I ask questions and I admit when I'm not sure. I'm not sure about any of this at all and people get upset when you say that out-loud, which to me - is very, very telling. I'd say people who buy into something just because someone else does, who may have an ulterior motive, are sticking their head's in the sand. I actually looked into the issue and I ask questions. I've said repetitively "I don't know" and I'm not sure it really matters if it does exist because who knows how much we contribute - cows could contribute more. I work with empirical models all the time. I know how flawed they are. I stated my rational for my thoughts in my last post, but I'll just repeat them.
1) I don't know it exists
You will when you have to move your surf board back another ten feet.
2) I know for certain that there's a reason for socialists to join in and push the global warming agenda (even if it doesn't exist), because it would encourage more intrusion by government into markets
Climate change is a socialist agenda? Sorry, I have to laugh.
4) I don't believe climatologists are not bias, nor do I believe they have the necessary data to prove this exists
Everyone has a bias. They are biased. (Sorry- don't mean to be the grammarian.) They're biased towards doing what makes sense- slowing down anthropogenic climate change. Bias isn't always a bad thing, right?
The data part has been provided. I'm not sure you want to hear it.
4) If it does exist and is man-made, I believe our contribution is negligible - I mean cows produce a shit-load (literally) of CO2. But, the global warming crowd doesn't care about that for some reason... why?
Two 4's. Have some more coffee. Again, that information has been provided numerous times.
6) I think there's a significant and definitive economic trade-off to combating what may or may not exist, if it does exist what (in my opinion) is most likely caused by something else (sun), what I deem our contribution to be negligible. Why would someone like myself be all pro-regulation when I know for sure it comes with an economic cost?
The economy is more important that out impact on the environment? I don't think I can change your mind about that. Unfortunately my kids and theirs will have to live with the effects of that that kind of thinking. I'm an old fucker so I'll be dead. Kinda blows the "you conservationist/environmentalists are in in for yourselves theory", doesn't it?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I ask questions and I admit when I'm not sure. I'm not sure about any of this at all and people get upset when you say that out-loud, which to me - is very, very telling. I'd say people who buy into something just because someone else does, who may have an ulterior motive, are sticking their head's in the sand. I actually looked into the issue and I ask questions. I've said repetitively "I don't know" and I'm not sure it really matters if it does exist because who knows how much we contribute - cows could contribute more. I work with empirical models all the time. I know how flawed they are. I stated my rational for my thoughts in my last post, but I'll just repeat them.
2) I know for certain that there's a reason for socialists to join in and push the global warming agenda (even if it doesn't exist), because it would encourage more intrusion by government into markets
Climate change is a socialist agenda? Sorry, I have to laugh.
Yes, there's good reason to believe that someone like Al Gore may have been using this issue to advance his political ideology because it would involve more government control of capitalist enterprise.
Everyone has a bias. They are biased. (Sorry- don't mean to be the grammarian.) They're biased towards doing what makes sense- slowing down anthropogenic climate change. Bias isn't always a bad thing, right?
The data part has been provided. I'm not sure you want to hear it.
Nope. Bias isn't a bad thing if you admit it. As I've said, I think they have an inherent bias and more importantly they don't have the proper means to study what you deem to be man-made contributions via available the data.
4) If it does exist and is man-made, I believe our contribution is negligible - I mean cows produce a shit-load (literally) of CO2. But, the global warming crowd doesn't care about that for some reason... why?
Of course. That's been acknowledged. The issue here is the current anthropogenic climate change.
There's no way to get at this issue. Climate changes. You admit that. It changes even when men aren't involved. One could say that's normal, one could say it's not. The question is what if any does man contribute to it? There's no good way to tackle that problem because it involves counter-factual analysis. You'd need to know what change would occur if all other variables weren't at play, which is impossible. All those other variables are at play.
6) I think there's a significant and definitive economic trade-off to combating what may or may not exist, if it does exist what (in my opinion) is most likely caused by something else (sun), what I deem our contribution to be negligible. Why would someone like myself be all pro-regulation when I know for sure it comes with an economic cost?
The economy is more important that out impact on the environment? I don't think I can change your mind about that. Unfortunately my kids and theirs will have to live with the effects of that that kind of thinking. I'm an old fucker so I'll be dead. Kinda blows the "you conservationist/environmentalists are in in for yourselves theory", doesn't it?
First, we don't know that we're having a real, large impact on the environment. Climate has been changing since the earth's first days. We've had ice ages and heating before the dawn of economic activity. Second, unfortunately my kids and theirs will have to live with the effects of our government and economy at large wasting boatloads of money (via regulations and inefficient alternatives) on a concept, that if it exists, very well may not be caused by us. I'd like them to have jobs, and having a robust growing economy helps with that. Kinda blows the "you economists are in it for yourselves theory, doesn't it?"
Problem is the underlined part is totally 100% false. It does hurt - it hurts economically.
You were right! :shock:
Per the US Energy Information Admin, US CO2 emissions fell by 2.4% in 2011. In three of the past four years, CO2 emission declined. But they figure the decline correlates with the decline in US economic growth is the main reason.
For the record, I'm all for investment in using renewable sources. Even if there are inefficiencies now, advances in technology will overcome and become more efficient then our current energy sources over the course of time. To give up right of the bat is not smart planning.
Also, why isn't Obama trumpeting this decline in U.S. carbon emissions?
:idea: :?:
Excellent question, Jason P. I'm pretty much disappointed in the pres. in that regard. He hasn't addressed this issue nearly as much or as well as I and many others would like to see. I'm hoping he will do better next term if there is one.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
And even if global warming was a made up agenda, who gives a fuck. It doesn't hurt to try and find cleaner energy methods.
Problem is the underlined part is totally 100% false. It does hurt - it hurts economically. Here's the thing, I don't think any rational person would be against using more green products "if" they were also more efficient and lower cost. The problem is they're not, or tend to not be. A lot of the movement towards greener energy comes with a economic cost.
This is the issue, and it's a very obvious and meaningful one in this day and age. People like yourself clearly don't see it.
I certainly agree that employing greener energies is more costly. However, part of the reason for that is because of the amount of subsidies provided to oil and coal companies that offset their costs. So really, we aren't "hurt" economically by continuing to employ the same methods of energy production because the government is picking up the tab, at least in part. What if we started removing those subsidies and applying them to greener energy development, for the long term, so it won't hurt so much down the road? Even if you don't believe in global warming, surely you can see that fossil fuel consumption and production endanger our environment making us ill from breathing in the toxins (ozone action days that trigger asthma attacks for instance - I do NOT have asthma but I have a great deal of difficulty breathing on those days when I run - possibly because of a correlation with air pollutants) or having to spend huge amounts of money to "clean" our water so we can drink it. At the very least, shouldn't we be cleaning our environment so it is safe for us to live in - regardless of global warming?
