The New Global Warming Thread

[Kerostasis]

Actually, I prefer to spend my time in the US, widely touted to be the primary driving force behind global warming, where the atmosphere is pristine and I have untouched forests just a short distance from my house.

Depending on who you ask, sometimes the US comes in a close second to China at "destroying the environment", but I think it's still good enough to serve as an example, don't you?

[marstein]

Actually, I prefer to spend my time in the US, ... it's still good enough to serve as an example, don't you?

It is nice here. I also have a forest behind the house. And there are beautiful parks too. It is great to be able to experience the wild.

[CingularDuality]

But there was an article in GEO a german magazine about 600 scientists from 40 nations collectively saying that climate change is happening, it is man-made and that it is going to continue.

See, there's the problem. 600 scientists is a very small percentage of scientists that are involved in studying our climate. And the media has ensured that any scientists that present conflicting theories are labeled as "paid for" because their grants came from sources that stand to benefit from their research (which is understandable, that's where most research money comes from...).

Especially since this thread was started, I've been skimming reports and reading articles. I still haven't seen any evidence to indicate that anyone knows whether or not our global warming is definitively linked to human causes. LOTS of articles and theories are based on that assumption, however, and on the surface, it would seem to be a safe assumption to make. I don't think that it's healthy for scientific research on a topic such as this to be based on such an assumption.

Yes, it can't hurt to live "greener". And I would certainly encourage everyone to do so whenever possible. But I have a problem when other people want to force me to live a certain way in the name of an impending disaster based on an assumption.

I can't help but wonder if these scientists think that us "commoners" are too stupid to understand the need to change our lifestyle and are playing up the doom and gloom in order to scare our MTV generation into at least making small changes towards a greener lifestyle. If that's the case, I dislike the dishonesty, but can understand the need to sensationalize the problem in order to get people's attention away from American Idol and Dancing with the Stars for ten seconds.

[USN_Squid]

A majority of scientists agree that humans are neck deep involved in this.

Survey: Fewer than half of scientists endorse man-made global warming...

[leejo]

"Better do what he says. He's a whale biologist!"

[GhostintheShell]

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei

"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true were really true, there would be little hope of advance."
Orville Wright

[marstein]

See, there's the problem. 600 scientists is a very small percentage of scientists that are involved in studying our climate. And the media has ensured that any scientists that present conflicting theories are labeled as "paid for" because their grants came from sources that stand to benefit from their research (which is understandable, that's where most research money comes from...).
[...]
I can't help but wonder if these scientists think that us "commoners" are too stupid to understand the need to change our lifestyle and are playing up the doom and gloom in order to scare our MTV generation into at least making small changes towards a greener lifestyle. If that's the case, I dislike the dishonesty, but can understand the need to sensationalize the problem in order to get people's attention away from American Idol and Dancing with the Stars for ten seconds.

Well, the 600 scientists were rounded up by the UN. I would say they are at least somewhat trustworthy.

I don't really see the huge gains that a few people could make from global warming. New businesses would have to be created and some companies certainly would profit. But no conspiracy.
OTH the oil companies, agricultural interests (logging) would be hurt by moving away from brown to green. That seems like the more likely scenario.

Being forced to do something is not nice. People accept it when big things are at stake. Think about women joining the workforce for WW2 and food and fuel rationing during that time. It was a sacrifice people made because the had a cause. From that point of view it is extra important to make the science clear. Still, I'd rather err on the side of caution. The things government can do (and is already doing - oil companies get tax breaks and corn, cotton, etc are subsidized). Just shift subsidies more into green could be a start. Your government doesn't tell you to drink sodas (Backspace, backspace) to get fat - it subsidizes corn from which they make corn syrup.

[AMosely]

That requires the assumption that any impact we have must necessarily be a negative impact. What if we impact the environment in a positive way? Would you still assert that we should minimize that impact?

Probably, and I had this in mind when I wrote the post. I am a believer in the leave no trace philosophy when it comes to the Earth because as much as we think we are close to a fuller understanding of nature's systems, we are consistently surprised. Many mistakes have been made in the name of 'positively' affecting natural systems - from the destruction of native plant and animal species deemed 'pests' to the overruse of antbiotic and antibacterial chemicals. Our species is not enlightened enough to make such distinctions.

[Nikolas]

Imagine an egalitarian world in which all food is organic and local, the air is free of industrial pollution, and vigorous physical exertion is guaranteed. Sound idyllic?

But hold on... Life expectancy is 30 at most; many children die at or soon after birth; life is constantly lived on the edge of starvation; there are no doctors or dentists or modern toilets. If it is egalitarian it is because everyone is dirt poor, and there is no industrial pollution because there are no factories. Food is organic because there are no pesticides or high technology farming methods. As a result, producing food means long hours of back-breaking physical work which may end up yielding little.

There is - or at least was - such a place. It is called the past.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p...s_article/3752

[marstein]

Act quickly? What government they talking about? One not invented yet?

Well, folks, there’s another United Nations report due out this fall. Today Reuters tells what’s in the research summary that will shape that report. Reuters saw a “table indicating worsening damage such as bleached corals, coastal flooding, increasing costs of treating disease, deaths from heatwaves and rising risks of extinctions of species of animals and plants.”
The report also says a centuries-long rise in sea levels is inevitable. Beachfront property for sale now in Baton Rouge and Poughkeepsie.

And yes Tybalt, we have made a lot of advances and no one says that the past is what we want to go back to. Just keep the good aspects. And when you look at the 25% obesity rate and the 15% of people without health insurance at all in the richest country in the world you wonder if all features of our present world were well thought out.

[CingularDuality]

Well, the 600 scientists were rounded up by the UN. I would say they are at least somewhat trustworthy.

Oh, dear... I believe I'm very close to ending discussion with you about this.

Close mindedness is not a virtue.

Keep drinking the koolaid. The UN is not corrupt. SUVs are destroying the world.

[AMosely]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p...s_article/3752

I am unsure where you're going with this Tybalt. You might try explaining your interpretation or intentions when you submit an article like that. Is it your intention to praise the benefits of technologically advanced society, or to discredit negativity about growth? I doubt you'll find too many dissenters among these ranks, however, you're mistaken if you believe that all progress is good. This is an incredibly complex issue, one that hundreds of economists struggle with on a daily basis.

As Ben-Ami says in this comment piece you posted, for critics of 'popular prosperity,' "the erosion of scarcity has substantial costs as well as benefits." There is no scientific or statistical precedent for his disagreement with this statement because the cost of prosperity for a few is deeper scarcity for the rest. The benefits of 20th century economic globalization have not come without substantial cost. It is estimated that starvation kills at least 30,000 people per day worldwide - this alone is an indication that the current age of abundance has not come without cost. Just because you, as a citizen of a 'prosperous' country, doesn't pay that cost does not mean it is not a cost. Similar comparisons hold true for environmental costs as well.

With regard to the effect of the global economy (and economic globalization) on the health of the human population (and again this could be extended to include planetary health), we are at a period in history where change is needed in order to balance the benefits (or prosperity) of the global free market. The big question is who or what will stand up as a catalyst for this change, and how they can push through the corporate sponsored, private-interest preservationist barricades put up in their way.

Oddly enough, one of the most successful free market capitalists has been stepping up for a while. Bill Gates spoke at Harvard's commencement this year and directed most of his comments at this very issue:

So we began our work in the same way anyone here would begin it. We asked: “How could the world let these children die?”

The answer is simple, and harsh. The market did not reward saving the lives of these children, and governments did not subsidize it. So the children died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voice in the system.

But you and I have both.

We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities. We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes.

I can only hope that it is not too late for society to confront the economic greed and imbalance that we all live with today. No, the answer isn't just locally grown organic produce, but it most certainly isn't unrestrained global free-market capitalism either.

Lastly, I would like to point out that as the curtains closed on America's last half-century of unbridled prosperity, we still find an increasingly growing population of overweight, overmedicated, undereducated and ostensibly poor citizens who depend on food stamps and fast food to survive. Is this the prosperity of the future? If so, I'll take my chances with the past.

[Nikolas]

Yes, clearly people starving to death in Africa is caused by our prosperity.

[RandomGuy]

the cost of prosperity for a few is deeper scarcity for the rest

The first world did not get to a state of abundance by taking food from the mouths of third-world children. If you were given the choice between "everybody starves" and "some starve, some grow fat" would you choose "everybody starves" because it is more balanced?

I think tacking on this social commentary really weakens your points on the environment.

[AMosely]

Yes, clearly people starving to death in Africa is caused by our prosperity.

If you're going to talk about issues from the perspective of the human race, you need to stop using terms like 'our' or 'theirs.'

You're also misinterpreting the point I was making, which is 'our' prosperity (the imbalanced prosperity of a few) has failed to prevent the misery of others. Globally, it is therefore incorrect to claim that humanity has overcome scarcity - while some are living better, others are living much, much worse.