Americans Gearing up to Fight Global Warming 1104
TechnoGuyRob writes "Global warming has been one of the most controversial and debated issues in the political and scientific sphere. A recent poll published in the Chicago Sun-Times now shows that 'An overwhelming majority of Americans think they can help reduce global warming and are willing to make the sacrifices that are needed, a new poll shows. After years of controversy, 71 percent of Americans now say they think global warming is real.'" (Jamie adds: and all it took was twelve years of overwhelming scientific consensus.)
There's a lot of potential (Score:5, Insightful)
- mandating higher MPGs in automobiles
- granting huge tax credits for solar heating/electric panels on private and commercial buildings
- mandating solar equipment for ALL federal buildings
- mandating a switch to ethanol or methanol biofuels for federal fleets
- grant tax breaks for anyone switching to biofuels
- aid to cities that want to build or expand public transportation
- aid to cities to convert existing buses to biofuels
- massage research into alternative energy
- end the war in Iraq to free up the funds for the above initiatives
- Wind mill farms granted more eminent domain power (e.g., to overcome NIMBY opposition by estate owners in Marblehead, Massachusetts because "it ruins the view").
Germany during World War II switched to hydrogen for its cars when its petroleum supplies were cut off. Brazil has switched to domestically produced alcohol. It's all do-able with a strong federal leadership. This is clearly a situation where the market economy is going to favor lower prices, not (necessarily) environmentally desirable results. The federal government is the agent that can mandate the conditions necessary to make this stuff a reality.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not want our government mandating what types of products I can sell or buy any more than they do now. If you want to cut the amount of fuel that Americans consume, raise the tax on fuel. As much as I would hate to pay more at the pump, this is the fairest way to do it. Don't tax people on what they drive, but how much energy they consume.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
I recently bought a new car. I was on the hedge about getting either a super-efficient car or a larger car with a sporty engine. I picked the larger car that gets around 20MpG with suburban-area driving (better on the highway).
However, my commute is only 10 miles (through the suburbs) each way and I don't go very far during the weekends. Meanwhile, I know people who drive 4-cyl Civics that drive about 4-5 times as much as I do commuting alone; lord knows what their weekend travel is like. Meanin
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Showing how thin the "commitment" Americans have to fighting global warming. Express "concern", but drive big wasteful cars and vote out anyone who says you shouldn't. Don't be a hypocrite, just say you don't care if the world goes to hell as long as you're comfortable and have your "sporty" penis subsitute.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Funny)
Or was that just you being colourful? A skilful way, to manoeuvre the discussion into an arguement while critisising his American measurement system.
By the way, why is it that when I buy a can of Boddingtons, it comes in an American pint sized aluminium can? I could be wrong on that, but it is one of my favourite beers, I just wish we could get a draught version in the pubs here. But then, I guess it's for the best, because my cheque book would really suff
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Biodeisel and ethanol do not reduce the CO2 emissions that come out of the car signifigantly, if at all. (they do reduce some other pollutants, which is nice...)
However, the source of that carbon is the big win there -- the carbon that went into the biodeisel and ethanol comes from C02 in the air, (go read any high-school biology text on photosynthesis and the carbon cycle...) not out of the ground. And you don't put all of the carbon from growing the plants into the fuel. So using biodeisel and/or ethanol reduces the net amount of C02 in the air. (i.e you use 100g of carbon from the air to grow the corn; you put 80g of that carbon into the fuel, and burn it, you have a net loss of 20g of carbon from the air...)
So if we switched everything from petroleum to biofuels overnight, we would change from adding x amount of carbon to the air a day, to removing x/10 or so per day.
However, unless we change the way we grow our crops (with petroleum derived fertilizers) and produce our ethanol (petroleum fueled distilleries) we arent' actually going to reduce our fuel consumption nearly as much as we ought to with this approach; as numerous studies "debunking" ethanol as a solution have pointed out. (The part those studies get wrong is that there *are* ways to grow corn, etc. *without* using all that petroleum, ask any Amish farmer in Pennsylvania...)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens to the materials used to make ethanol/biodiesel if they are not used for that purpose? They have already removed that CO2 from the atmosphere. By turning them back into fuel we may be pumping more CO2 back into the air(depending on effieciency vs fossil fuel) than if we plowed them back under (or whatever else we are doing with them now)
If you posit that more crops will be planted solely for the purpose of feedstock for fuel production, t
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Informative)
Has to be a Chevy Sprint, which became the Geo Metro. My Sprint got well over 60 mpg in 1988.
