That's a reasonable enough analysis, but it doesn't address the issue that I -- and some other people -- have regarding the environment.
This is going to necessarily be somewhat long.
First, my (oft-stated) positions in a nutshell: there is not yet enough information to determine the extent of the impact of human activity on the global environment on any time scale; the 'debate' over the mechanisms of the global environment, and our role in them, has been reduced to a matter of dueling belief systems; and, that said, conservation is important anyway, and it is logical to make reasonable efforts to limit the effects of our activities on the environment.
What's often frustrating for me is that my first point almost always ensures that nobody hears my third point, thus proving my second point over and over again.
It is not impossible for us to take some actions without a complete understanding of environmental systems. In fact, it might be imperative. Or, it might not. The problem is, we'll never know so long as people continue to line up on either side of environmental issues and state their positions using the phrase, "I believe..."
There are reputable scientists even now that are working hard to add to our understanding of environmental systems, yet they're working with less funding, and less peer support, than scientists working from the position that man's impact on the environment is known already.
Also, it's important to recognize that our actual -- and unstated -- goal, as a species, is to control our environment to the extent that it stays familiar. Our planet has undergone extreme variations in environmental conditions, long before we ever appeared on the scene, and those variations have led to great diversities in the plant and animal life on the planet. It's reasonable to figure that the planet could develop an environment which was completely alien, and even lethal, to the human species, and the planet as a whole would keep on going. It would be a different place, but that doesn't make it intrinsically bad.
So, since our goal is to control the environment, to maintain it in this familiar state, just how can we do that without completely understanding environmental systems? And, if we continue to make environmental science a political issue, how can we expect to pursue all of the avenues of research that will lead to a more complete understanding?
Fear doesn't serve anyone, and fear mongering doesn't engender better understanding. In fact, it creates ignorance.
That said, it just plain makes sense that we shouldn't go around crapping in our own living room. Necessity pushes technology, and some of the push towards more environmentally friendly practices has led to the development of better light bulbs, solar power, and alternative sources of energy. Rather than being economically crippling, I think that a steady drive towards reduced environmental impact can stimulate a series of new technological markets.
First, my (oft-stated) positions in a nutshell: there is not yet enough information to determine the extent of the impact of human activity on the global environment on any time scale; the 'debate' over the mechanisms of the global environment, and our role in them, has been reduced to a matter of dueling belief systems; and, that said, conservation is important anyway, and it is logical to make reasonable efforts to limit the effects of our activities on the environment.
What's often frustrating for me is that my first point almost always ensures that nobody hears my third point, thus proving my second point over and over again.
I'm somewhat surprised that you're objecting to the guy's presentation, then. He might believe that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but he distinctly separated disputing predictions ("row" talk) and disputing policies ("column" talk). As it sounds to me right now, you're putting significant odds on either of his proposed "rows" holding. Given that, what column do you think needs choosing?
(Oh, and so as not to buck the trend on your first point: regarding anthropogenic climate change, I like expert opinion, and a convenient source for me is the policy statements and public announcements of professional societies (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686). Here's the opinions of the Royal Society (http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229), American Meteorological Society (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html), American Geophysical Union (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change.shtml) (American Astronomical Society (http://www.aas.org/governance/resolutions.php#climate) concurring), Geological Society (http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/groups/stratigraphy/pid/1022;jsessionid=C37C5AB136CBD0F12450C41998B317C5), and Geological Society of America (http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm). I haven't even read all of these, but I can see that every one of these organizations agrees that humans are a significant driver of global warming.)
> I'm somewhat surprised that you're objecting to the guy's presentation, then.
Ehh. I'm not quite objecting to it, but there was something about it that bugged me, and it took me a bit to put my finger on it. It has to do with the motivations that drive the actions we take in one column or another: I object to making environmental policy out of fear, specifically the fear that if we don't do something right now, then the entire planetary ecology will be ruined, and it's sure to happen tomorrow. Or maybe the next day.
Let me go off on a bit of a tangent for a moment. It'll lead back in to my point.
Most folks that got an opportunity to talk to my dad for a few minutes about environmentalism would come to the conclusion that he hates the environment. He doesn't like Greenpeace, hates the EPA, restores old cars using harsh solvents and rattle-can spray paint, and he hates modern hybrids.
