The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Guest skeptic griggsy]

Dave, thanks for helping me log-in here! And as you are an expert on global warming, what is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere now versus time before our anthropogenic effects happened? Someone in the documentary - the great global wariming swindle - stated that both are just a few drops in the atmosphere. And some call these denier skeptics when we skeptics use reason and fact,not sleight of hand to convince others. Thanks.

[Antlerman]

I almost hate to get into this discussion because it is nearly identical to the issues of "controversy" the Creationists exploit in showing the science of Evolution has flaws - so therefore the whole theory is "questionable". Bullshit! This exploitation of little "controversies" in the science does not negate it at all.

 

As far as Global Warming can't cause an ice age? It's not a direct correlation with warming and ice, on a global scale. The ice age Amanda wasn't a Global Ice age. What they talk about with global warming potentially causing another ice age would be for Europe. If the Greenland ice melted into the Atlantic ocean, it could potentially stop the huge underwater pump that cycles warm water and cool water in the world-wide current system from the North Atlantic, down under the African continent, up through the Indian Ocean and out into the Pacific and back again. This system brings warm air to Europe as it turns around below Greenland.

 

Suddenly dumping huge amounts of cold water coming off of North America into this system and leaving behind the Great Lakes, is theorized to have cause it to stop before which lead to the last great ice age 15,000 years ago. So, if Greenland dumps its cold water into this system.... ice age. Hence, Global Warming can lead to an ice age.

 

Of course this is just religious scientists saying all this, so why bother? Rush Limbaugh is right, buy a Humvee and do nothing. Shit in the water you drink, it's only science that says it will make you sick, and they used to believe all sorts of nonsense, so why listen? Smoking, that's safe too. Science has been wrong before.

 

How many voices are enough for us to get past our emotional reaction against what's being said? Death? That's always a good motivator. How many people die from smoking? (Unless that's still a controversy in some people's mind). Seat belts? That's disputable too. On and on and on the examples of our natures is endless. We will bring about our own end by refusing to get a divorce from our marriage with denial.

 

One note, I don't agree with a fatalist attitude that my little efforts mean nothing when Limbaugh and idiots seem to negate everything I do. Everything counts, and setting an example of moderation and respect to the world we all live in is far more powerful in the long term that being a big fat, sloppy hog. It matters.

 

 

Edit: I'm going to add these thoughts. There are 169 nations that have signed on the Kyoto treaty to reduce Carbon Emmissions, with the U.S. being one of the few who haven't, and amogst the top users of fossil fuel in the world (correlation anyone?). My point is are all those scientists and leaders of those 169 nations, idiots? Has some small fringe group with a web site or two really unraveled what's wrong with science and have The Truth ™, where all these world leaders are just "over-reacting"? How likely is that scenario?

 

Here's a quote from the National Science Academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America:

Climate change is real

 

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system

as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now

strong evidence that significant global warming is

occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements

of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean

temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in

average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes

to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that

most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed

to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already

led to changes in the Earth's climate.

 

See whole statement here: http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/G8_gb.pdf

 

Once again, scientists or politicians/priests know more about what's going on in the natural world? Whose voices carry more weight on these things? Who has a history of exploiting and distorting controversies for political ends?

[Vigile]

Bravo AM! Bravo.

[woodsmoke]

 

AM, will you marry me?

[Dave]

Dave, thanks for helping me log-in here! And as you are an expert on global warming....

I am no expert. Those that deny climate change seem to be the experts. I suggest you address your questions to them. I've given up.

[Dave]

.....One note, I don't agree with a fatalist attitude that my little efforts mean nothing when Limbaugh and idiots seem to negate everything I do. Everything counts, and setting an example of moderation and respect to the world we all live in is far more powerful in the long term that being a big fat, sloppy hog. It matters....

Fatalistic, or realistic?

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Whether global warming is real or not, I don't think it matters. What matters is what will happen when we try to fight it. I wrote an essay on alternative fuels and the possible adverse side effects of their use, what is feasible and what is not, etc. It is a pretty big essay so I won't put it here. From what I have learned, I have to say that what we will do to reduce emissions will probably worse than global warming itself. Their isn't a single feasible alternative that will not have or could possibly have dire consequences for the environment and global stability. You think it is bad now, just wait and see.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Everything on Earth, barring technological alchemy, is a trade off. closed system, Zero Sum game, nothing added as of yet.