OTOH, my Jetta TDI gets about 50 now, and it's a much nicer car.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom at being an idiot consumer is not necessarily freedom, and especially not consumer-friendly.
Don't believe me? How come I can't buy crack? Just raise the taxes on crack. I think it's
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Interesting)
1) S/he has absolutely no understanding about what motivates people to buy the cars that they buy. It has very, very little to do with ongoing operating costs and almost everything to do with what fulfilling an emotional desire (coolness, percieved (but not actual) safety, convenience, etc.). The number of people that do a full life cost analysis of their car purchase could probably be counted on two hands.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Interesting)
If we were smart, we would then use part of that for public trans, alternative energy as well as roads. But we are busy running up long term deficit, so I do not think that th
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:5, Insightful)
I look at it this way... we want the government (and I bet you do too) to set minimum standards of safety for electrical applicances so that they don't short out and injure us. These standards don't have to harshly restrict trade, just ensure that products are minimally safe. It doesn't seem outlandish at all when these standards are tightened to better reflect what kind of electrical saftey is possible with the advancement of modern technology.
Global Warming (as seen in the increase in intensity of storms worldwide and the devistation of Hurricaine Katrina) has become a safety issue. Increasing MPG standards to match modern technology is a measure the government can take to better ensure our safety in the long run.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Crazy progressive crap. It is not real fair to tax bigger cars more.
Easy to tax: the more gas you use, the more you pay in tax.
They are looking into taxing based on use per mile, since electrics don't use gas.
Here in SC, we have a property tax based on the value of your car. I never want to get a new car again, since tax on a $25,000 car is about $800 PER YEAR.
Tax the crap out of gas, tax a bit on mileage, tax me once for purchase / value. This is crazy just to drive a car.
Re:Slight Problem With Gas Tax (Score:3, Insightful)
Over the short term the price of gasoline is relatively inelastic. This means it takes a large increase in price before there is *any* impact on demand. Over the longer term one might see a trend towards more efficient vehicles, but I don't know of any evidence that large masses of people would suddenly consider giving up their cars.
All that happens in the meantime, while people convert to a longer term model, is that such an increase hurts the economy (busses, public t
Re:Slight Problem With Gas Tax (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it means that demand falls less than prices rise. If there wasn't any impact on demand then it would be *perfectly* inelastic, which doesn't happen except in contrived scenarios like the demand for water of a person dying of thirst in the desert.
Over the longer term one might see a trend towards more efficient vehicles, but I don't know of any evidence t
Re:Slight Problem With Gas Tax (Score:4, Insightful)
United States of America -- Area: 9,631,418 km Population: 295,734,134
That's only a land area factor of, oh, 19. Yes, the US is 19X the size of Spain, but with only 7X the population. Things are nowhere near as close to one another as they are in Europe. It's not ideal, but that's the way things are in the US. You just about have to drive to get to where you need to go in anywhere less than a day, unless you happen to be right on a bus route that goes very near where you're going. But most bus routes to where I need to go would take multiple transfers, many stops, and be at least 3 or 4 times as long.
Gas is cheap and subsidized here for a reason... we need it to get where we're going. When you can walk across the street to get your groceries, it's not so bad. But the nearest market to my house is over a mile away, and I'm not lugging a couple week's worth of food over a mile. And that's just food.
I'm not excusing waste. I drive a more efficient car, I try to drive as little as possible, walk where I can, take public transport when i can (they're on strike now... that really sucks). But Europeans seldom seem to understand the actual SCALE of the United States. It's big. Bigger than most anything you've experienced. 3 hours is not a long drive in a car. 24 hours is getting there.
Re:Slight Problem With Gas Tax (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in the US we'd call that high-density housing and its only where you're stuck if you can't afford any better.
Here in the Netherlands the government-enforced 'vinex' guidelines require this density in parts of the country. The size of parcels is basically related to the distance from from the large cities. If you want a big garden, you are going to spend a large part of your live in your car. Incomes in higher density areas are on average some 30% higher than in lower
Re:Screw Federal Leadership (Score:5, Insightful)
The notion that if we don't reduce our carbon emissions now then the world we be an ugly place in 50-100 years time simply can't be accounted for without giving the free market a helping hand, because unaided there's no mechanism by which that potential future event has a dollar cost for the companies and consumers involved in energy transactions today.
