the poor will face more disease, have less food to eat, etc if something is not done.
the term "climate change crowd" reflects the same mindless bias behind terms like nigger, kike, women's libbers, and such.
You're missing the point of my argument entirely, but nice effort on trying to change the subject with the bias angle.
The realities and perspective of third world economic development are not integrated into climate change arguments. In the short run, the very poor will face the most significant consequences of climate change initiatives. In the long run, the benefits of climate change initiatives favor the rich nations.
They get nothing; they know it; and therefore tend to oppose it.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
BucketHead wrote:I fucking hate wasteful pollution. Hate it. Can't stand to hear Rush Limbaugh cronies talk about how cool it is to by a Hummer to drive to soccer because "we can". Want to beat people over the head that attack green energy sources because they're not yet viable. No shit, since when has investing in future promise become automatically stupid?
On the other hand, the "global warming" and "climate change" movement are as worthy of my rage. They have absolutely ruined decades of progress on educating and reducing waste. They chase nebulous abstractions that are impossible to prove (it is a well-known, non-biased theory that warming creates CO2, not the other way around).
You want a movement? Focus on a locale and make changes. Show real data of existing pollutants. Expose waste and harm (see Simplot). The collective money spent on the current stupid global climate movement over the last decade could have funded material change around the world.
Instead we have stupid internet fights over abstract, unprovable theories that distract us from what is actually harming our well-being - unnecessary pollution.
Bingo.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Don't leave it at that. I'm all for discussing things. I possibly could have been just a little hyperbolic but I would argue that your average climate organization has done very little to change behavior or practices. The only benefit I have seen has been a general increase in awareness, but that has come with the disastrous baggage of the right wing "anti-environment" dipshits.
let me start with projects that generate carbon offsets.
first, the obvious caveat. there has been some problems, but the point is to focus on actions that have resulted in benefits.
here in the u.s. the offsets are purchased by "voluntary" buyers. corporate buyers have no obligation to manage their carbon emissions or buy offsets. they choose to for a variety of reasons. google and chevy are two major offsets buyers. well-known socially responsible companies like ben & jerry's buy offsets. internationally, there are voluntary buyers, along with those who have a compliance obligation under the kyoto protocol
an offset = one tonne of CO2 equivalent reduced, avoided or sequestered "permanently."
typical offset projects include the capture of landfill gas, the installation of manure digesters at dairy farms and soon hog operations, the destruction of refrigerants, the installation of wind turbines.
small landfills are not required to capture and destroy the gas, mostly methane, that results from the anaerobic decomposition of organic material (baby diapers, for ex) in the landfill. installing a well-field, capturing the gas and, often, burning the gas to run a generator or fuel a boiler both eliminates the powerful greenhouse gas (i understand this may seem pointless to some) and provides a new source of energy from a gas that otherwise would be wasted. in addition, other toxic gases are destroyed by the combustion. the market for carbon offsets provides important--often essential--revenue for the landfill projects to go forward.
the same general pattern holds for manure digesters (with the result of more efficient, therefore less wasteful and polluting, manure management and additional generation) small wind, and such. the destruction of old refrigerants is noteworthy at least for the protection that provides to the ozone layer, if not climate.
projects have been developed in communities around the u.s., latin america, china, india, etc. as a rule, these represent the kind of change i believe you would support. whether the total change is "material" depends on how we define that.
furthermore, because of the concern regarding climate change, many vulnerable communities are looking at what adaptation they need to make in the face of likely changes.
for example, for reasons beyond me, sea levels appears to be rising more along the north carolina coast than elsewhere in the east. this is forcing people to look at what that means for n.c's coastal communities that are steadily becoming more vulnerable to storms. paramount are local issues, like the importance of wetlands. one would hope limiting construction at vulnerable locations will also be on the agenda, so you and i don't have to keep providing insurance to people who build where they're almost certain to be flooded.
in the southwest, water is always the issue, only it is going to get worse. the allocation of rights to the colorado is 16+ million acre-feet. i believe that allocation was made in the 20s--give or take--when average flows were several million acre-feet more than today's, which have been 13 million-ish. last few years are lower, as i recall.
you ain't got enough water for all the people who have rights. water pricing is not rational.
because of the climate conversation, people may do enough preparation so when the drought comes in the next 5-8 years, the region will be able to deal with it. or maybe you won't do the necessary prep. i'm largely of the view that if you move to a desert when the weather is getting hotter, you shouldn't be surprised if you get thirsty as hell.
one final observation: the discussion of climate and the carbon footprint of goods and services has led many companies and some consumers to be mindful of what they buy, what they throw out, how much waste there is in your system. for a corporation emitting one tonne of carbon reflects a cost of approximately $85. that's how much energy costs you to produce that tone.
climate alone is not the driver of concern for greater efficiency. climate is one driver. a carbon footprint is a measure of waste. of efficiency. a smaller footprint means less waste and less cost.
you said you don't like waste. addressing climate change often means finding ways to be more efficient and to take material once considered waste and put it back to use.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
Pinky wrote: What they need to do is stop protecting their local farmers and other assholes, and replace tariffs with a carbon tax.
presumably that advice applies to the u.s.
odds are impossibly long on anyone taking your advice.
out of curiosity, how do your students react when they figure out that rational policy choices have no chance? other than getting drunk and having casual sex, that is.
What other response do they need?
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."
All of what you said is fine. I just wouldn't attack the problem that way if I was king.
1. Carbon offsets, by definition, are distractions from the source. First, when they define "reduced, avoided or sequestered "permanently."", are they considering the carbon load from the project itself? To me, this whole concept goes like this:
me wrote:Let's say the practice we would like to minimize is walking, instead of emissions. If I'm rich, I can continue to walk, buy pay you to walk over and stop that other guy from walking. In general, I'd rather see the incentive placed to have the initial guy walk less.
2. I agree with setting water prices rationally. Did you know the mighty Colorado (I fished it's headwaters last weekend) trickles out 100 miles from the sea, now?! But back to your point, investigating and eliminating stupid practices from the Colorado is a great endeavor - one that I would sign up for. It also has no requirement to be linked to "climate change" to spur action.
3. Your final observation is what I already said, the "Climate Change" movement has increased general awareness, though I'm not sure that came any quicker that would have without the movement. Like I said, though, once you jump into realms that are fuzzy at best, you're going to create the "other side" - idiots who not only condone waste, but justify it and glorify it all to stick it to the Environmental Nazis.
All of what you said is fine. I just wouldn't attack the problem that way if I was king.
1. Carbon offsets, by definition, are distractions from the source. First, when they define "reduced, avoided or sequestered "permanently."", are they considering the carbon load from the project itself? To me, this whole concept goes like this:
me wrote:Let's say the practice we would like to minimize is walking, instead of emissions. If I'm rich, I can continue to walk, buy pay you to walk over and stop that other guy from walking. In general, I'd rather see the incentive placed to have the initial guy walk less.
2. I agree with setting water prices rationally. Did you know the mighty Colorado (I fished it's headwaters last weekend) trickles out 100 miles from the sea, now?! But back to your point, investigating and eliminating stupid practices from the Colorado is a great endeavor - one that I would sign up for. It also has no requirement to be linked to "climate change" to spur action.
3. Your final observation is what I already said, the "Climate Change" movement has increased general awareness, though I'm not sure that came any quicker that would have without the movement. Like I said, though, once you jump into realms that are fuzzy at best, you're going to create the "other side" - idiots who not only condone waste, but justify it and glorify it all to stick it to the Environmental Nazis.
1. reductions are net of project-based emissions.
regarding your quotation. you may be setting up a false dichotomy, either offsets or direct reductions. all of the firms that offset also have aggressive programs to reduce direct emissions for which they are responsible. so the approach is both/and.
if you live in the 21st century, you have a carbon footprint, no matter how diligent you are to reduce it. some think supporting projects designed to reduce emissions further is a useful step to take.
2. colorado water is not specifically a climate-change issue, as you note. i believe climate change will make the issue more immediate and pressing. cognitive dissonance is watering a lawn in phoenix.
3. i want to push back. i understand the idea that seeking action on climate feeds the opposition, some of whom are troglodytes. but by that logic, wouldn't we still have separate "but equal" schools, because advocates of equality would have chosen not to bestir the racists? not a perfect analogy, but i trust the general point comes through.
it seems to me every step to clean things up has been a fight. when the river lights on fire, it is a little easier to win the battle for clean water, but do we have to wait until things get that bad?
finally, if i were king, i wouldn't make offsets the cornerstone of climate policy. no one would. they are an example of good developments being assisted as a result of their being a perceived cost to carbon. pinky would tax co2. that simply puts a clear price on carbon and is likely a better solution. we got to offsets because the republicans--repeat, republicans--liked cap and trade. it is a market-based approach--it worked (still works) for sox pollution--not a tax. then somewhere along the line they decided cap and trade was a tax.
so what did you catch up there at the headwaters?
