To the global warming nay-sayers

[Mark121359]

One of the things I’ve noticed about many of those that support AGW, is that they’re also likely to support population control. So my question to lynnvinc, EasterJoy and those of you on this thread who support AGW is…What are your views on population control?

Peace, Mark

 

[EasterJoy]

One of the things I’ve noticed about many of those that support AGW, is that they’re also likely to support population control. So my question to lynnvinc, EasterJoy and those of you on this thread who support AGW is…What are your views on population control?

Peace, Mark

Most of the strain on the environment is not due to the expansion of the population, but on how much and in what ways consumption is happening. For instance, the per capita carbon emission (in tons of CO2 per year) in the US (which is geographically spread out, to be fair) is 17.3, while the per capita consumption in Germany and Japan are more around 9. In India, meanwhile, it is estimated to be around 1.6. India is a lot warmer, but still, that’s a big difference. Still, India has four times the population of the US, and less than half the overall carbon emissions. Saudi Arabia, which can essentially burn whatever it wants, uses about 18.2 per capita. Australia, also spread out, uses about 16.

If anything, many environmentalists have expressed concern about the levels of ethinyl estradiol in the water supply due to ubiquitous use of hormonal methods of birth control. It is really hard to get out via water treatment. NFP, in contrast, has no adverse environmental impact at all, and is also far more economically feasible for people of limited means.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

One of the things I’ve noticed about many of those that support AGW, is that they’re also likely to support population control. So my question to lynnvinc, EasterJoy and those of you on this thread who support AGW is…What are your views on population control?

Peace, Mark

A lot of people like to link global warming to abortion, this way they can consider them radical and dismiss the whole thing.

I simply link population to resources, which has an obvious link. Remove vital resources from a species environment, and the species either dies or moves. I think it is wise to live within our means, otherwise nature will do it for us, which is the less pleasant option.

 

[EasterJoy]

Most of the strain on the environment is not due to the expansion of the population, but on how much and in what ways consumption is happening. For instance, the per capita carbon emission (in tons of CO2 per year) in the US (which is geographically spread out, to be fair) is 17.3, while the per capita consumption in Germany and Japan are more around 9. In India, meanwhile, it is estimated to be around 1.6. India is a lot warmer, but still, that’s a big difference. Still, India has four times the population of the US, and less than half the overall carbon emissions. Saudi Arabia, which can essentially burn whatever it wants, uses about 18.2 per capita. Australia, also spread out, uses about 16.

If anything, many environmentalists have expressed concern about the levels of ethinyl estradiol in the water supply due to ubiquitous use of hormonal methods of birth control. It is really hard to get out via water treatment. NFP, in contrast, has no adverse environmental impact at all, and is also far more economically feasible for people of limited means.

PS That is not to say that I “support” global warming. I think there are a lot of places that are losing a lot of ice and I would be astonished, given the amount of combustion going on, if the CO2 levels were not outstripping the ability of forests, algae, and other flora to sequester it back into more complex organic matter. More CO2 could raise the pH of the ocean, and it doesn’t take much to really throw things out of whack. The ocean is so big that it is not going to be possible to reverse any effect that shows itself within our lifetimes. IOW, I think this is a scientific blind corner, and we’d be silly not to put the brakes on a little.

I also think that burning through cheap source of petroleum without coming up with alternative energy sources or reasonable transportation options might leave the poor holding the bag when scarcity makes the prices go up on basic commodities. Petroleum, after all, isn’t just a fuel source. It is also a source of fertilizer. There are parts of the world where agriculture is not going to happen without fertilizer, meaning that poor people are going to starve. So this is a concern.

I don’t know if it is because the American West is emerging from an unusual wet cycle or if there are global reasons for it, but I think we need to be ready for the possibility that the supply of water for people and for wildlife might go down drastically in the coming decades. Because the Midwestern aquifers were filled during the last Ice Age, those could run out. So we need to figure out how we might get by on a LOT less water.

Also, even if it is not our fault, I think we need to be ready for some really drastic weather and climate changes. If we are not, we could lose a chance to have headed off some serious suffering. So while I’m not putting my money on the storms getting bigger or worse, I think I’ve seen enough storms in my lifetime that far exceeded what had been prepared for the possibility that bigger and wilder storms and longer droughts might become a reality.