This is specifically the situation that governments are for - they are able to apply to a cost to something and hence influence the market in a way that accounts for this externality. For example, raising the tax on gasoline is a very direct way of applying some of that external cost into the appropriate market. The free market still does it's work, we've just made the cost of gasoline what it "should" be to take account of future global warming. The market can then decide what to do about it, whether it's building more efficient cars, taking fewer journeys, or investing in alternative fuel sources.
No need for fancy tax credits or pork barrel schemes. Just make the price of gasoline (and other carbon-emitting fuels) reflect the future global warming risk, and let the usual action of the market do it's work.
Re:Screw Federal Leadership (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm less sure that gas taxes are the right way to deal with that, although the are certainly better than nothing. One reason this is a problem is that it's not just gasoline, but all fossil fuels that are a problem -- gas taxes alone will not prevent people from doing stupid things like burning coal to produce hydrogen or alcohol which aren't taxed.
The better way to deal with i
Re:Screw Federal Leadership (Score:5, Insightful)
First paragraph: knee-jerk ranting about environmentalists.
Second paragraph: You're obviously a William Dembsky fan, notorious creationist (who uses the term intelligent design). That bastard is in a feud with the University of Texas scientist Eric Pianka, and actually *reported him to the Department of Homeland Security* while misrepresenting what he said. It is a fact that Pianka was not calling for the extermination of humans, but in fact he was warning about a danger which he sees as a reality. He brought up the Ebola virus to shock his audience into thinking about his message: airborne agents that can kill 90% of the human population are not science fiction. They exist, and few people are concerned. Another part of his message was that biological systems crash when they become overpopulated, and that humans are setting themselves up for a crash. He was not calling for the extermination of human beings, and since you're saying that he was, I'm going to state that I consider you a vile sort of liar, who lies by misrepresenting what others have said.
Third paragraph: Unreasonable faith in the free market, which treats the environment as a commons that they can use up. When a company uses the environment as a dumping ground, they are stealing from everybody else. Make the companies pay the true cost of their pollution. When pollutants are injected into the atmosphere or into the ground water, I expect to see a check in my mailbox reimbursing me for the loss of a resource that I do not have any more.
Fourth paragraph: Finally, something that can be discussed. Nuclear power is definitely something that we should consider right now.
Re:Screw Federal Leadership (Score:3, Informative)
You're closer than perhaps you realise to an awkward fact (admittedly one of many) that politicians prefer to avoid: a deep green political agenda or scenario is actually quite authoritarian, since it requires people to give up comforts that they'd otherwise choose to keep. The logic is that to avoid the "tragedy if the commons"*, people need to be protected from themselves.
* From The Economist website:
TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS
A 19th-century
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't confuse the incompetence of the current party in power with the idea that government is neccessarily incompetent. That's exactly what they want you to do anyways.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely, you must still think it is April 1?
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:5, Funny)
That would be easy to do, except that it doesn't matter which party is currently in power, they're equally incompetent. As Mark Twain once said, "Suppose you are an idiot. Now suppose you are a Congressman. But I repeat myself."
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, some that come to mind are the Interstate Higheway System, the FDIC, the Marshall Plan, WIC, the GI Bill...
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Aid To Dependent Children
No Child Left Behind
20 Trillion spent so far on fighting inner city poverty (how's that going by the way? I still here about those poor folk in New Orleans)
The war on drugs
The War on Terrorism
FEMA
Medicare
Social Security (might not be worried about that if congress had not borrowed money from it.)
The Space Shuttle
Funny you should mention WIC, I have witnessed people buy Milk and cheese with WIC and load it into a Mercedes Benz, is that what congress had in mind?
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
The Interstate system, that the Federal mandates the maintanance of, but then will revoke the aid for if you don't do exactly what they tell you. Which leaves the State still required to maintain the road, but without the money to do it. Such Federal edicts have been the old 55mph speed limit (state wide), and the drinking age at 21 (state wide).
The FDIC, which in the case of another depression, would fail due to la
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying there isn't other things to worry about, but nuclear power isn't going to spew waste and carbon into the atmostphere. America could also take a look at the design of Frances 11 or so rebirthing power-plants that re-use radioactive matierial.