...Wait. Hates modern hybrids? Yep. He's something of a (very) antique car fanatic; he owns several antique, running, vehicles, including a turn-of-the-century 2-cylinder car, a 1915 Studebaker, a 1927 Paige, and several 20's Model Ts. His car interest doesn't really go past 1929. He can reasonably be considered an expert in antique automobiles and automotive history.
It's that last part that makes him hate modern hybrids, because he is one of the few people that knows that hybrid technology has been around since before 1900 (http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435222). He argued -- when he was in high school -- that auto makers should be producing hybrid vehicles. He argued it not because it would save the environment, even though he's plenty aware of that benefit, but because the technology had been around for such a long time and, as a design, it just made sense. It was a smart idea, and nobody was doing it.
If it were up to him -- this guy who sounds like he openly hates the environment -- we'd be better off, environmentally, than we are. Recycling would actually be convenient and cost-effective. There'd be less waste.
Too many people keep finding motivation for environmental policy out of fear of disaster, instead of simply developing good designs that are efficient and systems that actually work. I hate that, with a passion. How about we stop flailing about out of a fear of some doomsday scenario, and start actually using our heads for once? How about we recognize that when we outlawed the use of certain accelerants in cans of spray paint, it decreased the effectiveness of the paint so drastically that it created more waste? How about we recognize that reformulated gasoline a few years back led to fewer air pollutants per gallon, but so badly reduced its efficiency as a fuel that people had to spend more gallons on their daily commute or buy a new car?
I can argue until I'm blue in the face that it's foolish to take action out of fear. I can argue that doing so leads to more ignorance, not less, and that it will actually cause more damage to environment. I doubt that that argument would find a receptive audience, though.
So, let me try this instead: when you're trying to develop new environmental policies, eventually you're going to bump up against the manufacturing industry. When you go to them, you can say that the world will end in disaster if they don't spend some money to change their practices. As long as you keep telling them that, you keep leaving them the ability to say, "No it won't", and this idiotic argument will stall all your efforts.
Or, you can go to them and say, "Look, if you use this other manufacturing process instead, it's going to cost you some money now. But, you're going to save a ton of money because you're not going to waste as much raw material. Besides, it makes more sense to do it this way; it's more efficient, it's a better design. Also, it happens to be good for the environment."
"Our current model works just fine - if you think you've got something better, start your own company." (I'm pretty cynical about big business.)
That said, I've seen quite a few ads on the subway saying, "Sure you can call it a carbon cap, but it's really a swift kick in the innovation." Thomas L. Friedman wrote an article a while back called "The power of green (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/15/opinion/web-0415edgreen-full.php)" that also seemed along your lines. I might be firmly in the "this landing climate change could get pretty interesting (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/quotes#qt0291279)" camp, but I'm happy with anyone who'll support reasonable precautions.
(Second comment to the other half of your reply, since LJ doesn't encourage verbose discussion...)
>...regarding anthropogenic climate change, I like expert opinion...
Ah. Well, I like facts.
OK. That's not entirely fair, and I don't want to come across as an asshole. In the absence of information, it's natural to fall back on the opinions of people who you think have the information you lack.
However, you spent the entire rest of that paragraph making an appeal to authority. Ironically, the Royal Society's own motto warns against this!
Finally, your argument there consisted entirely of, "Here's a bunch of references from expert organizations, have fun." One, my time is as valuable as yours is; please make your own argument, rather than putting the onus on me to read all of your references before continuing the argument. Two, I am in fact well-informed on what the leading organizations are saying about climate change. I follow the subject closely. It may not have been your intention to imply otherwise, but you did nonetheless.
Not a one of those organizations can quantitatively state just how much of an impact human activity has had on global environment, or what effects that impact has had. The only possible exception there is changes in atmospheric content. We can say, CO2 levels are currently being measured at these amounts, and previous measurements put them at these amounts, and based on current methodology, we think that historically they were at these smaller amounts. The problem is, there has been a regularly cyclic variation in atmospheric content for at least 400,000 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png). If you can figure out exactly how that cycle works, there just might be a Nobel prize in it for ya.
