Fragments From Floyd

Somewhere I picked up the fact (factoid?) it took only 50 years for the ice age to develop.
I'm with you on 4, 5, 6, but I think we both feel a strong connection to 7.
Something should be said about the cultural aspect of "more, bigger, better". Also the media's responsibility to address these concerns. Saw a commercial for BP oil the other day about how they were "seeking alternative energy sources". Turned out those sources were in the Gulf of Mexico.

Unless you live in a cave and have a diet of grasses and tree bark, you are part of #1. I would like to believe that I lean to #s 1-6, although #5 seems kind of fru fru. #7 seems like part of #8 at some level. #8 always seems to cause lots of trouble.

I vote on replacing the whole list with the following:

#1. Common Sense - Global issues are fine but don't forget to provide food, shelter, and clothing for you and your family.

I can live with our current government, but that Canadian article is outrageous:)

I am your Bizarro-other, Jim. I cannot live with our current government, nor can the remainder of the planet. And to think that global environmental, justice and lifestyle issues don't deal ultimately with providing sustained sources for food, shelter and clothing to all and beyond our short and brutish lives is a disconnect I cannot fathom, though I see that blindness everywhere in this country, to my horror.

Pass and then apply an Environmental Impact Tax. Apply it to fuels and earmark the funds for greenhouse research & remediation. I guess that would make 2 (research & remediate), 6 (we are implementing the program as a precaution) and 8 (any tax seems drastic)...

I usually feel like the capitalist nazi here and was shooting for a more light-hearted response, but I do take your issues seriously. So, let me shoot for more serious...

The list you identified seems to have (my opinion only) assumptions that we have definitive global warming problems caused by human activity. We don't know for sure, and we can't put a finger on the cost of the impact. Therefore, any policy prescribed would be a guess. Then the question ultimately is, "how much are you willing to spend/forego to potentially "fix" something that may or may not be fixable?".

The Bush administration will spend close to $6 billion next year on environmental research which will result in the US exceeding many of the Kyoto targets. A country shouldn't be cajoled into joining some agreement like Kyoto that potentially results in unnecessary costs.

Is it possible that the "remainder of the planet" could eventually raise their standard of living (financially, educationally, and environmentally) by directing its peoples' resources toward measureable policies rather than scientific unknowns?

Unfortunately, the debate over whether global warming is real or not strikes me as similar to the debate when cigarette companies argued that cigarettes were not harmful.

The cigarette companies and their supporters poo-poo'd the epidemiological studies' findings and basically said that if you couldn't show the connection in the lab of the cigarette to the lips, the smoke to the lungs, and the change of the healthy cell to a cancerous one due to the smoke (kind of a real-time connection) then you could not say smoking caused cancer.

Now this argument persisted with the tobacco industry even though in that debate scientists had an easy time to apply the scientific method complete with control subjects. In the greenhouse debate, we have no pristine earth to be the control subject. So, if the greenhouse effect does turn out to be a carbon-burning phenomenon, we will never "prove" greenhouse until we are cooked like frogs... a bit late then.

But we can exercise some common sense. We know that volcanic action has immediate, measurable climatic impact. We know forest fires have local climatic impact. Add to these data points a thread of common sense: How can civilization burn millions (billions?) of years worth of carbon matter (read: forests) in the compressed time frame of the last 7 or 8 decades (how many non-stop forest fires would that be and for how many millions/billions of years) and not have an impact beyond volcanic action and today's microscopic (in comparison)forest fires?

I'm not a scientist, I have no political view on this matter, nor do I consider at left or right issue, but it just makes sense to me that when global sea temperatures are rising, permafrost is melting, and so on, we need to consider the contribution burning of carbon fuels in addition to any mega-climatic cycles.

While moving to address the contribution of carbon fuel burning may or may not "cure" global warming, as a side benefit I would gladly welcome the more immediate environmental benefits of cleaner air, water and habitats...

Good points Carl. I think the emissions reduction argument is stronger when citing more backyard examples such as a reduction in asthma in children around NYC or less acid rain destroying Appalachian mountain trees. I know that modern appliances and autos are getting to be a lot more efficient, which are positive outcomes of global warming concerns.