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
And even if global warming was a made up agenda, who gives a fuck. It doesn't hurt to try and find cleaner energy methods.
Problem is the underlined part is totally 100% false. It does hurt - it hurts economically. Here's the thing, I don't think any rational person would be against using more green products "if" they were also more efficient and lower cost. The problem is they're not, or tend to not be. A lot of the movement towards greener energy comes with a economic cost.
This is the issue, and it's a very obvious and meaningful one in this day and age. People like yourself clearly don't see it.
I certainly agree that employing greener energies is more costly. However, part of the reason for that is because of the amount of subsidies provided to oil and coal companies that offset their costs. So really, we aren't "hurt" economically by continuing to employ the same methods of energy production because the government is picking up the tab, at least in part. What if we started removing those subsidies and applying them to greener energy development, for the long term, so it won't hurt so much down the road? Even if you don't believe in global warming, surely you can see that fossil fuel consumption and production endanger our environment making us ill from breathing in the toxins (ozone action days that trigger asthma attacks for instance - I do NOT have asthma but I have a great deal of difficulty breathing on those days when I run - possibly because of a correlation with air pollutants) or having to spend huge amounts of money to "clean" our water so we can drink it. At the very least, shouldn't we be cleaning our environment so it is safe for us to live in - regardless of global warming?
Not sure if those subsidies outweigh the subsidies directed to "green technologies". Both get subsidies. That said, tell you what... how about we eliminate ALL subsidies? All of them. To green and to oil, etc. Then allow people to choose whatever they want. Sounds like a plan.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Critical ice in the Arctic Ocean melted to record low levels this sweltering summer and that can make weather more extreme far away from the poles, scientists say.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Monday that the extent of Arctic sea ice shrank to 1.58 million square miles and is likely to melt more in the coming weeks. That breaks the old record of 1.61 million square miles set in 2007.
The North Pole region is an ocean that mostly is crusted at the top with ice. In the winter, the frozen saltwater surface usually extends about 6 million square miles, shrinking in summer and growing back in the fall. That's different from Antarctica, which is land covered by ice and snow and then surrounded by sea ice.
Normally sea ice in the Arctic reaches its minimum in mid-September and then starts refreezing. But levels on Sunday shrank 27,000 square miles — about the size of West Virginia — beyond the old record.
Figures are based on satellite records dating back to 1979. The ice center bases its figures on averages calculated over five days.
Data center scientist Ted Scambos said the melt can be blamed mostly on global warming from man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. There are natural factors involved too, including a storm that chewed up a significant amount ice earlier this month. But, he said, dramatic summer sea ice losses in all but one year since 2007, continuous thin ice, and warm air temperatures show a pattern that can only be explained by climate change.
"It really does imply that the Arctic is moving to a new state," said NASA ice systems program scientist Tom Wagner. "The Arctic is changing."
Wagner and Scambos said in 2007 some people thought it was just an odd year that caused the dramatic melt, but years like this one show something bigger is happening.
This milestone is a "substantial step" to the day when there will be no significant sea ice in the Arctic in the summer, said NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati.
"Why do we care?," Abdalati, an ice scientist, asked. "This ice has been an important factor in determining the climate and weather conditions under which modern civilization has evolved."
Scientists sometimes call the Arctic the world's refrigerator and this is like leaving the fridge door open, Scambos said.
"This is kind of a knob on global weather," Wagner said. "We don't know the impact yet" of fiddling with it.
Scientists say Arctic sea ice helps moderate temperatures further south in the winter and summer. A study earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters linked some of the factors behind Arctic sea ice loss to higher probabilities of extreme weather "such as drought, flooding, cold spells and heat waves."
Scientists also say sea ice is crucial for polar bears and other animals.
Wagner said the changes in Arctic sea ice fits with glacier loss in Alaska and Canada and ice loss in Greenland. Earlier this summer, NASA satellites reported a dramatic melt in Greenland, where nearly every part of its massive ice sheet started melting, something that last happened in 1889.
Ohio State University ice scientist Jason Box has been monitoring Greenland, where he said temperatures have sometimes been 9 to 18 degrees warmer than normal this summer and the ice is reflecting far less heat — and thus absorbing more energy — than ever before.
Global warming physics for years has been saying if greenhouse gases are causing climate change, the Arctic will feel it first with loss of sea ice and melt in snow and ice on land, Box said.
"We're in a declining trend because the Earth is getting warmer," Scambos said. "It's going to continue to be a series of shrinking ice extents year by year... We're not going back."
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I don't understand this "Global Warming Hoax Left Wing Socialism Conspiracy" thing. I mean, what do environmentalists have to gain from this elaborate "hoax?" It just doesn't make sense. I guess as soon as Al Gore got involved all the righties had a boogieman to rail against. I kind of remember environmentalism being a mostly bipartisan movement, but I guess those days are long gone.
You mentioned CO2/methane emissions from cows. This is not ignored, and one reason for the push to eat less meat is to help the environment.
My personal opinion on climate change is that it's already here and we really can't do much about it, even if half our country wasn't denying it (and much of the world doesn't give a shit, like China). I think us environmentalists ought to focus on more local issues like making sure fracking is limited or at least is done safely (if possible), rather than running uphill against the wind on this issue.
The assumption that renewable energy is "more costly" than, say oil & gas, doesn't consider the massive government subsidies that go to the oil & gas industries, compared to a pittance that goes to wind/solar. Obviously it also doesn't consider the environmental damage done by those industries.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Problem is the underlined part is totally 100% false. It does hurt - it hurts economically. Here's the thing, I don't think any rational person would be against using more green products "if" they were also more efficient and lower cost. The problem is they're not, or tend to not be. A lot of the movement towards greener energy comes with a economic cost.
This is the issue, and it's a very obvious and meaningful one in this day and age. People like yourself clearly don't see it.
I certainly agree that employing greener energies is more costly. However, part of the reason for that is because of the amount of subsidies provided to oil and coal companies that offset their costs. So really, we aren't "hurt" economically by continuing to employ the same methods of energy production because the government is picking up the tab, at least in part. What if we started removing those subsidies and applying them to greener energy development, for the long term, so it won't hurt so much down the road? Even if you don't believe in global warming, surely you can see that fossil fuel consumption and production endanger our environment making us ill from breathing in the toxins (ozone action days that trigger asthma attacks for instance - I do NOT have asthma but I have a great deal of difficulty breathing on those days when I run - possibly because of a correlation with air pollutants) or having to spend huge amounts of money to "clean" our water so we can drink it. At the very least, shouldn't we be cleaning our environment so it is safe for us to live in - regardless of global warming?
Not sure if those subsidies outweigh the subsidies directed to "green technologies". Both get subsidies. That said, tell you what... how about we eliminate ALL subsidies? All of them. To green and to oil, etc. Then allow people to choose whatever they want. Sounds like a plan.
I'm not sure what you mean by "outweigh" so if I'm incorrect please let me know. By sheer dollar amount given in subsidies, oil and gas far "outweigh" what is given to renewable energy sources.
If, by outweigh, you mean renewables receive subsidies just like non-renewables then, yes, that is correct. However, let's not forget the amount of money (much of which has been public money) that has been spent on clean up to fix the problems created by non-renewable energy sources. Let's also not forget the amount of money spent to alleviate health problems that are brought about because of the use of of non-renewables. Those factors are not always acknowledged when discussing how "cheap" non-renewables are.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I'm not sure what you mean by "outweigh" so if I'm incorrect please let me know. By sheer dollar amount given in subsidies, oil and gas far "outweigh" what is given to renewable energy sources.
If, by outweigh, you mean renewables receive subsidies just like non-renewables then, yes, that is correct. However, let's not forget the amount of money (much of which has been public money) that has been spent on clean up to fix the problems created by non-renewable energy sources. Let's also not forget the amount of money spent to alleviate health problems that are brought about because of the use of of non-renewables. Those factors are not always acknowledged when discussing how "cheap" non-renewables are.
Couple things: electricity isn't renewable, for example... yet some consider it "green". Some argue electric cars are worse for the environment than gas-using autos. Also, I don't know of an automobile, for example, that runs on true "renewables". I'd totally think the advent of a reasonably priced renewable energy car would be fantastic.
Anyway, what I meant by "outweigh" was, of course, as a percentage of the total use. You can't compare something that isn't used often, to something that's used frequently without looking at percentages.
So, at the end of the day, my point was - let's get rid of subsidies all together. You're claiming they're making an uneven playing field for "non-renewables" because they get subsidies. I responded so do "green technologies". You then broke this into renewables vs. non-renewables (which isn't exactly the same thing) and said renewables don't get as much in total $ value. I don't really agree with that because I know "renewables" are also getting a load of subsidies, in fact - I'd bet they get more as a percentage of total use. So, my point still is - if you REALLY BELIEVE - subsidies are slanted towards oil and gas, why not say - ok to the proposition of banning energy subsidies in their entirety. That way, green technologies would be used more, right? Not sure you even believe that.
As for medical costs, I'm not sure of the scale. I'd agree there may be health concerns associated with non-renewable energy. But, I also know, for certain, there are health concerns with a poor economy. So, before you judge, hear me out. I'm all for use of renewable resources "if" they don't deplete the economy. There's all sorts of negative consequences when the economy turns south. That's why I'm saying, level the playing field... no subsidies for anything whatsoever. Then - create an energy that's MORE cost-effective than oil. That will get my vote, I'll buy it. I have no attachment to oil whatsoever. I just buy it because a gallon is slightly higher priced than a gallon of water I buy at the store, so low priced in relative terms to any alternatives.
You mentioned CO2/methane emissions from cows. This is not ignored, and one reason for the push to eat less meat is to help the environment.
Hmm ... that is a good point. The amount of cows would be dramatically lower without human livestock management. Kind of shuts that arguing point down completely.
I don't understand this "Global Warming Hoax Left Wing Socialism Conspiracy" thing. I mean, what do environmentalists have to gain from this elaborate "hoax?" It just doesn't make sense. I guess as soon as Al Gore got involved all the righties had a boogieman to rail against. I kind of remember environmentalism being a mostly bipartisan movement, but I guess those days are long gone.
Personally, I'd argue - I, for example, am very pro-environment. You probably would say I'm not. But, I don't litter. I clean up. I recycle. I see there being good involved with doing that sort of thing. I love the ocean. I treat it well and when I was a lifeguard I would get publicly pissed and confront people when they litter by it. I'm pretty good there.
That said, I don't completely buy global warming as a man-made reality - and yes, I see there a serious reason for those who want a larger government, to involve themselves in this camp. I've already explained it a multitude of times to you within this thread, but to quickly reiterate the point in a brief way - the "existence" or "thought of existence" of man-made global warming creates the "thought" of urgent need to "regulate". In other words, a normal person who otherwise would be opposed to regulation, may support it "if" they bought in to the concept of man-made global warming. If you believe regulation is a good thing and our country and maybe the world needs more governmental involvement... this would make a logical platform for your ideology. Even if a policymaker doesn't buy into the global warming existence, a policy maker (who's a socialist at heart) may see reason to support it and tout it because they most likely believe there's absolutely no harm done whatsoever by backing these policies AND it would provide more a fertile field to plant regulatory (or government involvement) seeds.
You don't have to agree with this at all and you can certainly say you don't think this is happening, but to act as though there's no incentive for this to be the case is insincere. I gave you a good rationale several times now.
You mentioned CO2/methane emissions from cows. This is not ignored, and one reason for the push to eat less meat is to help the environment.
I try to refrain from eating meat a lot. My wife pushes this. So, I guess I may be more pro-environment than many meat eaters.
No, but seriously, there isn't a large "governmental" "regulatory" push to alter cow emissions or limit cows in general. If you act as though there is, you're simply lying to yourself.
My personal opinion on climate change is that it's already here and we really can't do much about it, even if half our country wasn't denying it (and much of the world doesn't give a shit, like China). I think us environmentalists ought to focus on more local issues like making sure fracking is limited or at least is done safely (if possible), rather than running uphill against the wind on this issue.
What's your issue with fracking? And what type of alternatives (oil-oriented) would you prefer?
The assumption that renewable energy is "more costly" than, say oil & gas, doesn't consider the massive government subsidies that go to the oil & gas industries, compared to a pittance that goes to wind/solar. Obviously it also doesn't consider the environmental damage done by those industries.
I've covered this already in a response to riotgrl - you can read that for more. As a percentage of use, I'd bet heavily that the percentage is much higher for renewables than oil and gas. But, I'm all for killing subsidies in the entirety. I don't think we should be subsidizing anything whatsoever. Remember we're broke. So, borrowing to subsidize is crazy. Further, I'm all for using non-renewables if they are cheaper with no government help. I'll even say I'd probably choose their use over renewables if they were just touch more expensive and just as efficient. Problem is - they're not.
Also, just a side note to chew on, non-renewable resources are used to produce renewable energy resources. Something to think about.
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,417
Inlet, creating a more sustainable human presence on earth and being environmentally active is more about using less energy, depleting fewer natural resources and consuming fewer goods than it is picking up litter and using renewable energy. Not that those things aren't good also but they are rather small solutions a much wider spectrum of actions necessary to achieve those goals.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Inlet, creating a more sustainable human presence on earth and being environmentally active is more about using less energy, depleting fewer natural resources and consuming fewer goods than it is picking up litter and using renewable energy. Not that those things aren't good also but they are rather small solutions a much wider spectrum of actions necessary to achieve those goals.
Exactly, I have always wondered what happened to the word conserve in conservative. How someone conservative minded could be against the environmental movement. None of this makes sense to me.
I'm not sure what you mean by "outweigh" so if I'm incorrect please let me know. By sheer dollar amount given in subsidies, oil and gas far "outweigh" what is given to renewable energy sources.
If, by outweigh, you mean renewables receive subsidies just like non-renewables then, yes, that is correct. However, let's not forget the amount of money (much of which has been public money) that has been spent on clean up to fix the problems created by non-renewable energy sources. Let's also not forget the amount of money spent to alleviate health problems that are brought about because of the use of of non-renewables. Those factors are not always acknowledged when discussing how "cheap" non-renewables are.
Couple things: electricity isn't renewable, for example... yet some consider it "green". Some argue electric cars are worse for the environment than gas-using autos. Also, I don't know of an automobile, for example, that runs on true "renewables". I'd totally think the advent of a reasonably priced renewable energy car would be fantastic.
Anyway, what I meant by "outweigh" was, of course, as a percentage of the total use. You can't compare something that isn't used often, to something that's used frequently without looking at percentages.
So, at the end of the day, my point was - let's get rid of subsidies all together. You're claiming they're making an uneven playing field for "non-renewables" because they get subsidies. I responded so do "green technologies". You then broke this into renewables vs. non-renewables (which isn't exactly the same thing) and said renewables don't get as much in total $ value. I don't really agree with that because I know "renewables" are also getting a load of subsidies, in fact - I'd bet they get more as a percentage of total use. So, my point still is - if you REALLY BELIEVE - subsidies are slanted towards oil and gas, why not say - ok to the proposition of banning energy subsidies in their entirety. That way, green technologies would be used more, right? Not sure you even believe that.
As for medical costs, I'm not sure of the scale. I'd agree there may be health concerns associated with non-renewable energy. But, I also know, for certain, there are health concerns with a poor economy. So, before you judge, hear me out. I'm all for use of renewable resources "if" they don't deplete the economy. There's all sorts of negative consequences when the economy turns south. That's why I'm saying, level the playing field... no subsidies for anything whatsoever. Then - create an energy that's MORE cost-effective than oil. That will get my vote, I'll buy it. I have no attachment to oil whatsoever. I just buy it because a gallon is slightly higher priced than a gallon of water I buy at the store, so low priced in relative terms to any alternatives.
On the one hand, yes, I would like all subsidies to end so, theoretically, it would level the playing field. However, I have doubt that it would happen. I'm not sure how ending subsidies would create more use of green technologies, as you state. Green technologies are still going to be more expensive because they are still relatively new and not as widespread (for example, in KY we can't really harness wind power the same way the Plains states can and solar power is certainly viable as well as water but we would have to create the infrastructure and systems to handle the load or better yet, create something completely new as you stated before). And I also wonder, if we still have gas and oil, will people really move towards alternative energy without some incentive? In theory, I agree with what you've said. I just don't know if I trust that "the market" will bear out the cost and incentives the way you seem to.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
What most people don't really understand is that "global warming" doesn't really mean a uniform rise in temperatures, it means catastrophic changes in climate.
The Polar ice caps melt... that means that the salinity levels of the ocean will change and THAT means that the ocean currents will change. And when that happens, it means that temperatures in Europe will drastically drop. Making make currently heavily-populated places much less livable.
It means more hurricanes and much stronger ones. It means much heavier rains in places that generally don't get rain and it means less rain in other places that usually get a lot more. It means that the state of Florida will be gone. So will Manhattan and much of Louisiana.
And so will The Netherlands and much of Holland, Belgium and most of the small islands in the south pacific.
It means a lot more than "it will be warmer in Toronto in the winter."
just so you know, the netherlands and holland are the same country.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What most people don't really understand is that "global warming" doesn't really mean a uniform rise in temperatures, it means catastrophic changes in climate.
The Polar ice caps melt... that means that the salinity levels of the ocean will change and THAT means that the ocean currents will change. And when that happens, it means that temperatures in Europe will drastically drop. Making make currently heavily-populated places much less livable.
It means more hurricanes and much stronger ones. It means much heavier rains in places that generally don't get rain and it means less rain in other places that usually get a lot more. It means that the state of Florida will be gone. So will Manhattan and much of Louisiana.
And so will The Netherlands and much of Holland, Belgium and most of the small islands in the south pacific.
It means a lot more than "it will be warmer in Toronto in the winter."
everything you said here is a perfect summary of an article I read in this month's National Geographic. It's scarey stuff.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
just so you know, the netherlands and holland are the same country.
then who are the dutch?
People who work at Dutch Wonderland.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
What most people don't really understand is that "global warming" doesn't really mean a uniform rise in temperatures, it means catastrophic changes in climate.
The Polar ice caps melt... that means that the salinity levels of the ocean will change and THAT means that the ocean currents will change. And when that happens, it means that temperatures in Europe will drastically drop. Making make currently heavily-populated places much less livable.
It means more hurricanes and much stronger ones. It means much heavier rains in places that generally don't get rain and it means less rain in other places that usually get a lot more. It means that the state of Florida will be gone. So will Manhattan and much of Louisiana.
And so will The Netherlands and much of Holland, Belgium and most of the small islands in the south pacific.
It means a lot more than "it will be warmer in Toronto in the winter."
just so you know, the netherlands and holland are the same country.
Technically, Holland is the nick name for the Netherlands. Holland is a region inside the country.
Being of Dutch ancestry myself, my family wasn't from Holland.
What most people don't really understand is that "global warming" doesn't really mean a uniform rise in temperatures, it means catastrophic changes in climate.
The Polar ice caps melt... that means that the salinity levels of the ocean will change and THAT means that the ocean currents will change. And when that happens, it means that temperatures in Europe will drastically drop. Making make currently heavily-populated places much less livable.
It means more hurricanes and much stronger ones. It means much heavier rains in places that generally don't get rain and it means less rain in other places that usually get a lot more. It means that the state of Florida will be gone. So will Manhattan and much of Louisiana.
And so will The Netherlands and much of Holland, Belgium and most of the small islands in the south pacific.
It means a lot more than "it will be warmer in Toronto in the winter."
just so you know, the netherlands and holland are the same country.
Technically, Holland is the nick name for the Netherlands. Holland is a region inside the country.