So I guess I’m willing to be concerned about whether it is wise to burn through such a tremendous amount of fossil fuels without proof of global warming. I’m willing to be concerned about what the options are if the globe does warm up.

Let’s be blunt, here: If fossil fuels are warming up the planet, it won’t be enough to start to curb emissions. We can’t just turn off the gas, and even if we could, we’ll still have to do a lot of bailing. We need to think about how we’ll go about that.

 

[lynnvinc]

a modern St. Francis would know that Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and the leadership of the save-the-earth-now club are pro-abortion.

so why don’t you stop speaking for St. Francis and God?

I don’t know about whether the people of speak of are environmentalists or not – I seriously doubt they are. I know Bill and Hillary Clinton are most certainly NOT environmentalists…which is why I was against Clinton for pres back in 1992.

I am an environmentalist, so all your venom against environmentalists is ultimately aimed at me (and others like me), not at a bunch of strawmen you set up to beat and burn at the stake for real or hyped-up sins.

I will take all of your insults for the sake of the life of the world and God’s kingdom. It is well worth suffering such insults – which are like little irritating flies that don’t really hurt me. Tho my heart does bleed for the victims of environmental harms, and abortion, and all others who suffer, esp needlessly at the hands of tho who would harm and kill them.

And I’m not saying I’m good or perfect. I keep backsliding and stumbling, struggling with the help of God’s gracious grace to keep getting back on the road to doing good and reducing my evil and harm. You all here may actually be better environmentalists than me

 

[EasterJoy]

A lot of people like to link global warming to abortion, this way they can consider them radical and dismiss the whole thing.

I simply link population to resources, which has an obvious link. Remove vital resources from a species environment, and the species either dies or moves. I think it is wise to live within our means, otherwise nature will do it for us, which is the less pleasant option.

Well, the human species is a bit of a wildcard in that regard. If nothing else, we need to remember that this cycle of cause and result is felt by a species over the course of generations, but not necessarily by individuals within a species or by a single generation. The other thing to remember is that when the vital resources seem to be running out, the species is usually past the point where a crash could be avoided. In our own species, crashes can also precipitate wars and civil violence.

Like I wrote…we’re a wildcard.

 

[Fairwinds]

I don’t know about whether the people of speak of are environmentalists or not – I seriously doubt they are. I know Bill and Hillary Clinton are most certainly NOT environmentalists…which is why I was against Clinton for pres back in 1992.

I am an environmentalist, so all your venom against environmentalists is ultimately aimed at me (and others like me), not at a bunch of strawmen you set up to beat and burn at the stake for real or hyped-up sins…

I’m a better environmentalist, for not buying to to alGorebeal warmin’.

the slick side of the enviro movement is entitled to play its hand they way it wants. its a free country, it will fatten at the public trough, for a while: government funds, tax credits, loan guarantees, cronyism. (another green company BK’d a few days ago).

just don’t pretend to represent God or assert what St. Francis would have said, or put on the cloak of holy righteousness in a political/policy debate about means to an end. or I might have some private revelations of my own.

ProTip: that’s the surest way to marginalize your position.

 

[lynnvinc]

I’m a better environmentalist, for not buying to to alGorebeal warmin’.

the slick side of the enviro movement is entitled to play its hand they way it wants. its a free country, it will fatten at the public trough, for a while: government funds, tax credits, loan guarantees, cronyism. (another green company BK’d a few days ago).

just don’t pretend to represent God or assert what St. Francis would have said, or put on the cloak of holy righteousness in a political/policy debate about means to an end. or I might have some private revelations of my own.

ProTip: that’s the surest way to marginalize your position.

I consider environmental harms and problems to be life problems first and foremost; we need healthy air, water, food, materials for our shelter and products – for our survival and well-being. If people make them into political issues, that’s really their problem.

I know you and others here are good on environmental issues. I have some data that show Catholics in America to be better on these issues than non-Catholics in America.

In fact one does not have to agree that AGW is real or a threat to life to engage in environmental measures. As it happens, nearly everything that helps reduce other environmental harms also helps reduce our GHG emissions. So we are probably all pulling in the same direction and don’t have to argue about this issue or that

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s something I just read: “Small-scale U.S. lab experiment removes CO2 from atmosphere at relatively low cost” at eenews.net/stories/1059981902

“…The dynamic could make air capture with them relatively cheap – the scientists estimated that a system at scale could cost roughly $100 a metric ton of mitigated carbon dioxide…”

If this is the case, then we could be charged, say, at least $50 for every metric ton we emit, and reduce about half of our emissions…nature taking up the other half. That is, every step of the way in producing products would have this charge, so we’d be paying a bit more for everything – perhaps a lot more for extremely carbon intensive products, and only a bit more for less carbon intensive products. The market would then drive itself into a less and less carbon-intensive economy, cleaning up the local environment to boot and reducing health care costs, etc. And the GW and acid rain problems could be solved.

Not sure how much such carbon-capture would add to the cost of products. Maybe 3% or 5%. Not sure, but I’d be willing to pay and/or reduce consumption. For the sake of the life of the world, for our future generations.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s something I just read: “Small-scale U.S. lab experiment removes CO2 from atmosphere at relatively low cost” at eenews.net/stories/1059981902

“…The dynamic could make air capture with them relatively cheap – the scientists estimated that a system at scale could cost roughly $100 a metric ton of mitigated carbon dioxide…”

If this is the case, then we could be charged, say, at least $50 for every metric ton we emit, and reduce about half of our emissions…nature taking up the other half. That is, every step of the way in producing products would have this charge, so we’d be paying a bit more for everything – perhaps a lot more for extremely carbon intensive products, and only a bit more for less carbon intensive products. The market would then drive itself into a less and less carbon-intensive economy, cleaning up the local environment to boot and reducing health care costs, etc. And the GW and acid rain problems could be solved.

Not sure how much such carbon-capture would add to the cost of products. Maybe 3% or 5%. Not sure, but I’d be willing to pay and/or reduce consumption. For the sake of the life of the world, for our future generations.

Just did a quick calculation for the most carbon intensive activity, which I think would be ICE car driving.

Using 19.6 pounds CO2 per gallon of gas & 2000 pounds per ton, $50 per 2000 pounds, (or 2000lbs/19.6lbs) would come to 102 gallons emitting one ton CO2, for $50 carbon offset or 49 cents per gallon.

No problem for me, but I’m thinking most people would extremely sqack, so maybe we could aim for capturing one-fourth, at $25 per ton, or 23 cents per gallon…

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Since I’ve never been able to get a clear answer on this, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how me paying someone an arbitrary amount of money with no discernible purpose (as in, carbon credits) is actually going to help the environment and not just the con artist, I mean flim-flam man, I mean Al Gore?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Not to divert from Gordon Sims’ question, but here’s another point I’ve never been clear on.

Who gets to determine what the optimum temperature or climate for the planet is, and how is that even determined in the first place? There are no constant conditions on our Earth so the climate in different areas is changing in different ways, all the time. Who is to say that some arbitrary temperature pattern is “normal” for the whole planet? I mean, if you just consider that one point, you see the whole theory falls apart. It’s not up to us to say, “Because I think we should always have perfect weather (California’s weather, probably), then when things are trending away from my ideal, it means there is a problem.”

The reality is, the only problem is people making money and getting tremendous power from scare tactics that have ZERO basis in reality.

Hey, if we’re determining the ideal climate, I want no tornadoes, no hurricanes, and about 30% humidity. I want cool falls, rainy springs, and some amount of pretty snow in the winter, but no ice storms please! Summers can be hot but not too hot, KWIM? And wind! I’ve always hated the wind, so no more really windy spells, just maybe up to a stiff breeze and no more than that.

 

[EasterJoy]

Not to divert from Gordon Sims’ question, but here’s another point I’ve never been clear on.

Who gets to determine what the optimum temperature or climate for the planet is, and how is that even determined in the first place? There are no constant conditions on our Earth so the climate in different areas is changing in different ways, all the time. Who is to say that some arbitrary temperature pattern is “normal” for the whole planet? I mean, if you just consider that one point, you see the whole theory falls apart. It’s not up to us to say, “Because I think we should always have perfect weather (California’s weather, probably), then when things are trending away from my ideal, it means there is a problem.”

The reality is, the only problem is people making money and getting tremendous power from scare tactics that have ZERO basis in reality.

Hey, if we’re determining the ideal climate, I want no tornadoes, no hurricanes, and about 30% humidity. I want cool falls, rainy springs, and some amount of pretty snow in the winter, but no ice storms please! Summers can be hot but not too hot, KWIM? And wind! I’ve always hated the wind, so no more really windy spells, just maybe up to a stiff breeze and no more than that.

My reading of the scientific debate is this:

The issue is not that the Earth or some particular region is not at its “correct” temperature and should not change, but concern that the Earth is in a phase (some think unprecedented since Homo sapiens has walked it) of unusually rapid climate change. When there is rapid change, there is widespread die-off of various species, especially the specialized ones, because adaptation via genetic selection does not happen quickly across the board.

While it is all fine and good to say that rapid changes are going to happen, some of the specialized populations are human. If climates change gradually, then agriculture and patterns of habitation and homebuilding can respond to the changes without nearly so much hardship as if the change is abrupt.

So here are the issues:
a) Are the climate changes being seen merely local minima or maxima or the return to a previous standard or are they beginning of a huge change to something very different that will be reached very quickly? For instance, some believe that the standard over 1500 years in the western states of the US is much drier than the last 150. If this is so, then it is prudent to start adjusting water usage right now. It is senseless to expand water-intensive crops in California if the water situation is only going to get worse. It also makes financial sense to invest in more expensive water management infrastructure if recent water shortages are going to be the rule instead of the exception, but a money-loser if rain patterns are going to go back to what they were. A guess needs to be made, and a lot is riding on it.

b) Is there a reason to believe that humans are contributing to the change, and how? This is a very complicated question, but also very important, obviously, because decisions on what technologies and infrastructure and living habits are either necessary or untenable could easily be made cheaply now but would be ineffective if they are delayed. So, again: the question is hard to answer because the situation is very complex, but the answer is too important to just throw hands up in the air and say, “Who knows?!”

That is climate change. There are other environmental issues, such as salinization of soils through irrigation of lands that are not flushed by seasonal heavy rains or the financial and international issues surrounding the discovery and recovery of various natural resources, that are on a different footing. I think you are on top of that distinction, though.

If you can take a few ice storms, I think you might like a sheltered portion of the Pacific Northwest, maybe Seattle. You might like Mt. Angel, Oregon, too, because they don’t get nearly the winds down there we do closer to Portland. (Portland gets some ripping east winds and ice storms, courtesy of the Columbia River Gorge.) Very nice orthodox Catholics down there in Mt. Angel, too, and a good seminary. You’d love the parish church, I think. Gothic architecture, great acoustics, beautiful: stmarymtangel.org/

 

[Fairwinds]

Not to divert from Gordon Sims’ question, but here’s another point I’ve never been clear on.

Who gets to determine what the optimum temperature or climate for the planet is, and how is that even determined in the first place? There are no constant conditions on our Earth so the climate in different areas is changing in different ways, all the time. Who is to say that some arbitrary temperature pattern is “normal” for the whole planet? I mean, if you just consider that one point, you see the whole theory falls apart. It’s not up to us to say, “Because I think we should always have perfect weather (California’s weather, probably), then when things are trending away from my ideal, it means there is a problem.”

The reality is, the only problem is people making money and getting tremendous power from scare tactics that have ZERO basis in reality.

Hey, if we’re determining the ideal climate, I want no tornadoes, no hurricanes, and about 30% humidity. I want cool falls, rainy springs, and some amount of pretty snow in the winter, but no ice storms please! Summers can be hot but not too hot, KWIM? And wind! I’ve always hated the wind, so no more really windy spells, just maybe up to a stiff breeze and no more than that.

(emphasis added)

whatever the optimum climate baseline might be is the $64k question that the warmerists never get around to answering. my guess is they want to roll back conditions to those of the Middle Clinton Period.

 

[EasterJoy]

Since I’ve never been able to get a clear answer on this, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how me paying someone an arbitrary amount of money with no discernible purpose (as in, carbon credits) is actually going to help the environment and not just the con artist, I mean flim-flam man, I mean Al Gore?

I think the carbon credit idea is a system begging to be abused. It seems to me to be something Mr. Gore set up to please both his environmental and his industrial (i.e, financial) backers, only the environmental backers are the ones getting duped.

Some would say the same for agricultural credits given for growing nothing, and in some cases I think those have been a big misuse of public funding, as well.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The whole “global warming” debate is really nothing but a money grab, IMHO

It is estimated that planet earth is 4-6 billion years old, and accurate, world-wide weather records have only been kept, for about the last 100 years or so. In geologic time, that is a blink of an eye!

Weather is a cyclical pattern, so until we have more accurate data, for oh, about 1000 years or so, anything that is said about GW is hypothesis at best, and flim-flamery at worst.

All of that said, I do believe that it is important that we are good stewards of the planet, but ‘saving the planet’ should never take precedence of the needs of the people who inhabit it, which is exactly what is happening in the US with all of our “green inititives”.

 

[EasterJoy]

The whole “global warming” debate is really nothing but a money grab, IMHO

It is estimated that planet earth is 4-6 billion years old, and accurate, world-wide weather records have only been kept, for about the last 100 years or so. In geologic time, that is a blink of an eye!

Weather is a cyclical pattern, so until we have more accurate data, for oh, about 1000 years or so, anything that is said about GW is hypothesis at best, and flim-flamery at worst.

All of that said, I do believe that it is important that we are good stewards of the planet, but ‘saving the planet’ should never take precedence of the needs of the people who inhabit it, which is exactly what is happening in the US with all of our “green inititives”.

If you don’t have the data, how can you say that weather is a cyclical pattern? If you don’t believe anything the geologists say, you don’t know anything about that, do you? Maybe there is a pattern, maybe there isn’t. What pattern there is, we know from the people who take core samples from the earth and the ice. I think it would take some pretty rash judgments to rush to the conclusion that the geologists are liars if they tell us they know anything meaningful about climate history that isn’t far better than the wild-stab guessing of any of the rest of us.

Let’s not talk about 4-6 billion years, because most of it didn’t have any hominids on it, let alone Homo sapiens engaging in agriculture and trying to make a stab at civilization. There was a lot of biological rolling with the punches even since then, yes? Suffice it to say that a lot of those punches were something that the geologic record shows would have made a rough time of it for modern agriculture, which is what currently feeds people. We know from the written historical record that when food gets scarce, life gets nasty, brutish, and short. We have enough history to know that if the Earth is the coal mine, civilization is one of its most delicate canaries. Therefore, this is not something we can afford to have a cavalier attitude about…“oh, well, gee, life goes on, let’s just keep doing what we’re doing” or “what do you know, did you dig up a thermometer?”

You have heard, for instance, of the Fertile Crescent. Is it fertile any more? Hmmm…that’s kind of interesting, isn’t it? Do you think maybe it would be a good idea to know why?

I have my own reservations about some of the proposals for green initiatives, but that suspicion goes both ways. I am old enough to remember all the grown-ups pooh-poohing the people who said that indiscriminate use of pesticides, herbicides, and other agricultural chemicals posed a threat to wildlife habitat, water and food quality for humans, and the continuing success of agriculture itself. I don’t automatically believe the people who snort at science, either, because they’ve been wrong plenty of times, too, they have been known to lie through their teeth at least as often as the scientists, if not a lot more, and to cherry-pick the scientist who will say what they want with very bad results, too. So let’s not save all of our suspicion for one side of this debate. Even judging by the debates that have gone on since 1960, that is a very bad plan of action.

 

[lynnvinc]

Since I’ve never been able to get a clear answer on this, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how me paying someone an arbitrary amount of money with no discernible purpose (as in, carbon credits) is actually going to help the environment and not just the con artist, I mean flim-flam man, I mean Al Gore?

I made a mistake in my earlier post calling my suggested fee a “carbon offset.” What I was writing about is actually drawing down CO2, which is quite different from paying someone else to reduce their GHG emissions, so one can emit more GHGs.

Many environmentalists are against this (e.g. Cap&Trade) and say we should ourselves reduce our GHG emissions, and that paying someone else to reduce, is sort of like paying someone else to be faithful to his wife so the person who pays can cheat on his own wife with impugnity

However, I’d be in favor of a fee that goes directly into a process that draws down carbon from the atmosphere – so I buy, say, 30 gallons of gasoline per year and burm them in driving, putting up 600 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere. But when I buy the gas I pay a fee of 50 cents per gallon ($15 per year) or 25 cents ($7.50 per year), which goes for drawing down half (or a fourth) of the CO2 I emit. Half would be good, because the other half is usually drawn down fairly quickly (I’m thinking within a year) by nature, so it is only the other half that stays up there a lot longer. So this process draws that half down (or a quarter). That would really be worth it to me as a person concerned about life on earth, and wanting to reduce my harm to it.

As for “carbon credits” or offsets, I think that would be a great thing to give as a gift – like giving enery efficient lights and products to poor people who can’t afford them, not only lowering their carbon footprint, but also saving them money so they are not as much under financial stress. I’m against Cap&Trade – paying others to emit less so I can emit more.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Not to divert from Gordon Sims’ question, but here’s another point I’ve never been clear on.

Who gets to determine what the optimum temperature or climate for the planet is, and how is that even determined in the first place?

I touched on that a couple pages ago. It’s based on the global average temperatures from, if I remember right, 1950-1970, which was actually a cooling period. Twenty years isn’t even a good, representative sampling of the amount of time humans have walked the earth, let alone the entire history of the planet. Someone else replied that it’s the rate of change that’s alarming the GW alarmists, but I’ve read plenty of articles that are just as if not more alarmed over the diversion from their gold standard than anything else.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I made a mistake in my earlier post calling my suggested fee a “carbon offset.” What I was writing about is actually drawing down CO2, which is quite different from paying someone else to reduce their GHG emissions, so one can emit more GHGs.

Many environmentalists are against this (e.g. Cap&Trade) and say we should ourselves reduce our GHG emissions, and that paying someone else to reduce, is sort of like paying someone else to be faithful to his wife so the person who pays can cheat on his own wife with impugnity

However, I’d be in favor of a fee that goes directly into a process that draws down carbon from the atmosphere – so I buy, say, 30 gallons of gasoline per year and burm them in driving, putting up 600 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere. But when I buy the gas I pay a fee of 50 cents per gallon ($15 per year) or 25 cents ($7.50 per year), which goes for drawing down half (or a fourth) of the CO2 I emit. Half would be good, because the other half is usually drawn down fairly quickly (I’m thinking within a year) by nature, so it is only the other half that stays up there a lot longer. So this process draws that half down (or a quarter). That would really be worth it to me as a person concerned about life on earth, and wanting to reduce my harm to it.

As for “carbon credits” or offsets, I think that would be a great thing to give as a gift – like giving enery efficient lights and products to poor people who can’t afford them, not only lowering their carbon footprint, but also saving them money so they are not as much under financial stress. I’m against Cap&Trade – paying others to emit less so I can emit more.

The problem with yours and all these other schemes is that simply paying money doesn’t affect carbon emissions in the slightest. Your figures are unrealistic as well. Let’s say someone comes up with a means by which they can scrub CO2 out of the air. If the operational costs are such that 50 cents worth of energy can draw out half the CO2 emitted by burning a single gallon of gas, that doesn’t mean that a penalty of 50 cents per gallon at the pump is going to translate into 50 cents of operating costs for these machines. After development & infrastructure costs, markups and the inevitable hefty portion that will somehow make its way into Al Gore’s pockets, you’ll be lucky if 5 of your 50 cents actually translates into operating costs. And that’s without getting into the realities that would come with it, such as the realization that it would absolutely cripple low wage earners, who would then be given gas vouchers to make up for the exorbitant increase in gas prices, meaning that the bulk of the cost would be shifted to the middle class who will have to shoulder not only their own costs, but the costs of the lower class as well as the tax dollars that will inevitably be earmarked to build, maintain and subsidize these things, since the voucher system will make it so they’re not actually getting enough to cover even the basic operating costs.

As for the other pipe dream–carbon credits–I’m still looking for an explanation of how companies paying Al Gore for the right to burn as much as they please helps the environment.