I disagree that the global warming debate is anywhere near as cut and dry as smoking. For one, a study from the National Academy of Sciences ("Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming") shows that the majority of the current temp rise happened prior to the rapid buildup of greenhouse gases beginning in the end of the 19th century. Therefore, it is possible temp rise is "...not necessarily the primary driver in the rise of temperatures...". So, there are other scientists that are skeptical of the cause and effect at this point. I think more data will possibly provide a clearer picture in another 20-30 years.

I would rather fund some environmental agenda rather than some of the entitlements our government is currently offering, but not both.

Hello Fred.

Now I'm not a scientist, just a housewife/writer of almost 47 years of age, with a reasoning brain, and not one to believe everything i read or see on tv. This is what i make of the whole issue here... an opinion based on what i've experienced, what i've been fed (propaganda or not) and with children's futures to consider as well as that of the entire population. Not much for a Wednesday morning :)

"Technical Fix – In the past humans have been so effective at developing new technologies to meet problems as they arise, we assume that this will always be the case. The technical fix implies that any damage can be corrected after it has been created rather than avoided in the first place. Proponents of the technical fix must consider the cost of changing now versus the cost of fixing a potentially huge problem later."

Necessity may indeed be the mother of invention, and man is a marvelously creative creative - so we can't afford to write-off technological advances but, at the same time, we can't afford to sit back and wait for future generations to find the solutions for us. ALL aspects must surely be considered - and common sense must be applied. After all, doesn't the name 'common sense' suggest that it's a wisdom gathered through the experiences of many and passed down to, hopefully, help our thinking when dealing with new or recurrent problems?

"Wait and See – This attitude says that because we do not know for certain that global warming is occurring or what the future might bring, we should do nothing at all now. It is all right to continue to monitor and study the situation, but until we can determine more definite answers to the uncertainties, it would be foolish to act now. Furthermore, climate has been so stable, why not believe it will remain that way."

This attitude is one that makes me mad! When i was in secondary school (11-17 years of age), back in the 70's - even then we were being told of the looming dangers of gobal warming by some brave scientists willing to speak out. I also remember just how much they were laughed at, parodied and generally regarded as freakish loons trying to scare the general public all for the sake of getting their names in the newspapers. Now that's 30+ years ago, and people are STILL quibbling as to whether or not global warming's a phenomenom or just a flight of fancy? damn! Just how much longer do 'they' want us to wait to see if it's happening? Surely research has shown that ice ages have come and gone, the planet cools due to its wobble (?) and heats up again - it's happened before and will again. Not a matter of if but when as i understand it. And this cycle of cooling and warming is an integral, vital part of how our planet operates and may be why our planet has an atmosphere and life in the first place! To have such a blinkered view based on just the past 100 years or so is both ignorant and irresponsible.

"Responsibility to Future Generations – For many it is a basic instinct that we wish to see our children and grandchildren well set up in the world. We would like them to inherit from us an Earth that has been well looked after and not leave them difficult problems caused by our irresponsible actions. Although uncertainties exist in our understanding of global warming, there is enough evidence to warrant taking actions now to ensure that we do not ruin the Earth for future generations."

Yup. Global warming/cooling's a fact, and from the many diverse documentaries that i have watched and material i have read, there's not much you can do to prevent that - nor should you BUT, and that's a big but (a bit like mine) the worrying thing is the rate of escalation in the warming process that could lead to a runaway greenhouse effect where our atmosphere would boil away (after having become so acidic to have totally destroyed life on the surface) and the earth could end up looking like Mars, with any remaining organisms living sub-surface locked up in frozen water maybe. Studies of the ice samples taken from the North Pole (?) show the concentrations of various chemicals, the whats that lead us to the whens which, in turn, lead us to discover the whys. Against this scientific data, today's scientists have discovered the contributions made towards both climate changes and the rates of those same changes - and find us guilty. We're doing it wrong, so now we need to do it right - and trust that we might not be too late to undo the damage we've done and slow the acceleration of events that occur naturally anyway, before we get to the point of no-return i.e, the runaway greenhouse effect. Our children and our children's children will judge us; armed with knowledge, data we have to rely upon since it's ALL we have, we HAVE to act to protect mankind's existence. Survival of the species is supposed to be the strongest drive. Sooner or later, something or some other species may suspercede our dominance of this planet - be it through climactic changes making conditions intolerable for us or some other ingredient. Some may say that's not such a bad thing. If i were childless, there would be times i'd have to agree. But, for now, we should be regarding ourselves both as temporary guardians of this place and as finite life-forms. Evolution will sort it all out i guess, if we give it a chance.

