tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post5475748715220552976..comments2024-03-28T23:07:35.632-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Global Warming: Why are Environmentalists Failing and What Mankind Can Do About ItCliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-70682440357258527622016-05-11T21:45:37.178-07:002016-05-11T21:45:37.178-07:00Good article.. in indonesia i have a article globa...Good article.. in indonesia i have a article global warming on <a href="http://carapemanasanglobal.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">carapemanasanglobal.blogspot.com</a>Nur Hadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056279900627065495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-68656532812369881802015-11-10T09:53:34.138-08:002015-11-10T09:53:34.138-08:00I agree with Cliff's points. In particular, hi...I agree with Cliff's points. In particular, his thoughts on population. I have long felt this is the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge. Sadly, China recently announced that it is lifting it's one child per family restriction. <br />If you haven't read it yet you might want to check out Naomi Klein's book "This Changes Everything." Her premise is that if we really want to work our way out of this mess we need to look at the economic juggernaught of capitalism and it's underlying values of unlimited growth and unlimited consumption that are so out of whack with living in a closed system. I agree we need to move away from "disaster capitalism" but how on earth are we going to get the world to agree to that? To get people to understand that the needs of the whole are greater than the needs of the one? That's the really sticky wicket in all of this.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10806954027932085307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-81771539209678600222015-11-10T06:14:04.174-08:002015-11-10T06:14:04.174-08:00The questions that ought to be asked include:
1. ...The questions that ought to be asked include:<br /><br />1. Why did mankind stop burning wood and switch to coal and, later, petroleum?<br /><br />2. Why does man use hydrocarbon-burning engines?<br /><br />The answers are pretty simple: because they are cheap, reliable, and in the case of the steam and then the IC engine, readily portable.<br /><br />When green energy can claim these things, it will replace fossil fuels.<br /><br />Unless and until it can claim these things, one may as well insist that we get our power from pixie dust.<br /><br />As for the harm done by certain alarmists such as Gore, I entirely agree. You don't convince people that there's a problem by (for example) calling them deniers, stupid, ignorant, in the pay of Big Oil, &c. isn't calculated to win friends and influence people. to the contrary, it makes them very, very inclined to think that they are being buffaloed and then look very carefully - perhaps too carefully - at the data. I add that blaming everything under the sun, from refugees from Syria to shark attacks to a hot day in Podunk, on global warming also doesn't help the cause.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-43244350505804117672015-11-02T09:51:52.145-08:002015-11-02T09:51:52.145-08:00Cliff, you may have thought a lot about this, but ...Cliff, you may have thought a lot about this, but you haven't thought it through. <br /><br />Environmentalists are keenly aware that sustainability is the key solution to global warming, as well as most other environmental issues. But sustainability encompasses many aspects so it is not something you can focus on. SOME environmentalists choose to focus on the unsustainability of pumping CO2 into the air. Their success can be measured by the amount of discussion taking place today compared to 10, 20, or 30 years ago. You need that before taking the second step, making decisions on which actions to take.<br /><br />Global warming was bound to be a big political fight. The solutions are too deeply tied to economics and government for it not to be. Your "fresh approach," which is not fresh, involves spending a lot of money, affects personal "freedoms," and/or demands more government -- all of which invites political opposition.<br /><br />What needs to happen is a new approach to economics. We define "progress" as the growth in production without considering depletion of resources. "Success" in business is determined by yearly profit, without ever subtracting the long-term cost to society. If businesses make a lot of money moving NYC to higher ground, is that progress?<br /><br />A carbon tax, while a step in the right direction, is a linear solution to a non-linear sustainability problem. It faces tremendous political hurdles and, as fracking technology has shown, could easily be offset by some new fossil fuel cost saving discoveries.<br /><br />Global warming is a HUGE issue, worthy of all the current concern and more. But the naysayers and foot-draggers are winning, I'm afraid. J.G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06791321866787259718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-56656895065368855482015-10-31T08:32:43.447-07:002015-10-31T08:32:43.447-07:00Notice the post title: "what can mankind do&q...Notice the post title: "what can mankind do". Where is the personal responsibility made clear? Tabitha above makes a good point. Where is the equivalent campaign of public attention that speaks to all of us (I include myself) that says "Only YOU can prevent climate change!" The only special blame or poor grade I would give the environmentalists is that we write and act as if some other is at fault and some other must change. Exon did not burn the excess energy, we did. Exon's failure is that they are helping us burn energy without helping us look in the mirror to see what we are doing.<br /><br />In wealthy countries if each of us parked the car an extra 10 days a year and flew one less long trip per year we would do more to slow down the climate change than all the other current proposals will accomplish in that same year. So far the most effective carbon reduction process that really made a difference has been when the economy slowed down. That clearly shows that driving and flying less makes a difference. Slowing down our personal consumption does make a difference.<br /><br />Let's say Yes to all of the above in Cliff's post, but also really try to think of ways to have similar thought put in to making a personal connection to the challenge. We ask people to put out their campfire while at the same time planning forest management practices to reduce the fire danger. We suggest that people eat less sugar while at the same time trying to change the food labeling. We ask people to drive defensively while at the same time mandating safety belts and good brakes in new cars. <br /><br />We are past the point where changing lightbulbs will be enough, partly because we actually have had a successful strategy that spoke to both the personal and the collective action. Now we need to accept a bigger challenge. Changing other daily travel expectations and goals can make a big difference, especially if we combine that with collective large scale regulations and incentives. Creative people need to help us figure out ways to make the challenge both personal and societal. George Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08077046435679790092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-59848627411216147662015-10-30T15:05:02.262-07:002015-10-30T15:05:02.262-07:007 billion poor folks, each using 1 unit of energy ...7 billion poor folks, each using 1 unit of energy per day = 7 billion units per day.<br />3 billion middle class folks using 2.3 units of energy per day also = 7 billion units per day. And this is conservative, a middle class person uses way more than 2.3 times the energy used by a poor person.<br /><br />Yes population is a problem (correction: conundrum) But the middle class lifestyle is also a problem, not a solution.<br /><br />As for renewable sources of energy, they're all currently subsidized by fossil fuels. Think you're going to build a wind farm? First, drive your (ffp = fossil fuel powered) ffp-truck around to see where its windy. then hire a firm to come out in their ffp-trucks to study the site. then hire another to come out in their ffp-trucks to install the turbines (they hired another ffp-company to build the turbines, which hired another ffp-company to mine the materials) Then another string of ffp-companies deliver the materials to the ffp-factory, and the turbines to the windy site, and other ffp-companies maintain them for next 20 years. You have to look at whole systems before you can claim whether or not something is renewable or sustainable. <br /><br />As for nuclear energy, none of the decommissioning costs have been accounted for, let alone the costs to store toxic waste.<br /><br />Solution? There is none, things will get a lot worse before they get better. We'll just have to adapt to a low energy and low population future (of course most will not). But that doesn't mean that life has to suck, or that humans will become extinct any time soon.artinnaturehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15636488183451001806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-24272902239696902692015-10-30T14:09:15.039-07:002015-10-30T14:09:15.039-07:00The more affluent one is, the more likely they are...The more affluent one is, the more likely they are to be concerned about global warming. The more affluent one is, the more energy one is likely to use.<br /><br />So, yes, so-called environmentalists are more responsible for climate change than most other groups. After Al Gore did his thing about climate change, it was revealed that his home used 20x the energy of the average home. Environment groups ignored this, because they care about the environment.<br /><br />Riiiight.<br /><br />If you believe in climate change, yet still drive anywhere other than work, or fly for any reason other than to support yourself, I don't really see how you can in good conscience look at anyone else. You haven't done all that YOU can do yet. Until you have, I don't care what you're cop-outs are, people are not going to listen to you. And that's the problem. Climate change is everyone else's fault. Always.<br /><br />It's not the environmentalists criss-crossing the world in private jets to attend climate change conferences. Oh no. No no. Perish the thought. Academia's farts don't stink, nor do their vehicles emit pollution. Instead, they emit magic pixie dust. It's those gosh-darn working-class and unfashionable other-party industries.<br /><br />Would you believe the Democrats take more annual airplane flights than Republicans, as well as fly more miles? Shhhhhhhhh. I won't tell if you don't. Those gosh-darn working-class southerners and their oil farmers whose products the liberal elite use more than anyone!<br /><br />So drilling in the Arctic was called off was it? Where then will they get the fuel for your next flight home? I guarantee you it will come from somewhere. The Arctic's gain is somewhere else's loss, but hey, why ruin a victory celebration?<br /><br />I've said this before, but it never ceases to amaze me that climate change proponents continue to criticize me even though I do not drive or fly. They could not care less what my carbon footprint is (the bottom 1% of all Americans), could not care less. They are upset because I don't talk about climate change and parrot their views.<br /><br />Any you wonder why it doesn't get better?<br /><br />It's because its most vocal advocates are insincere. Think about it. The people who are "too selfish" to have kids (their words), care deeply about what happens to the planet once they're dead and buried. Why?<br /><br />Okay, what about the homeless we have living on the streets today in Downtown Seattle? WE have more than enough money in King County to house everyone. Why do some people care more about climate discomfort when they no longer exist, than the do about needy people right now?