Today's Seattle Times has an excerpt from the Sierra Club book Seven Wonders for a Cool Planet: Everyday Things to Help Solve Global Warming.
As could be expected, the 7 ideas aren't really all that simple, and the article offers not a shred of evidence that doing any of these things will have any measurable impact to "solve global warming". It's basically a list of impractical fantasies ("If American rooftops were covered with solar shingles...") and superstitious rituals designed to alleviate one's fears of modernity (use clotheslines). It also makes the counter-productive suggestion of buying locally grown food from farmers markets instead of the less expensive (= more resource-efficient) food from grocery stores.
But two ideas really are worth taking seriously:
Each American goes through roughly two pounds of paper a day, while the U.S. pulp and paper industry is the nation's second-largest industrial consumer of energy.Indeed, the Seattle Times and their fellow global warming alarmists throughout the dead-tree news industry should step up and shift to online only publication. Just think how many trees and barrels of oil that would save.
Finally, there is the suggestion to use more condoms:
Inadequate contraception is not just a Third World issue. Roughly half of all U.S. pregnancies are unintended. And a baby born in North America will use roughly 25 times more resources over the course of its life than a baby born in the developing world.I disagree with the implication that human beings are a form of pollution. But if there's anybody who seriously believes that these "7 simple ideas" will "help solve global warming", I would only do so much to discourage them from removing themselves from the gene pool. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 28, 2008 03:01 PM | Email This
June 24, 2008
The earth has entered a moderate 25-30 year cooling, which was predicted by the sunspots a decade ago, Dennis Avery recently told the MetLife Agricultural Investment Division at Lake Tahoe, NV. He said the cooling is now also endorsed by a recent shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The cooling is likely to radically change the world's political climate too, with profound impacts on bio-fuels, energy prices, power generation and agricultural trade. Avery warned that current farm land values include a "bio-fuels premium" that could disappear without much notice. He forecast a longer-term easing of eco-regulations in both farming and forestry as the global warming hysteria fades, with broader adoption of biotechnology to support a redoubling of world food and feed demand, increase fertilizer efficiency, combat likely drought problems, and accommodate temperature changes. Avery stressed that the planet is only 150 years into a Modern Warming--part of a moderate, natural 1,500-year cycle that's likely to last several more centuries--and be far more favorable to humans, wildlife and vegetation than the next "icy age" that will inevitably follow.
Posted by: Reality on June 28, 2008 04:54 PMOnce liberals get involved in anything you can pretty much count on having to bend over for a wallet-ectomy. How much more is it going to cost us for those idiotic mercury filled lighbulbs they want to force us to use?
How much has their 30-year campaign to prevent us from developing our energy resources cost us?
Loons.
Given: Everything came about through random combinations of inert materials and there is no intelligent force acting upon nature,
Given: The dominant force for the current existence of the various plants and animals is evolution through natural selection,
Then: Man is perfectly and fully a product of the random combination of atoms developed in the crucible of evolution and is no more or less natural than a blade of grass or a whale.
While man's impact to the earth APPEARS more intelligent and directed than that of the ladybug, it is simply not so. We can no more CONTROL our actions than said ladybug because our genetics and our thoughts are simply shaped by the existing natural environment.
Thus, while in nature, certain animals may over-feed and thus have a population correction due to the lack of food, man too might reach the "correction" stage. This is the normal evolutionary, self-directed process, completely natural.
There is no value is being "concerned" about the planet because there is nothing to "save". The natural order exists. That is all one can say. Of course, one might be predisposed to the insanity of believing in the contradiction of both a fully natural environment and a "controlled" environment, and that is simply one more aspect of a natural process.
It would seem to me, however, that if logic existed someplace independent from our own internal imaginings, the eco-liberals would be happy with the idea that mankind could self-exterminate and thus return the natural world to a more "natural" state, but somehow they insist on perpetuating the insanity of preserving the vary parasite they believe is an unnatural blight on this planet.
Ok, so maybe I don't have this figured out at all.
Oh well, maybe different random firings within the goo that sits cradled in my cranial cavity will create a different result in the future. Or maybe a butterfly will lite atop a leaf and I will be sucked away by a tornado tomorrow. But it will be a very natural result either way.
