together....until a corporate raider came in and destroyed it by appealing to the workers with a big cash out for their shares.
My issue is simple....if there is the possibility for the environment and animal life to degrade, why are we not pre-emptory in the things that we have control over?
It really does not matter which way you look, we are generally too stupid to deal with long term ill effects. In New Zealand / Australia there is an illness called "painter's dementia".....rather self explanitory by its name. It is not recognized in the US as existing.
Souther California banned new housing construction in 1996...all along the southern coast and about 100 miles inland due to lack of water resources...Since then, millions of new houses have been built when the big money showed up.
Anything that is illegal, because it is bad for the environment or people, eventually becomes legal and good for everyone when there is enough money pushing.
James E. says:
Interesting debate. I do think that sometimes we are too smart for our own good. By pegging the global warming debate to all things green, which is often a sloppy connection, to say the least, we allow obvious action to pass us by. If, for example, the public conversation was about cleaner sources of energy, or about investing behind energy innovation and job creation here in the US, vs. borrowing a billion dollars a day from China to send to the middle east for oil, I think there would be less people on the other side of that argument. But we often get involved in more debatable points as a proxy for what really matters, and then we get the right/left media circus and name calling, etc. Does anyone on this thread not want cleaner air? water? food? jobs? By pegging the green movement to climate change, we will forever be riding the ebb and flow of events like Katrina, v. a down economy, to determine how many Americans "care" about climate change. There are easier ways to get people behind causes. Make it personal, find the common ground, and move to action. There is nothing for me to debate when I consider the value of conservation and efficiency and health. We need to get the conversation down to a level where people can relate, and take action on the universally accepted principles. I think we'll be surprised with how easy these ideas will gather support.
Cliff B. says:
In 1978, I was 33. I had a comfortable view of life. I thought religion, namely Christianity, was nonsense. Christ probably lived. The stories were probably true, but there was nothing that happened 2000 years ago that could affect my life now. Christianity was not personal and it was powerless.
My wife, however, was confronted by a woman who unwrapped Jesus for her. Amazing changes took place in my wife, and I, at least, had to pay attention. A month or two later, she wanted me to go to a class with her. The instructor was reading attributes of God out of the Old Testament. At one point I felt my mind totally change, like fresh clean water running through it. My heart changed beyond what my mind could process and understand. My heart understood what had happened and my mind was far behind. I knew Jesus was truth. Total paradigm shift. I could no longer process information in the manner that I had before.
I was not looking for that change. My eyes were opened, and then I saw. There are many caring, non-Christians who are very concerned for the planets, the people and all of the injustices that need to be addressed. There are many so-called Christians that I find embarrassing to the example of Christ.
Creation Care is simple. We live on a closed system, space ship. Like any ship, the resources on board are finite. I believe that being given responsibilty as a steward of this ship, all should be kept in order.
Everyone is on the same boat, and each deserves a say.
It is not an innate right to drive a 7000lb diesel, 8mpg, dual cab truck to the grocery store. It is a selfish, arrogant insult to everyone else on board the ship. There is no freedom to pollute. There is no freedom to exploite the planet. We are all guilty of standing by and letting it happen.
We all need fresh eyes as the where we are and what we are doing.
Greg I. says:
James, I don't see any universally accepted principles. If there are such things I'd like to see one cited so I could feel its force. I suspect though that anything you mention will be far too vague to direct us to any particular concrete action.
As I see it the debate doesn't end when we hit terminology "conservation and efficiency and health" because even these fairly familiar terms admit of very contentious definitions. For instance, I have seen, on other threads, you express skepticism about fluoride, vaccinations and even the scientific method. But I couldn't imagine a conception of health that didn't include these things. For me the efficiency question is settled by the sheer number of lives that have been demonstrably saved by, say, the MMR vaccine and the huge increase in dental health for a population with fluoridated water. Now I expect you to disagree with me, to say things like 'but smart, non-mainstream scientists have their doubts". But surely this presence of disagreement demonstrates that even the terminology is not settled. If we all woke up tomorrow filled with a motivation to 'improve health' the moment we started working some of us would be thwarting the work of others. In other words we don't even have universal definitions, so I don't see how we are going to get universal principles.
It may be better to admit that you find tis style of debate rather pedantic and more academic than active. This is a perfectly good position, thought I think one which leaves you susceptible to a great deal of confusion, and at least it registers that you prefer action over words. But that won't work for many of us. Many of us think that the intellectual credentials of this movement are becoming so diluted that soon crystal gazing and spell casting will be seen as viable actions one can take to be green. We prefer to debate and get clear on what is truly viable, plausible and affordable so we dont start tilting at windmills.
Cliff B. says:
Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal. Albert Einstein.
He also said that out technology has exceeded our humanity. Just because we CAN do something, does not mean that we should. I have been involved in wood products and aerospace composites. It took me 10 years to develop allergies to wood dust...No one seems to deny that. I have a friend who is a plant manager making water skis. After doing it for about 8 years, he came into the plant one day and had an extreme alergic response to the isocyanates. He could no longer go into the plant without a vapor respirator. No one, medical or otherwise seems to acknowledge the accumulated allergic response is a medical condition and a workplace caused syndrome. Certain trade magazines recognize it. The Boeing B-2 composite bomber program was plagued with this condition.
This can be measured, witnessed, testified to, and if true would be very expensive to a burgeoning industry. It should be the first duty of the producers to recognize.
Money and political clout should not over-ride the human downside, even when there are substantial upsides.
Bayer developed a GMO rice. It was not legally appproved. The GMO rice quickly interbreeds with red rice, a weed. When a test patch in the South intebred with some neighboring farmer's crops, they found that migrating weed could not be stopped. The farmers sued, as the GMO rice was not legal on the market. The Bush administration rapidly (in 2 weeks) approved the Bayer rice to protect them from lawsuits. There was no analysis of the long term affects of the rice on people.
Greg I. says:
You sound like you have been reading "Industrial Society and Its Future". Heady stuff!
http://www.42inc.com/~estephen/manifesto/unabe2.html#c1
James E. says:
Greg...re: universally accepted principles...how about clean air?
Greg I. says:
Thats not a principle, grammatically. I'd like to buy a verb please.
Cliff B. says:
Greg,
I have not been reading "Industrial Society and Its Future". My observations are my own and from working in industry since 1968.
I was an industrial designer for IBM. I have 2 patents. I built prototypes for Hewlett Packard. I taught at Mt Hood Community college, Central Oregon Community College where I managed and wrote curriculum for 3 programs. I taught design at the Art Institute of Seattle. I was the foreman of a company building 50' fiberglass offshore sailboats. I wrote the training materials for the Lancair Columbia 300...as in how to build the first FAA approved all composite aircraft. My current assignment was to get our company approved to the Aerospace Quality Standard AS9100...which I just finished, so that we are an approved supplier to Boeing.
My reading of choice is the Bible. It is the only source of real truth.