Being of Dutch ancestry myself, my family wasn't from Holland.
yep, i know it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Inlet, creating a more sustainable human presence on earth and being environmentally active is more about using less energy, depleting fewer natural resources and consuming fewer goods than it is picking up litter and using renewable energy. Not that those things aren't good also but they are rather small solutions a much wider spectrum of actions necessary to achieve those goals.
I find this post really funny, Brian.
First, I completely disagree with your definition of "creating a more sustainable human presence on earth" as doing what you listed. In order for people not to starve to death, you need to have enough food AND (in this day and age) you need jobs. There's a lot of people on earth. An active economy is necessary.
Second, every single thing you listed...
1) Using less energy
2) Depleting few natural resources
3) Consuming less goods
...has a direct economic cost. In fact, consuming less goods is nonsensically anti-economic growth.
Finally, I don't need for you to define to me what my own goals are. I mentioned that I think it's right to pick up after myself, etc. For example, I pick up six pack containers from the beach, not because they will cause global warming, but because it's gross, they could be wrapped around a bottle neck's nose, ect. That's why I do it. If I ever decide to consult the Book of Brian for environmental advice, you'll be the first to know.
Inlet, creating a more sustainable human presence on earth and being environmentally active is more about using less energy, depleting fewer natural resources and consuming fewer goods than it is picking up litter and using renewable energy. Not that those things aren't good also but they are rather small solutions a much wider spectrum of actions necessary to achieve those goals.
I find this post really funny, Brian.
First, I completely disagree with your definition of "creating a more sustainable human presence on earth" as doing what you listed. In order for people not to starve to death, you need to have enough food AND (in this day and age) you need jobs. There's a lot of people on earth. An active economy is necessary.
Second, every single thing you listed...
1) Using less energy
2) Depleting few natural resources
3) Consuming less goods
...has a direct economic cost. In fact, consuming less goods is nonsensically anti-economic growth.
Finally, I don't need for you to define to me what my own goals are. I mentioned that I think it's right to pick up after myself, etc. For example, I pick up six pack containers from the beach, not because they will cause global warming, but because it's gross, they could be wrapped around a bottle neck's nose, ect. That's why I do it. If I ever decide to consult the Book of Brian for environmental advice, you'll be the first to know.
all hail the capitalist consumer society that will fuck us in the end... as if its not on its way to doing so now HAIL!!! HAIL!!1
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Inlet, creating a more sustainable human presence on earth and being environmentally active is more about using less energy, depleting fewer natural resources and consuming fewer goods than it is picking up litter and using renewable energy. Not that those things aren't good also but they are rather small solutions a much wider spectrum of actions necessary to achieve those goals.
First, I completely disagree with your definition of "creating a more sustainable human presence on earth" as doing what you listed. In order for people not to starve to death, you need to have enough food AND (in this day and age) you need jobs. There's a lot of people on earth. An active economy is necessary.
Yes, too many people. Not my doing.
Second, every single thing you listed...
1) Using less energy
2) Depleting few natural resources
3) Consuming less goods
...has a direct economic cost. In fact, consuming less goods is nonsensically anti-economic growth.
One more time: on a planet not suited for human habitat there is no economy. That's nonsensical? As Edward Abbey once said, "growth is the ideology of the cancer cell".
Finally, I don't need for you to define to me what my own goals are. I mentioned that I think it's right to pick up after myself, etc. For example, I pick up six pack containers from the beach, not because they will cause global warming, but because it's gross, they could be wrapped around a bottle neck's nose, ect. That's why I do it. If I ever decide to consult the Book of Brian for environmental advice, you'll be the first to know.
Always my favorite part of your posts- the reprimand.
But seriously-- I don't define goals for others. I'm only responsible for my own actions.
"Book of Brian?" Your post are funny (ha-ha) too. I gave my book to another forum member and he paid me one of the highest complement I've ever received for anything I've written. He said, "You're writing is out of control!" It was a book of poetry and the recipient liked it so much he sent me a Christmas card in July. Sweet!
Jeepers, Inlet, I'm the one who keeps saying were all bozos on this bus. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm not berating you or telling you it's your fault. I'm just disseminating what I believe to be useful information. I'm not looking to get a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize. Not even brownie points. I do it because it's something I care about a lot-- for my kids sake and theirs. Not for me. I'll probably be dead and gone before this ship sinks.
But thanks for challenging me. You at least do so with some thought behind your words and that helps keep me sharp and honest.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
First, I don’t agree that there are too many people at all. We have enough resources, which is evident by the fact that we’ve seen average real incomes (life expectancy, etc) on a steep upward trend worldwide since the dawn of the industrial revolution. But, since you say that you believe there are too many people - what do you suggest we do about too many people? Encourage abortions like China? Have a war? What? I mean - the truth is America, (and EU) are having less children per couple. That's not working out for our welfare system - see social security, as an example. And the EU... well, there kinda f'd.
One more time: on a planet not suited for human habitat there is no economy. That's nonsensical? As Edward Abbey once said, "growth is the ideology of the cancer cell".
My response – the planet is suited for human habitat. That’s why we’re living on it.
What’s nonsensical is your push for people to consume less and think “your creating a more sustainable human presence on earth” by doing such – that’s why I quoted that part and explained exactly that. What you said is quite frankly - bullshit. Moreover, thoughts like that awful quote lend more credence to the theory that hard-core environmentalists are anti-economic growth, and very well possibly even have a socialist/communist agenda. Preaching for people to consume less OF EVERY GOOD is certainly not a capitalist concept – that’s for damn sure.
Always my favorite part of your posts- the reprimand.
But seriously-- I don't define goals for others. I'm only responsible for my own actions.
Reprimand? I asked you to not tell me what to do. I think you don’t realize that you come off as patronizing when you say something like- ehheemmm... inlet, that's not really what a good environmentalist does, you see... x,y and believing completely in global warming is what they do.
But, if you don’t believe you did – then why did you jump in and say the actions that I shared which were pro-environment weren’t good enough, and explain that I needed to do what you defined? That seems like defining goals.
"Book of Brian?" Your post are funny (ha-ha) too. I gave my book to another forum member and he paid me one of the highest complement I've ever received for anything I've written. He said, "You're writing is out of control!" It was a book of poetry and the recipient liked it so much he sent me a Christmas card in July. Sweet!
Fair enough. If I want to read it, I’ll ask you. Don’t wait up though.
I'm the one who keeps saying were all bozos on this bus. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm not berating you or telling you it's your fault. I'm just disseminating what I believe to be useful information. I'm not looking to get a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize. Not even brownie points. I do it because it's something I care about a lot-- for my kids sake and theirs. Not for me. I'll probably be dead and gone before this ship sinks.