"Unity of the Earth – Similar to above, except the main focus is that we have a responsibility for the larger world of all living things. Think of the views held by many native American tribes that all of nature is connected in a delicate balance. This attitude holds that humans are responsible for taking care of the Earth and all life, and action on global warming should be taken now since we are upsetting natural balances. For some, the responsibility to care for life was given by God."

done this bit - and, like scales, fluctuations are perfectly normal, with nature striving constantly to find the balance, which is why we have weather.

"Precautionary Principle – Lack of full scientific certainty does not mean that we should not take action. There is enough evidence and scientific basis about global warming for us to act now. Just as we take out insurance policies (that cost money) to cover the possibility of accidents or losses, there is enough of a threat that we should start spending money to make changes now. The cost of changing our ways must be weighed against the possible future costs of not changing our ways."

To only begin to act now is criminal in itself. Don't know about you guys, but it seems to me that Trees are one of the most important ingredients in this whole balancing act. The rainforests store so much CO2(?)that it'd be pretty disasterous should they burn, releasing it all into the atmosphere to fall as acid rains. And the plight of the rainforests, BEYOND the chopping down of this vital manufacturer of oxygen, is obvious... at the edges there's a different type of eco-system i can't remember the name for - it is a thin barrier between the dry grasslands and the lush forests. This strip is getting wider, encroaching on the edges of the forest, encouraging further loss of the balance and seeing increased forest-fire activity. Fire - bush fires (if i remember this correctly) are just as much a part of the ecological system of rejuvination - but if the rainforests burn we're in deep, deep pooh! So governments should be planting billions of hectares with woodland to help our atmosphere. Back in school, the 70's again, we had these old sayings "plant a tree in '73" and "plant one more in '74". I am an avid tree planter and protector :)

"Back to Nature – This is the attitude that we all adopt a more primitive lifestyle and give up a large part of industry and intensive farming, essentially moving back to pre-industrial times. The back to nature approach will allow the Earth to heal in the short-term and allow humans to live in harmony with nature in the long-term. Two important considerations for this approach: can a population that is six times greater than it was 200 years ago be adequately fed by small-scale farming? In freezing technological development, is human creativity suppressed?"

why does this make the Tolpuddle Martyrs spring to mind? we can't move backwards in time, but we can move forwards to find better ways, more wholesome ways to rear food. Factory farming makes me sick, but i love meat - it's as much my nature to eat meat as it is vegetables. The intensive, profit-grabbing, consumer-driven demand for/supply of this kind of food production is unhealthy at every level and we have to find a better way, with some respect for creatures as well as for the consumers. Finding that balance is, as always, the issue. Do you think hydroponics might become an area of great development, Fred? that balance between feeding a population and profit will always be an issue, i'm not naive enough to believe otherwise. Idealism's great, but reality's what we live with.

"Drastic Actions should be taken now – This goes beyond the precautionary principle to say that we should deal with the global warming problem as if it will be certain doom for life on Earth if we continue to increase greenhouse gas concentrations. Since future changes are uncertain, we should prepare for the worst and not leave anything to chance. Industries and people should be forced to change regardless of what the costs are."

