Global Warming

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chris Tyler on February 19, 2008 at 10:03am

I'm concerned. I drive a hybrid car and bring canvas bags to the grocery store "just in case" my small efforts can make a difference.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bruce LaDuke on February 21, 2008 at 6:29pm

You know, this is a really tough topic. I don't think there is any doubt that carbon dioxide emissions are increasing exponentially, especially now that China and India are modernizing.

But that said, the difficulty starts when you start talking about what that will cause. For example, will it raise the temperatures, raise sea level, disrupt sea currents and create an ice age, cause global overheating, cause gradual cooling, cause a human level extinction event, do nothing, etc.

I personally think the principal thought behind global warming in general is a good one, which is: "We can't keep pumping more and more carbon into the atmosphere." But from there it gets pretty speculative as to what the impact of these increased carbon levels is.

If you were to ask me what my gut says, I think it's probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Mainly because we can't seem to stop pumping carbon into the atmosphere. But that said, I tend in part to side with the comedian George Carlin on this. His philosophy is that the earth isn't in trouble, we are. Quote: "The planet isn't going anywhere...we are." and "The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anthony Juliano on February 23, 2008 at 9:47am

Climate change should be one our society's biggest concerns. We should be even more concerned, however, with society's overall distrust of science. We already have enough evidence to show that we need to act--and act soon--to reverse climate change. However, we instead continue to debate whether climate change is "real," wasting time in the process and allowing those who disagree with the scientific community (for political, philosophical, or financial reasons) to further inhibit action. The good news is that we have all the tools we need to reverse the damage we've done, and we can start today. The only thing we're missing is the discipline to act.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anthony Juliano on February 23, 2008 at 10:41am

The weather analogy doesn't work. Predicting the weather is a matter of using models to predict future events. Predicting the course of climate change is a matter of looking at what's already happened over the course of the last century. In fact, the whole idea of "predicting" climate change is flawed, because it's not a future phenomenon--it's here now.

To say environmentalists are akin to Socialist regimes just because they're calling for action shows the extremes that the anti-climate-change proponents need to go in the absence of credible data.

And An Inconvenient Truth didn't "cause the hysteria": it simply synthesized science in a form that resonated with a large audience. Blaming the effective use of a communication medium for getting people talking about an idea is kind of like blaming a racehorse for being too fast. The film succeeded despite Al Gore's involvement as much as because of it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anthony Juliano on February 23, 2008 at 11:16am

It's always easier to criticize than to take action--and I think that's why you're getting nasty comments. A lot of people on the extremes of either side of every debate are uninformed, and instead of seeking common ground, they just want to yell at people. I applaud you for doing something instead of just talking. We may not agree on the solution to the problem, but I'd rather debate with someone who is committed to making a difference than with someone who just wants to win a Who Can Scream the Loudest contest.

So, we agree to disagree. And that's what this forum is all about.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anthony Juliano on February 23, 2008 at 12:36pm

I somewhat agree with you in that the will of the market should be trusted to foster some of the change. But I also believe that nothing serious gets done without legislation. For example, look at smoking: we had cigarette warnings on packs for years, and that didn't change behavior much. (And while some may see the Surgeon General's warning as government intervention, I see it as a fairly useless communication strategy. It didn't change anything.) Now, however, behaviors are changing because of increased taxation and legislation that puts health and air quality first. So I strongly believe that penalties need to be put in place that punish our largest, most egregious polluters and provide incentives for individuals and corporations to change their impact on the environment. We have some of those in place already, but they're so weak as to be pointless.

I also think we need to completely revolutionize the way we travel. You and I won't agree on this one, but oil isn't the answer. The problem is that our entire society is built around an infrastructure that supports engines that run on oil, and that system, while outdated, is gargantuan. It would be great if the will of the market could foster a change, but it will only have a chance when the playing field is a little more even. Innovators have already developed electric and hybrid cars that could be the norm on our roads, but a system that strongly favors oil gives them no chance of having anything other than fringe market share. It can't work right now because there are too many people who make their living off the existing infrastructure.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bill Hodge on February 23, 2008 at 4:12pm

Anthony, you seem to want to believe that markets can drive the solution, but can't quite trust the market. You seem to be afraid of the oil machine, and I understand. I however trust our species to figure it out, and just in time.

