Different Slants

Comment by Don Larson

December 21, 2007 @ 10:20 pm

Rick,

I enjoyed reading your article. You pose good questions and reasons why we should be trying to find alternative energy sources independent of a global warming stimulus.

Lately I thought about why a generation may decide to try to do something for the benefit of generations downstream. The first thing I thought of was World War One, “The War To End All Wars”. We know from history that didn’t happen although our grandparents probably worked to some degree to make that happen for our sakes. They had good intentions, I must say.

There are other situations since WWI when previous generations wanted to enact new ideas and changes to make the world a better place. Some worked, some failed. Mostly, downstream generations may suffer or benefit from those prior generation activities, but they don’t give credit where credit is due.

I wonder if we drastically slowed carbon emissions, whether society’s perceived benefit in 50 years would materialize as we envision it? What if there were really negative consequences from toughing up carbon emissions? What if wars started because of it? What if a whole new economic debacle took place in countries and bad things resulted?

In those speculative outcomes, our generation would be blamed for causing the situation, whether those charges were true or not. It would be similar for the way our generation often faults the WWI generation for not doing enough to see that no more wars happened after WWI. “They should have known…” syndrome appears.

The WWI generation formed the League of Nations that was ineffective. The WWII generation formed the United Nations, another ineffective organization in many respects, especially preventing wars.

Now our generation wants to form new co-ops where I feel pretty sure loopholes will be embedded to allow ineffective enforcement of any agreement that is considered too drastic to implement for any number of reasons.

I suspect we will only make slight degrees of improvement (no pun intended) on global warming matters over the next several decades. I believe in the end some other approach will arise to deal with any consequences of global warming, and it won’t be pretty, perhaps more wars over the matter.

It’s a shame that societies have developed with so much disregard for the environment and waste of natural resources. There are plenty of people trying to avert negative outcomes and they should be supported, but this crazy world never quite gets its act together on anything truly positive.

Don

Comment by Robert M. Katzman

December 22, 2007 @ 2:32 pm

As someone who could be the poster child for the “Resistant To Change” people, as Rick well knows, I have found the logic of swift change to the intelligent use of energy and our resources to be compelling. Some things are too smart to resist.

I was straightening out and reusing nails in the Sixties, but I don’t expect most people are that desperate.

Once I realized the clear sense that the new bulbs would give the same light at far less cost and accomplished this by not wasting so much energy on heat, I switched all the bulbs in my house over a couple of weeks. This was after the bulbs were becoming much cheaper. They were safer to handle and my young daughter was less likely to burn her hand when accidentally touching one.

But the way, I gave all our 100 or so bulbs to a single mom I knew who was struggling, even though one could say I was defeating the purpose of saving the earth, but sometimes a person has to choose the greater good. At least the bulbs didn’t go into landfill.

On that topic, I predict the time will come, very, very soon I hope, when smarter people around the world will figure out the wisdom of mining all the many landfills for their cellulose (as a large source of easily accessable fuel), vast amounts of recyclable glass and metals, and so on. That this isn’t being done now is a mystery to me. Landfills shouldn’t exist anymore. The trash in them is way too valuable. What can’t be recycled can be cleanly burned to make electricity.

The emptied landfills, if not toxic, could be refilled and converted to animal preserves and marshes for migrating birds and animals with shrinking living space. They would also serve as a place for excess water to flow to in the event of large rain storms and help prevent flooding as an additional benefit.

If those emptied landfills WERE toxic, however, we could put any surviving members of the current administration in them (indefinitely, of course, as a security risk to this country) and let them think about all the harm they’ve done.

As far as cars, and this is my last point, if I ran the country, I would offer the foreign car companies spread all over this country now, a billion dollar incentive or tax breaks or whatever would accomplish my goal of motivating technological innovation that would free this country, and all countries, from dependence on fossil fuels.

Since Automotive Detroit, more of an American industrial dinosaur than ever, resists all calls for change, conservation and fuel efficiency, I would propose to more cooperative and enlightened auto manufacturing companies that they develop a car that gets at least 100 MPG and/or uses alternative fuels.

The companies that joined with my government’s progressive objectives would be rewarded in whatever way pleased them and was also fiscally sound for this country. Those companies that refused to evolve would be penalized and their executives would be forced to live in Texas and eat barbecue with our soon-to-be former president, forever.

I may make gentle fun ( or not so gentle fun) above in expressing myself, but my frustration with our present intrenched major industrial selfishness and their indifference to the harm they cause in this and other countries is an abomination and criminal.

Major societal change comes from the collective popular will and a determination not to let the powerful and evil few continue to dominate the lives of the less powerful, but far far more numerous many average people.

If enough serious, committed Americans make a determined stand, and won’t accept being lied to or put off in their collective goal of significant and beneficial environmental innovation with minimal waste of any sort, then change WILL happen.

You simply have to want it. Really want it.

Robert M. Katzman

Comment by Don Larson

December 22, 2007 @ 6:53 pm

Bob,

I doubt much will change for the better regardless of who is in political power. The legal process for change is too complicated, intentionally too complicated for real change.

America is a consumer nation. We consume and will continue to consume.

We point fingers when something goes wrong, usually pointing to others and not ourselves first.

You purchased light bulbs to save energy. I bet one car dealership uses up the energy you saved in one hour by having all its floodlights turned on to “protect'” their auto lot inventory. How many car dealerships are around this country?