Someone has to put their neck on the block and take unpopular decisions. To make those decisions we HAVE to have informed views on which to base these same decisions. Too many politicians seem more concerned with their own terms in office to take unpopular steps that will lead to the moneymakers and shakers voting them out of office. The general public need information and need HONEST information. The fact is, that we don't know exactly what may happen and when, only probabilities. Don't companies base their financial decisions on probablities? Will we be fried, or plunged into another ice-age when the gulf stream ceases to flow in the constant seeking of balance? Either way it kinda sucks for life on this planet. The ice-age would be a preferable scenario - maybe only a 90 percent extinction rate - again. Runaway global warming? no chance.

think we'd better have a closer look at building on water because it's obvious over here in the uk that the waters are rising fast. Any Noah's out there? or should we be building escape routes off the planet? hmm, we are already, aren't we?

Um...I hate to be churlish...but if the eeevil Republicans and Christers are to blame, why does industrial, air and water pollution occur in blue states? or have the Dem Pols in Oregon been "out of the information loop" these past 20-30 years?

http://www.sprol.com/?p=287

>think we'd better have a closer look at building on water because it's obvious over here in the uk that the waters are rising fast.

This is tongue in cheek, yes? Otherwise I find it difficult to explain the sea bed fossils in the sandstone rocks in my back garden, now 900' above sea level.

The Mediterranean sea bed was once dry land before the Atlanic breached the land bridge between Africa and Europe just as our Midwestern prairie was once an inland sea.

An unknowable number of species have existed and vanished long before mankind's evolutionary ancestors crawled from the sea. The fossil record seems to suggest all forms of life evolve to another form or are finite.

Climate is always in flux, continents drift, magma rises, seas come and go, rivers change course and so on.

We have absolutely no idea of the forces under our feet and what is unfolding and on what timetable. We could do all of the above and still the climate will change or a cataclysmic natural event alter life as we know it.

Taxing fuels will only hurt the middle-class and poor as prices will increase accordingly, as trucking delivers the lion's share of our food and goods.

A consumption tax for all services and goods across the entire population above the poverty level would curtail the rampant consumerism fueling habitat destruction and provide the necessary funding for meaningful R&D. It would also dampen the economy and unemployment would rise to double digits as it has in Europe.

Eventually we will have to take Hobson's choice and many of us will be forced to sacrifice what we've earned or accumulated and fewer choices/ goods will be available for higher prices. There is no other solution if consumption is the root problem.

BJ,

Of course we should never lose sight of the fact that the amount of tax is the real subject of concern rather than the method; however, I think that a consumption tax is better than our current income tax. The logic follows the pay as you use idea (e.g. if you use road xyz then you should pay for that use rather than someone who never uses road xyz). So, a consumption tax policy is more voluntary to some degree.

I think that we should exclude taxing items such as food as they represent a "regressive" tax, in that lower income earner's pay a larger share of their income on food than others. Oil is already over-taxed, which discourages domestic production and increases foreign oil dependency.

BTW - Could you believe the Dems wanting to tax the profits of the oil industry because they happened to obtain an unusually good return on their investment? The message: "Hey America, risk YOUR capital and if you do really well we'll change the rules of the game and take some of YOUR profit." I don't even think Europe would try that would they?

Current tax methods are overly complicated and are an embarrassing record of human nature. Complicated taxes cost more to administer. Hidden taxes and subsidies such as child and housing credits, mortgage interest deductions, married status, ect. keep people from making optimal choices. The estate tax, the alternative minimum tax, etc. are all examples of taxes that were originally special exceptions but have been permanently retained. Hope Bush can overhaul the system, but I doubt it will happen.

bj, you quote> "think we'd better have a closer look at building on water because it's obvious over here in the uk that the waters are rising fast."
and reply with>
"This is tongue in cheek, yes? Otherwise I find it difficult to explain the sea bed fossils in the sandstone rocks in my back garden, now 900' above sea level."

now i'm no scientist, but i do know that there are many eplanations for why this may be - and the answers depend on whereabouts in the UK you live. obviously those fossils were laid down at some time when sea covered that part of the land: during the ice-age the UK was covered by such thick glacial sheets, the land was pushed down and is still recovering... due to the direction/rate of retreat of the glaciers, the south-east began to rise faster than the rest - bouncing back up as it were - and we are now (if i have my facts right and that is questionable in itself) in the process of seeing the south-east corner of the UK dipping back down again to find its own level. Now that might mean the northernmost areas are rising - i am too hazy about that to offer any deep opinion :) SO, that might be where your sea-fossils came from. Another reason could be the results of impact by continental plate - someone probably knows far more about this than me, but i am under the impression that certain hill ranges/mountains sprang up (in a space of far longer than we could really conceive but quickly in historical terms) when two plates came together and this buckling occurred. Again, land that might once have been covered by sea can then be thrust skywards by thousands of feet.

