On Global Warming
Scott Adams has put together some material about Global Warming on his The Dilbert Blog. Today is Part 4, and he lists his six (6) point conclusion.
The single most important point, I think, Scott glossed over in first point:
The earth is getting warmer, and human activity is an important part of it. I base this conclusion on the lack of credible peer reviewed work to the contrary and the mountain of work that confirms human-induced warming. While individual studies might be wrong, it’s extremely unlikely the entire field has been so thoroughly duped. The Dilbert Blog: Global Warming – Part 4
I do quibble with Scott’s lack of acknowledgement of the NASA/JPL report that all the planets in the solar system are warming right now, not just earth. The best models of gravity, atmospheric effects, and macro limits on ecological effects leads me to think that what industrialized nations on Earth do will not affect temperatures on Mars much, at least with no more junk than we have thrown at the planet to date.
Some of us agree that human activity plays a role in global warming, but I for one disagree that burning fossil fuels is the major contribution. I think there is ample reason to think that tree management, ocean pollution, and actions that change local albedoes (in say, square mile increments, say through building highways, changing wild lands to suburbs, clear cutting forests, strip mining, etc) have been the significant affectors, and also are the places where significant responses are likely to pay off. Including the ‘dam the fjord’ proposals, to affect Scandinavian spring runoff that appears to be interfering with the salt cycle that powers the stream we know as the Gulf Stream.
But I kind of like the point Scott makes, and one of his contributors that points to a report with similar conclusions, that there are more important places to spend effort and money. The Copenhagen Consensus lists “world’s greatest challenges” and offers solutions. Global warming comes about #20 on their list.
I am skeptical that we can repair or improve some of the overlooked global disasters we have created in recent history.
Will we talk Brazil, that ‘green’ country now running it’s cars on ethanol, into putting back the damned rainforest that they stripped from the Amazon basin? You know, the rain forest that when it went away dumped hundreds of years of carbon dioxide and nitrogen/methane compounds into the atmosphere, and screwed up water and oxygen cycles of oceans around the world?
And then we are going to talk China and Malasia and Southeast Asia and Africa into stopping the burning of charcoal and stripping the old forests for their current wave of construction?
And, maybe we could force car makers to have to plant enough new growth trees to uptake the carbons exhausted by each car they sell, making them include the cost of land and trees in the car’s cost? Or maybe require oil drilling operations to account for the recapture of every pound of carbon they pump from the ground? Internationally?
Or maybe we could stop people from burning leaves in the fall, when they could be composting (or paying someone to compost them), along with grass trimmings, garden weeds, and food debris?
Or, maybe we could rate cars for gas mileage, and pollutants per mile rather than percentages of gases. It never made sense to me to put gadgets on an engine that reduces gas mileage.
Or, maybe we could combine the old time farming practice of putting up sileage — cut the full crop, the whole stalk of corn or oats, chop to small pieces and blow into a silo. Let it ‘cure’ (ferment) for a couple of weeks, only now we collect the methane and alcohol fumes. Now we have a greater amount of palatable (sweeter, with alcohol!) feed for livestock, and ethanol, and methane, too. Surely separating the alcohol from the methane should be a simple enough process.
And, like, maybe we could go back to building hydroelectric projects? Maybe paying more attention to low-head-pressure techniques, and intermittent use techniques to harness flood waters and creeks that only run part of the year.
Perhaps even micro-pressure natural gas generators, to make use of marginal gas wells and oil wells with a slight gas pressure.
Or maybe we can revive that 1970’s theory, that the trace mineral content of most land fills is better than most mined ores. And that it should be profitable to mine dumps for basic minerals.
But most of all, I think the first step has to be to put a lid on obstructive and frivolous lawsuits, including patent and copyright reform. We have to amend our current legal climate that bolsters only the status quo, at the expense of our children.
You know, look for ways to improve the world around us.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I always find it unfair to point fingers at more recent… exploitation(?) of resources, like pointing the finger at Brazil for deforesting their land. What about the deforestation of North America? I don’t know why none of the rain forest countries have considered saying to the rest of the world, hey, you want us to keep the rain forests instead of exploiting them? Cough up the dough.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Robinson, your ’solution’, to pay rain forest countries to do the right thing sounds bad to me. 1) Most countries, receiving foreign funds for any reason, from disaster to defense, have squandered or stolen the larger part of those funds. 2) Receiving funds to do what is right smacks of extortion, and tends to weaken the character of both payer and payee. Much of the major deforestation of the US happened more than 50 years ago, before the recognized start of the current climate cycle. I do agree that the continued expansion of cities into rural, and reduction of wilderness areas all contribute to climate instability. Perhaps if we agree to plant greenery atop and between buildings, to cover 50% of the surface of cities over 100,000, the Brazilians would agree to replant the rain forests? Or China?
I consider re-foresting North America one of the better responses to global warming, and is much to be encouraged. I only planted 20 trees in the last 7 years. Not much of a start, I know.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:02 am
I was thinking of it more in terms of ‘farming’ clean air, other countries would pay for their ‘crops’ the same way that we pay for the crops that they clear their rain forests to plant.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Hi Moderator: - Foound On Global Warming looking for rain forests. Good blog!!
November 6th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Amusingly, global warming can be linked to population growth, ie “making babies”. If we curtail some of that behavior we might have a chance at turning this around eventually.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
dpk,
I remember ‘zero population growth’, when the US population was about 200 million, in the 1960’s or so. That kind of died away .. No one was really interested.
It seems that those with the highest living standard have the lowest population growth. Large families tend to happen more often in poor or lower class communities and neighborhoods. What seemed to happen the last time around that anyone seemed to notice population growth, was that those that had time and resources for raising consciousness were unable to relate or communicate with the people that most needed to change - the people with too little money, and too little time to pay attention to what the rich yuppies were yammering about this week.
One proposed solution was to raise living standards for those with the most population growth, which historically would reduce growth. Women would delay child bearing, and learn about the connection between intercourse and getting pregnant. Getting married and pregnant young would be less of a family custom, or family pressure.
Look at China, how they swung into gear to limit population - with government enforced limits to 2 children per couple, bounties for reporting violators or health people that helped or concealed the extra pregnancy, and enforced sterilization for violators. A program like that is most often applied in a class system, and usually excludes those with social position, “Rank hath its privileges, and some are pretty rank.” I doubt we are ready to apply something like that outside China.
As for this blog, the title ‘Its about making babies’, refers to the lies and innuendo I wish to debunk about fashion, about social custom, and about picking a mate. I contend that picking a partner skilled and apt to make a good parent is a ‘bare’ minimum for a good mate, even if there are no children planned or likely - as for an older couple, a career couple, or other couples not likely to engender a baby. My goal is better social stability, improved interpersonal integrity, and a healthier family life. Which should reduce the number of accidental babies, or babies born to ill prepared families.
I actually advocate less ‘making baby’ activity until the family is prepared.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Personally, I don’t think that the higher birth rate of lower income families has that much to do with ignorance about the connection between sex and pregnancy. I suspect it has a whole lot to do with hope (or lack of) and expectations for one’s life.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Robinson,
I don’t think the difference is ignorance or knowledge. I do think that many kids from broken homes, or isolated fundamentalist communities tend to fail more often, in preparing children to grow into responsible parents. In fact, many families have lost sight of making their children ready to be good parents. The affluent focus on educating their kids (formal education, anyway) to be the best person, or best citizen (for some). It is almost like parents figure if they never talk about sex or children, their kids will never experiment, kiss behind the lockers, make out on illicit beer busts, take co-ed showers with friends when they get home from school in the afternoon, etc. History and news reports to the contrary. My local school system has a program for unwed mothers. There is a waiting list. It is restricted to high school girls. Junior high unwed mothers are left out.
Kids from lower income families often get less parenting, less home and family values taught, less time spent in the company of their parents - and more time that the parents are there but too ill or weary to interact.
And no parent wants to think their kids are sexually active before marriage. Even though the statitistics on 11 year old girls wavers up and down, but averaging 22% to 25% having engaged in (mostly) consensual sex. So almost all parents are too little, too late to teach the values before the kids are experimenting.
And I think lower income kids are more likely to feel the connections of family make pregnancy look attractive as soon as they are physically able. Many low income families have been that way for generations. It is tough to teach kids there is a better way than what they see their parents live.
No, I don’t think the answer to why lower income families are larger is as simple as ‘ignorance’ about the birds and bees.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
So we agree completely!