To me oil is not the problem, coal is not the problem, consumption is the problem. We have exploded into an era of unbelievable consumerism which leads to the consumption. I feel as we all connect on this topic we will collectively find we don't need everything that society says we do. How many TVs do I need? Do I really need to drive myself to an early grave working relentless hours just to have more stuff? I really believe there will be an awakening, and this will be what will drive a change in the damage we are doing to our planet.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anthony Juliano on February 23, 2008 at 5:00pm

I never said it was a conspiracy theory, and I understand the need for lobbyists (even though I share your belief that they're a necessary evil). I do strongly believe, however, that our dependence on oil is primarily a result of the infrastructure being built exclusively for cars that run on oil. (Just because oil won the in the market as it was in 1920 doesn't mean we should ignore our power to change things now. That's what innovation is all about--but innovation can't succeed when the playing field grossly favors the incumbent technology.) I think that's slowing down innovation because no one wants to be the first to try to buck that system, even though the long-term net impact on our economy likely will be positive and even though it gives us a chance to lead the world in the manufacture of clean, safe, reliable transportation. Since we can demonstrate that the oil-based infrastructure shoulders a great deal of blame for climate change, however, then the only way to change things is with government intervention. It absolutely has worked with smoking: changes in ordinances, and especially taxation that has dramatically increased the costs of smoking, have resulted in a significant decrease in revenue for big tobacco companies, and a significant decrease in the number of smokers. The benefit to society as a whole is that this inherently leads to a decrease in smoking related illnesses, which at least gives us one way to hold down health care costs. I see a direct correlation to what we're seeing with oil.

I'll agree that government isn't always the answer. But the Libertarian view is that government intervention is never the answer, and that's just untrue. You can't ignore the parts of government that provide for needs that would otherwise go unmet. Libertarianism is just a step up from anarchy. It's anarchy dressed up in ties and suits, but with the same result.

Steve, I don't think we're going to agree on much. But I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Stephen Howard on February 23, 2008 at 5:51pm

This debate has become very interesting. I halter between 2 opinions. I do not know if man can alter the climate. Although I do believe that we can alter our local environment and living conditions. For example, what if we left roadkill alongside the road or never picked up trash. Our living conditions would be adversely affected by the smell and the scavenger animals it would attract. Thus making the area unsafe and the feeling about our surroundings would become very negative.

On the debate of oil versus alternate options, I have yet to hear of a solution that can compare to the efficiency of oil. What I mean by that is not MPG. Think about our shipping industries, ships, semis, trains, and so on, could electric powered motors replace the necessary torque needed to deliver cargo objects cross country or worldwide. Consider the heavy equipment or earth moving industry could these alternative provide the needed muscle that the oil engine provides today? Would it really be more efficient or cheaper or even better?

The oil infrastructure referred to earlier has been around and has been improved on around 100 years. It is not just going to be replaced by another option in a 5 year window.What are the downfalls of these other alternatives. There is no way they are perfect. Just as oil has some drawbacks so will these other energy sources.

Permalink Reply by Anthony Juliano on February 24, 2008 at 7:13pm

Here's a great overview on the perceptions about nuclear (perceived and actual pros and cons), published just this month. I learned more about nuclear from this story (, from an unexpected source) than I have from anything else:

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_6424

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Stephen Howard on February 23, 2008 at 5:56pm

check out this Smart car compared to a Hummer H1.....

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Stephen Howard on February 23, 2008 at 5:59pm

This smart car uses PREMIUM GAS only. It is made of recycled material. Check out this article for more information. Indy also has a smart car dealership on 96th St.

http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/smart_car_models/fortwo_pure/the_s...

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2