Global Warming, As A Religion

[BHS]

PocketRocket

Sorry I didn't reply directly to your post. It's a good one, and I think I'll just let it stand without comment, except to disagree about the last bit about the oil companies being responsible for a lack of interest in emerging technologies.

The oil market is very tight; while it's lucrative, it's also very competitive. If any of those companies could find a way to make wind or solar technology as profitable as oil they be would there in a heartbeat, and I'm sure they've done the research to know if it's possible.

I think one of two things has to happen first: either new materials technology (I'm thinking nanotech here) has to be developed to push the energy yield of these sources up to become competitive with oil and coal, or the price of oil and coal has to go so high that wind and solar (and hopefully hydrogen) look good by comparison. It's not expected that the latter event will come true any time soon, so let's hope for the former.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

People who favour the market-based (consumerist) approach to solving problems place their trust directly in the choices made by individuals, counting on their collective choices adding up to the right decision

it does have a history of actually providing a working solution to whatever problem it is applied to.

The problem is, well...consumerism. So how could consumerism be used to defeat itself?

To save time I will use the word 'pollution' to describe that which mankind creates which is harmful to the environment, and to the life on the planet (including humans) that depend on it. (I realize that CO2 itself is not 'harmful' in certain amounts, but that an excess of it is).

The profit motive dictates that goods for consumption need to be made as cheaply as possible and sold for the highest cost possible. To make things as cheaply as possible, and to sell them en masse (also cheaply to entice the consumer) the best way would be to have no environmental laws whatsoever. Dumping chemicals directly into streams, rivers, watersheds, etc would enhance profit by lowering costs. China is a wonderful example of this, India isn't far behind. The only thing to stop this behaviour cannot be found in the consumer, it is unfortunately 'legal regulation'.

The 'redistribution of wealth' hokum isn't entirely true, mostly a scare tactic. Large corporations already pick and choose and outsource to the most favourable countries (based on said profit motive) and keep their head offices and distribution centres in the 'West' anyway.

[Black Dog]

People who favour the market-based (consumerist) approach to solving problems place their trust directly in the choices made by individuals, counting on their collective choices adding up to the right decision. While this approach isn't as sexy as big, save-the-world international hug festivals for jet-setting politicos and their NGO counterparts, it does have a history of actually providing a working solution to whatever problem it is applied to.

Forgetting of course, that the judgment of individuals and the narrow focus of humans is what created so many environmental problems in the first place.

Wrong. You'll actually be taking your chances with the status quo. Kyoto was never intended to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the case can be made that even if Kyoto were fully implemented, polluting industries would just move to countries not required to comply. As such, the argument can and has been made that it's really a wealth redistribution scheme masquerading as environmental protectionism. Besides which, neither Kyoto or it's proposed successors look likely to ever be fully implemented.

You're misconstruing my belief in the validity of human-caused global warming with a belief in Kyoto. That's just wrong.

[cybercoma]

I think regulations need to be placed on farmers to reduce the amount of farting their cattle do. The methane gas is certainly a contributer to the greenhouse effect, that can't be argued.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

I think regulations need to be placed on farmers to reduce the amount of farting their cattle do. The methane gas is certainly a contributer to the greenhouse effect, that can't be argued.

You are right, it can't be argued.

from...

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

It is estimated that 60% of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities (IPCC, 2001c). Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires.

Of the human related production, livestock and the manure from it accounts for some 25% of total methane production.

We humans 'waste' more than nature itself produces. A lot more.

As to the 'farting' bit, the EPA calls it "Exhaling the byproduct of Enteric Fermentation". I like the term 'exhaling' too, though my wife and I usually use 'windy-pants'.

No worries, though, cows suffer from a tragic affliction that takes a terrible toll on their numbers every year. Their own deliciousness.

[Guest eureka]

And as the permafrost melts, methane emission grows.

[speaker]

Interesting, but I disagree. There are two very different approaches to problem solving being compared here.

People who favour Kyoto are advocating massive government interference in the private behaviours and preferences of individual consumers. Kyoto is an agreement created in a top-down fashion that purorts to have identified the cause for a problem and assumes it can be fixed by government regulation. There is no evidence that the problem exists, and in any case Kyoto was not designed to be a solution, but rather the first step toward a series of more and more intrusive international regulations. (Say, who're the globalists here?)

People who favour the market-based (consumerist) approach to solving problems place their trust directly in the choices made by individuals, counting on their collective choices adding up to the right decision. While this approach isn't as sexy as big, save-the-world international hug festivals for jet-setting politicos and their NGO counterparts, it does have a history of actually providing a working solution to whatever problem it is applied to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blackdog and theloniusfleabag have each responded with good comment. i'll just add that a phenomenal quantity of the good old green goes out to consumers for their consumption in the form of propaganda, which is way better than anything goebbels or his allied counterparts could have done in the second world war, and look how successful they were. A person can't even turn around without being enviegled to buy, spend, surpass the proverbial Jones's.

It's enough to leave a person somewhat befuddled about the appropriateness of their behaviour, and the wisdom of leaving responsibility for tomorrow. No, the manipulators are evident all right, and if the environmentalists are learning the tricks of the corporate system of governance who can blame them.

[BHS]

Dear BHS,

People who favour the market-based (consumerist) approach to solving problems place their trust directly in the choices made by individuals, counting on their collective choices adding up to the right decision

it does have a history of actually providing a working solution to whatever problem it is applied to.

The problem is, well...consumerism. So how could consumerism be used to defeat itself?

To save time I will use the word 'pollution' to describe that which mankind creates which is harmful to the environment, and to the life on the planet (including humans) that depend on it. (I realize that CO2 itself is not 'harmful' in certain amounts, but that an excess of it is).

The profit motive dictates that goods for consumption need to be made as cheaply as possible and sold for the highest cost possible. To make things as cheaply as possible, and to sell them en masse (also cheaply to entice the consumer) the best way would be to have no environmental laws whatsoever. Dumping chemicals directly into streams, rivers, watersheds, etc would enhance profit by lowering costs. China is a wonderful example of this, India isn't far behind. The only thing to stop this behaviour cannot be found in the consumer, it is unfortunately 'legal regulation'.

The 'redistribution of wealth' hokum isn't entirely true, mostly a scare tactic. Large corporations already pick and choose and outsource to the most favourable countries (based on said profit motive) and keep their head offices and distribution centres in the 'West' anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What you and BD seem to be forgetting is that the environmental movement started in and has been most effective in democratic, capitalist countries. We began addressing the problems caused by pollution decades ago, and our pollution control regulations have changed the way we interact with the environment for the better. We have managed to do this by identifying problems, putting appropriate regulations in place, encouraging manufacturers to come up with new techniques and technologies, and encouraging consumers to reward companies that produce cleaner products.

Your post implies that consumers are mindless and greedy. This is simply not true. While consumers appreciate low cost and convenience, they also place a high premium on health and the cleanliness of their surroundings.

Another part of the redistribution of wealth aspect is the trading of pollution credits. Please note that the idea of lowering CO2 output to 6% below 1990 is related to the fall of the Soviet Union and subsequent collapse of their economy. For Russia to produce 6% less CO2 than it did in 1990 it would have to increase it's production substantially. Buying credits from Russia and other former communist countries is merely a ploy to make economic subsidies a permanent part of our government spending.

[speaker]

[

What you and BD seem to be forgetting is that the environmental movement started in and has been most effective in democratic, capitalist countries. We began addressing the problems caused by pollution decades ago, and our pollution control regulations have changed the way we interact with the environment for the better. We have managed to do this by identifying problems, putting appropriate regulations in place, encouraging manufacturers to come up with new techniques and technologies, and encouraging consumers to reward companies that produce cleaner products.

Your post implies that consumers are mindless and greedy. This is simply not true. While consumers appreciate low cost and convenience, they also place a high premium on health and the cleanliness of their surroundings.

Another part of the redistribution of wealth aspect is the trading of pollution credits. Please note that the idea of lowering CO2 output to 6% below 1990 is related to the fall of the Soviet Union and subsequent collapse of their economy. For Russia to produce 6% less CO2 than it did in 1990 it would have to increase it's production substantially. Buying credits from Russia and other former communist countries is merely a ploy to make economic subsidies a permanent part of our government spending.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am more inclined to believe that environmentalism has been most effective in democratic and wealthy nations, you shouldn't assume that capitalism has led to wealth.

The natural resources that we have are the sustainable wealth that has made capitalists rich. It is the recoghnition that our resources are not being treated in a sustainable manner that has required environmental regulations that have been resisted by kicking and screaming, single minded and greedy corporate interests.

Quite a few people seem to think that pollution or carbon sequestration credits have to be purchased outside the country. While this may be true in small heavily industrialized countries I think it is fairly likely that Canada has the capacity to keep it's money within Canada, and sell credits to the States for example. There is a whale of a pile of farm and forest land in this country that could afford to absorb a bunch of carbon.

[sharkman]

the environmentalism movement has been tremendously successful in most modern free countries. (For instance, the founder of Greenpeace quit the organization in the 80s, I believe becuase all his goals had been met.) But instead of going to protest countries that ignore environmental practices like most African dictatorships, China, Russia and the like, environmentalists are content to stay at home and grumble about Alaska drilling. I'm still waiting to see protestors in China chaining themselves to the site of the industrial accident that caused that huge chemical spill, but it'll never happen. That's where the worst offenders are but they'll stay here and riot during those world trade conferences instead.

[cybercoma]

what was this in the paper the other day about the currents in the atlantic changing, which will possibly cause an ice age for the northern hemisphere?

Hrmm.....global warming my butt.

[speaker]

Cybercoma, are you referring to the story about northern Europe possibly seeing longer and colder winters because of the change in the atlantic currents caused by increased levels of ice melt in the Arctic, caused by global warming?

Global warming is a generalized term about an overall temperature gain by the planet as a whole. It does not mean that we are all going to benefit or suffer because of being warmer. We don't understand what the worlds reaction to increased heat will be because of the complexity of interaction.

What seems evident however is that global warming will cause climate change and more site specifically, increasingly erratic weather.

[Black Dog]

But instead of going to protest countries that ignore environmental practices like most African dictatorships, China, Russia and the like, environmentalists are content to stay at home and grumble about Alaska drilling.

This is patently false. The environmental movement (btw, you cpuld tyy being a little more specific) is a global movement which includes transnational organizations like Greenpeace, but also countless local, grassroots groups. You here more about North MAerican groups and their campaigns here beause it's happening here. Local environmental movements in other countries don't get much play in the world press (with some exceptions, such as Nigerians' anti-Shell campaigns).

I'm still waiting to see protestors in China chaining themselves to the site of the industrial accident that caused that huge chemical spill, but it'll never happen.

Well, if they did, they'd probably be arrested and likely disappeared.

[BHS]

I am more inclined to believe that environmentalism has been most effective in democratic and wealthy nations,  you shouldn't assume that capitalism has led to wealth.

The natural resources that we have are the sustainable wealth that has made capitalists rich.  It is the recoghnition that our resources are not being treated in a sustainable manner that has required environmental regulations that have been resisted by kicking and screaming, single minded and greedy corporate interests.

Quite a few people seem to think that pollution or carbon sequestration credits have to be purchased outside the country.  While this may be true in small heavily industrialized countries I think it is fairly likely that Canada has the capacity to keep it's money within Canada, and sell credits to the States for example.  There is a whale of a pile of farm and forest land in this country that could afford to absorb a bunch of carbon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A couple of points:

I can't prove that capitalism=wealth in absolute terms. I can only point out that the highest standards of living (including per capita wealth, education, freedom of thought/speech/movement etc.) have been achieved in countries that are most supportive of capitalism, while the most inhumane conditions are routinely found in countries that try hardest to rid themselves of capitalist influence.

Russia has within it's territory as much natural wealth as either America or Canada has, so why aren't the Russians as rich as we are? Dearth of capitalists, perhaps? And despite lacking these capitalists, their attempts to exploit their natural resources have resulted in some of the worst environmental conditions on the planet. If you doubt me, I suggest you go for a swim in the Volga River. FYI that was the first link on a Google search using "Volga River" as the search parameters.

And finally, two points about pollution credits: 1) We can't sell credits to the Americans, even if they were dumb enough to buy them. They aren't participating in Kyoto and aren't subject to any penalties for failing to meet Kyoto's targets. 2) At my last recollection, the other signatories to Kyoto were disputing the value of Canada's forests as CO2 sinks, and when push comes to shove the trees probably won't be worth nearly as much as we'd like to think they are (under that agreement). Even if we could prove by scientific means a high rate of CO2 absorbtion by our forests, it wouldn't matter to the Kyotophiles.

Kyoto is not about finding pratical solutions to pollution and environmental damage. It's about strengthening the environmentalist movement's hold on international politics, and transfering wealth from productive economies that were built in freedom to unproductive economies that were built (destroyed?) under authoritarian regimes.

[speaker]

A couple of points:

I can't prove that capitalism=wealth in absolute terms. I can only point out that the highest standards of living (including per capita wealth, education, freedom of thought/speech/movement etc.) have been achieved in countries that are most supportive of capitalism, while the most inhumane conditions are routinely found in countries that try hardest to rid themselves of capitalist influence.

Russia has within it's territory as much natural wealth as either America or Canada has, so why aren't the Russians as rich as we are? Dearth of capitalists, perhaps? And despite lacking these capitalists, their attempts to exploit their natural resources have resulted in some of the worst environmental conditions on the planet. If you doubt me, I suggest you go for a swim in the Volga River. FYI that was the first link on a Google search using "Volga River" as the search parameters.

And finally, two points about pollution credits: 1) We can't sell credits to the Americans, even if they were dumb enough to buy them. They aren't participating in Kyoto and aren't subject to any penalties for failing to meet Kyoto's targets. 2) At my last recollection, the other signatories to Kyoto were disputing the value of Canada's forests as CO2 sinks, and when push comes to shove the trees probably won't be worth nearly as much as we'd like to think they are (under that agreement). Even if we could prove by scientific means a high rate of CO2 absorbtion by our forests, it wouldn't matter to the Kyotophiles.

Kyoto is not about finding pratical solutions to pollution and environmental damage. It's about strengthening the environmentalist movement's hold on international politics, and transfering wealth from productive economies that were built in freedom to unproductive economies that were built (destroyed?) under authoritarian regimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Democratic government has more to do with environmental awareness than style of democracy. and wealth is a factor in the ability to affect political direction, and the more wealth the more power. It could be argued that under Kruschev and the Party in Russia personal wealth wasn't a factor, but I don't believe that one, but I do believe that the USSR was so wrapped up in surviving the cold war that they ignored the omens of environmental disasters by suppressing dissent. It is likely that the Russians are even wealthier than we are given the resources that haven't been exploited or dedicated yet. The fact that we have turned our wealth into consumer goods doesn't make us richer, just more ostentatious.

We are selling carbon credits to American companies, or were the last I looked, Land that was in forest or agricultural production is being guaranteed as carbon sinks to Companies that are voluntarily looking for ways to lessen their impact on the globe. There just aren't enough willing to take the step voluntarily, thus the regulations. My impression is that the argument arises that anything that is presently a carbon sink shouldn't be counted as sellable credit as it is already part of the earth common. It has to be land planted now.

I'm sure that Kyoto is as many things to it's proponents as it is to it's detractors. Some on both sides see it as a way to equalize the growing disparity and some see it as being what it was arranged to be, a chance to start reversing the threat of man-induced global warming

[Guest eureka]

A point on carbon sinks! Mature forests are carbon neutral: only growing trees use more CO2 than they emit.

[BHS]

Democratic government has more to do with environmental awareness than style of democracy.  and wealth is a factor in the ability to affect political direction, and the more wealth the more power.  It could be argued that under Kruschev and the Party in Russia personal wealth wasn't a factor, but I don't believe that one, but I do believe that the USSR was so wrapped up in surviving the cold war that they ignored the omens of environmental disasters by suppressing dissent.  It is likely that the Russians are even wealthier than we are given the resources that haven't been exploited or dedicated yet.  The fact that we have turned our wealth into consumer goods doesn't make us richer, just more ostentatious.

I'm having a little trouble deciphering your meaning here. Your first sentence doesn't make any sense to me at all. After that, I'm pretty much lost until the sentence beginning "It is likely...". But even by the end of this paragraph, I can't decide what you mean by wealth. Is it good for the Russians to have wealth that they aren't using? If you possess something that you are unable to use or enjoy, is it still considered wealth? If I sit starving to death on a mountain of gold, am I really wealthy? Where are the lines between a poor standard of living, a good standard of living, and an ostentacious lifestyle? If you and I have similar needs, and you live in a hovel, and I live in a bigger hovel, am I more ostentacious than you?

We are selling carbon credits to American companies, or were the last I looked,  Land that was in forest or agricultural production is being guaranteed as carbon sinks to Companies that are voluntarily looking for ways to lessen their impact on the globe.  There just aren't enough willing to take the step voluntarily,  thus the regulations.  My impression is that the argument arises that anything that is presently a carbon sink shouldn't be counted as sellable credit as it is already part of the earth common.  It has to be land planted now.

That's an interesting point, and I believe it helps to fuel my argument. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997, but it conveniently backdates emissions targets to 1990, when the Soviet Union was still cranking out an enormous amount of pollution. So former members of the Soviet Union, whose pollution output was seriously curtailed by the collapse of their economies, get to benefit from no-longer existant set of circumstances instead of the way they were in 1997 for the purposes of emissions targets, whereas our forests are considered part of the "global condition" and we can only apply for extra credit for forests that were planted after 1997.

I'm sure that Kyoto is as many things to it's proponents as it is to it's detractors.  Some on both sides see it as a way to equalize the growing disparity and some see it as being what it was arranged to be,  a chance to start reversing the threat of man-induced global warming

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you reverse a threat? That's like unsaying a word. A more correct turn of phrase would be "reverse the damage", but then you'd have the more onerous task of providing concrete examples damage that has already been done and which hasn't already been addressed. Better to invoke scary future-tense scenarios based on plausible sounding theories, when you're trying to talk the world into accepting an entirely new worldview, complete with it's own unelected, supranational regulatory regime maintained in perpetuity by a noble class of enviromentally sensitive elites. It's Marxism through the back door, I tells ya.

[speaker]

My reference to environmental awareness being a result more of democracy, than a particular style of democracy ie capitalist, socialiat, communist, was in response to your earlier suggestion that capitalist democracy gave birth to the environmental movement. one that blackdog also responded to . So this may be redundant. I think it's safe to say that there has always been environmentalists, it's just that we in north America have heard more from them because it took so much effort on their part to overcome the downplaying of environmental concerns by the people who have been abusing our natural systems. So that by the time they were able to be heard at all they had to be yelling at the top of their lungs, and had to do that for quite some time to make any progress.

The wealth that builds in a Capitalist spciety does become focused in a small group who have the ability to use that wealth to influence governance. This of itself does not generally favour the environmental awareness level of anybody.

Wealth does not need to be used. If you are sitting sitarving on a mountain of gold you are indeed wealthy, not too bright but very rich. The object is to use as little of the mountain as possible so that your kids can be rich as well.

If Eureka is correct that only growing forests or trees are eligible then trees could have started growing long before 1990 and still be sucking back the co2.

I'll stick to the expression reverse the threat, because some of the damage that is occuring now may or may not be a result of global warming. that the damage may get much worse than it is now is a threat that we may not stop in it's tracks but eventually reverse if we start taking care of the place.

I'm not sure how a noble class of environmentally sensitive elites is Marxism, if it is then I suppose that the capitalist noble familes are Maoist, and with much more power than the environmentalists and therefore much more dangerous to society.