I'd rather see wind, solar, and hydro power riegn supreme, but where these are unavailable, we shouldn't be burning fuel like coal.
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:4, Insightful)
Fact check (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:5, Funny)
Yup, what America really needs a fascist dictator in charge to make things happen, oh wait...
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:4, Interesting)
"The jury's still out." No. It hasn't been for a good solid decade now, and you'd have to be an asshole and an idiot to believe otherwise.
Al Gore gives a great presentation on Global Warming (in fact, he just did at Drew University last night) and he cites a survey of scientific journals to see how much global warming is in doubt. That survey found that of 900+ randomly chosen articles, not a single one expressed any doubt that global warming is real. They did the same with a random set of mass media (newspaper, tv, etc...) articles on global warming and found just over 50% expressed doubt about the existence of global warming. No wonder so many people in the US (including G.W. Bush) don't believe that global warming exists.
You forgot the one that is simpest (Score:3, Interesting)
There are already MASSIVE subsidies for biofuels. Ethanol is not that much of an improvement of gas since a lot of fossil fuels are used to grow the corn used to make the ethanol. Methanol is usually made from coal, oil, and or natural gas.
BTW as far as NIMBY goes I agree. I have a nuclear power plant in my city. I like it a lot more than a coal, gas, or oil plant.
Solar is a
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Next, mandates don't work. You can encourage a sector to do something, but as soon as you mandate, you are requiring
No, and no (Score:5, Informative)
Some data:
Social security, medicare, and other retirements: 36% (and can't be touched by Congress in the budget)
National Defense and veterans affairs: 23%
Net interest on the Debt: 7%
Physical, human, and community development (nat'l parks, education, job training, NSF, NASA, etc): 10%
Social Programs: 21%
Law enforcement: 3%
So yeah, cutting back on the Iraq war (and the rest of the 31% == 23%/(100%-36%) of discretionary spending Congress spends on the military) would indeed leave quite a bit available for alternative energy research, spending on public and mass transit, pollution enforcement mechanisms, and other ways to reduce global warming.
Re:No, and no (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedi [wikipedia.org]
Re:No, and no (Score:3, Insightful)
The Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare Trust Fund exist on paper only. About 35 years ago a senior senator from Massachusettes by the name of Edward Kennedy came up with the brilliant idea that the Trust Funds should be invested in a "safe" investment. So, what do these funds buy? Why U.S. Savings bonds, of course. Which means that every dollar that goes into Social Security is immediately converted into money in the General Fund, and the SSTF holds an "IOU"
Re:There's a lot of potential (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, wtf are you talking about? Mod parent down. (Score:5, Informative)
And no, the elected Republicans are not indistinguishable from socialists, which is why more and more americans are finding themselves below the poverty line; they are far from socialist in any respect, unless you count meddling in people's lives when not asked to, but that's more of a totalitarian/authoritarian aspect.
Always amuses me how statistics are abused (Score:3, Insightful)
The US is actually only slightly above average in military spending. The only reason its spending in $ is so high is because its GDP is so huge. Once you normalize it to GDP, [nationmaster.com] you can see that many other countries actually spend more than the US. China and most of the middle eastern countries actually spend significantly more, and "peace-loving" France spends just slightly less than the US.
It's the same argument used against the US when funding the
Re:Look who's talking...? (Score:3, Informative)
MOD -1 WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
Try a pretty picture [deviantart.com].
Here's another [warresisters.org].
Or, go to the source [whitehouse.gov]. HUD is $44b, health and human services is $697b, social security is $624b, military spending is $541b (DoD is $504b plus $37b for veterans' care).
So even by the official figures, it isn't "small potatoes", it's comparable to the entire social security or health budgets. And then there's the deficit interest payments...
Not that I'm against cutting corporate welfare. Far from it.
And yet (Score:2)
Re:And yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Actions speak louder than words (Score:2, Insightful)
Missed the Mark (Score:5, Insightful)
~The Futurama Encyclopedia [gotfuturama.com]
It's wonderful that so many people are willing to say they want to make a difference. That's just as good as actually doing it! Studies also show that 74% of all Americans also say they want to start excersizing regularly, continue their education, spend time with their families, and find a cure for cancer. That's a load off my mind, I'll definitely sleep better tonight.
Regardless of that, the real problem isn't with the masses, its with the elite. My father is a plumbing and mechanics inspector in one of the richest counties in America. He recalls one house he inspected that had 7 heated swimming pools joined together with hottubs. The owner would keep them heated year-round just in case a random party broke out. He also had 10 furnace and airconditioning units in his 35,000 sqft. house that I'm sure he ran the hell out of. He also had a 6 car garage, one spot for each of his SUVs.
The real problem is, there are no limits on how much gasoline, electricity, or natural gas one person is allowed to use. Supplies are being wastefully depleted and turned into greenhouse gasses, and people are blaming the average consumer.
So when gas prices go up by 80%, this rich bastard probably won't even think twice. Meanwhile, an average person is being asked to "turn thermostats down in winter by 2 degrees, caulk around windows, combine driving trips when running errands... wash clothes in cold water, turn down water heater temperature, buy energy-efficient light bulbs, buy energy-efficient appliances, and buy energy-efficient cars." And this is a solution?
It's like having some large corporation lower 100,000 sub-management employee wages by $5 an hour instead of laying off one CEO who is making $500k per year.
Whoever said one person can't make a difference. --
"Man Bites Dog
Then Bites Self"
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:2, Insightful)
In that situation they're saving $500k per hour, rather than per year. Makes a big difference.
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure. You ever go look at the energy usage of appliances in any store? The low-end budget models tend to use the most power, and those are the ones people getting hourly wages are buying. The Energy Star rated ones you'll pay a premium for.
Look at washing machines, for example. The ones that use the least water and electricity--by far--are front loading models. Now just try to find a front loading washing machine in a U.S. store that doesn't cost $800+.
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly! As long as someone else has to do the cutting back everyone is all for it! *I* would *love* to be able to take mass transit to work daily -- problem is that it's just not possible as the transit system here (from the suburbs) was intended for suburb A city rather than being able to go from suburb A suburb B.
We need the local, state, and Federal governments to be able to help a bit and allow us the ability to help -- especially for those of us that really want to.
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Missed the Mark (Score:3, Insightful)
First, that guy can't drive 6 vehicles at once, so the emissions is really split across all those vehicles.
Heating a 35000 square foot home is obviously going to take a lot of energy. If you assume an average "normal" house is 1500 square feet, then he is taking the resources of 23 houses. Sure, that's excessive, but how many people in the US are as rich as him? If there's only a handful, then trying to get him to turn off hi
Interesting considering.. (Score:3, Informative)
sarc (Score:2)
He's right, its actually caused by the products of man. Kinda like how guns kill people.
Re:Interesting considering.. (Score:2)
Statistics (Score:2)
Can we, and should we? (Score:4, Insightful)
First, is it even our fault? Is global warming really a man-made disaster, or is it part of a climatic or solar cycle? It always seemed to be simply assumed that what we have documented is because of something humanity did...what if it's not? If this is a natural occurence, then wouldn't we be doing even more harm to nature by fighting it?
Second, what happens if there's nothing we can do? Action plans are great and all and we need to do everything in our power to reverse any damage we've done, but we need to get our heads out of the sand and have a Plan B. It's very possible that anything we do now will be too little too late, that we have already hit critical mass and warming will accelerate even if we climbed back up in the trees tomorrow.
Re:Can we, and should we? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not. If you are in the camp that the planet is more resilient than we give credit for, than taking action against a phantom problem probably won't matter.
The place for potential damage, with AGW real or not, is to the economy. We've spend about 100 years building a petroleum based economic engine, and that cannot changed overnight.
Its not too late (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Can we, and should we? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Can we, and should we? (Score:3, Insightful)
And the money spend to repair the damages, might have been better spend to cure your cancer or to a nice trip to hawaii.
Re:Can we, and should we? (Score:2)
Greenland used to be green 1400 years ago, I guess it was either cow or ocean flatulence or we had an enormous population of UFO drivers spewing CO2 that left a while ago. Or climactic cycle.
We'll survive it. It's our nature.
Re:Can we, and should we? (Score:2)
Climatic change is a fact of this planet, and it's been happening for millions and millions of years.
Economically, it's better to prepare for the change (whatever it ends up being) than to foolishly try to prevent change or even steer change to some "ideal" that's really quite impossible to define. Nature will do what nature's always done as well
Re:Can we, and should we? (Score:3, Interesting)
Going down in an elevator is survivable whereas a freefall from the top floor is not. If change occurs too rapidly, animal and plant life can't adapt quickly enough to survive.