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
When the United Nations wanted to help slow climate change, it established what seemed a sensible system.
Greenhouse gases were rated based on their power to warm the atmosphere. The more dangerous the gas, the more that manufacturers in developing nations would be compensated as they reduced their emissions.
But where the United Nations envisioned environmental reform, some manufacturers of gases used in air-conditioning and refrigeration saw a lucrative business opportunity.
They quickly figured out that they could earn one carbon credit by eliminating one ton of carbon dioxide, but could earn more than 11,000 credits by simply destroying a ton of an obscure waste gas normally released in the manufacturing of a widely used coolant gas. That is because that byproduct has a huge global warming effect. The credits could be sold on international markets, earning tens of millions of dollars a year.
That incentive has driven plants in the developing world not only to increase production of the coolant gas but also to keep it high — a huge problem because the coolant itself contributes to global warming and depletes the ozone layer
Mustafina is not yet 18. How's that for an inconvenient truth?
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
Fat Cat wrote:Mustafina is not yet 18. How's that for an inconvenient truth?
Age of consent in Washington is 15, not that it was ever consensual.
Wikipedia's no substitute for a lawyer, but it says the age of consent is 16 in Hawaii.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."
That's limited to a bushmaster who is under 18, I believe.
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
Take global poverty, a subject we have heard plenty about from ministers justifying the £9 billion overseas aid budget. Britain has signed up to the so-called Millennium Development Goals, set in 2000 and accompanied by sermons from Gordon Brown about the “arc of the moral universe” bending towards justice. It was the beginning of boom times for the overseas aid industry, despite its woeful track record. The first goal was to halve the proportion of the world’s population living on a dollar a day by 2015 – an undeniably noble aim.
Earlier this year, the World Bank made an astonishing discovery: the target had actually been met in 2008, seven years ahead of schedule. This staggering achievement received no fanfare, perhaps because the miracle had not been created by Western governments but by the economic progress of China and India. Their embrace of capitalism had invited a flow of trade and investment, which was not halted by the crash. Capitalism meant that houses replaced mud huts and vast swathes of the Third World rose from their agrarian knees. British consumers buying cheap shirts in Asda were, in a very real sense, helping to make poverty history.
I agree with Pinky that the adoption of anthropogenic climate change as the backbone of environmental discussion has set the "movement" back at least 20 years, and that it was the single worst thing anyone could have come up with to further environmental causes. Instead of pointing to very specific pollutants and their resultant damage, AGW defined this nebulous threat of overreaching harm that would take decades to fully manifest itself. To top it off, it was dubbed a "theory", which left it open to attack and disproof.
We're great at recognizing an immediate problem and taking measures to fix it. We're horrible at long term planning. Combine that with a large and influential corporate structure who stands to make much more money with Business As Usual than it does with far reaching climate protection legislation, and you have a recipe for a fight for public opinion much more than you have a recipe for positive environmental change.
On a side note, I think it should be job number 1 in the western world to make non-polluting, renewable energy as cheap and widely available as possible. Just about every problem we face can in some way be traced back to an energy problem. Much pollution is directly caused by the mining, refining, transporting, and burning of fossil fuels. Remove that and you've taken a major step in water and air quality, and you've had the side benefit of knocking out a huge chunk of AGW pollutants. Droughts (which are going to be worse if AGW is correct) can be alleviated with desalination and pumping once the infrastructure is there, and removing fossil fuel costs frees up a ton of capital to invest in infrastructure. Not to mention letting us deal with the Middle East in a much more open way with oil off the table as a strategic necessity.
I don't have a lot of experience with vampires, but I have hunted werewolves. I shot one once, but by the time I got to it, it had turned back into my neighbor's dog.
Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:On a side note, I think it should be job number 1 in the western world to make non-polluting, renewable energy as cheap and widely available as possible. Just about every problem we face can in some way be traced back to an energy problem. Much pollution is directly caused by the mining, refining, transporting, and burning of fossil fuels. Remove that and you've taken a major step in water and air quality, and you've had the side benefit of knocking out a huge chunk of AGW pollutants. Droughts (which are going to be worse if AGW is correct) can be alleviated with desalination and pumping once the infrastructure is there, and removing fossil fuel costs frees up a ton of capital to invest in infrastructure. Not to mention letting us deal with the Middle East in a much more open way with oil off the table as a strategic necessity.
The best way to do this is taxing the pollution. Tax credits and subsidies for whatever "clean" energy lobby spends the most time sucking off politicians is wasted money.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."
