Republicans, Democrats, and Global Warming

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Karnac @ Aug 13 2006, 07:54 PM) [snapback]302717[/snapback]</div>

Incorrect. The data is quite clear that human GHG production is *THE* dominant forcing factor. There is enough consensus among experts for non-experts just to quit procrastinating.

Read the quote above - the so called Copenhagen Consensus is just some guys opinion. Yeah, he's an economist so he really is only rendering an opinion. Hey thank you for your opinion, Mr Lomberg!

That's comedy gold - Environmental Industrial Complex - LOL :blink:

Certainly not from the party in control.

The GOP symbol needs to be a pig at the trough.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 12 2006, 02:10 AM) [snapback]302036[/snapback]</div>

Egads, Godiva! Were you sleeping during Sunday School? Paul was an Apostle, and Romans was written BEFORE any of the Gospels (which tradition holds was written by two apostles, Matthew, and John, and one who was probably a kid when Jesus was around, Mark, and late-comer Luke, a greek physician, IIRC). At least as far as we know from the internal evidences in the writings, and the oldest copies we have. Paul was appointed an apostle by the resurrected Christ during a vision that the physician Luke spells out. While the 12 Apostles were primarily focused on the Jews, Paul was focused on the Gentiles, and therefore had more impact. Paul's writings are the ones that spell out certain rules and standards, and that's why people refer to him a lot. The Gospels are "sort of" history ("history" as we know it did not exist then, so the writings are heavily influenced by the writers' perceptions).

So, besides that little nit-pick, its always dangerous for me to debate issues like global warming because, while I think the warming trend has a lot of evidence that guys smarter than me agree with, the cause of that warming is not as clear. So its harder to make an "appeal to authority" and keep my neighbor from using lighter fluid on his charcol grill.

One of my daughter's professors won a nobel prize for some discovery with climate change ... may have been ozone depletion, as that was the last great ecological scare ... but even he didn't say humans were affecting the ozone layer. I think he identified the way a cholorflourocarbon could destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere. What he did say was that if humans stopped producing flourocarbons, and the ozone restored itself, then we would know.

Eliminating aerosol cans and changing the refrigeration fluid we used was pretty simple compared to stopping the production of CO2 by burning fossil fuels. Nearly everything we do is dependent on fossil fuels. So I'm not sure what actions we can take short of draconian measures to reduce CO2 emissions. Restrict driving? Force car makers to have higher mileage cars? Put a surtax on gas guzzlers? Quit subsidizing energy use? Tax energy by BTU content (a proposal the Clinton Administration floated which died an ugly death)? Eliminate fast food resturants, since they waste so much fuel?

I'm a Republican, and I bought a Prius for two reasons: gas mileage and the fact that its a cleaner car. So what else can I do ... not DO to OTHERS ... but what else can I, as an individual, do?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 13 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]302842[/snapback]</div>

Be a democrat...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 13 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]302842[/snapback]</div>

Frank Rowland maybe?

It's a little more complicated than that though, because one of the predicted impacts of global warming is a cooling of the stratosphere, leading to further ozone depletion. So any benefits to CFC reduction may be masked by increased GHGs.

Good post. Here are some easy things you can do. Ask your local representatives to take the issue seriously. Use compact florescent lighbulbs. Turn off lights & other electronics when not in use.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 13 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]302842[/snapback]</div>

Oooo, gee. And it did! But how long did it take to prove it? 20 years? 25? Can we afford to take a chance with Global Warming?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 13 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]302842[/snapback]</div>

I took a trip to Germany in the around 1984. They were already voluntarily separating their trash and recycling. It took two decadesw for that to happen in my city. People didn't recycle unless they were paid to. In Germany they had to carry their recycling down the block to a centrally located container, and then separate the paper, plastic and metal. Here we just got a blue recycling bin.

What can we do? More than we are. Some people use compact flourescents, but not everyone that could. Some people haven't insulated or weather stripped. Some people don't turn off the lights, or set the thermostat low or the AC temps high. Some people don't keep their tires inflated and drive wastefully. They are all little things. But little things add up. And in the mean time we should be pushing for wind, solar and whatever else our outside-the-box thinkers can come up with And we shoud be subsidizing and rewarding them, not protecting the status quo.

What is the answer? Well, there isn't one. At least not a single, simple one. But just because we don't have an answer to a very, very complicated problem now doesn't mean we should stop working on one and just blindly go on as we have hoping it will all go away.

What can you do? You already did it. You bought a Prius. What can each of us do? I've insulated and weatherstripped my house, reset the thermostats, use compact flourescents and installed a tubular skylight. I recycle. I have a recycling washer. I'll be planting an apricot tree and a grapevine this fall. I'll be planting more of a garden this year and eating what I grow. I'll can the excess and/or trade with my parents or give it away. (plants are good) I use Tupperware instead of plastic bags. I've unplugged electronics not in use. I close doors to rooms I don't use so there is less house to heat. I consolidate my trips and drive conservatively. I repair and reuse. I give things away on Craig's list or sell them on eBay rather than throw them away to end up in a landfill. I donate to charity. I'm trying to cook more and use less prepackaged foods. I already don't go out to dinner much (teacher's salary) And when people ask me about my Prius, I take the time to talk to them. I smile and am friendly and answer their questions. I am an ambassador. Because I think going hybrid will help in the short term until we find those more complicated long term solutions. Each person that goes hybrid helps a little. You can argue that the car the Prius replaces may still be on the road. But I like to think that whoever buys that used car replaces one that is even dirtier and gets even worse mileage. So eventually the worst of the worst cars are scraped. It's a trickle down effect and a slow process. But it is a step in the right direction. And gradually the public mindset changes. And if it changes for cars, then it may be more open to other changes to come. I am a model for positive change. I could do more and I'm working at it. When my water heater goes I'll be installing an on-demand water heater. If I can somehow get photovoltaic panels on my roof I may make it an electric instead of natural gas water heater.

And yes, I do think we should require automobiles to have higher mileage. I do not think any vehicle should be exempted from safety or fuel efficiency standards. I think the government should model and put those solar panels back on the White House. I think we should also rethink losing more grasslands to corn production. In fact, we should rethink the extent of corn production given it's dependance on oil-derived fertilizers. And we should stop subsidizing certain kinds of energy. Or at least shift the subsidies from non-renewable to renewable. Smart business will "follow the money" and either diversify or simply change direction. But they're not going to do it without a carrot and a swift kick in the pants.

(And I won't debate theology. It's faith based. And I have issues with Paul. And I had three years of confirmation thankyouverymuch.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 12 2006, 05:09 PM) [snapback]302262[/snapback]</div>

You are quoting an argument made in 2001. The scientific consensus on GW didn't even happen until 2001.
As I showed earlier, even the economists on which your arguments are based are changing their tune as more data comes in.

What would be economic impact of re-locating most of Florida's coastal cities? All I see from your economists is the cost of implementing measures of prevention, not an analysis of the cost of NOT implementing them.

If you want to keep making this claim, please find something recent to quote from.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 14 2006, 11:33 AM) [snapback]303023[/snapback]</div>

Maybe an economist needs to do a side by side cost comparison of preventing Global Warming and doing nothing (and it's economic results.) Then, maybe tour New Orleans.

Everyone knows it's cheaper to do it right the first time then fix it later.