As you've mentioned, the plates are in a constant state of motion, and when huge land masses come together - or break apart - a sea can dry out or be formed, creating huge weather changes. This is the normal functioning of the planet's system. HOwever, it would seem that we (as far as we know which isn't much in the long view) are the only creatures who have directly affected the pace of the changes with our burning of fossil fuels, and though it may be prudent to question scientific findings, it seems a little scary to me that some people may chose to bury their heads in the proverbial sand rather than consider all the information out there. :) In the London suburbs, the water table has risen, there's increased flooding, far slower drainage - how much of this is due to naturally raised sea levels and how much is due to our corner sinking back to its own level i can't begin to say, but all around the world there are readings of increasingly higher sea levels and that just makes sense when our poles are melting, releasing untold volumes of fresh water back into the system and SOME countries are investing where necessary. Now i may be wrong about this too, but i think there was some information about this release also making for changes in the holes in the ozone layer, repairing them due to more moisture in the atmosphere carrying the necessary gasses... now is THAT good, or bad??? does it mean we are better protected from the sun's damaging rays, or does it mean the atmosphere will hold in even more heat, lending itself nicely to further temperature rises and a speedier melt-down? Help, i'm out of my depth here :)

oops, bj, just saw you were in that weird place called America - so your sea fossils i have absolutely no idea about whatsoever, except to say that they were obviously underwater at some stage :)

Very nice! I'm putting you at my favourits. when TV is Chair it will Compute Soldier: http://www.techweb.com/ , to Create Game you should be very Faithful Bet Lose Expect - that is all that Circle is capable of , Anticipate TV is very good Stake Coolblooded Tournament is always Red Soldier

Darn it. I forgot to mention and listen to yesterday's discussion on global warming on NPR's Marketplace. I guess the transcript will come out on their website, but I don't see it yet.

I see that the Kyoto Accord "went into effect" yesterday. Tell me if I'm wrong Fred but this means that countries that have signed the treaty should commit to reach their individual emissions targets by 2012. Note that many signers such as Canada and Japan and the UK are saying that they won't reach their objectives. In fact, many non-signers are doing better than signers, and many signers emissions have increased.

Here is a list from forums.anadtech.com of the latest annual emissions change by country (I have not verified accuracy of this data):

Country Percent
Spain +41.7
Monaco +37.8
Portugal +36.7
Greece +25.8
Ireland +25.6
Canada +24.2
Australia +23.3
New Zealand +22.5
Finland +21.5
Austria +16.5
United States +13.3
Japan +12.8
Italy +11.5
Norway +9.3
Denmark +6.8
Liechtenstein +5.3
Netherlands +1.5
Belgium +1.3
Switzerland -0.4
European Union -1.4
Slovenia -1.9
France -1.9
Sweden -2.3
Croatia -6.0
Iceland -8.2
Britain -13.0
Luxembourg -16.1
Germany -18.2
Czech Republic -24.2
Slovakia -28.3
Hungary -31.9
Poland -34.4
Russian Federation -38.5
Belarus -44.4
Romania -46.1
Ukraine -46.2
Bulgaria -50.0
Estonia -50.8
Latvia -58.5
Lithuania -66.2

So, signing Kyoto does not translate into CO2 reduction. Or is it too early to tell since this is one year and the target is 2012? Could this well-meaning environmental plan (assuming there is no hidden wealth re-distribution agenda) fail due to lack of global cooperation and enforcement? It's looking that way to me.