Do a search on either Skynews or BBC's website and they featured a British couple part of a larger commune who are getting fixed because they view children as a form of pollution and want to live with inside a smaller carbon foot print. I remember reading the article both on line and as a back page article in the London Times when I was in Europe this past spring. One of the Times editorialists even mentioned that the idea of treating excessive children as a form of pollution and taxing couples for having more then the "alloted" amount might be a way to save resources and curb pollution in general.
Posted by: Charlie on June 28, 2008 07:48 PMThat's already happening. As mentioned above, some couples are getting fixed to prevent birth, and we know the left loves abortions. Long term, the demographics of birth prevention favors conservatives.
But yeah the Global Warming thing is nonsense. Not a shred of credible evidence to indicate any crisis. And especially none that deserves deverting funds away from real human crises that exist now such as third world water quality, disease, cancer, obesity, energy, fuel, immigration, etc.
There are millions of better ways for us all to be focused on spending our tax dollars than on serving Al Gore's ego.
I'm doing my part. I've never subscribed to the paper version of any newspaper. I just use local free newspapers for oil changes, spray painting, etc.
If you are not already reading it, check out Anthony Watts blog. It's fast become one of the top climate web sites for the rational.
I highly recommend it, it's been number one on Wordpress lately.
Here he has a great post on Global Warming nuts altering the color scales of isotherm maps to try and change the public's perception that the earth is warming. Even despite more than seven years of cooling and a Sun where we have not seen a SSC24 sunspot in more that two months.
It's a hoax, plain and simple.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 28, 2008 10:19 PMThe left's lame response to not supporting drilling is that it would take too long. That hasn't stopped them before - could it be they want UN dominated government and they are being obstructionists until the "wagons can be circled". I don't really feel like read what the Times wrote, but rather wrap fish heads in it and throw in the garbage.
Posted by: KS on June 28, 2008 10:45 PMThe level of detail and especially the graphics are very good.
For example: When when you see the alternating color scales for the isotherm maps that Jeff mentioned @ #10, the differences between ''Draft'' and ''Final'' really jump out at you.
Oh yeah, declining birth rates come as a result of industrialization.
Posted by: John Bailo on June 29, 2008 11:14 AMIncluding the extreme of Islamic conservatism, fundamentalist Muslims.
Posted by: PeggyU on June 29, 2008 01:03 PMI have to ask you if you've ever tried to pass a group of bicylists on a two land road. If enough people started riding bikes on the commute, it's quite possible I'd never make it to work! Not only that, but I'd probably run over one of them. Bicyclists are obnoxious. Like busses, they are an obstruction to the smooth flow of traffic. They would cause more congestion...not to mention fill the emergency rooms. Lawyers would love it too...an endless stream of clients.
Posted by: Scott on June 29, 2008 06:42 PMUp & down, up & down.
Phew I'm tired already
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 30, 2008 10:06 AMI ride a bicycle all the time for recreation. And I drive a car all the time for moving myself, others and larger items efficiently to a destination. 16 is wrong because it's not a bicyclist's fault that they take up space on a two lane road, and that it takes time to find a safe place to pass. The same is true for a slower moving car. Most bicyclists will stop riding two abreast if a car is approaching and then they take up less space than a slow moving car. I did that several times just yesterday while biking on a two lane road in Portland. Agreed that sometimes cyclists are inconsiderate. I am one of the few that stops at stop signs. But, autos can be inconsiderate too. Sharing the road is the solution. Duh. Both autos and bicycles have just as much right to the road.
14 is wrong because although I love riding bicycles, it is impractical for me to do so in most cases. Yes I can ride out to my in-laws house on the weekend, but I can't take my wife and young kids, our clothes and everything else I need. That requires a car. And the same is true for most people who work in places where they can't shower after a bicycle commute. And I can't carry all of our groceries on a bike, etc.
Bicycling is great, but it is not the solution to transportation problems. That is a naive and quite foolish view. But viewing all bicyclists as obnoxious and saying that one will never get to work if one has to pass bicycles is ludicrous as well.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 30, 2008 10:15 AMAnd, yes in a perfect world all those motorists would be kind, gentle souls who gave you lots of room and passed when appropriate. Alas, there is a small but noticable percentage of folks who are not so inclined. And as you are totally out gunned when it comes to cars vs. bikes, about one kick at the can and your toast. Yes the driver will be at fault and maybe my heirs get a big settlement (more likely the driver is uninsured and owns nothing) but I would just as sonn live a few more years and drive my car.
Posted by: RJK on June 30, 2008 01:04 PMLawrence Solomon: What I told the Petroleum Club
Posted by: Reality on June 30, 2008 01:37 PMWe're not? Then what are the hundreds of millions of tax dollars that go towards building bike lanes?
Turns out, bicycling is actually bad for the environment! Quite the paradox.
Posted by: Palouse on June 30, 2008 01:51 PMI can undertand having to share the roads when there is no bike lane, but why the heck do they have to keep their wheels on the white lines leaving the whole bike lane empty while empeding the oncoming traffic at the same time?
Posted by: DopioLover on June 30, 2008 04:34 PMI generally use the center of the bike lanes as you indicate. And I go out of my way to take streets that have bike lanes and that are at a more appropriate speed for bikes so as not to impede cars and provide more safety for myself.
But, just so you know, one reason a cyclist might hug the fog line is that often there are grates in the shoulder of what otherwise looks like a bike lane. The grates can be deep holes that would be enough to damage a bike.
Still though, as much as I love bikes and have been riding successfully with cars for many decades, they are totally impractical for commuting for all but a few, given today's varied lives, economy, cost of living, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 1, 2008 01:06 AMAll I can say to the deniers here is, the longer you deny, the greater the discredit you and the entire anti-environmental cause will suffer. You can deny reality, but you can't fool it.
Posted by: Chris Crawford on July 1, 2008 03:09 PMI don't deny Global Climate change - it is real and accentuated by pollutants other than CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere. However, science (contrary to Al Gore) shows that the jury is out on global warming. The last 10 years have not been any warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record. If you knew something about the facts, - you would know that, but don't really believe that facts matter to you and your ilk.
Posted by: KS on July 1, 2008 08:33 PMI don't deny Global Climate change - it is real and accentuated by pollutants other than CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere. However, real science (contrary to Al Gore) shows that the jury is out on global warming. The last 10 years have not been any warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record. If you knew something about the facts, - you would know that, but don't really believe that facts matter to you and your ilk.
Posted by: KS on July 1, 2008 08:34 PMThere are approx. 31,000 legitimate scientists that take issue with conclusions reached by the IPCC
Could you provide me with a link to this statement? I have seen one story about a survey showing that many scientists reject the IPCC reports, but that story was discredited. Perhaps you're referring to something else?
However, real science (contrary to Al Gore) shows that the jury is out on global warming.
What do you mean by "real science"? I tend to think of it as physics, climatology, that sort of thing. Do you have some other source?
If you knew something about the facts, - you would know that, but don't really believe that facts matter to you and your ilk.
Good! Let's talk facts! You have provided a fact (that the last ten years have not been any warmer than 1998). This is true. However, you must next demonstrate that this fact disproves the AGW hypothesis. It does not. When analyzing trend data, you have to look at ALL the data points, not just a select few. When you examine all the data from 1900 to the present, the trend is very clearly upward for the overall period. Remember, weather is not climate.
Posted by: Chris Crawford on July 1, 2008 09:54 PMI have reflected on the cost premium of buying local (for the sake of seeking quality) farmer's market food. I accept using one of capitolism's tools to stimulate the supply so that in the future, I might have more selection and competition tempered prices. It is ironic that you unknowingly belittle one of the things you worship.
As far as those evil Hg-filled lightbulbs, I have saved a non-trivial amount of kwh & $ since converting over to them and have better lighting to boot. I'm responsible enough to dispose of them properly. You are an advocate of nuclear power, why are you scared of a little mercury?
Just because some librals embrace farmers markets and more efficient lighting doesn't render those things immediately evil. We just ate the best goat I've ever had from a lady at a local farmer's market. Try making a perfect soufflé from 3 week old eggs you got a deal on at QFC.