 

To bail out of the technological race, to stop looking for answers, to quit moving forward is suicide for the race and humanities future.

 

As the OP's You Tube thinking forwarded, the majority of the "Eco-Use" thinking is more of a locking down of everything, forbidding foward thought, and imposing their particular version of *right* on everyone.

By taking the methods that are being used, anyone with a "No thanks, I care not to think your way, I'll go my own road" is branded a "heretic" and "wrong".

 

Not a scientist, nor much more than a serious thinker of this and other allied issues. I do own a mind that works and works for me.

No one will jam his/her/its groupe_sprecche down my craw without a good fight.

 

Should that someone have information and evidences that bear investigation, it'll be looked at and over, weighed. I have lots of time to make sure what I promote is as best an opinion as I can venture.

 

Invite all the "human_as_a_virus" sorts to shut off PC's and Mac boxes, head off to the soothing beds of the soylent factories, volunteer first to rid MuthaEarthe of the bugs contaminating her.. Don't worry, we'll shut the lights off at your place when yer gone..

 

k, very_frackin'_much_a_heretical_slayer_of_PC_at_any_cost'effinL

[Amethyst]

Got to agree with Nivek on this. Most of the arguments I have seen either for or against global warming are emotional. Show me the actual data, and from an unbiased source, not Greenpeace or something.

 

I did happen to find this: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=15776

 

Science Daily — New calculations show that sensitivity of Earth's climate to changes in the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) has been consistent for the last 420 million years, according to an article in Nature by geologists at Yale and Wesleyan Universities.

 

A popular predictor of future climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature produced by each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. This study confirms that in the Earth's past 420 million years, each doubling of atmospheric CO2 translates to an average global temperature increase of about 3° Celsius, or 5° Fahrenheit.

 

The data points to the existence of global warming, but it has been going on since before us humans have been here.

 

What I want to see is numbers that prove beyond a doubt that humans are making it worse compared to the numbers from 420 million years, and anything that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it's possible for humans to reverse the effect by recycling at our current rate, and if not, what the rate would have to be to reverse it, and the possiblity of making it a jailable offense not to recycle worldwide, because that's the only way you're going to get everyone to do it.

[Mongo]

Whether global warming is real or not, I don't think it matters. What matters is what will happen when we try to fight it. I wrote an essay on alternative fuels and the possible adverse side effects of their use, what is feasible and what is not, etc. It is a pretty big essay so I won't put it here. From what I have learned, I have to say that what we will do to reduce emissions will probably worse than global warming itself. Their isn't a single feasible alternative that will not have or could possibly have dire consequences for the environment and global stability. You think it is bad now, just wait and see.

 

I'm not sure how to take that.

 

So you're saying that global warming isn't the big issue but how we fight it is? So the cure of GW is worse than GW?

 

Warning about doing stupid things in the name of fighting GW would not be lost on me but I find that is still a secondary issue to GW.

 

However, if that is what you are saying, I trust you have good reasons. I can imagine many dumb ideas could be adopted. That was my point about recycling in that it doesn't fight GW but could lull people into thinking that it is useful towards lowering carbon emissions. To borrow from AM's brilliant commentary, it would be like telling people they won't get sick if they wizz into the river before pooing or perhaps they need to wave a shief of crow feathers or pray to Jesus.

 

That said... not all of us are stupid. Many of us realize that cutting emmissions are going to affect our consumption patterns and we will need legislation to curb those habits that most contribute to emissions.

 

What scares me is that the concept of carbon credit trading. I can't imagine anything more attractive to the Ken Lays and Michel Milken's of this world. Carbon cheating will be as rampant as OPEC cheating and the people will be lulled into comfort and others will get rich.

 

I read most of Guns Germs and Steel by Jerad Diamond (very long but very well written) who has just written a book on the collapse of nations or societies. Apparently complexity is the main culpret. As societies develop, they get increasingly complex and therefore fragile. Often a major change in dynamics such as drought can upset the complexity and bring the society to its knees and a new order is brought in.

 

I cannot imagine that the world will do enough to combat GW until it has ravaged us enough to get our attention. What people don't realize is that our complex society is actually quite fragile and by waiting until a drought hits Canada or the ocean currents change significantly (affecting weather) then we may have crossed a line that makes a wholesale assault on our highly complex society result in a depression that makes the Dirty Thirties look like the roaring Twenties.

 

Many companies have prepared for a pandemic within the context of the major elements remaining stable with the exception of people being very sick and dying. Their thinking has no concept of a pandemic combined with another dust bowl of the 30s or heat waves of a few years back in Europe.

 

Once the temperature rises start affecting the world's ability to grow crops, the word pandemic takes on whole new meaning.

 

Collapse of our highly consumptive society... once thought unthinkable... seems oddly possible to me these days.

 

Mongo

[♦ nivek ♦]

Collapse of our highly consumptive society... once thought unthinkable... seems oddly possible to me these days.

 

Mongo

 

Mongo..

 

Prepare for the worst, be prepared for as many emergent and long-term situations as you and yours can.

 

Always carry a good blade.

 

Never hurt someone, be they city apartment dwelling or countrified sod buster, to have things ready for problems life presents..

 

We certainly do such.

 

kFL

[HuaiDan]

Reuse your grocery bags as garbage bags, don't buy the super-strong hefty steel sacs. This will conserve crude oil, and make you more aware of how much garbage you actually produce. Don't smoke, This will be a huge blow to wasteful agribusiness (I'm a hypocrite on this one). Don't leave the tap running when you're brushing your teeth. Limit yourself to a long, luxurious shower once a week, other days try to be in and out in as short of a time as possible. Walk or ride a bike to the corner store, no need to drive your SUV to buy a bag of cheetos. Turn down your thermostat at night.

 

I remember living in the US driving to work during rush hour and seeing a long line of cars in a traffic jam, each car with only one occupant!!!!! A little prior planning could reduce the number of the cars on the road by 1/2 which means a faster drive to work in the morning, but big oil doesn't want that, no no no. Sure, a pick-up truck or suv makes you feel like a real man, but a compact hybrid will get you to work all the same, and if everybody did traffic accidents would tend to be less fatal.

 

Eat more fresh fruits and vegetables and meats. Don't eat anything processed or that comes in a package. Packaged processed food is terribly unhealthy, and the processing and packaging consumes billions of barrels of crude every year.

 

That's what I can think of right off the top of my head, what YOU can do as an individual. It's what I already do and have been doing for 4 years in China. And it won't change your lifestyle radically. If anything, you'll be a happier, healthier person for it, thinking of creative new ways to conserve.

 

The problem with that big fat global hog, the United States, is everybody has become used to a lifestyle of convenience, the lifestyle that's the envy of the world. People in other countries aren't holier than those in the US, they don't live that lifestyle because they can't, partially because how the US has exploited the rest of the world so its citizens could enjoy that lifestyle. But it's a bad example, and when 1.3 billion Chinese want to start living like Americans, well, you can imagine what happens when two tribes of monkeys meet at the watering hole and both want to claim it as theirs.

 

Or Americans can reclaim their status as global leaders, just like when we kicked fascism's ass in WWII, rising to the top in a time of global catastrophe, showing the world a way of better living through conservation. Just get off your fat ass, turn off the goddam TV, and start doing something about it instead of bitching and moaning that there's no real solution. THAT'S PLEADING FROM IGNORANCE!!!!!! (another example of pleading from ignorance is saying "god works in mysterious ways". And I know how much you all hate that....)

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Whether global warming is real or not, I don't think it matters. What matters is what will happen when we try to fight it. I wrote an essay on alternative fuels and the possible adverse side effects of their use, what is feasible and what is not, etc. It is a pretty big essay so I won't put it here. From what I have learned, I have to say that what we will do to reduce emissions will probably worse than global warming itself. Their isn't a single feasible alternative that will not have or could possibly have dire consequences for the environment and global stability. You think it is bad now, just wait and see.

 

I'm not sure how to take that.

 

So you're saying that global warming isn't the big issue but how we fight it is? So the cure of GW is worse than GW?

 

Warning about doing stupid things in the name of fighting GW would not be lost on me but I find that is still a secondary issue to GW.

