[lit-ideas] Re: global luke-warming

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:15:32 -0700

On a related subject, or perhaps an earlier one where some here were
imagining what it would be like after we ran out of fossil fuel in 20 years
or so - the end of civilization as we know it or something very near - has
everyone noticed that Brazil will become energy independent this year?  They
have kicked their oil addiction and have substituted ethanol:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-03-28-brazil-ethanol-cover_x.htm?POE=
TECISVA .  The article indicates that the U.S. is pursuing ethanol with
greater interest, but we are a long way behind Brazil.  Why are we so far
behind?  I feel need of another Andreas Big-Oil conspiracy theory.  

 

Lawrence

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Paul Stone
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:39 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: global luke-warming

 

Before anyone jumps all over me as a conservative naysayer who speaks for 

big oil, let me say that I am NOT denying that the consequences of burning 

copious amounts of fossil fuel are that certain things about our 

environment are changing -- pollution and a very slight change in the 

makeup of our atmosphere are obviously consequences.

 

My argument is with the varying notions of problems gathered under the 

heading of "global warming" which most people don't know the definition of, 

since there really isn't a definition. My trouble is that to imply "the 

planet is warming up" is deliberate misdirection for political reasons so 

that people will 'take notice' of this 'global problem' which is a doomsday 

scenario in its present incarnation.

 

The thing is, the problem is not well defined so that lots of phenomena 

that normally and naturally happen are brought under the "see, global 

warming IS happening" umbrella and both snow/rain and drought, cold and 

warm, ocean currents and ocean calmness,  evaporation and arid conditions 

are all blamed on "global warming."

 

 >The WSJ editorial page is ultra conservative.

 >

 > And... ANY "Green" movement is ultra-liberal. Your point?

 >

Real quick.  Any green movement is ultra-liberal?  If you say so.

 

I reckon.

 

>Mexico City; Teheran; most of China the air is unbreathable (something like

>80% of the country)

 

Do you mean "unbreathable" as in 'will not sustain oxygen breathing life"? 

Or are you just hyperbolizing?

 

>and many places in China are actually soot covered;

>India; Madison and Lex in a summer smog alert;

 

smog alert? You know, I used to live in a city that had regular 'smog 

alerts'. On a summer day, 100 F, hazy, humid as a sauna, and the radio 

would  say "there's a smog alert, don't do any strenuous exercise" blah 

blah blah. Our bicycle group would meet and ride our regular 150 km with NO 

ill effects. Of course it might be dangerous for the 

respiratory-challenged, but do we REALLY need to design our societies 

around its illest members? Cleaning up the smog is a noble notion. I WORK 

as an engineer who has as one of my primary jobs, designing systems for 

scrubbing pollutants out of exhaust gases and designing waste water 

treatment facilities. We achieve great results in doing this, but it's a 

long process to retrofit every plant in the industrialized world. AND... 

like I said, the other countries you mention are now going through what we 

already went through. They can't afford to put the blocks to their 

economies just as they are building them up.  The notion that dilution is 

the solution to pollution is an old one and hard to break -- Afterall, the 

world is HUGE [he said ironically] -- I think we're getting there.

 

>L.A. before the clean air legislation; the hundreds of Superfund sites in 

>this country, midnight

>dumping just about everywhere and on and on.  There's acid rain in Alaska, 

>in Canada.

 

These things are all "pollution" and are NOT the [current] blames for 

"Global Warming". I'm not arguing there's no pollution. If you make stuff, 

you will have pollution. But. we can't completely stop making stuff.

 

> > >pollution concentrations are visible on satellite imaging,

> >

> > That's because satellite imaging is really good now.

> 

>Really good and it shows what's there.

 

And.. if it would have been around 100 years ago, it would have shown an 

even worse case.

 

> > >and oceans that weren't polluted?

> >

> > Oceans are polluted? What do you mean by 'polluted'?

