I am *EXTREMELY* frustrated about the fossil fuels/climate change/pollution debate

[Matsubara]

On the one hand, I think that climate change has become a bit of a panicmongering orthodoxy, to the point where, if you challenge assertions that sea level will definitely rise by 20 meters in our lifetimes, or point out that the rise in temps, sea levels and storms in the last 100 years has actually been quite subtle, you are branded a climate change skeptic or whitewasher, or an industry apologist.

But do I have a home on their side? Well, they seem to think that humans should be able to just keep on "biggering and biggering" their consumption of fossil fuels to their heart's contents.

I feel kind of stuck in between the people on one side, prophesying an apocalyptic future due to changing climate, and those on the other saying that it's all due to sunspots and we really needn't worry about it at all.

The only people who seem capable of being honest and rational are the scientists, who are always careful to point out the large degree of uncertainty in climate modeling.

But the laypeople have divided themselves into these two camps that are so extreme that it's hard to find sanity.


I have driven econobox cars, biked and walked for 20 years now, because I believe STRONGLY in conservation, and I didn't need global warming catastrophes to motivate me. I knew that fossil fuels were finite so I conserved in the hope that we could make them last longer until technology provided more clean and sustainable ways to propel our vehicles. I use CF bulbs, turn off the lights in rooms I'm not in. I don't even heat or air-condition rooms I'm not using.

I was raised to believe that deliberately and unnecessarily wasting food or resources was sinful. So the rise of SUVs and the mountains of plastic imported crapola being sold in huge box stores has saddened me to no end, as has the increading tide of litter EVERYWHERE. So many people seem to have no regard for the natural world.

But it seems that the only sides available to pick are "We're all going to die within 5 years if we don't ban personal cumbustion-powered autos and start riding hempfiber bicycles" and "Buy a Hummer and a McMansion - it's your birthright as an American. Environmental degradation and global warming are liberal myths with the intent of destroying capitalism"

Am I the only one who feels this way? Is it wrong to say I don't buy into the direst of warming scenarios, but that we should still have much stricter controls on emissions and fuel efficiency, JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

Is that just too quaint and square and Carter-era? Do we need the threat of annihilation to motivate people to make these small lifestyle changes? Do people even have a concept of "civic duty" anymore?


Sorry if this post offends anyone. It's not intended to...

[XemaSab]

1. Why do you hate hempfiber bicycles?

:shrug:

No, seriously, you can only do what you can do, and it sounds like you're doing more than most. :)

[Matsubara]

3. LOL - I wonder if there really is such a thing.

I do love my bike, with its evil, METAL frame, and fossil fuel-based RUBBER tires(!) :)

Anyway, I'm sure most people here are making an effort to do the right thing for the environment.

Industry apologist types probably don't last long around here - fair enough, but they dominate on other boards.

But here it's the warming orthodox folks that drown out everyone else.

Or maybe I'm wrong and nobody else feels that way.

I liked "An Inconvenient Truth", and I also like the recent BBC doc "The Great Global Warming Swindle".


I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing, and despite the fact that I live 400 feet from the ocean, I'm not the least bit worried about being inundated.

But the amount of trash that washes up in the inlets near here is heartbreaking. :(

[XemaSab]

8. My view on the "two sides" is that one side, Big Oil, has a lot to lose

and the other side, Unkempt Scientists, don't have a lot to gain.

I'm a scientist, I know a lot of scientists, and trust me: nobody goes into science to get rich or become famous.

Whenever I hear republicans saying that climatologists, geologists, and other scientists are making stuff up to get grant money, I flash on the scruffy biologist in the movie "Never Cry Wolf" sitting in a hut eating mice. Seriously, I looked at a job once up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge studying carbon loss in Arctic soils, and the entire job description was wading through the soggy Arctic tundra, collecting peat moss cores, and weighing them. All the while fighting off mosquitoes. That's glamor right there. :P

But yeah, the other day I had an obsessive freak-out and went along the beach picking up all the plastic. :(

[AndyTiedye]

10. Not Yet, but Calfee is Working On It

Calfee Design makes some bicycles out of bamboo and hemp fiber.
http://www.calfeedesign.com/bamboo.htm
but most of them are carbon fiber:


They are also experimenting with hemp fiber/epoxy as a frame material.

[Matsubara]

12. That photo...

:rofl:

That pic has so many hippie-liberal stereotypes in it, it's hilarious. Why couldn't be be wearing Birkenstocks?

I wouldn't be adverse to using any hemp product that works, but a recumbent bike? Don't think so.

[AndyTiedye]

16. Because Birkenstock Doesn't Make Shoes that Work With Clipless Pedals! I Wish They Did!

That pic has so many hippie-liberal stereotypes in it, it's hilarious. Why couldn't be be wearing Birkenstocks?

I DO wear Birkenstocks everywhere else. They are the only shoes that are shaped like feet.
They're not all sandals. My regular shoes are Birkenstocks too. I even have Birkenstock hiking boots.
Unfortunately, they don't make bicycling shoes. I use clipless pedals, so I need shoes that are compatable with them.

[Matsubara]

18. Hehe.

Honestly, I can't afford Birkenstocks. I wear el cheapo Target leather(?) sandals all the time. The ones I have now were $16.95...

I know a guy who rides a recumbent bike. Has to because of back problems. They are a pricey item, too.

Mine is a Jamis that ran about $300, which is a lot for me, but I didn't want another crappy too-small Sears bike that would fall apart on me in a year, so I splurged. This one has been pretty good to me for almost 4 years now.

[geek_sabre]

2. I appreciate this post

I think that the polar extremes are the only logical result of inserting politics into what should be an apolitical issue. While the results of scaremongering about global warming may be beneficial in the long run (increased consciousness of our effect on the environment is always a good thing), I think that the hijacking of the scientific process is harmful. Science is never about consensus (there's no polling, for instance). The debate is never over in science. In fact, it is the antithesis of science. The scientific process is continuous. Science is constantly looking for better explanations for natural phenomena. It is highly likely that with improved technology, in 100 years scientists may find a completely different and totally acceptable explanation for global warming (or gravity, for that matter).


I think that, as a nation, generally speaking, we're narssicists. We're only moved by something if we fear that it will affect our lives or livelihood. This is why the global warming scaremongering has taken hold. The only way to instill the "civic duty" is to start with our children in our educational system.

[G_j]

4. great post

you get right to the core of why we probably won't survive.
We are selfish, thoughtless fools for the most part.

[sandnsea]

5. Ultimately, your argument is the best

I am as concerned about the chemicals that go in my body, and more specifically my grandchildren, as I am about climate change. So when I run into skeptics, I rely on John Kerry's philosophy - the worst that could happen if we implement climate change technologies is we create a new industry and clean the air and water. So even if we're wrong about climate change, the solution is still helpful to mankind. But I don't think they're wrong about climate change.

I also think we should be focusing on a new way to live. I don't think people who are lecturing on climate change should be "biggering and biggering" either. We need to be gentler to the planet, all the way around.

[opihimoimoi]

6. In this and age, few people actually LISTEN much less COMPREHEND

what the given subject matter is.

The Age of Information OverLoad is here..has been for a long time but now worse than ever

Our INBOXES are crammed full of crap

No Matter how fast we Delete...it keeps getting more shit from everywhere.

Thus, very few people will hear you...and understand....sad....

Come, we go fill sandbags for the upcoming tides

[candice]

7. Start where you can pare down and then go deeper...

...the big depletion in our energy bill has been the result of hanging clothes outside to dry (or even inside). The gas dryer was the biggest energy hog in the house and totally unnecessary to use. We got a retractable clothes line. Prior to that we didn't add a second high-efficiency heater to our house, but rather made do with the first one we had (the house was remodeled). I find the Patagonia capilene line of underwear perfect for being warm enough in a somewhat coolish house in winter. Shade trees and good insulation render air con unnecessary.

[Solon]

9. You don't need 20 feet to have a catastrophe, that's the myth, you only need 5 feet...

or less. In fact, already, there are rumblings of disasters just waiting to happen, Bangladesh/India relations are somewhat strained, mainly due to India's refusal to accept climate refugees. I addition, many small island nations, like Tuvalu and Nauru are already beginning to feel the affects of climate change, and may, in the future, have to abandon their nations entirely. A large portion of the world's population lives at or near sea level, that's just a fact, millions of people, and they literally have no where else to go.

The "doom and gloom" shit isn't directed at you personally, but at societies at large, most people think short term, that's just a fact, and as a result, their governments reflect the same view. Hell, we don't even have any sort of national plan to make fossil fuel consumption FLAT for the next 10 years, and we need to decrease that by 60% or more in that same decade just to alleviate some of the worst affects of global climate change.

Having people, on the individual level, change their lifestyles is all well and good, but its still just a blip on the radar screen. What is needed, at least in the United States, is a reorganizing of civic planning, urban development, and replacing the road based infrastructure in this country to something more energy efficient.

The fact of the matter is that we are doomed, its human nature, I think, to just do the most destructive thing possible, and fuck it up for the responsible individuals. We already burn through over 10 MILLION barrels of oil a day in this country, and millions of tons of coal and millions of cubic feet in natural gas, all in a day, and that's just in the United States. Assuming Peak Oil doesn't bite us in the ass in the meantime, we aren't going to lower our consumption rates by no more than a percentage point or so a year.

The responsible minority isn't the problem, its the gluttonous majority, I'm actually hoping for a peak oil disruption of some sort, hopefully in the near future, to kick our society in the ass. It needs a good ass kicking, maybe then the majority will actually think seriously as to how fucked up our "way of life" is.

[Matsubara]

13. Of course, the human race is doomed.

At some point or other the sun will engulf the earth and all life will be extinguished. And it's doubtful that the human race will make it that long. Thousands of other species have gone extinct since the earth formed, why should humans be any different? As individuals, we die, and so will our species and eventually our planet.

That's not to say we shouldn't do our best to clean up after ourselves and conserve resources so that our grandkids won't have it as rough, but even amazing strides in technology which may allow humans to live in comfort on this planet without polluting it, will probably never be sufficient to overcome the distances we'd have to traverse to move to the nearest habitable planet. Star Trek is a great fantasy, but in all reality, I doubt it will ever happen. Even terraforming Mars may be a huge folly. But we have to try, don't we? It's what we do. Keep trying, even knowing that in the long run, we're doomed. :) :( :)

[NickB79]

17. Of course, a chunk of Antarctica the size of California just melted recently

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x96565

So we may indeed see a 20-ft sea-level rise in our lifetimes (well, maybe mine, I'm only 27).

[Matsubara]

19. I'm 37, and I will personally donate $5000 dollars to Al Gore's cause of choice...

...if we see even a one foot rise in the next 20 years.

Temperatures have been rising for at least 100 years, with constant melting and calving around the ice caps, and sea levels have risen by about 3 inches.

I may be wrong. I certainly hope so...

[Art_from_Ark]

11. I think global warming is a real problem

As another poster pointed out, some South Pacific islands are in danger of being completely inundated within the next several years or decades, as are the Maldives in the Indian Ocean and no doubt others that I am not aware of. Low-lying coastal areas on continental land masses, like Cape Hatteras, are also endangered.

However, I think that so much attention is focusing on greenhouse gases that we are completely losing sight of another culprit, which is massive deforestation coupled with urbanization. Deforestation destroys the natural cooling effect of trees, while urbanization not only destroys trees, it replaces them with cement, steel and asphalt which produce heat islands that can be several degrees warmer than surrounding areas (like here in Tokyo Metro).

[Matsubara]

14. Agreed 1000% on deforestation...

Fukuoka is not quite as bad as Tokyo, but it is significantly warmer than surrounding areas. I was really fortunate to find a place that's convenient to the city but situated by a large protected pine forest on the beach. It's cooler here in summer, with nice ocean breezes. I use the A/C for a full month less than I did when I lived in the central part of town.

Some of the islands that are often cited, like Tuvalu, were originally built at an elevation of only 5-10 cm above sea level. Not really a wise placed to build - even without the sea level rise from warming, erosion would naturally be a big problem on low-lying old atolls. The Mississippi River delta is also disappearing quickly. Not from warming, but because the river has been channeled for flood control, so silt is no longer allowed to repleneish the delta's marshes...

[Matsubara]

20. This article supports your thinking.

Link: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2539349.ece

[bananas]

15. That's why I link to Al Gore's testimony before congress in my sigline

He spent hours discussing this with congress,
it's a serious problem but we can solve it without banning cars
or building thousands of nuclear power plants.

[gobblechops]

21. here is a great link

debunks all the popular oil company myths and right wingers who support them.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn11462


all the myths are in blue and explain why they are wrong or half truths.