<br /><br />Why, exactly, do we need consensus on climate change when the affluent-class could make a HUGE difference just by themselves? IF everyone who believes that climate change was an issue, stopped driving and flying tomorrow, that would in and of itself, if not solve it, make great strides.<br /><br />But they don't. Instead, they say it's your fault, or their fault, or someone's fault, then they fly home for mom's pumpkin pie. Yummy!<br /><br />What you are witnessing is yet another ruling-class, neo-puritan moral-panic. It's not about climate change, it's about them. If you want to know what people really care about, pay no attention to what they say. Instead, watch what they do.<br /><br />If you do, you will come to the conclusion that those who actually care about it talk less and do more.<br /><br />It's not about what you do, though. It's about what you say. Snark, snark, sarcasm, snark. Climate change proponents are rich in snark. They'll tell you with the wit of Lorne Michaels why "the others" are oh-so-lame.<br /><br />If only snark and sarcasm solved the problem.<br /><br />Climate change is here to stay, because those who claim to care most about it, don't care at all, and the evidence to support this statement is omnipresent and ubiquitous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-44192088129943624482015-10-29T17:16:39.247-07:002015-10-29T17:16:39.247-07:00Nice post Cliff... hit the nail on the head with t...Nice post Cliff... hit the nail on the head with this one. Middle-class people are generally not concerned enough about climate change to give up their lifestyles. It's the classic "tragedy of the commons." I agree nuclear is important. Charlie Eriksen has told me repeatedly that solar power is the energy of the future... what do you think?Charlie Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714553915658896340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-88988216157782384102015-10-29T17:02:03.507-07:002015-10-29T17:02:03.507-07:00I see arguments here about politics and government...I see arguments here about politics and government and the inability to act. All true, but they are merely symptoms of a much bigger problem. <br /><br />The bottom line is that we humans are not an evolved enough species to solve really big problems through reasonable approaches. Overpopulation and climate change are way beyond what we as a species can handle. It isn't that people don't know how to solve these problems, but rather that there is no possibility of getting seven billion people on the same page. Everything pushes the other way.<br /><br />In the end, this will sort itself out. We are animals and we are part of this world. All animal species eventually crash their population when it becomes unsustainable. A warming planet will just nudge this along a little faster, but it's coming either way. The usual mechanisms are starvation and disease. A virus will pop up that knocks things down by a few billion. And we humans are clever enough that we can make our own deadly bugs, and if that fails, there is always nuclear war. <br /><br />It's a shame that we can't be proactive and have to fall back on "natural" and/or historical methods, but we are built as a species to respond to immediate existential threats. We're very good at that. Unfortunately, neither runaway population growth nor the scientific work showing the direction of climate change are perceived as immediate existential threats by very many people. <br /><br />Attempts to classify it as such by environmental activists and supporting media have utterly failed. And just like an antibiotic that you deliver in lower-than-effective doses, you end up making things worse by creating resistance. <br /><br />Time to get realistic and focus on how we can best optimize the things we do control to survive the coming crisis. In the PNW, that means (among other things) dealing with a massive population influx in less than a century when parts of North America become unlivable. <br /><br />Maybe its time to think more seriously about Cascadia. <br /><br />John Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08271037292493818827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-17529780185494032012015-10-29T16:03:07.026-07:002015-10-29T16:03:07.026-07:00There was another Pharaoh with a population contro...There was another Pharaoh with a population control program. That didn't go so well.Gpacharliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07899629492778221889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-64680029182298928222015-10-29T15:25:03.704-07:002015-10-29T15:25:03.704-07:00If this thread is still going... I just heard that...If this thread is still going... I just heard that China is scrapping their "one child" policy. I only today heard an NPR primer on this, but the suggestion was that it was no longer needed. I only hope they aren't declaring victory too soon.Anselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13835758313287462921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-39532046589134323452015-10-29T14:27:36.961-07:002015-10-29T14:27:36.961-07:00Thanks Cliff! Thanks Cliff! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11751208843045824802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-91256901528502065612015-10-29T14:24:56.519-07:002015-10-29T14:24:56.519-07:00Steve Anderson-
Try to find one, just one climato...Steve Anderson-<br /><br />Try to find one, just one climatologist that argues against global warming. Be sure to show your work. <br /><br />Co2 raises the temp of the atmosphere, its basic physics.Michael Snyderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230219537755848399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-44641717389523233972015-10-29T14:23:15.317-07:002015-10-29T14:23:15.317-07:00The more people, the more resources we need.
We ...The more people, the more resources we need. <br /><br />We need to use our collective intelligence to either invest in technology to support more people or we need to educate the world and keep population growth down.<br /><br />Not liking economic downturns doesnt give us an excuse to further pollute the world, no matter how much anyone tries to spin it.<br /><br /><br />Michael Snyderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230219537755848399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-16273801562799196182015-10-29T11:08:55.401-07:002015-10-29T11:08:55.401-07:00One enormous often overlooked energy resource is G...One enormous often overlooked energy resource is Geothermal. I searched through this post & comment, but only found a single mention of it :-( The potential in the US alone: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2012/08/u-s-geothermal-energy-potential-is-heating-up.html<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00505057954319107750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-27967946344341098332015-10-29T08:26:07.777-07:002015-10-29T08:26:07.777-07:00So confused. Extremely intelligent people stating ...So confused. Extremely intelligent people stating there is no connection between atmospheric CO2 levels and Planetary warming. Then others who pose a diametrically opposite opinion.<br /><br /> Will we ever have a solid , factual outcome on this issue?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05996587621516692722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-69018082639606636832015-10-29T07:44:13.943-07:002015-10-29T07:44:13.943-07:00OF -
I don't disagree with you on the sillin...OF - <br /><br />I don't disagree with you on the silliness of our economic model.. but I also don't think we get anywhere by making vague pronouncements like "Religion is the problem!" or "We might survive if poor people stop having babies!"B. E. Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18292014266884084711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-56835456351073366812015-10-29T07:35:05.614-07:002015-10-29T07:35:05.614-07:00Thanks, Cliff, for taking a stand on population. T...Thanks, Cliff, for taking a stand on population. Today, China ended their one child policy. However draconian, it was an effective means of restraining population growth. The possibly millions (a billion perhaps?) more people China will now add in the coming decades may be middle class but the resources and energy they will consume boggles the mind. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04539025771899969807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-34844041262251211292015-10-29T06:28:37.256-07:002015-10-29T06:28:37.256-07:00Indeed BE Ward, the Keynesian economic model is N...Indeed BE Ward, the Keynesian economic model is NOT sustainable. It needs endless growth and expansion to function. Time for us to think outside the Keynesian box...Organic Farmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694548750704036717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-35753542785440548882015-10-28T22:13:39.237-07:002015-10-28T22:13:39.237-07:00Cliff -
I know this is a weather blog, but my co...Cliff - <br /><br />I know this is a weather blog, but my complaint is "population control through standard of living" is so vague. Say we improve the standard of living in sub-Saharan Africa and Afghanistan. What if they want to continue having babies? Is someone going to stop them?<br /><br />And there's an irony in your comment.. "Look at Japan and Europe for prime examples of this..cliff" Yes, indeed, there is a cliff when you look at Japan and Europe. Both are facing economic crises from having *too low* of a birth rate. The Japanese are starting to have discussions about opening up to immigrants. B. E. Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18292014266884084711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-22052156268633292202015-10-28T15:29:15.612-07:002015-10-28T15:29:15.612-07:00Cliff,
As an Environmental Studies (major) studen...Cliff,<br /><br />As an Environmental Studies (major) student at the University of Washington, I find it asinine that you would generalize "environmentalists" and argue that sustainability is not a major concern of the environmental movement... I work at the UW OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY among coworkers that would all describe themselves as passionate environmentalists. For over nine years, the mission of UW Sustainability has been to disseminate environmental sustainability information to members of the UW community and beyond, in order to encourage SUSTAINABLE practices: i.e. water and energy conservation, use of renewable forms of energy (I just completed a project there where I designed a solar thermal hot water system for our rec facility), and recycling and composting, along with waste reduction. Those are just a few examples.<br /><br />Here is a link to UW's Sustainability Festival that is going on this week: https://green.uw.edu/sustainable-festival-2015<br />You should check it out!<br /><br />I'm not sure where you missed the connection between environmentalism and sustainability. It is as if you think they are two opposing viewpoints. As someone who is very interested in studying renewable forms of energy, I also believe that technology alone will not save our species from extinction. Yes, there are much cleaner ways to produce our energy than burning fossil fuels; few people will argue that point. However, replacing our current system with one that is still very resource intensive to create (dams and solar panels for example) can only do so much to preserve the planet. The issue is that our society wastes so much. Energy, water, the way we design office buildings that will be demolished in 40 years, you name it, we have done a poor job of being sustainable. We need to adopt practices that USE LESS. Of course environmentalists are concerned about being sustainable. They are the ones pushing the issue.<br /><br />You mention our need for action. A different approach. I agree with you on that. We need social action on a massive scale where we come together to demand practices from our political system and corporations that benefit us, the people. Not the wealthy few. Being "sustainable" encompasses much more than Bill Gates vowing to invest in renewable energy. It is a lifestyle that we can all choose to live where we keep our planet's limited resources in mind at all times. Environmentalists are usually pretty good at that. <br /><br />Welcome to the sustainability movement, Cliff.<br /><br />- Garrett BrooksAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14929942827498651430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-34448562732432004832015-10-28T14:42:40.092-07:002015-10-28T14:42:40.092-07:00Courageous post Cliff. Hats off to you.Courageous post Cliff. Hats off to you.sunsnow12https://www.blogger.com/profile/16856025812008113046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-29157682595023341182015-10-28T13:58:36.203-07:002015-10-28T13:58:36.203-07:00BE Ward--- I think I covered that in the blog...po...BE Ward--- I think I covered that in the blog...population naturally levels off or declines as standard of living improves. Look at Japan and Europe for prime examples of this..cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-33891300759478073412015-10-28T13:20:38.501-07:002015-10-28T13:20:38.501-07:00Good ideas. In fact, there are many good ideas out...Good ideas. In fact, there are many good ideas out there, many of which would probably take care of the problem. The same holds true for other kinds of problems that have not been solved. All of the ideas, as written, say we "must" or "need" or "should" do one or another action. The underlying assumption seems to be that if someone came up with the perfect formulation or most engaging description of a solution, then the problem would get solved. We have all watched for years or decades while many problems, not just global warming or sustainability, sit in plain sight without change taking place. It strikes me that what needs to be reworked is how to change fundamental patterns in industrial societies. There is manufactured doubt, political distortions, vested profits, etc. These aren't the excuses, they are the problem. How do we get the "need to" or "should" to happen?John Valentinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07772211252012688700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-88595621159861941462015-10-28T13:18:31.223-07:002015-10-28T13:18:31.223-07:00Excellent post, Cliff. I agree that in our media, ...Excellent post, Cliff. I agree that in our media, the issue of global environmental stewardship isn't talked about anywhere near enough - it's just climate change this, climate change that, with a lot of hyperbole and inaccuracies.<br /><br />I agree that we need to view global warming as a subset of the substainability issue - how we're going to ensure a sufficient Earth for future generations in terms of food, water, electricity, raw materials, and wild environments.<br /><br />And the whole planetary migration idea that some people bring up, I find really, really depressing. It's just wrong to get all excited anticipating that.Josh S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07291522301117362687noreply@blogger.com