> 

>The oceans are actually dying.  Don't take my word for it.  Mother Jones

>did an entire issue on it a little while back.

 

Mother Jones? See very first exchange about "ultra-liberal"... 

incidentally, I'm subscribed to MJ.

 

>evidence that has to come from retrospective studies, which take decades.

>So here we have all sorts of evidence and no proof so let's wait decades

>and see what happens.  Obviously there are those who think things can be

>reversed.  Why not take Pascal's Wager and just clean the place up?

 

Why not, indeed. But destroying whole nations' economies is not a good 

place to start. We have to slowly adjust the national economic model and 

wean ourselves off oil. But my reasons for saying that are completely 

different from yours. You want to save the earth, i want to save the 

humans. We are going to run out of oil before we destroy the atmosphere and 

fuck up the weather completely. I want an alternative to oil, not because I 

care about the environment (I do by the way) but because I care about being 

able to run stuff.

 

>Make an industry out of cleaning air and water.

 

what's it going to run on? Where is the money going to come from. Do you 

know why all these huge office buildings leave all their lights on all the 

time? Because it's cheaper to pay for the electricity than it is to pay 

some dude to change all the light bulbs -- since it would be a full time 

job for a guy if they kept turning them on and off (that's what kills 

fluorescent lighting, not length of time burning). This is NOT a moral 

issue though. As long as it's economical for this situation to remain, then 

we are wasting gigawatts of electricty just lighting office buildings. How 

are you going to make businesses do what is NOT in their interest to do?

 

Also... it's clearly a liberal agenda that wastes another huge amount of 

electricity lighting our streets. Where did this notion come from? Just 25 

years ago, there were NO streetlights on most of our subdivision's streets. 

Now... there's one every couple of hundred feet. Each one of those millions 

of streetlights uses at least 250 watts. Oh, so we can be safe. Safe? From 

what? Is the bogeyman around the corner? Should we contribute to ruining 

the planet JUST so we can prevent a few muggings? Why not put that money 

into teaching people not to mug, or giving them jobs or for extra cops (who 

walk around the streets and use NO electricity)

 

>You also fight tooth and nail in favor of spanking, when study after study 

>shows that children who are

>spanked are more aggressive.

 

My argument is not against the studies' conclusion "children who are 

spanked are more aggressive", my problem is with the black/white notion 

that ANY aggression is a bad thing. I'm arguing that, even if the studies 

conclusions ARE true, which I think, in their own way, they are, I disagree 

with the overall concept of sparing the rod in all cases, bar none. That's 

not denying the 'evidence', that's a fundamental disagreement with the 

touchy-feely way the world is going. "Anger" has become a bad word. It's 

becoming stigmatized and in some cases, criminal behaviour, JUST to get 

angry. That's a dangerous world when you just toss out a completely normal 

human emotion.

 

>  My point: you won't change your opinions no matter what the evidence.

 

That's absolutely not true. My whole life is based on evidence. If it is 

convincing, I will be convinced. The things that, for you, count as 

'evidence' are readings of evidence. Give me the same initial evidence and 

I can give you an alternative reading.

 

in the mean time, in some ways, I think that animals are a bit purer than 

your average human, only because they don't HAVE morals. But humans are so 

clearly superior that I won't even entertain the notion that we aren't. OF 

course, at the bottom of it all we have crocodillian brains and our 

subconscious desires are something to be reckoned with but our rationality 

has to win out in the end. I saved the bunny because he was cute, in 

trouble, and I felt like doing it. It's a minor inconvenience in my life. 

Unlike you, I am optimistic in the face of selfish pricks all around me. I 

see enough good people and believe that if I do a few good deeds, the world 

will be a better place. Why else would I volunteer to actually DO work and 

write book reviews?

 

passive-aggressively yours,

 

Paul

 

##########

Paul Stone

pas@xxxxxxxx

Kingsville, ON, Canada 

 

Other related posts: