How To Survive Global Warming
As per David Shenk, Slate's Survivalist:
1. Vote.
2. Cut/neutralize your carbon emissions.
3. Move to high ground.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
1. Vote.
2. Cut/neutralize your carbon emissions.
3. Move to high ground.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
10 Comments:
Well, this doesn't look like much of a discussion but I'll put my two cents in anyway. - 1. Vote? For who? The candidates I have to vote for are the same ones that have been elected for as far as I can remember, at least in CA. Then there is the Govenor's race. We have one candidate that seems to be doing most of the "right" things for the environment since he has been in office and since being defeated in the special election has or seems to have gone in the other direction and listening to the majority in CA and our lawmakers. The other candidate seems to only have the D by his name on his side and that's only because he is in CA. I do not know anything about him and it doesn't seem that he has made much of an effort to let the people of CA know who he is. About two weeks ago I had to remind myself that we even had an election coming up and others that I have spoken with have said the same. Seems to me that our current Governor will be re-elected by default. - As to our federal government it seems to me that the only talking points that get out are regarding Iraq, Terror, Islamic Extremists, and the next war we should get involved in. There seems to be no real discussion regarding our Homeland. I was recently listing to Rick Sanatorum and his opponent debating on Meet the Press and there conversation was ciruclar regarding these topics with which they seem to agree on the direction the country should take in most cases. There was no discussion regarding the environment, poverty, energy (renewables or otherwise), or anything else that directly, not that war doesn't, effects people in their state or the country as a whole. - 2. Carbon emissions, OK I can do what I can but in terms of neutralizing my carbon out put I simply do not have the income to purchase carbon offsetters or solar panels, or a hybrid, or or or... besides isn't flying patriotic these days? Quick question, has the Sierra Club neutralized their carbon emmissions? Could the Club afford to? All the paper mailings sent out all the planes and trucks used to deliver that mail? Not to mention the outings program where members must fly to there destinations? Is that something the Club can just wash it's hands of? Sorry just ranting cause I'm frustrated. I love what the Club stands for and the work you all do I just see contradictions in these some of the saying and doing, plus you gave me free rein to rant, right? 3. Move to high ground - Reminds me of the guy who sits on top of the mountain in the B.C. comic strip.... I think it'd get pretty crowded if we all did, don't you?
Yes, indeed: Free rein to rant. Who's next?
The post was intended to spur response, but I guess no one else took me up on it. Still, I enjoyed your rant. Rest assured, you're not alone in your frustrations nor in seeing the contradictions everywhere. And to answer your question, no, the Club has not offset its emissions.
Tough to discuss... First, what indications do we have that global warming will be fatal to us anyway? True, if it does get to the point where we suffer complete societal collapse, and descend into chaos, then we will have to worry about survival, but really, for us humans the question of global warming is really not how are we going to prevent death but rather, how are we going to cope with the chaotic weather created by an atmosphere much richer in greenhouse gases.
One could also put it this way,
"How to survive Global Warming"
#1- buy a large property out in the woods, preferably on a hill and up north
#2- create an underground bunker stockpiled with survival gear, farming implements and rations and weapons for use should society collapse
#3- start farming the land around your bunker, which should become more and more productive as greenhouse gases increase.
Some might call that paranoid, but by using a title such as "How to Survive global warming" one immediately implies that it is very possible to not survive a global warming event, which I think is misleading, and although may foster support for the environmental movement, seems to me to be a fear-mongering tactic on par with that of the Bush administration and WMD's in Iraq.
To directly adress the issue,
I question how voting will solve global warming- really, it seems to me that no matter who ends up being elected, they show a general disdain for the environment except in cases where it becomes a way of securing my support. Granted, there is always one candidate who is less eco-friendly, but when it no longer becomes "who will get things done" and is "who will do less damage" as it seems to be in my riding, I fail to see how my vote will stop Global Warming. delay it, potentially, hopefully, but stop it? not going to happen.
Secondly, carbon emissions. I won't touch on anything previously stated, except that, as far as I see it, my personal contributions, and the average person in North America's contribution to global warming is far, far outweighed by the emissions created by big business and in developping countries such as China. So, again, my personal contributions will only serve to delay the inevitable, perhaps not even a noticiable amount of time. Not to foster a sense of helplessness, rather I think it more important and effective to lobby businesses to cut emmissions.
For the the third point, I'd like to mention that by many estimates, the rise in sea level should only affect coastal regions, and even then not that much, so really high ground will not be too much of an issue, unless you have a nice house on the beach.
As a final note, I would like to add that I love the Sierra Club, my parents have got me lots of stuff from them since I was little, and I still am a big fan of what they represent. That being said, I have become increasingly annoyed at the 'Global Warming' issue simply because many seem to use it as some sort of 'turn or burn' propaganda to coerce people through fear to become environmentally aware, while overexaggerating the effects of global warming. Perhaps my reaction has been a bit harsh because of this, and I apologize if my anger at propaganda previously presented to me has clouded my judgement in this manner.
For the record, I too thought David Shenk's article was, ... odd. As I said above, though, I did think it might spur response. Which I see it has. So, thanks.
Now let me respond as best I can (only speaking for myself, NOT the Sierra Club).
First, is global warming a matter of life and death? Well, yes, I think it is -- not in the simplistic way Shenk suggests, but in a larger social and biological scale, yes. It may sound alarmist, but as I like to say, It's not alarmist if the facts are alarming -- and they are.
True, in the short term, it's not a life or death issue for Americans. It may, however, already be one for people in the African Sahel. It could soon be one for people in the Andes and the coastal deserts of Peru and Chile, if as experts project, the glaciers of the Cordillera Blanca disappear in the next half-century. This is not to say that people will die outright as a direct result of warming. They won't. But massive migration, famine, and disease could spell the end for large segments of the population. I'm not sure we can predict accurately how big a disaster we're looking at in terms of say, coastal inundation and disruption of fresh water (and thus food) supplies, but the contention that our main concern is chaotic weather seems incorrect to me. I think it's much more than that.
What's more, I think the real challenge of global warming is that it will require us to address myriad major disruptions at once.
Before I go further, let me quickly say that I hope I am profoundly wrong about all of the above. I hope and pray the skeptics are right and this is all much ado about nothing. But everything I read leads me to believe otherwise.
As for voting and cutting your carbon emissions, your attitude seems to be the same on both; namely, it won't make any difference what I do; the problem is much bigger than me. I'm sympathetic to this view, but we have no choice but to reject it. The attitude should be that we all have to do our part. Voting and cutting our emissions is just the beginning. It's (literally) the least we can do.
Thanks again for responding.
We won't survive. You guys are failing to realise just how hot it's going to get and how quickly it will happen.
Our current predictions account man-made co2 not all the feedback and each of their interreactions.
We are facing a mass extinction event. Trillions of tonnes of methane and co2 from vegitation, methylhydrate and melting permafrost over a year or 2.
Too complex to explain it all here. The trigger is the west antartic ice sheet. It sits on bare rock below sealevel. It's melting underneath. It will raise sea levels on it's own by over 13 meters pratically overnight, flooding with salt water sites including the 10's billions tonnes of methane packed premafrost peat plains of siberia. And what of canada. That's just season 1. After that it's all downhill in less than 5 years.
When will it happen. Could be this antartic summer.
Anon. is right. Thirty years of doom and gloom predictions has the scientific community worried about crying wolf. They are giving us the most conservative predictions they can, or perhaps the most likely for us to bother listening to. I am 28 and expect to witness and likely participate in a massive extiction of all species, including humans. the earth is a massive, dense body that can absorb and store a huge amount of solar gain. We have a blanket of CO2 that is twice the historic maximum. To that add the CO2 that we will burn over the next twenty years. To that add all the methane that is stored in the permafrost of Siberia and North America. Once its all in the tropisphere we can never capture it again. And if the sun keeps shining, thats it, the heat will continue to climb. But the heat won't kill us, nuclear radiation will. This sudden abrupt change will create massive governmental and economic instability. Nuclear power is dangerous even in stable, first-world countries. Take away the stability and, is Homer really going to show up to work to shut 'er down? Nope.
Advice? Like the Buddists say, attachment is suffering. Be nomadic and prepared. And well armed probaby. Sound good? No?Sorry.
I believe that bad is going to get worse. People are dying and are going to continue to die in greater and greater numbers as time progresses and carbon dioxide and methane emissions increase. There is really nothing individuals can do, at this point in time, to stop or reverse the damage. IF, and this is a big IF, governments stop being so petty and worrying more about money than life: we might be able to make a difference. So the question really is "How to survive global warming" I think that within my lifetime we will see dramatic changes in the Earth's ability to support life. I don't mean to sound too pessimistic, but, based on what I've seen, that is my opinion. Not to fear though. Some places will remain habitable for some time to come. The arctic will change but be able to support human life. So, yes, go to high ground so to speak. But in the end we may have to rely more on God's mercy than on our own political system.
well... Im pretty sure some of you "pessimists" are right on... its going to go "down" in the next 20 years or so, if not sooner.
its going to get really hot.
the air is going to be messed up.
and... no... im not telling you where Im going, cuz if I see you there... well, ill be protecting me and my family.
every man, woman and child for themselves! wooohooo... anarchy!
Why Environmentalists are to Blame for Global Warming
By listening to Al Gore, other environmentalists and the media you start to get the impression that the United States is almost solely responsible for Global Warming through it's production of greenhouse gases. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We do, as a nation produce more greenhouse gas on a per capita basis than any other country, but that very fact can be directly attributed to the workings of those same environmentalists who for years have blocked every attempt to generate nuclear power - the only efficient way to generate power on a large enough scale to meet the needs of the world that does not create greenhouse gases.
Let me be clear, "Environmentalists" are the main reason we, as a country, produce so much greenhouse gas on a per capita basis. Because of their 30-year stance (and the lack of political will to go against that stance) against the development of nuclear power in this country we produce almost double the greenhouse gases that we would be producing with a strong nuclear generating capacity.
Approximately 50% of the greenhouse gases produced in the United States are the result of the production of electricity and it is probably just as high or higher in other parts of the world. Nuclear power generates no greenhouse gases and global warming may not even be occurring at this time if the nuclear power industry had been allowed to develop in the United States and around the world as it has in places such as France and Lithuania.
Just think of the billions of tons of Greenhouse gases that would not have been produced if we, as a nation, would have continued to build nuclear power plants instead of the oil, coal and gas powered plants we and the world rely on now for our power. But the environmentalists wouldn't let us and our politicians, ever afraid of losing votes, went blindly along.
Nuclear power is much stronger in Europe with about forty-two percent of their energy produced by nuclear fission. Nuclear generation provides about 17% of world electricity, avoiding the emission of up to 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. France produces 76% and Lithuania produces 85.6% of its energy by nuclear fission. (http://infoweb.magi.com/~dwalsh/wfsesr.html)
In the United States, a lot of people and almost all environmentalists are antinuclear because of 3 Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. However, many experts say that it is a safe, clean, and reliable source of energy as proven by it's long history in France. Nuclear Fission produces no greenhouse gases, but does produce highly toxic radioactive wastes (which can be safely dealt with). (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm)
As President, I would immediately call for the United States to embark on a strong nuclear power building program. We have the land upon which to build the power plants (here in California we could throw a half dozen plants in Eastern San Bernardino County alone and no one would ever see them), we have technology that is extremely safe and we have an extremely safe depository for the waste in the Yucca Mountain facility that would be opened very soon if the politicians would quit being politicians and become statesmen and do what is right for the United States and the World.
If we converted almost all of our electrical power generation from oil, coal and natural gas to nuclear we would go a very long way towards lowering our greenhouse gas footprint and show the rest of the world that we will do what must be done to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas production.
One of the biggest problems facing this country has been it's absolute lack of a comprehensive energy policy. One of the main purposes of a Government should be to plan for the future. Our Government and politicians refuse to do so because all they care about is the next election. The "future" will be the next guy's problem after we are out of office is what they seem to be thinking. We need a comprehensive energy policy in this country that makes good, long-term sense. Not one crafted by environmentalists, the media, big oil and other special interests that is designed solely to garner votes in the next election or contributions to their cause.
Thanks,
Frank McEnulty
frank@frankforpresident.org
www.frankforpresident.org
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main