You’re 100% entitled to deliver your information. I’m 100% entitled to say your information has flaws, is incorrect, or is down-right propaganda. I don’t mean anything personal by saying that, but I sincerely think you believe you’re open-minded on this subject and the truth is you’re really not. I comment in your threads because I believe there’s hope for you (and potentially other environmentalists) to become a bit more open-minded, however. And that’s a compliment. Because that’s not the case for a lot of folks around here.
First, I don’t agree that there are too many people at all. We have enough resources, which is evident by the fact that we’ve seen average real incomes (life expectancy, etc) on a steep upward trend worldwide since the dawn of the industrial revolution. But, since you say that you believe there are too many people - what do you suggest we do about too many people? Encourage abortions like China? Have a war? What? I mean - the truth is America, (and EU) are having less children per couple. That's not working out for our welfare system - see social security, as an example. And the EU... well, there kinda f'd.
i agree. i think its a management problem. however i do not agree that average incomes and life expectancy are on the rise, and have been since the industrial revolution. this is the viewpoint of someone living in the western hemispehere where everything is bountiful and you have access to top quality health care. not everyone in the world was fortunate enough to be born where you and i were. there are millions of people outside the first world who struggle every single day of their lives... and for what??? i dont know what the answer is.. perhaps people are living in places that cant sustain human life. perhaps theyre not utilising the resources they have.. perhaps they have no resources. perhaps their govts are corrupt.. perhaps western corporations have moved in and taken the wealth of their natural resources whilst paying the native workers a wage that is below the poverty line, so their countrys income is so limited the people are kept in conditions you and i would never tolerate. who the fuck knows? all i know is the system is highly flawed and works for some, not all. but then again its not suppose to work for all is it?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
NPR had a good interview on yesterday about this if anyone is interested. It discussed alot of the points that were brought up previously in this thread.
Comments
Climate change is a socialist agenda?
Where did you find that one??
Everyone has a bias. They are biased. (Sorry- don't mean to be the grammarian.) They're biased towards doing what makes sense- slowing down anthropogenic climate change. Bias isn't always a bad thing, right?
The data part has been provided. I'm not sure you want to hear it.
Two 4's. Have some more coffee. Again, that information has been provided numerous times.
Of course. That's been acknowledged. The issue here is the current anthropogenic climate change.
The economy is more important that out impact on the environment? I don't think I can change your mind about that. Unfortunately my kids and theirs will have to live with the effects of that that kind of thinking. I'm an old fucker so I'll be dead. Kinda blows the "you conservationist/environmentalists are in in for yourselves theory", doesn't it?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Haven't had to.
Yes, there's good reason to believe that someone like Al Gore may have been using this issue to advance his political ideology because it would involve more government control of capitalist enterprise.
In a number of places. Once again, we've had global cooling and heating in the past. Look at history.
Nope. Bias isn't a bad thing if you admit it. As I've said, I think they have an inherent bias and more importantly they don't have the proper means to study what you deem to be man-made contributions via available the data.
What information has been provided? Cows contribution to CO2? Not sure you're right. That concept seems to be dodged.
There's no way to get at this issue. Climate changes. You admit that. It changes even when men aren't involved. One could say that's normal, one could say it's not. The question is what if any does man contribute to it? There's no good way to tackle that problem because it involves counter-factual analysis. You'd need to know what change would occur if all other variables weren't at play, which is impossible. All those other variables are at play.
First, we don't know that we're having a real, large impact on the environment. Climate has been changing since the earth's first days. We've had ice ages and heating before the dawn of economic activity. Second, unfortunately my kids and theirs will have to live with the effects of our government and economy at large wasting boatloads of money (via regulations and inefficient alternatives) on a concept, that if it exists, very well may not be caused by us. I'd like them to have jobs, and having a robust growing economy helps with that. Kinda blows the "you economists are in it for yourselves theory, doesn't it?"
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
We really have reached a stalemate on this one, inlet. Have a good AM, inlet. Catch you on the next thread.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Per the US Energy Information Admin, US CO2 emissions fell by 2.4% in 2011. In three of the past four years, CO2 emission declined. But they figure the decline correlates with the decline in US economic growth is the main reason.
http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
For the record, I'm all for investment in using renewable sources. Even if there are inefficiencies now, advances in technology will overcome and become more efficient then our current energy sources over the course of time. To give up right of the bat is not smart planning.
:idea: :?:
Excellent question, Jason P. I'm pretty much disappointed in the pres. in that regard. He hasn't addressed this issue nearly as much or as well as I and many others would like to see. I'm hoping he will do better next term if there is one.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I certainly agree that employing greener energies is more costly. However, part of the reason for that is because of the amount of subsidies provided to oil and coal companies that offset their costs. So really, we aren't "hurt" economically by continuing to employ the same methods of energy production because the government is picking up the tab, at least in part. What if we started removing those subsidies and applying them to greener energy development, for the long term, so it won't hurt so much down the road? Even if you don't believe in global warming, surely you can see that fossil fuel consumption and production endanger our environment making us ill from breathing in the toxins (ozone action days that trigger asthma attacks for instance - I do NOT have asthma but I have a great deal of difficulty breathing on those days when I run - possibly because of a correlation with air pollutants) or having to spend huge amounts of money to "clean" our water so we can drink it. At the very least, shouldn't we be cleaning our environment so it is safe for us to live in - regardless of global warming?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Not sure if those subsidies outweigh the subsidies directed to "green technologies". Both get subsidies. That said, tell you what... how about we eliminate ALL subsidies? All of them. To green and to oil, etc. Then allow people to choose whatever they want. Sounds like a plan.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
http://news.yahoo.com/warm-arctic-sets- ... 48268.html
Warm Arctic sets record for summer sea ice melt
WASHINGTON (AP) — Critical ice in the Arctic Ocean melted to record low levels this sweltering summer and that can make weather more extreme far away from the poles, scientists say.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Monday that the extent of Arctic sea ice shrank to 1.58 million square miles and is likely to melt more in the coming weeks. That breaks the old record of 1.61 million square miles set in 2007.
The North Pole region is an ocean that mostly is crusted at the top with ice. In the winter, the frozen saltwater surface usually extends about 6 million square miles, shrinking in summer and growing back in the fall. That's different from Antarctica, which is land covered by ice and snow and then surrounded by sea ice.
Normally sea ice in the Arctic reaches its minimum in mid-September and then starts refreezing. But levels on Sunday shrank 27,000 square miles — about the size of West Virginia — beyond the old record.
Figures are based on satellite records dating back to 1979. The ice center bases its figures on averages calculated over five days.