You will never see huge SUV’s getting improved mileage no matter who builds them. The laws of physics is at work there. It takes a lot of gas, easily afforded by wealthy people to drive those huge SUV’s with one person in them at 80 mph down the freeway. Those are the same people you want to team together to make a better planet?

I don’t know how much energy could be converted cheaply from all the landfills, but it probably would be used up in a week. Therefore the cost to create the conversions in a safe way, would be prohibitive and a waste of time.

You say companies are criminal. Are you ready to step forward and file a claim in court? Just ask a lawyer to explain the prosecution success rate of such adventures. The laws (loopholes) to protect the end result were created before the actions took effect in the first place. That’s how America works. It has always worked that way, since its beginning. Remember, defendants are innocent until proven guilty!

The world is running out of good options. Think about what that means and based on human history what is likely to happen as a result.

Don

Comment by Bob

December 23, 2007 @ 10:30 am

Don,
This is the part where other people weigh in with their own points of view. I spoke in terms of morality and not state of federal statutes. Change comes to a society when there is a collective disapproval of unacceptable behavior.

It takes guts, and civil protest. It takes a degree of sacrifice by the first few who try to get the ball rolling, and they have to accept the risk that usually accompanies disapproving of the monied classes.

I believe slavery used to be fairly common, very profitable and considered to be the norm in this and other countries in regards to those considered to be lesser beings. My goodness!! How did that stop??

The Irish immigrants were treated like dirt in the 1850’s (as well as Catholics in general) and long after that in America. How did an Irish Catholic President ever get elected??

So were the Jews. Well, a couple of days ago, a newspaper widely avoided by the Jewish community and commonly considered to not be a friend of the Jews when I was growing up in the Fifties and Sixties, The 160 year old Chicago Tribune Company, was purchased and is now being run by Sam Zell, one of the Tribe.
How can that be possible??

Change will happen, Don, BIG change, when enough people are disgusted with the staus quo, like right about now, I’d say. Brace yourself, friend.

But that’s all I’m gonna say. I think other voices belong here besides just ours. Not that you aren’t adorable, Don.

Bob Katzman

Comment by Don Larson

December 23, 2007 @ 11:24 am

Bob,

Is space so limited here that we can only post one or two comments and then stop? Is that the new definition of Freedom of Speech by the few who are trying to promote change?

By the way, I don’t see prejudice at every turn nor think of America having monied classes. Some of your words sound like Carl Marx spoke them and they don’t apply in America. We live in a free society with a free enterprise system. Some descendants of slaves became wealthy, Irish politicians came to power, and a jewish man bought a newspaper. That’s great, but it’s because of a free enterprise system in a free society, not because supposed monied classes decided it was okay after being prodded by a vocal, protesting few.

Just like in biology, most mutations are not successful. That means most of these “few” new ideas that arise in every generation don’t make it. While the “few” will run around and protest, what really turns out to be the outcome will be taking shape by the will of the “silent majority.”

Stay tuned and see….

Don

Comment by RGM

December 25, 2007 @ 1:00 pm

A couple of points:

We cannot wait to see if other people do the right thing before committing ourselves to doing it.

There is money to be made in clean energy. Silicon Valley is full of new startups in the field. A few will make big profits in it. Going green will not hurt the economy, it will boost it. Entrenched interests may lose, they usually do when a disruptive technology comes along. It is all just part of evolution.

Rick

Comment by Russ

March 3, 2008 @ 8:37 am

I used to be a full-on anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming true believer. Everyone knows CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, right? Just like everyone knows electrons orbit the nucleus like Earth does the Sun (quantum physicists out there note the satire).

I started seeing some contrary evidence — the most significant of which was that more thoroughly studied ice core samples show that CO2 increases in the atmosphere have always LAGGED, not leaded increases in temperature.

So I started looking around. In summation, this is all a very ugly fraud which is worth studying to see how the worst impulses of human nature — a disregard for truth if it’s for a “good cause”, a CYA mentality once evidence starts going the wrong way, and the pursuit of money in the form of fame and grants — corrupt something as “pure” as science.

There’s a 4 part lecture by an Australian geologist on YouTube which does a pretty good job of summing up why ACCGW is a fraud. Go to youtube.com and search for “Bob Carter”. The lectures are 9-10 minutes each and well worth the time.

Comment by Rick

March 3, 2008 @ 8:59 am

Russ,

I have never been a “true believer” of anything. The lag you speak of doesn’t mean there is no link between CO2 and warming, just that the warming was started by something else. We see that the current warming is causing increasing amounts of CO2 to be released from natural sources. This most likely happened during previous warming periods.

I am not sure we will ever know if the current warming is caused by human activity or not. It seems to me though, that consequences of saying it is not, and being wrong, are than the consequences of saying that it is and being wrong.

Some people worry about the economic impact of trying to move away from oil based energy. I think we could make remarkable progress toward that goal for less than we are spending defending our oil interests in the middle east.

Comment by Russ

March 5, 2008 @ 1:24 pm

Rick,

I can’t resist pointing out that saying “I’ve never been a true believer in anything” is an absolute and is equivalent to saying “I am a true believer that I’ve never been a true believer in anything”.

Divide by zero, crash.

One more comment from me: we definitely ought to — wean ourselves from fossil fuels, develop clean energy sources, most if not all of the things the AGW alarmist community wants. It just has nothing at all to do with CO2. CO2 is a fertilizer, not a pollutant! If we could find a new energy source that completely got rid of our dependence on insane middle eastern states, discharged less NO2, particulate matter, etc. but created double the CO2, I say bring it on!