The counterargument is that current CO2 levels during the last century are higher (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png) than any of the numbers on that graph, taking us possibly into uncharted territory climatologically. However, IIRC, the current CO2 levels are nowhere near the highest guessed to have existed in Earth's history. As long as we can't unlock the mechanisms behind natural climatological cycles, I think that when experts guess at the effects of climate change, they're still just guessing.
And, this is just one factor. One element of one system, complexly interwoven into other systems. There is at least one respected scientist who's finding data suggesting that solar activity plays a much more important role in Earth's climate than popularly believed. Is he an American, working under Bush's questionable environmental policies? Nope. His name is Henrik Svensmark, and he is the director for the center for Sun-Climate Research in Copenhagen. I remembered reading the article some time back, and dug it out of my pile of magazines so that I could find the specific information. You can read the article yourself, from the July 2007 Discover magazine (http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark). Put that in the authoritative consensus pipe and smoke it.
Even Wikipedia's article on Global Warming includes a section on Solar Variation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Solar_variation), and if you pay attention in the section on effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Attributed_and_expected_effects), they use the word "may" an awful lot.
Finally, please remember that I am not arguing against the idea of global warming or anthropogenic climate change (or the next new term that will be applied to the same idea); I'm merely arguing against the certainty of it. This belief that we already know what's happening, and that human activity is definitely the cause of whatever ecological problem you wish to examine, prevents us from continuing research on the actual causes. If we truly want to shape our own environment, to try to keep this planet's systems working the way we like them, then these assumptions undermine our own efforts.
Edit: Ah, read this comment as by peri_renna - thanks!
Look, I can't pretend to know enough about climatology to have my own opinion, here - that's why I cited experts in the first place. Further, I wouldn't expect human activity to be the only important influence on the environment. However, what I've heard suggests that continued deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions would likely effect major climate changes (if they haven't already) and that major climate changes would likely devastate human civilization. That deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions significantly affect the weather is obvious - you can see it on the weather radar loops near cities. The degree to which they affect the climate is more difficult to show, but the expert consensus seems to be that it's significant. The degree to which the weather affects human civilization is obvious - just look at what happens when a drought strikes. The degree to which climate change could affect human civilization is, again, harder to determine, and again, the expert consensus is that it's significant.
If the above don't constitute facts, then I'm sorry. If the totality of these facts don't lead you to a particular conclusion, I'm sorrier still. There is rational ground for concern here, and it bothers me when the incompleteness of our knowledge is used to belittle that concern.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
This is going to necessarily be somewhat long.
First, my (oft-stated) positions in a nutshell: there is not yet enough information to determine the extent of the impact of human activity on the global environment on any time scale; the 'debate' over the mechanisms of the global environment, and our role in them, has been reduced to a matter of dueling belief systems; and, that said, conservation is important anyway, and it is logical to make reasonable efforts to limit the effects of our activities on the environment.
What's often frustrating for me is that my first point almost always ensures that nobody hears my third point, thus proving my second point over and over again.
It is not impossible for us to take some actions without a complete understanding of environmental systems. In fact, it might be imperative. Or, it might not. The problem is, we'll never know so long as people continue to line up on either side of environmental issues and state their positions using the phrase, "I believe..."
There are reputable scientists even now that are working hard to add to our understanding of environmental systems, yet they're working with less funding, and less peer support, than scientists working from the position that man's impact on the environment is known already.
Also, it's important to recognize that our actual -- and unstated -- goal, as a species, is to control our environment to the extent that it stays familiar. Our planet has undergone extreme variations in environmental conditions, long before we ever appeared on the scene, and those variations have led to great diversities in the plant and animal life on the planet. It's reasonable to figure that the planet could develop an environment which was completely alien, and even lethal, to the human species, and the planet as a whole would keep on going. It would be a different place, but that doesn't make it intrinsically bad.
So, since our goal is to control the environment, to maintain it in this familiar state, just how can we do that without completely understanding environmental systems? And, if we continue to make environmental science a political issue, how can we expect to pursue all of the avenues of research that will lead to a more complete understanding?
Fear doesn't serve anyone, and fear mongering doesn't engender better understanding. In fact, it creates ignorance.
That said, it just plain makes sense that we shouldn't go around crapping in our own living room. Necessity pushes technology, and some of the push towards more environmentally friendly practices has led to the development of better light bulbs, solar power, and alternative sources of energy. Rather than being economically crippling, I think that a steady drive towards reduced environmental impact can stimulate a series of new technological markets.
no subject
I'm somewhat surprised that you're objecting to the guy's presentation, then. He might believe that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but he distinctly separated disputing predictions ("row" talk) and disputing policies ("column" talk). As it sounds to me right now, you're putting significant odds on either of his proposed "rows" holding. Given that, what column do you think needs choosing?
(Oh, and so as not to buck the trend on your first point: regarding anthropogenic climate change, I like expert opinion, and a convenient source for me is the policy statements and public announcements of professional societies (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686). Here's the opinions of the Royal Society (http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229), American Meteorological Society (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html), American Geophysical Union (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change.shtml) (American Astronomical Society (http://www.aas.org/governance/resolutions.php#climate) concurring), Geological Society (http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/groups/stratigraphy/pid/1022;jsessionid=C37C5AB136CBD0F12450C41998B317C5), and Geological Society of America (http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm). I haven't even read all of these, but I can see that every one of these organizations agrees that humans are a significant driver of global warming.)
no subject
Ehh. I'm not quite objecting to it, but there was something about it that bugged me, and it took me a bit to put my finger on it. It has to do with the motivations that drive the actions we take in one column or another: I object to making environmental policy out of fear, specifically the fear that if we don't do something right now, then the entire planetary ecology will be ruined, and it's sure to happen tomorrow. Or maybe the next day.
Let me go off on a bit of a tangent for a moment. It'll lead back in to my point.
Most folks that got an opportunity to talk to my dad for a few minutes about environmentalism would come to the conclusion that he hates the environment. He doesn't like Greenpeace, hates the EPA, restores old cars using harsh solvents and rattle-can spray paint, and he hates modern hybrids.
...Wait. Hates modern hybrids? Yep. He's something of a (very) antique car fanatic; he owns several antique, running, vehicles, including a turn-of-the-century 2-cylinder car, a 1915 Studebaker, a 1927 Paige, and several 20's Model Ts. His car interest doesn't really go past 1929. He can reasonably be considered an expert in antique automobiles and automotive history.
It's that last part that makes him hate modern hybrids, because he is one of the few people that knows that hybrid technology has been around since before 1900 (http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435222). He argued -- when he was in high school -- that auto makers should be producing hybrid vehicles. He argued it not because it would save the environment, even though he's plenty aware of that benefit, but because the technology had been around for such a long time and, as a design, it just made sense. It was a smart idea, and nobody was doing it.
If it were up to him -- this guy who sounds like he openly hates the environment -- we'd be better off, environmentally, than we are. Recycling would actually be convenient and cost-effective. There'd be less waste.
Too many people keep finding motivation for environmental policy out of fear of disaster, instead of simply developing good designs that are efficient and systems that actually work. I hate that, with a passion. How about we stop flailing about out of a fear of some doomsday scenario, and start actually using our heads for once? How about we recognize that when we outlawed the use of certain accelerants in cans of spray paint, it decreased the effectiveness of the paint so drastically that it created more waste? How about we recognize that reformulated gasoline a few years back led to fewer air pollutants per gallon, but so badly reduced its efficiency as a fuel that people had to spend more gallons on their daily commute or buy a new car?
I can argue until I'm blue in the face that it's foolish to take action out of fear. I can argue that doing so leads to more ignorance, not less, and that it will actually cause more damage to environment. I doubt that that argument would find a receptive audience, though.
So, let me try this instead: when you're trying to develop new environmental policies, eventually you're going to bump up against the manufacturing industry. When you go to them, you can say that the world will end in disaster if they don't spend some money to change their practices. As long as you keep telling them that, you keep leaving them the ability to say, "No it won't", and this idiotic argument will stall all your efforts.
Or, you can go to them and say, "Look, if you use this other manufacturing process instead, it's going to cost you some money now. But, you're going to save a ton of money because you're not going to waste as much raw material. Besides, it makes more sense to do it this way; it's more efficient, it's a better design. Also, it happens to be good for the environment."
What're they gonna say to that?
no subject
"Our current model works just fine - if you think you've got something better, start your own company." (I'm pretty cynical about big business.)
That said, I've seen quite a few ads on the subway saying, "Sure you can call it a carbon cap, but it's really a swift kick in the innovation." Thomas L. Friedman wrote an article a while back called "The power of green (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/15/opinion/web-0415edgreen-full.php)" that also seemed along your lines. I might be firmly in the "this
landingclimate change could get pretty interesting (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/quotes#qt0291279)" camp, but I'm happy with anyone who'll support reasonable precautions.no subject
>...regarding anthropogenic climate change, I like expert opinion...
Ah. Well, I like facts.
OK. That's not entirely fair, and I don't want to come across as an asshole. In the absence of information, it's natural to fall back on the opinions of people who you think have the information you lack.
However, you spent the entire rest of that paragraph making an appeal to authority. Ironically, the Royal Society's own motto warns against this!
Finally, your argument there consisted entirely of, "Here's a bunch of references from expert organizations, have fun." One, my time is as valuable as yours is; please make your own argument, rather than putting the onus on me to read all of your references before continuing the argument. Two, I am in fact well-informed on what the leading organizations are saying about climate change. I follow the subject closely. It may not have been your intention to imply otherwise, but you did nonetheless.
Not a one of those organizations can quantitatively state just how much of an impact human activity has had on global environment, or what effects that impact has had. The only possible exception there is changes in atmospheric content. We can say, CO2 levels are currently being measured at these amounts, and previous measurements put them at these amounts, and based on current methodology, we think that historically they were at these smaller amounts. The problem is, there has been a regularly cyclic variation in atmospheric content for at least 400,000 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png). If you can figure out exactly how that cycle works, there just might be a Nobel prize in it for ya.
The counterargument is that current CO2 levels during the last century are higher (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png) than any of the numbers on that graph, taking us possibly into uncharted territory climatologically. However, IIRC, the current CO2 levels are nowhere near the highest guessed to have existed in Earth's history. As long as we can't unlock the mechanisms behind natural climatological cycles, I think that when experts guess at the effects of climate change, they're still just guessing.
And, this is just one factor. One element of one system, complexly interwoven into other systems. There is at least one respected scientist who's finding data suggesting that solar activity plays a much more important role in Earth's climate than popularly believed. Is he an American, working under Bush's questionable environmental policies? Nope. His name is Henrik Svensmark, and he is the director for the center for Sun-Climate Research in Copenhagen. I remembered reading the article some time back, and dug it out of my pile of magazines so that I could find the specific information. You can read the article yourself, from the July 2007 Discover magazine (http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark). Put that in the authoritative consensus pipe and smoke it.
Even Wikipedia's article on Global Warming includes a section on Solar Variation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Solar_variation), and if you pay attention in the section on effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Attributed_and_expected_effects), they use the word "may" an awful lot.
Finally, please remember that I am not arguing against the idea of global warming or anthropogenic climate change (or the next new term that will be applied to the same idea); I'm merely arguing against the certainty of it. This belief that we already know what's happening, and that human activity is definitely the cause of whatever ecological problem you wish to examine, prevents us from continuing research on the actual causes. If we truly want to shape our own environment, to try to keep this planet's systems working the way we like them, then these assumptions undermine our own efforts.
no subject
Look, I can't pretend to know enough about climatology to have my own opinion, here - that's why I cited experts in the first place. Further, I wouldn't expect human activity to be the only important influence on the environment. However, what I've heard suggests that continued deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions would likely effect major climate changes (if they haven't already) and that major climate changes would likely devastate human civilization. That deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions significantly affect the weather is obvious - you can see it on the weather radar loops near cities. The degree to which they affect the climate is more difficult to show, but the expert consensus seems to be that it's significant. The degree to which the weather affects human civilization is obvious - just look at what happens when a drought strikes. The degree to which climate change could affect human civilization is, again, harder to determine, and again, the expert consensus is that it's significant.
If the above don't constitute facts, then I'm sorry. If the totality of these facts don't lead you to a particular conclusion, I'm sorrier still. There is rational ground for concern here, and it bothers me when the incompleteness of our knowledge is used to belittle that concern.