Data center scientist Ted Scambos said the melt can be blamed mostly on global warming from man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. There are natural factors involved too, including a storm that chewed up a significant amount ice earlier this month. But, he said, dramatic summer sea ice losses in all but one year since 2007, continuous thin ice, and warm air temperatures show a pattern that can only be explained by climate change.
"It really does imply that the Arctic is moving to a new state," said NASA ice systems program scientist Tom Wagner. "The Arctic is changing."
Wagner and Scambos said in 2007 some people thought it was just an odd year that caused the dramatic melt, but years like this one show something bigger is happening.
This milestone is a "substantial step" to the day when there will be no significant sea ice in the Arctic in the summer, said NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati.
"Why do we care?," Abdalati, an ice scientist, asked. "This ice has been an important factor in determining the climate and weather conditions under which modern civilization has evolved."
Scientists sometimes call the Arctic the world's refrigerator and this is like leaving the fridge door open, Scambos said.
"This is kind of a knob on global weather," Wagner said. "We don't know the impact yet" of fiddling with it.
Scientists say Arctic sea ice helps moderate temperatures further south in the winter and summer. A study earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters linked some of the factors behind Arctic sea ice loss to higher probabilities of extreme weather "such as drought, flooding, cold spells and heat waves."
Scientists also say sea ice is crucial for polar bears and other animals.
Wagner said the changes in Arctic sea ice fits with glacier loss in Alaska and Canada and ice loss in Greenland. Earlier this summer, NASA satellites reported a dramatic melt in Greenland, where nearly every part of its massive ice sheet started melting, something that last happened in 1889.
Ohio State University ice scientist Jason Box has been monitoring Greenland, where he said temperatures have sometimes been 9 to 18 degrees warmer than normal this summer and the ice is reflecting far less heat — and thus absorbing more energy — than ever before.
Global warming physics for years has been saying if greenhouse gases are causing climate change, the Arctic will feel it first with loss of sea ice and melt in snow and ice on land, Box said.
"We're in a declining trend because the Earth is getting warmer," Scambos said. "It's going to continue to be a series of shrinking ice extents year by year... We're not going back."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I don't understand this "Global Warming Hoax Left Wing Socialism Conspiracy" thing. I mean, what do environmentalists have to gain from this elaborate "hoax?" It just doesn't make sense. I guess as soon as Al Gore got involved all the righties had a boogieman to rail against. I kind of remember environmentalism being a mostly bipartisan movement, but I guess those days are long gone.
You mentioned CO2/methane emissions from cows. This is not ignored, and one reason for the push to eat less meat is to help the environment.
My personal opinion on climate change is that it's already here and we really can't do much about it, even if half our country wasn't denying it (and much of the world doesn't give a shit, like China). I think us environmentalists ought to focus on more local issues like making sure fracking is limited or at least is done safely (if possible), rather than running uphill against the wind on this issue.
The assumption that renewable energy is "more costly" than, say oil & gas, doesn't consider the massive government subsidies that go to the oil & gas industries, compared to a pittance that goes to wind/solar. Obviously it also doesn't consider the environmental damage done by those industries.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
I'm not sure what you mean by "outweigh" so if I'm incorrect please let me know. By sheer dollar amount given in subsidies, oil and gas far "outweigh" what is given to renewable energy sources.
http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2011/09/historical-energy-subsidies-e1317160045713.png
If, by outweigh, you mean renewables receive subsidies just like non-renewables then, yes, that is correct. However, let's not forget the amount of money (much of which has been public money) that has been spent on clean up to fix the problems created by non-renewable energy sources. Let's also not forget the amount of money spent to alleviate health problems that are brought about because of the use of of non-renewables. Those factors are not always acknowledged when discussing how "cheap" non-renewables are.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Couple things: electricity isn't renewable, for example... yet some consider it "green". Some argue electric cars are worse for the environment than gas-using autos. Also, I don't know of an automobile, for example, that runs on true "renewables". I'd totally think the advent of a reasonably priced renewable energy car would be fantastic.
Anyway, what I meant by "outweigh" was, of course, as a percentage of the total use. You can't compare something that isn't used often, to something that's used frequently without looking at percentages.
So, at the end of the day, my point was - let's get rid of subsidies all together. You're claiming they're making an uneven playing field for "non-renewables" because they get subsidies. I responded so do "green technologies". You then broke this into renewables vs. non-renewables (which isn't exactly the same thing) and said renewables don't get as much in total $ value. I don't really agree with that because I know "renewables" are also getting a load of subsidies, in fact - I'd bet they get more as a percentage of total use. So, my point still is - if you REALLY BELIEVE - subsidies are slanted towards oil and gas, why not say - ok to the proposition of banning energy subsidies in their entirety. That way, green technologies would be used more, right? Not sure you even believe that.
As for medical costs, I'm not sure of the scale. I'd agree there may be health concerns associated with non-renewable energy. But, I also know, for certain, there are health concerns with a poor economy. So, before you judge, hear me out. I'm all for use of renewable resources "if" they don't deplete the economy. There's all sorts of negative consequences when the economy turns south. That's why I'm saying, level the playing field... no subsidies for anything whatsoever. Then - create an energy that's MORE cost-effective than oil. That will get my vote, I'll buy it. I have no attachment to oil whatsoever. I just buy it because a gallon is slightly higher priced than a gallon of water I buy at the store, so low priced in relative terms to any alternatives.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Personally, I'd argue - I, for example, am very pro-environment. You probably would say I'm not. But, I don't litter. I clean up. I recycle. I see there being good involved with doing that sort of thing. I love the ocean. I treat it well and when I was a lifeguard I would get publicly pissed and confront people when they litter by it. I'm pretty good there.
That said, I don't completely buy global warming as a man-made reality - and yes, I see there a serious reason for those who want a larger government, to involve themselves in this camp. I've already explained it a multitude of times to you within this thread, but to quickly reiterate the point in a brief way - the "existence" or "thought of existence" of man-made global warming creates the "thought" of urgent need to "regulate". In other words, a normal person who otherwise would be opposed to regulation, may support it "if" they bought in to the concept of man-made global warming. If you believe regulation is a good thing and our country and maybe the world needs more governmental involvement... this would make a logical platform for your ideology. Even if a policymaker doesn't buy into the global warming existence, a policy maker (who's a socialist at heart) may see reason to support it and tout it because they most likely believe there's absolutely no harm done whatsoever by backing these policies AND it would provide more a fertile field to plant regulatory (or government involvement) seeds.
You don't have to agree with this at all and you can certainly say you don't think this is happening, but to act as though there's no incentive for this to be the case is insincere. I gave you a good rationale several times now.
I try to refrain from eating meat a lot. My wife pushes this. So, I guess I may be more pro-environment than many meat eaters.
No, but seriously, there isn't a large "governmental" "regulatory" push to alter cow emissions or limit cows in general. If you act as though there is, you're simply lying to yourself.
What's your issue with fracking? And what type of alternatives (oil-oriented) would you prefer?
I've covered this already in a response to riotgrl - you can read that for more. As a percentage of use, I'd bet heavily that the percentage is much higher for renewables than oil and gas. But, I'm all for killing subsidies in the entirety. I don't think we should be subsidizing anything whatsoever. Remember we're broke. So, borrowing to subsidize is crazy. Further, I'm all for using non-renewables if they are cheaper with no government help. I'll even say I'd probably choose their use over renewables if they were just touch more expensive and just as efficient. Problem is - they're not.
Also, just a side note to chew on, non-renewable resources are used to produce renewable energy resources. Something to think about.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Exactly, I have always wondered what happened to the word conserve in conservative. How someone conservative minded could be against the environmental movement. None of this makes sense to me.
On the one hand, yes, I would like all subsidies to end so, theoretically, it would level the playing field. However, I have doubt that it would happen. I'm not sure how ending subsidies would create more use of green technologies, as you state. Green technologies are still going to be more expensive because they are still relatively new and not as widespread (for example, in KY we can't really harness wind power the same way the Plains states can and solar power is certainly viable as well as water but we would have to create the infrastructure and systems to handle the load or better yet, create something completely new as you stated before). And I also wonder, if we still have gas and oil, will people really move towards alternative energy without some incentive? In theory, I agree with what you've said. I just don't know if I trust that "the market" will bear out the cost and incentives the way you seem to.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
just so you know, the netherlands and holland are the same country.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
everything you said here is a perfect summary of an article I read in this month's National Geographic. It's scarey stuff.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
then who are the dutch?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
People who work at Dutch Wonderland.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Being of Dutch ancestry myself, my family wasn't from Holland.
yep, i know it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I find this post really funny, Brian.
First, I completely disagree with your definition of "creating a more sustainable human presence on earth" as doing what you listed. In order for people not to starve to death, you need to have enough food AND (in this day and age) you need jobs. There's a lot of people on earth. An active economy is necessary.
Second, every single thing you listed...
1) Using less energy
2) Depleting few natural resources
3) Consuming less goods
...has a direct economic cost. In fact, consuming less goods is nonsensically anti-economic growth.
Finally, I don't need for you to define to me what my own goals are. I mentioned that I think it's right to pick up after myself, etc. For example, I pick up six pack containers from the beach, not because they will cause global warming, but because it's gross, they could be wrapped around a bottle neck's nose, ect. That's why I do it. If I ever decide to consult the Book of Brian for environmental advice, you'll be the first to know.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
all hail the capitalist consumer society that will fuck us in the end... as if its not on its way to doing so now HAIL!!! HAIL!!1
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Where do you live? Is it capitalism or government that's fucking you and your people? But, regardless...
...seriously...
...what's the alternative to capitalism that you suggest we adopt?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Yes, too many people. Not my doing.
One more time: on a planet not suited for human habitat there is no economy. That's nonsensical? As Edward Abbey once said, "growth is the ideology of the cancer cell".
Always my favorite part of your posts- the reprimand.
But seriously-- I don't define goals for others. I'm only responsible for my own actions.
"Book of Brian?" Your post are funny (ha-ha) too. I gave my book to another forum member and he paid me one of the highest complement I've ever received for anything I've written. He said, "You're writing is out of control!" It was a book of poetry and the recipient liked it so much he sent me a Christmas card in July. Sweet!
Jeepers, Inlet, I'm the one who keeps saying were all bozos on this bus. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm not berating you or telling you it's your fault. I'm just disseminating what I believe to be useful information. I'm not looking to get a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize. Not even brownie points. I do it because it's something I care about a lot-- for my kids sake and theirs. Not for me. I'll probably be dead and gone before this ship sinks.
But thanks for challenging me. You at least do so with some thought behind your words and that helps keep me sharp and honest.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Both?
First, I don’t agree that there are too many people at all. We have enough resources, which is evident by the fact that we’ve seen average real incomes (life expectancy, etc) on a steep upward trend worldwide since the dawn of the industrial revolution. But, since you say that you believe there are too many people - what do you suggest we do about too many people? Encourage abortions like China? Have a war? What? I mean - the truth is America, (and EU) are having less children per couple. That's not working out for our welfare system - see social security, as an example. And the EU... well, there kinda f'd.
My response – the planet is suited for human habitat. That’s why we’re living on it.
What’s nonsensical is your push for people to consume less and think “your creating a more sustainable human presence on earth” by doing such – that’s why I quoted that part and explained exactly that. What you said is quite frankly - bullshit. Moreover, thoughts like that awful quote lend more credence to the theory that hard-core environmentalists are anti-economic growth, and very well possibly even have a socialist/communist agenda. Preaching for people to consume less OF EVERY GOOD is certainly not a capitalist concept – that’s for damn sure.
Reprimand? I asked you to not tell me what to do. I think you don’t realize that you come off as patronizing when you say something like- ehheemmm... inlet, that's not really what a good environmentalist does, you see... x,y and believing completely in global warming is what they do.
But, if you don’t believe you did – then why did you jump in and say the actions that I shared which were pro-environment weren’t good enough, and explain that I needed to do what you defined? That seems like defining goals.
Fair enough. If I want to read it, I’ll ask you. Don’t wait up though.
You’re 100% entitled to deliver your information. I’m 100% entitled to say your information has flaws, is incorrect, or is down-right propaganda. I don’t mean anything personal by saying that, but I sincerely think you believe you’re open-minded on this subject and the truth is you’re really not. I comment in your threads because I believe there’s hope for you (and potentially other environmentalists) to become a bit more open-minded, however. And that’s a compliment. Because that’s not the case for a lot of folks around here.
I’m up for the task. That’s what this place is here for.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i agree. i think its a management problem. however i do not agree that average incomes and life expectancy are on the rise, and have been since the industrial revolution. this is the viewpoint of someone living in the western hemispehere where everything is bountiful and you have access to top quality health care. not everyone in the world was fortunate enough to be born where you and i were. there are millions of people outside the first world who struggle every single day of their lives... and for what??? i dont know what the answer is.. perhaps people are living in places that cant sustain human life. perhaps theyre not utilising the resources they have.. perhaps they have no resources. perhaps their govts are corrupt.. perhaps western corporations have moved in and taken the wealth of their natural resources whilst paying the native workers a wage that is below the poverty line, so their countrys income is so limited the people are kept in conditions you and i would never tolerate. who the fuck knows? all i know is the system is highly flawed and works for some, not all. but then again its not suppose to work for all is it?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/11/160952352/arctic-sea-ice-melt-sets-record
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE