Angry about climate change

[dewdrop_world]

Just wanted to air some things out... partly because this has been much on my mind and I'm struggling -- really fighting -- not to get overwhelmed. Partly this is also to explain why I might slowly disengage from this community... not that I've been very active lately anyway, but I feel life is calling me in a different direction.

A few weeks ago, as a result of a PBS NOVA program on global dimming, I got rudely shaken out of the state of denial most of us enjoy concerning the environment. Up to then, I kind of thought things might be rough for humanity later in the century, but we'd be basically okay. I didn't know about scientifically plausible projections that anticipate the near total, if not complete, extinction of all life on the planet within maybe a hundred years. That theory is still "controversial," but it does seem like the more we learn about the impact of greenhouse gases, the worse the projections get. Today it seems overwrought; in a few years it could be the best working theory available.

Getting an inkling of just how bad things could get, and realizing how stupid, shortsighted and lacking in discipline society as a whole is, has unfortunately pushed me into serious bouts of depression about the fate of humanity (and not just humanity). I'm depressed because we know it's coming, but I have precious little confidence that we will do anything significant enough, and quickly enough, to make a real dent in the damage. A Washington Post editorial cited one scientist's estimate that we would have to reduce CO2 emissions massively by 2015, and continue to cut back sharply after that, to avoid the two degree Celsius increase in temperature that would raise the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, raise sea levels enough to bury cities and flood farmland and freshwater supply with salt water, causing mass migrations, wars over scarce food and water, ... should I go on?

The panel's chair, Rajendra Pachauri, offered the planet an absolute deadline: We need to be producing less carbon dioxide -- which is to say burning less coal, gas and oil -- by 2015 at the latest, and after that we would need "very sharp reductions" or else there is no hope of avoiding an eventual temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius and the accompanying prospect of catastrophe.

If you have cancer, you might undergo invasive surgery to cut out the illness, then have months of painful chemo. You sacrifice a lot to give the whole body a fighting chance. But we don't see our rape of the environment as the disease that it is, and we think there is no need for sacrifice. We go out and buy more @##$$*#@ Hummers and Ford Exploders. If there were any sanity left in the world, we would all boycott fuel inefficient cars, turn off the AC when the temperature drops below 80 (it's getting into the 60's at night now and there are still some damn fools in my neighborhood who run the AC at night -- are you frickin' kidding me?). Instead I just see selfishness and lack of vision all around.

Yeah, I'm angry. I know this isn't a healthy place to be. I don't know what it will take to get out of it. Really, I haven't felt despair and rage like this since I first started facing my demons in meditation around 10 years ago. I used to think Dada art was crackpot gimmickry of early 20th-century artists just looking for notoriety, but I understand it completely now. Sometimes I feel the only rational response to our collective myopia and inertia is a primal howl of outrage. Reason fails.

It's a crucial matter of nonviolence -- crucial because we all die, soon, if we don't learn it fast. And I am violent to myself and others, in my thoughts, these days. I do believe I'll make peace with this. It will take more time. My meditation community supports me well, but it's really hard right now.

When I do make peace, I expect I will need to put my energy into environmental activism. I simply don't have time to do everything. I appreciate the work on behalf of the gay community, but I feel now that the social, economic and technological changes we need are so immense that, to me, now, nothing else matters. I want us as a species to live long enough to see justice for all oppressed. That is by no means guaranteed at present.

If you have any words of support, I would very much appreciate them. Thanks.
James

[Jamie McDaniel]

I just watched An Inconvenient Truth for the first time on Sunday. I think it is fine to reallocate your resources to environmental activism or whatever problem humanity faces that you feel the most passionate about or feel "called" to.

Oh course, by phrasing it that way, I might be coming across as categorizing the fate of the sole planet known to sustain life with say, prison reform.

added: I think the Washington Post link you posted is to an article by an activist, rather than an editorial.

[sailaway58]

Science FAQs

Isn’t there a scientific consensus that global warming is real and bad for us?

* There is no "scientific consensus" that global warming will cause damaging climate change. Claims that there is such a consensus mischaracterize the scientific research of bodies like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

What do scientists agree on?

* Scientists do agree that: 1) global average temperature is about 0.6°Celsius—or just over 1° Fahrenheit—higher than it was a century ago; 2) atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) have risen by about 30 percent over the past 200 years; and 3) carbon dioxide, like water vapor, is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the Earth’s atmosphere.

Doesn’t this mean we should be worried?

* As Richard Lindzen of MIT summarized it in The Wall Street Journal, "These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming." [Emphasis in original]

What don’t scientists know yet?

* Scientists do not agree on whether: 1) we know enough to ascribe past temperature changes to carbon dioxide levels; 2) we have enough data to confidently predict future temperature levels; and 3) at what level temperature change might be more damaging than beneficial to life on Earth.

Didn’t the National Academy of Sciences say greenhouse gases cause global warming?

* The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents…a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also noted that 20 years’ worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-term trends.

Hasn’t the Earth warmed precipitously over the past 100 years?

* The temperature rise of 0.6°C over the last century is at the bottom end of what climate models suggest should have happened. This suggests that either the climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought or that some unknown factor is depressing the temperature.

Don’t climate models warn of alarming future warming?

* Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are at the extreme end of the IPCC range, and are the result of faulty economic modeling, not science (see economics section below).

What are the realistic current estimates of future warming?

* Both James Hansen of NASA—the father of greenhouse theory—and Richard Lindzen of MIT—the most renowned climatologist in the world—agree that, even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in the next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues "predict additional warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ± 0.04°C per decade."

What about satellite temperature measurements?

* Evidence from satellite and weather balloon soundings suggests that the atmosphere has warmed considerably less than greenhouse theory suggests. These measurements, which cover the whole atmosphere and show only a very slight warming, show a disparity with the surface temperature measurements, which cover only a small fraction of the Earth but show sustained warming.

Hasn’t the disagreement between satellite and surface temperatures been resolved?

* No. There is still substantial disagreement between the mid-range of the satellite measurements and the mid-range of the surface measurements. This presents a problem for climate models.

Do other man-made factors besides greenhouse gases influence temperature?

* New research suggests that the role of greenhouse gases in warming has been overestimated, as factors like atmospheric soot, land use change, and solar variation9 all appear to have contributed significantly to recent warming.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Hummm. That link you posted, sailaway58, goes to www.globalwarming.org, which in my mind, would be similar to Exodus or Narth putting up a website at homosexuality.com.

GlobalWarming.org is a project of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

From The Republican War on Science (paperback):

"...the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (which received a whopping $465,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003)..." (page 95)

"By 2002, ExxonMobil was donating over a million dollars annually to policy groups and think tanks involved in battling against the scientific mainstream on global warming, including... the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Whenever a major new development occurs in climate science, these groups kick into high dudgeon, nitpicking and debunking state-of-the-art science in online commentaries, reports, press releases, and newspaper op-ed pieces." (page 82)

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

J
If you have any words of support, I would very much appreciate them. Thanks.
James

I absolutely support and applaud your commitment to this issue, James!!

By all means, focus your energy there 100% - especially since you feel compelled to - no better reason.

We NEED people who are commited to protecting the health of our earth, air, water, and who DO something about it.

Thank you for taking up this cause. Please stop by here from time to time to keep us posted about how, and what, you're doing. We're your friends and we support your 100%. But we'll miss you if you just stop posting.

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

Oh course, by phrasing it that way, I might be coming across as categorizing the fate of the sole planet known to sustain life with say, prison reform.

Hey, what's wrong with prison reform?

On a side note, environmental issues are the "other" thing that's eventually gonna get me thrown out of the Republican party. I'm convinced that global warming, and other pressing environmental issues, are the real deal, and it's time we bite the financial bullet and make some sacrifices to fix it ... sadly, here's the truth:

[dewdrop_world]

Thanks for the replies, and for the additional information about globalwarming.org. I looked briefly at the website this morning and was suspicious, but didn't have time to research further. My first impression just from reading the FAQ is that it falls squarely in the Edina Monsoon "cheer up, it may never happen" school.

One point I noticed right away is that this FAQ seems entirely mystified by the lower level of real temperature change than greenhouse theory predicts. This is no mystery to the scientists who are studying global dimming. They have found that particulate or "dirty" pollution prevents some amount of energy from the sun from reaching the surface of the earth (where it can then be trapped by greenhouse gases). They found supporting evidence for the global dimming theory after 9/11, when one source of pollution -- air traffic -- was entirely absent from American skies for a few days. Global dimming theory would predict that the difference between the high and low temperatures would be greater when jet aircraft contrails are not there to absorb sunlight. (The temperature difference was used because the average temperature can fluctuate quite a lot day-to-day, but the difference usually changes slowly.) Indeed, 9/11 - 9/13 showed a statistically significant increase in the temperature range, consistent with the theory.

Contrary to the FAQ, the factor depressing the temperature is not at all unknown. It has been identified. The ramification is that if we clean up dirty pollution (which is necessary to prevent cancers and respiratory illnesses) without cleaning up greenhouse gases, then global warming will be worse than previously predicted. Global dimming masks global warming. It makes global warming look less severe than it really is, and allows the short-sighted and stupid business lobby the wiggle room to argue that there isn't a problem.

This research has been around for a while (with scientific articles going back at least to 2001, per Wikipedia). The fact that globalwarming.org has not a single reference to global dimming anywhere on the site -- after YEARS of published research -- suggests at best that their scientific outlook is incomplete, and more probably that this research doesn't fit into their agenda so they just ignore it. In neither case would they be trustworthy.

Exxon/Mobil get it all wrong. The energy company that figures out how to develop power cheaply using methods that don't pollute is going to get very rich very quickly. It's in everybody's best interest if they stop thinking of themselves as "oil companies" and refigure themselves as "new energy" companies. If they don't, they will be obsolete (or, nobody will be left alive to envy their fearsome stockpiles of cash).

This website may try to dress them up like a cute little possum, but it's still the same old skunk underneath.

I'll try to keep in touch from time to time. I'm still looking for a good place to get connected.

Thanks!

[sailaway58]

Just offering a little balance, the word won't end in 100 years.

Here is a little about forecasting


You can see all three parts.
http://ff.org/index.php?option=com_c...=375&Itemid=92

[Daniel]

James- The frontpage (10/2/07) of the NYTimes featured an article on the alarming decrease in the polar icecap.

Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/sc...ml?ref=science

Like Jamie, I saw An Inconvenient Truth, which set my hair on fire. If there is any one issue facing the world that needs attention from everyone, it's global warming.

Already, there have been articles in the paper here outlining the areas of Manhattan which will be underwater if- and when- the sea rises 15 to 20 feet. I've even begun to call the Village 'New Venice' when in one of my more sardonic moods. It's one of the low lying areas. Waves will be lapping at 7th Avenue.

If you desire to place your efforts in stemming the tide, I say go for it.

[Steven E. Webster]

Folks,

I was almost a young man back in the last century when I first became alarmed about global warming. I saw a PBS program that was hosted by a British documentarian (it must have been the early 1990's) I found it very convincing, and very prophetic---prophetic in the sense of predicting the future.

He predicted that we'd be having this debate about now. And finished by predicting that by mid-21st century we'd all be grabbing shovels and planting trees for all we are worth in a desparate effort to repair the damage done by all the carbon released into the atmosphere.

James, what you must not do is lose hope. Not even when it looks like the end is staring us in the face. As long as we have breath, we need to hope.

I'm also convinced that all our work for justice of any sort is valuable work. I think there is a link between the way our culture treats women, minorities and LGBT people and the way that it treats the earth. It is important that we ultimately understand the connections. We simply need to end all systems of domination, including the domination and exploitation of mother earth.

James, only you can judge where the best place is to do your part. However, we all need to be involved in this in the end--because it affects us all, and the problem is too big for a small group of environmental activists--everyone needs to become an environmental activist.

I have a granddaughter--just 18 months old. She may live to see to see the awful outcomes that are being predicted. It makes one think.

At a certain point public opinion will shift dramatically on the global warming issue. The denial will end. I just read today that even within the business community that has supported the GOP in recent years there are folks who are coming to realize that our priorities need to change, and if the GOP doesn't wake up, then it may be time to try the other party. There are people in the business community that believe that "opportunity" lies in the direction of facing the facts about global warming and developing technologies and businesses that will avert this disaster. (It's a shame we didn't continue programs to encourage solar energy development that were introduced by President Jimmy Carter. We've lost valuable time.)

However, if society as a whole reacts with despair and loses hope--then we are really done for. So, James, your challenge is to help society to get beyond denial, but not to give in to despair. It's the challenge we all face.

Steven Webster

[dewdrop_world]

No, the world won't end in 100 years. Whether human beings continue to enjoy decent standards of living -- whether we will want to, or be able to, live in that world 100 years hence -- is another question entirely.

I see the "reasonable doubt" strategy employed here. In a criminal trial, the defense knows that creating just enough reasonable doubt can cause no action in the outcome - no conviction, no sentence. Same here. These conservative groups want to ensure that nothing is done to disrupt their greed. By creating reasonable doubt among sympathetic politicians, they hope nothing will be done while we're still arguing about it.

I would rather listen to the scientists than to lobbying groups with veiled agendas.

Stephen, your words resonate with me. Thank you!
James

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

No, the world won't end in 100 years. Whether human beings continue to enjoy decent standards of living -- whether we will want to, or be able to, live in that world 100 years hence -- is another question entirely.

I see the "reasonable doubt" strategy employed here. In a criminal trial, the defense knows that creating just enough reasonable doubt can cause no action in the outcome - no conviction, no sentence. Same here. These conservative groups want to ensure that nothing is done to disrupt their greed. By creating reasonable doubt among sympathetic politicians, they hope nothing will be done while we're still arguing about it.

I would rather listen to the scientists than to lobbying groups with veiled agendas.

Stephen, your words resonate with me. Thank you!
James

James,
You are right to analyze the blocks to positive action on global warmiing.

But, to repeat myself, if we move suddently from "doubt" to "despair" we will simply replace one block to action with another.

Frankly, the loss of ice in the arctic in the summer scares the crap out of me. There are going to be dire consequences.

I think we will need to readjust some of our attitudes about "standard of living." Individual autos might need to give way to more public transportation for instance--that will be a big shock in American culture.

Jumping on the nuclear bandwagon might seem attractive--but that might be a mistake too.

We need to address issues of economic distribution. China and India have aspirations to develope like the U.S.---if they do it just like us it will be disastrous. We all need to develope in sustainable ways.

Again, these are all huge and complex issues that require more than just a handful of environmental activists--it will take some real, global, changes of attitude and direction.

To bad the "leader of the free world" right now is such an ass.

Steven Webster

[sailaway58]

So what do all you doom sayers drive? Me? A four door Chevy Truck with a a 454 and a Mountaineer. Both old.
As long as there is population growth we are headed for disaster any way.And while the US has slowed down, the mass production of human life continues. And of course they move here.






Our quality of life peaked years ago. Just ask the Indians.

Middle class is on the way out due to an over abundance of people in the work force. Middle class was created by a shortage of workers. Kind of makes you wish you didn't have children to subject them to such brutality.

[dewdrop_world]

Originally Posted by sailaway58

So what do all you doom sayers drive? Me? A four door Chevy Truck with a a 454 and a Mountaineer. Both old.

It isn't what you drive, it's the gas mileage you get. Mine is a 2006 Civic and I average about 36 mpg (combination of city and highway driving). I am doing less damage by driving than people who love their Hummers.

My partner works within walking distance of my building, so we carpool.

Originally Posted by sailaway58

As long as there is population growth we are headed for disaster any way.

This is true. I've long felt that we should discourage pregnancies and encourage adoption. Children will be born anyway, so why should couples ignore the children that are currently throwaways so they can enjoy the vanity of "our own" child?

James

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by sailaway58

As long as there is population growth we are headed for disaster any way.And while the US has slowed down, the mass production of human life continues.

Bingo ... this is the biggest issue. Our overpopulation leads to overproduction, over-use of resources, over-pollution, etc ... we'd be having a dramatic impact on the environment even if we used pre-industrial methods for heating, farming, etc ... what we need to do is to use our knowledge to find methods that are even LESS damaging than pre-industrial ones ... and we can do that.

It would also be really nice to slow the population growth ... wonder what we can do about that, hmmm... since it would be a crisis and a threat to society to allow a few gays to marry ... [sorry, had to be snide]. Obviously, the numbers of us who are GLBT and therefore less inclined to reproduce biologically are not sufficient for a big impact. But I'm also adamantly opposed to any kind of government controls on reproduction (viz. China). Self-control and foresight would be nice.

This past summer I led a Bible study at church on caring for creation ... one of the things we considered was how environmentalism is inextricably linked to social justice: damage to the earth invariably has a disproportionate impact on the poor and disenfranchised (i.e. urban areas, third world ... briefly, those who can't afford to "work around" the damage and must farm damaged soil, drink polluted water, and so on). The attached is a perspective piece I wrote for the class.

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

This is true. I've long felt that we should discourage pregnancies and encourage adoption. Children will be born anyway, so why should couples ignore the children that are currently throwaways so they can enjoy the vanity of "our own" child?

Adoptive parent here ... give it up for "chosen children"! Woot!

[dewdrop_world]

Well, I was (partly) kidding about the vanity part... at work, can't say more now.

James

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by u-dog

As the proud Uncle of an adopted nephew and the proud biological father of three let me clear my throat here for a second

"Ahemmm"

and remind y'all that there are "breeders" here both gay and straight who might take exception to the characterization that reproducing from our own bodies was mere "vanity"

High birthrates are a direct response to poverty, high infant mortality, and insufficient social support frameworks for the elderly. It has been shown over and over that as health care improves, wages rise and elder care is established... birthrates plummet. If you want to control population... end poverty and redistribute wealth. enforced birth control is a bad road that deadends in an even worse neighborhood.

Ooo! Wasn't my intent ... woot for adoption was definitely not a dis for bio births ... after all, my kids were biologically born before they were adopted, right? No slap intended!

[sailaway58]

Zero Population Growth Will Occur Somewhere Between 2020 To 2029
I really like your outline Brent, I wouldn't mine filing it away for future use with your permission of course.

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by sailaway58

Zero Population Growth Will Occur Somewhere Between 2020 To 2029
I really like your outline Brent, I wouldn't mine filing it away for future use with your permission of course.

You are most welcome to it ... happy to send you the other materials from the study, too, if you want.