The question is what happens in a worse case senario where natural global warming combines with man made global warming. Will it tip some balance?
If US don't seriously tackle it, will it matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If US don't seriously tackle it, will it matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Given their current rate of industrialization, increasing demand for energy, and pollution output, I'd say there's plenty of doubt.
Gearing, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather than gear up, why not start right now? Sales of Hummers were up 174% from last year. If that's not going in the exact opposite direction, I don't know what is.
Remember the Global Cooling Scare? (Score:3, Informative)
And so does the Washington Times which recently reprinted this 1794 Newsweek piece. The kind of language used is eerily similar to the global warming talk today.
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.
The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas -- parts ofIndia,Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia -- where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree -- a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras -- and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.
Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 -- years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term
Re:Remember the Global Cooling Scare? (Score:3)
1) This was in 1974.. for how long a period was this considered a serious threat? One year? Two? Global warming has been considered a threat for more than 10 years.
2) They say
Thinking and doing are not the same thing (Score:3, Insightful)
71% going out and buying efficient cars. I haven't noticed 71% of companies
switching off their lights after dark or turning down the air con / heating
a notch.
Its easy to say you're concerned about something , its quite another matter
to prove it.
The poll was from an advocacy group (Score:5, Interesting)
>After years of controversy, 71 percent of Americans now say they
>think global warming is real, according to a telephone survey of
>1,200 people for the advocacy group Environmental Defense
So this result has some built-in bias.
Re:The poll was from an advocacy group (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The poll was from an advocacy group (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The poll was from an advocacy group (Score:3)
Useless polling (Score:5, Insightful)
70 percent are willing to drive less, and walk, bike, car pool or take mass transit."
BS. When it comes down to it, people will do what is cheapest and most convenient. It's very easy to tell some pollster you're willing to do something, but when push comes to shove, forget it. There is a social factor in polls that causes people to answer the way they want to be perceived, not the way they actually are.
I take mass transit daily (by choice), and I have lost count of all the people I know who've tried it but given it up as too inconvenient.
And as for energy-efficient appliances, the sticker shock is too much for many people, even when the appliance is cheaper in the long run.
You want real reduction in greenhouse gasses from US people? End the light-truck exemption for mileage standards. Increases mileage standards for all vehicles. Bring mass transit funding levels up to highway funding levels -- if it's pervasive enough, it WILL be convenient. Reducing consumption of power by 15% at home is not going to make near enough of a dent -- it is not enough, and it's irresponsible to let people believe it will be.
Re:Useless polling (Score:3, Informative)
Fighting Global Warming Good, FUD bad... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to say that the whole media/government FUD over whether or not global warming actually exists really rings a bell with me. The dis-information campaign (about emissions and pollution) reminds me very much of the decades of time when industry and government were disseminating information that smoking hadn't been proven to cause cancers. Decades of mis-information about nicotine addiction and cancer risks was backed up by industry-paid doctors and lawyers who lulled us to sleep on the issue. The same thing has been going on WRT pollution and global warming.
Humans accelerate climate change - whether it is clear-cutting ancient forests, industrial pollution, wasteful production, or emissions... To me, the real question is, "When will we take a responsible stance/take action on helping the Earth begin to heal?"
A great statistic, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's just so much easier to keep doing what you're doing. Change is hard.
Ready for Fast Trains, but Will Anyone Build Them? (Score:2)
Mass transit, what a great idea! Too bad no politician in our Republican-controlled government is willing to invest, or even talk about in a mass transit train system that can easily and quickly move people to and from work/home. This is just one of many solutions that you may never see when Oil barons are running the country.
Exxon/Mobil is #1 on the Fortune500 and for a simple reason - we all drive hugely inefficien
Actions ? (Score:4, Insightful)
So how many are actually DOING any of those things? And did you notice they were good little capitalist consumption-enhancing options? Buy this, buy that. The idea is to *reduce* consumption.
I believe it when I see the first SUV manufacturer file for bankruptcy. There are practical things that *could* be done, like increasing tax on fuel to promote efficient usage, setting real requirements for home insulation, reducing coal burning. However its much easier to say you'll maybe think about buying a new SUV with 2mpg better economy, some point in the future.
Changing mindsets takes much more positive action than this - and I see no sign of a change there.
Re:Actions ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look how fat America is. We're not a people who naturally cut back on anything.
I believe it when I see the first SUV manufacturer file for bankruptcy.
This is a monumentally stupid statement for reasons that I'm not even going to bother to get into. You know nothing about economics, sir.
There are practical thin
Re:Actions ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah, how about exercise? Seems people must have cut way-back on that... "Conserving Energy" and all.
Cars with great gas-mileage like Geo Metros are pretty cheap old cars that even the poorest can afford.
What Global Warming? (Score:2)
While I personally don't believe humans have any great effect on this planet long-term, we can cause ourselves problems short-term and that is the real crux of global warming. In a million years the Eart
Meaning less (Score:3, Insightful)
And besides, actions speak louder than words. Somehow I don't think many Americans are going to all stop driving their big cars and start taking the public bus any day soon, no matter what they tell a telephone pollster...
we do our part (Score:3, Interesting)
- Drive a high-MPG car, our Matrix gets 34-36 mpg on the hiway.
- ride bikes whenever possible.
- have 1.7kw photovoltaic solar panels on our house, piped into the grid
- other hippy stuff like compost and recycling
I'd also like to say how stupid all the NIMBYs on Cape Cod are. We desperately need wind farms in New England. They complain about the windmills blocking the view, but if there's orange smog over everything you won't even be able to see the water. I've been to Holland and the modern windmills there are elegant and non-intrusive despite the size.
Way ahead of ya (Score:3, Interesting)
Over the last year I have insulated 60% of my house (built in 1890, when wood was plentiful and insulation was non-existant.)
I have recently purchased a VW Golf TDI. It is a diesel that gets 47+ mpg Highway and can run on Biodiesel with no conversions (a kit is required for veggie oil though).
The nice thing about steps like these is that it saves consumers money! With my Wife and I switching most of our driving to the new VW we are saving ~$170 a month in gas. The extra insulation has saved us a ton in heating costs. And those low power consumption bulbs will pay for themselves in savings long before they burn out.
-Rick
On The Track Record of "Scientific Consensus" (Score:3, Insightful)
Michael Crichton
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeche
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therap6y...the list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Re:Mankind is insignificant, yet doesn't realize i (Score:5, Informative)
No; the Sun is actually slowly warming up.
It's pretentious and incorrect to think that something as insignificant as mankind is the main cause of global warming.
No; it is realistic and correct. We have already had a significant impact on the composition of the atmosphere in terms of CO2 concentration - the main source of warming.
Re:Intelligent post (Score:3, Informative)
Human activity has increased CO2 concentrations from 280 ppmv to 380 ppmv, far faster than any natural change could achieve. Anthropogenic emissions are 15 times larger than the volcanic activity to which nature has equilibrated, and still increasing. Residence time of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1000 years.
So while the amount added every year is rather small, it keeps adding up.
Re:"Consensus" and science are incompatible (Score:4, Interesting)
Once again a global-warming denier compares a decade of peer-reviewed scientific publications to ... well, in this case, a talk given by a novelist.
Consensus is precisely how science advances. Scientific consensus is precisely what should inform us on scientific matters. It has nothing to do with avoiding debate, it is a signifier that the debate has already been held. Go read Kuhn or something.
Re:finally (Score:3, Informative)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/Uniq ueKeyLookup/RAMR69V528/$File/05executivesummary.pd f [epa.gov]
it doesn't give the "rest of the world" numbers - That's arithmetic, but is cited uniformly by nearly all "Googlable" sources,
Then there is this
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ [ornl.gov]
And this is, I reckon the authoritative source.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_nam.htm [ornl.gov]
Scary isn't it ?
"Western Europe", note emits around 1/3rd than the US, with a larger population.
Steve
Re:Tree-Huggers (Score:3, Informative)
However, what fundamentally motivated the No Nukes crowed was the shoddy corpratism that drove the early nuclear industry. The private sector was way out ahead of the reasearch that was needed in order to insure the safety of the citizenry. Money was the
Re:Why are they always *against* technology? (Score:3, Interesting)
It shouldn't even need to be said that environmentalists are not a monolithic group. But in your case, it seems an exception needs to be made. Environmentalists come in all shapes and sizes, with all sorts of preferences and agendas, with all sorts of views on modern life. It makes as much sense to say what you did as it makes for me to claim that, because you have articul