 

I'll give you an excerpt of my essay.

 

What we can grow here in the U.S. to use as the carbohydrate source is inefficient when it comes to creating ethanol. Corn, switch grass, wheat, and other plants do not yield as much ethanol as we would like. Even our own government says we can only produce “[…] approximately 1 billion dry tons of biomass feedstock per year,” to meet just thirty percent of our demand (Perlack, Wright and Turhollow). What does that mean? It means that we still have to come up with seventy percent of our biomass source from other nations.

 

Undoubtedly, other nations will want to provide us with the biomass we will need. Oil producing countries have made a lot of money; why should they not also? However, biomass competes directly with foodstuffs.

“The impact on global food supply will be catastrophic: big enough to tip the global balance from net surplus to net deficit. If, as some environmentalists demand, it (global warming) is to happen worldwide, then most of the arable surface of the planet will be deployed to produce food for cars, not people.

 

This prospect sounds, at first, ridiculous. Surely if there were unmet demand for food, the market would ensure that crops were used to feed people rather than vehicles? There is no basis for this assumption. The market responds to money, not need. People who own cars have more money than people at risk of starvation. In a contest between their demand for fuel and poor people's demand for food, the car-owners win every time. Something very much like this is happening already. Though 800 million people are permanently malnourished, the global increase in crop production is being used to feed animals: the number of livestock on earth has quintupled since 1950. The reason is that those who buy meat and dairy products have more purchasing power than those who buy only subsistence crops (Monbiot).”

 

One could argue biomass fuels could cause global problems just as horrific as climate change. In addition, the benefits are not that great. Biofuels such as E85 only give an 18% reduction in CO2emissions, cost more at the pump, and has worse gas mileage than gasoline. Brazil has already changed to E85. Their magnificent rainforest is becoming E85’s first ecological victim. They are using slash-and-burn land clearing techniques to make room for the sugarcane fields in order to fuel their, so-called, green vehicles. Where are the benefits that our government and environmentalists claim will save us from ecological disaster?

There is not much government interest in using anything for alternative fuels except what we can grow or get from industries, like coal mining, which are in need of an economic boost. It seems to me hydrogen poses risks that outweigh its benefits, and biomass fuels are not as green as we would like them to be. That leaves us with few options for our alternative fuels.

 

Hydrogen has its environmental problems, as well, both in its creation and in its use. Solar power is just not feasible yet, and pure electric vehicles are unreasonable. Compressed natural gas is quite dangerous, some forms are more flamable than gasoline.

[Mongo]

“The impact on global food supply will be catastrophic: big enough to tip the global balance from net surplus to net deficit. If, as some environmentalists demand, it (global warming) is to happen worldwide, then most of the arable surface of the planet will be deployed to produce food for cars, not people.

 

Thanks a million. The scientests have been saying that ethanol is not a cure all, you've made that more clear to me.

 

However, you have raised a point above that I'd never considered.

 

More affluent societies demand that their environment be cleaner than developing ones like China and India. I'd like to think that we would also demand that alternatives to ehanol be deployed so that we don't have an objectional moral cost.

 

On the CBC radio this morning they were talking about the traffic toll of 10 pounds to enter the downtown core with your car. This is the kind of solution that I belive has a chance of making a dent in behaviour. A solution like that works on so many levels it is sure to catch on... given some time.

 

re. HuaiDan's comments

I loved your suggestion that we eat fresh vegetables and fruit. Again this kicks consumption in the gut and makes us healthier.

 

Again though, the Chillean grapes that I love in winter are flown to me by jet. Likewise Californian (subsidized via cheap illegal labour) veggies that come our way in winter are high cost (gas, water & fertilizer) to produce/ship.

 

Taxes and tarrifs are the only way to eliminate these emissions.

[Mongo]

Collapse of our highly consumptive society... once thought unthinkable... seems oddly possible to me these days.

 

Mongo

 

Mongo..

 

Prepare for the worst, be prepared for as many emergent and long-term situations as you and yours can.

 

Always carry a good blade.

 

Never hurt someone, be they city apartment dwelling or countrified sod buster, to have things ready for problems life presents..

 

We certainly do such.

 

kFL

 

So if you are highly skeptical about global warming, you must have different reasons for expecting societal collapse.

 

What is the basis of your concern?

 

Mongo

[Antlerman]

Reuse your grocery bags as garbage bags, don't buy the super-strong hefty steel sacs. This will conserve crude oil, and make you more aware of how much garbage you actually produce. Don't smoke, This will be a huge blow to wasteful agribusiness (I'm a hypocrite on this one). Don't leave the tap running when you're brushing your teeth. Limit yourself to a long, luxurious shower once a week, other days try to be in and out in as short of a time as possible. Walk or ride a bike to the corner store, no need to drive your SUV to buy a bag of cheetos. Turn down your thermostat at night.

 

I remember living in the US driving to work during rush hour and seeing a long line of cars in a traffic jam, each car with only one occupant!!!!! A little prior planning could reduce the number of the cars on the road by 1/2 which means a faster drive to work in the morning, but big oil doesn't want that, no no no. Sure, a pick-up truck or suv makes you feel like a real man, but a compact hybrid will get you to work all the same, and if everybody did traffic accidents would tend to be less fatal.

 

Eat more fresh fruits and vegetables and meats. Don't eat anything processed or that comes in a package. Packaged processed food is terribly unhealthy, and the processing and packaging consumes billions of barrels of crude every year.

 

That's what I can think of right off the top of my head, what YOU can do as an individual. It's what I already do and have been doing for 4 years in China. And it won't change your lifestyle radically. If anything, you'll be a happier, healthier person for it, thinking of creative new ways to conserve.

These are all very simple things that are hardly a sacrifice of anything, plus is healthier for us as individuals. It’s simply a matter of adopting new habits, sort of like using an outhouse instead of that stream nearby where you get your drinking water from.

 

As far as vehicles go, I’m fortunate enough to own a hybrid vehicle and it amazes me how something as simple as the auto-stop feature saves so much gas and reduces overall emissions from it. When I come to a stop in traffic, the engine shuts off and it goes into standby, equaling zero gas used and zero emissions. I imagine how quite it would be on the freeway with everyone’s engine doing that? You would probably hear birds and kids playing out in the yards of the homes surrounding the road ways. Imagine that.

 

Getting an average of 50 mpg in my car is a damned nice reward too! It’s a four door sedan and I’ll put in up against any status symbol with a hemi in the quarter. Nothing has more power out of the gate than electric torque. You can easily put a family of 5 in it.

 

Nearly everyone I know who has these monster vehicles doesn’t need them for anything that makes sense, like using them as a construction contractor who hauls materials all day. I can see it in them that it honestly is more about status symbols of the illusion of wealth. It’s largely the middle class trying to show how successful they are, and in the scope of distributed wealth, it’s all really pretty much the same in the middle. They’re really not rich, but like others to think they are.

 

But I suppose, it’s this illusion of wealth that keeps the masses quite. Maybe we need to find a better symbol for them than one that sucks natural resources so bad? Maybe something like huge phallic symbols on community buildings they support; something that would be a visible display of how much wealth the community they are members of has; things that look surprisingly like church steeples? “See how big ours is?”, is it’s underlying message that will allow them to hold their heads high with pride in the face of true wealth that doesn’t care what they think, and to those they are not much further ahead than.

 

But it's a bad example, and when 1.3 billion Chinese want to start living like Americans, well, you can imagine what happens when two tribes of monkeys meet at the watering hole and both want to claim it as theirs.

This is the thing that is truly frightening to me; one that is a likely scenario. For all our “advances”, we are all always less than one generation away from savages. Mongo’s post about the fragility of highly complex societies when faced with a major has an ominous truth to it. When the resources become scarce, what’s going to happen? Civilized behavior?

 

All in all, I agree with what you're saying and the real point is that simple changes in behavior make a huge difference, if not in immediate result, it does in assuming a mindset that has effect on the society around you. Ideas grow, and will eventually change the world we live in. None of these changes you mentioned take a huge investment of energy, just a different attitude, a different outlook. Maybe the real sacrifice is in not being one of the herd, but in making choices that make sense.

 

Good post HuaiDan.

[Vigile]

Maybe we need to find a better symbol for them than one that sucks natural resources so bad? Maybe something like huge phallic symbols on community buildings they support; something that would be a visible display of how much wealth the community they are members of has; things that look surprisingly like church steeples?

 

Wouldn't work. I posit that they drive these behemoths in response to a reptillian instinct which causes them to try and appear larger than they really are in order to make up for some psychological or physical short comings. Perhaps if we just put them all in Furry costumes and welded the zipper.

[Amanda]

Reuse your grocery bags as garbage bags, don't buy the super-strong hefty steel sacs. This will conserve crude oil, and make you more aware of how much garbage you actually produce.

 

Huai Dan, is it true it takes about 300 years for a grocery bag to decompose? I agree there is pollution... and lots of it. I've seen places like Jakarta and even Mexico City that the pollution in the air and on the ground was astounding... escpecially compared to the US! Florida has bins given out to residents for recycling material that gets picked up once a week.

 

That's what I can think of right off the top of my head, what YOU can do as an individual. It's what I already do and have been doing for 4 years in China. And it won't change your lifestyle radically. If anything, you'll be a happier, healthier person for it, thinking of creative new ways to conserve.

 

I commend you and your country for taking such valiant measures. Do you think that became imposed because of such vast over population?

 

The problem with that big fat global hog, the United States, is everybody has become used to a lifestyle of convenience, the lifestyle that's the envy of the world. People in other countries aren't holier than those in the US, they don't live that lifestyle because they can't, partially because how the US has exploited the rest of the world so its citizens could enjoy that lifestyle.

 

Exploited the rest of the world?!?! Please explain this to me... as many Americans are angry at the outsourcing of so many jobs to foreign countries. Additionally, I've heard that China has been importing so much of our building materials that it has driven the price for domestic new building prices approaching out of sight! We donate more money to foreign countries than any other nation, including our private donations too. We probably implement more pollution control devices than most countries also. Yet foriegn countries see us as fat global hogs exploiting the rest of the world?

 

But it's a bad example, and when 1.3 billion Chinese want to start living like Americans, well, you can imagine what happens when two tribes of monkeys meet at the watering hole and both want to claim it as theirs.

 

We have quite a large Asian population in this country, how about Americans in yours?

 

Or Americans can reclaim their status as global leaders, just like when we kicked fascism's ass in WWII, rising to the top in a time of global catastrophe, showing the world a way of better living through conservation. Just get off your fat ass, turn off the goddam TV, and start doing something about it instead of bitching and moaning that there's no real solution. THAT'S PLEADING FROM IGNORANCE!!!!!! (another example of pleading from ignorance is saying "god works in mysterious ways". And I know how much you all hate that....)

 

Get off our fat ass? Did you know the average American works more hours than any other country? I think we try to be proactive instead of corrective. We tried to keep our population growth to zero, however, we keep letting people of other countries come here too. I think this is good, as long as they've come to help pull the wagon instead of jump on the wagon. Most can't keep our pace and become quite frustrated. I'm not saying the US is perfect, yet we often do so much for others that goes vastly unappreciated... and many of its citizens are getting tired of it.

 

As for me... I look forward to retiring in Honduras... where life is simple and enjoy the luxuries the US has afforded the rest of the world.

[HuaiDan]

Huai Dan, is it true it takes about 300 years for a grocery bag to decompose? I agree there is pollution... and lots of it. I've seen places like Jakarta and even Mexico City that the pollution in the air and on the ground was astounding... escpecially compared to the US! Florida has bins given out to residents for recycling material that gets picked up once a week.

 

Is that any shorter a time than super strong hefty sacks take to decompose? If you used the already existent grocery bags, then you wouldn't need to buy the garbage bags, which Hefty corp. wouldn't need to produce and unnecessarily consume the crude needed to produce those bags. Reusing what you have = not having to consume more.

I commend you and your country for taking such valiant measures. Do you think that became imposed because of such vast over population?

I am an American citizen living and working in China. And, yes, the Chinese have adapted an amazing lifestyle to cope with such a huge number of people. Even so, food, especially fresh fruits and vegetables, are much much cheaper here than in the US. And most chinese farms use an organic, mosaic farming method, not the huge single stand agribusiness method the US uses.

 

Exploited the rest of the world?!?! Please explain this to me... as many Americans are angry at the outsourcing of so many jobs to foreign countries. Additionally, I've heard that China has been importing so much of our building materials that it has driven the price for domestic new building prices approaching out of sight! We donate more money to foreign countries than any other nation, including our private donations too. We probably implement more pollution control devices than most countries also. Yet foriegn countries see us as fat global hogs exploiting the rest of the world?

 

Look at per capita consumption rates of natural resources and the average US citizen tops that of any country on earth BY A MATTER OF DEGREES. The Chinese are envious of the American lifestyle, thanks to the American Hollywood propaganda machine (the average Chinese believes the average American lives in a 5 bedroom house with a swimming pool), but there's no way in hell mother earth can support a nation of Chinese living like the Americans do.

 

 

 

We have quite a large Asian population in this country, how about Americans in yours?

 

There's a fair contingent of foreigners here in Shanghai and in other major cities, but we Americans are outnumbered by the Japanese, French, and Australians. What's your point about this?

 

Get off our fat ass? Did you know the average American works more hours than any other country?

I'm not so sure about that. The Chinese work pretty damn hard and pretty damn efficiently too. And at 1/6 to 1/3 the salary that my English-teaching ass makes 30 hours a week, if they're white collar. And again what's the point? I'm talking about consumption and said nothing about anyone's work ethic. My comment referred to those who want to say that a global climate catastrophe either won't happen or that it's inevitable.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Maybe we need to find a better symbol for them than one that sucks natural resources so bad? Maybe something like huge phallic symbols on community buildings they support; something that would be a visible display of how much wealth the community they are members of has; things that look surprisingly like church steeples?

 

Wouldn't work. I posit that they drive these behemoths in response to a reptillian instinct which causes them to try and appear larger than they really are in order to make up for some psychological or physical short comings. Perhaps if we just put them all in Furry costumes and welded the zipper.

 

Haha, good one Vigile!

 

Mongo, here is some more food for thought from my essay regarding hydrogen.

 

Look at hydrogen fuel cells more closely. Coal and natural gas are the only sources for hydrogen the United States plans to develop. Unfortunately, getting hydrogen from coal or natural gas requires a large energy input making it more expensive to extract. There are plans in the works for using solar or wind power to create the energy necessary to create the energy input needed to make hydrogen. A study in 1995 determined there was ample room for the number of solar panels required to provide enough energy to create enough hydrogen to meet our future demands (Levene, Mann and Margolis). The current price of solar cells would make the process extremely cost prohibitive. However, like any attempt at using land for energy use it is likely that some environmentalists could complain that not enough consideration was given to the local flora and fauna and making hydrogen is not as green as we would hope.

 

The process of extracting hydrogen from coal and natural gas also produces CO2 waste. The U.S. Government has made plans to either pump the CO2 waste product into the ground or create waste sites in the ocean. This would require constant monitoring and there is always the risk of a massive leak into the atmosphere. It is also extremely expensive, around $300 dollars per ton (US DOE/FE). The cost of storage would be reflected at the pump and considering that the number of storage sites would grow every year, the costs can only go up.

 

Even if we decided to go full throttle and switch to hydrogen there is still the problem of the vehicle emissions from this fuel as well. Another damaging greenhouse gas, unbelievably, is water vapor. In fact, water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and the largest contributor to global warming. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has stated,

“[…] changes in its [water vapor in the atmosphere] concentration are also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it’s warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up)” (NOAA).

 

As I mentioned before, the only emission from a hydrogen fueled vehicle is water vapor. Just one of these vehicles pump out more immediate damage to the atmosphere than four fueled by gasoline. A gasoline vehicle emits ten pounds of CO2 every year, and a hydrogen-powered vehicle produces five pounds of water vapor per year. Water vapor is nearly four times more effective at trapping heat than CO2. On its own, water vapor is part of the climates natural balance. It does have a shorter atmospheric lifespan than CO2; nevertheless, we have yet to see what effect millions of hydrogen-fueled vehicles on the road, everyday, could do to that balance (Houghton, Jenkins and Ephraums). Imagine being stuck in traffic on a hot, and already humid, day with thousands of other vehicles pumping out heated water vapor! Moreover, what will it do to a foggy day? Thank goodness, we are nowhere near using hydrogen!

[HuaiDan]

Yeah, hydrogen cells are BS. Newton's 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

[Guest skeptic griggsy]

Iwould think that efforts to stem global warming could boost job creation. It seems to be a case of old companies against new ones.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Hybrid cars are also something that makes as much or more hi-tech pollution in their construction and eventual demolition than the "uber-beast sterotypical SUV truck".

 

Plastics and various "man-made" material peices for the cars are all hi-tech wonders of smeltings and casting. Power hungry industries make these wonders of engineering.

 

Nickle mined in Canada, take a look at the pollution caused by that process. The refining of same material. Use of lead acid abatteries, their short life in automotive useage, then their eventual need to be disposed of, recycled, or components remade.

 

All of the above is power intensive, enviromentally unsound as far as new eco-terminology is used.

 

There is no free lunch. "Lite on the Earth" vehicles are great advertising, however when one compares side by side the manufacturing to dismantling of a hybrid-car and the SUV, there is nothing *saved*.. Just processes and energy moved around on the ink blotter and bottom lines.

 

The kid who fills my Easy Answer Jar forgot to go by the engine design shoppe and fill the slips with "all things automotive" this week. I have no easy answer as to what will be the fix for automotive ventures.

 

As for haciendaFatman, I parked the Urban Assualt Vehicle right before our winter, and other than driving it around the block and reparking it once a month, it has sat unused. No snow, and no need for 350 horses of horsepower and the four wheel drive to go cut cookies in parking lots and such mayhem..

 

 

Bought a little commuter car, fixed the broken trans, did a lot of assorted power tuning, have a little generic white 4-door sedan that goes 30 mpg and 115mph when needed.. All for less than a down payment on something "new and shiney".

 

I tend to re-use and fix what I can. Yuppies are great for things they use a bit, get tired of, dispose of cheaply or free, and pass on to the mean_old_man to repair or clean up and reuse..

 

kFL

[woodsmoke]

While I don't disagree with you, Jeff (in fact I think you point out the problems with the PC solution to oil dependency beautifully), I will say I don't know anyone who considers him/herself environmentally conscious and backs ethanol as a legitimate alternative fuel. It's pretty common knowledge that ethanol is extremely inefficient to produce and only slightly less destructive than gasoline--and that only in the short term.

 

The only people who are really pushing ethanol are part of the establishment (most of them, in this case, in the agricultural industry), and they're only doing it because they know damn well it won't actually cause any substantial change to the status quo.

 

Myself and every environmentalist I know, depending on how passionate/cynical about the subject we are, either scream at the TV or shake our heads in exasperation whenever we see Dubya or any other politician spinning himself as "green" by promoting the hybridization of oil and ethanol. The answer to oil dependency lies in the naturally occurring clean, renewable energy sources: solar, wind, hydro and geothermal energy.

 

The ones we all learned about in elementary school.

[♦ nivek ♦]

woodster..

 

Point to ponder with "anything but petrochemicals" for fuel sources:

 

Wind and solar power depend heavily on existing petro-based technology to make component and control parts. They too also depend heavily on the heavy metals industries (major polluters in mining, refining and milling) for energy storage devices and transmission lines.

 

Wind and solar are trade offs at this time in technology. Not a golden fleece to take care and replace existing things, but nacent technolgies to build on, experiment with and then hopefully mature into useful less_dependent_on_dead_dino_extracts.

 

So far we've got a decent beginning on things that may help Man supplant eventually oil based economies. I do feel and see that there are the young inventors and those who tinker with technology making things work better for less energy and waYyyYYyYYYyyyyyy less gross and base materials in their manufacture.

 

Technology will either save mankind, or cause or extinction. Doubt seriously that your or my g-g-g-g-g--g-g-g-gggggggggg grandkids will be part of that Great Arkleseizure.

See whats been done in past 150 years of man's tinkering with machinery. Imagine the next century, and then the centuries on past then. Science Fiction Dreams? Maybe.

 

We'll never know if we shut off technology and science because of the eco-fundmentalists of today..

 

k, ever armed and halfassed, umm, where did I out my my vodka screwdriver?FL