What level of responsibility do you feel for the negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change?

[4elise]

I think the level of change necessary to mitigate AGW is just not possible. People want what they want, when they want it. We delude ourselves to achieve a certain comfort level. This is why we allow lethal deficits and public debt. The psychology is that each person must get their piece of the pie. Why should they sacrifice when others won’t and the benefit is uncertain? If people can do something to improve their existence today, in this moment, they will. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. This tendency is intractable.

Our economy will not be fixed of our own volition. It will equilibrate itself and we will be collateral damage. The same is true for our planet. It will do what it will, and we will be collateral damage as well.

And you don’t think that this view is contrary to what we are called to do in living our faith?
Does it matter if the right thing I do ultimately can change - or do I do it because it is the right thing to do - and in hope that others may follow?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course he stacked the deck. We want to have a discussion about Global warming and what we can do to preserve/protect/improve the environment and combat global warming without derailing the thread into another fight on whether its real or not, because that’s not the intended subject. You want to discuss whether its real or not, as he said, you can start your own thread.

I have no desire whatever to start a thread exclusively for people who don’t believe in MMGW. I think the “invitation only” threads are in a separate section anyway. If this is an “invitation to MMGW believers only” thread, which you seem to be saying it is, then it probably should be in that segment of CAF. Otherwise, it seems to me it’s open to all.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Like carrying a hanky to wipe hands in public restrooms, or getting used paper with blank sides from the library to reuse. Better than planting trees is not causing them to be chopped down in the first place Garage sales, cloth napkins at home r/t paper napkins, caulking windows, etc.

REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE & BUY RECYCLED – these are still the basic principles.

God will show all sincere seekers the way out of these structures of environmental harm we are all caught in. And prayer really does work!

God bless you for your frankness and concern.

With all due respect, I do not agree with the general proposition that it’s better to save paper than it is to cultivate trees. Paper is often made of the worst trees imaginable, plus mature trees. If you want to sequester carbon, then you would support those who harvest junk or mature trees. The big “carbon eaters” are the “adolescent trees”, the ones measuring about 15" in diameter at approximately 15" above the ground, solid, well-leafed, straight, unbroken, with their tops in the canopy. They’ll sequester more carbon in 10 years than a fully mature tree will sequester in 100 years. Best to cut the junk around them. The second-rate trees and old trees will fall eventually and rot on the ground, releasing carbon. Might as well make paper or building materials or furniture out of them.

I’m talking about hardwoods here. Someone with more experience with pines can tell you about those.

 

[jilly4ski]

You are very right. 3M is horrendous on environmental issues, which is why even more and stiffer regulations are so important – and stronger enforcement.

Some energy & environmental experts estimate that companies such as 3M could be saving a lot more by doing the EC (environmentally correct) things, and then that money could be plowed into doing the expensive stuff to reduce their harms. Or passing the cost to consumers. I wouldn’t mind paying more for things if I though the company was doing less harm.

We customers have the choice of “boycotting” products from harmful companies. Like I don’t buy gas from Citgo, bec they’ve really done foul deeds in Corpus Christi, harming people’s health, nor from Exxon for its climate change denial campaigns. Well with our Chevy Volt I don’t really buy much gas from any company – just some 26 gallons its first year.

And we can “buycott” - buy products from companies that do less environmental harm. See naturallifemagazine.com/1004/ethical_consumerism_boycotts_buycotts.htm

All I am saying is that this idea that CO2 is the big(gest) polluter, is not only false,but dangerous, because people/industry, can claim it is going green and people will buy the product or otherwise, but in reality going green only meant they reduced the carbon “foot print” but they will keep releasing or release new pollutants (I am looking at you CFLs).

I don’t appreciate the fact that the terms good stewardship and environmentalism have been cooped by AGW alarmists.

 

[4elise]

All I am saying is that this idea that CO2 is the big(gest) polluter, is not only false,but dangerous, because people/industry, can claim it is going green and people will buy the product or otherwise, but in reality going green only meant they reduced the carbon “foot print” but they will keep releasing or release new pollutants (I am looking at you CFLs).

I don’t appreciate the fact that the terms good stewardship and environmentalism have been cooped by AGW alarmists.

Companies putting on the ‘GREEN’ to appear better to consumers I guess would be expected because we put - to some extent - a value on being ‘green’ and most consumers are not willing to look beyond the label - wiling to buy peaches that travel half a world away, and who are unwilling to be inconvenienced …

Now, I may need clarification from those who know way more about this issue than I do - but when talking about CO2 and it’s impact on climate change ---- I don’t think we are talking about ‘pollution’ as in that which makes the air unbreathable - or water unusable - but rather something that changes the way our environment processes / or fails to process - the radiation/heat from the sun that is both essential to life - and that which in excessive amounts allows too much sunlight and heat into the atmosphere, but doesn’t let it get out, causing the Earth to heat up.

CO2 is not the only thing that impacts this as you suggest - the largest is the one that is natural - water vapor - that is part the ‘natural’ cycle - BUT since the industrial revolution CO2 is up by more than 40% SO is having a disproportionate impact - methane - is the next in line — also up since we industralized the production of food to include animal and their products in ‘factories’

 

[lynnvinc]

All I am saying is that this idea that CO2 is the big(gest) polluter, is not only false,but dangerous, because people/industry, can claim it is going green and people will buy the product or otherwise, but in reality going green only meant they reduced the carbon “foot print”…

Well, I’m not sure if 3M reduced its CO2 or not; what they did in the 3P program was reduce various other pollutions that were about to come under gov regs (at the time they started their program in the 1970s CO2 was not being regulated). Tho I imagine in the process they would have also reduced their CO2, since as I mentioned above lots of issues are bundled together in our mitigation measures.

 

[lynnvinc]

I don’t appreciate the fact that the terms good stewardship and environmentalism have been cooped by AGW alarmists.

You misunderstand environmentalists. Those who are concerned about global warming for the most part have been concerned about many other environmental problems for a long time.

I was reducing my fuel use by consciously choosing to live within 1 or 2 miles of work for the past 40 years, not bec I was striving to reduce CO2, but bec of my awareness back then of diminishing finite resources and local pollution issues.

I’ve been concerned about many environmental issues ever since I was a child in the 50s and 60s, but I must say until 1990, when I realized AGW was MY personal responsibility, I was a “passive” environmentalist (only living close to work and buying efficient cars as my only env activities). I was waiting for others to take the lead on AGW, and I would follow.

Only very lately in 1990, after becoming an OCDS Carmelite the previous year and doing serious examination of conscience, did I suddenly realize that I had to do my part re AGW, with or without others or leaders. In all conscientiousness I could not continue to participate in the harm and killing of others. My first concern was for humans, esp the poor in various parts of the world who are most threatened by AGW impacts…and also future generations, who will bear the terrible brunt of the harms we are unleashing. That doing for people by mitigating AGW also helps our non-human “brethren” is a very nice plus.

Any one who is seriously concerned about being a “good steward” will certainly consider what the scientists and popes have to say about global warming, and do their best to mitigate it, even if they have difficulties in understanding or accepting it.

And de facto anyone seriously concerned about being a “good steward” will already be mitigating climate change by mitigating acid rain, conserving finite resources, and dealing with other environmental problems. AND they will respect those who are concerned about global warming, and appreciate their mitigation efforts, since such efforts also mitigate the problems they consider perhaps more important than AGW.

If one finds fault with certain folks who are mitigating AGW in some wrong ways or are promoting some wrong policies or ideologies, then the place to be is mitigating AGW and presenting other, better ways to mitigate it (there are 100s of ways to mitigate it), and other, better policies (there are many policy possibilities, some that could help our economy, as well) and ideologies (such as Christianity and what is says about life issues). Better than being on the sidelines trying to obstruct the efforts of others.

One does not have to accept AGW to do something about it, esp since mitigating it mitigates a host of other problems they may be concerned about.

 

[lynnvinc]

All I am saying is that this idea that CO2 is the big(gest) polluter, is not only false,but dangerous, because people/industry, can claim it is going green and people will buy the product or otherwise, but in reality going green only meant they reduced the carbon “foot print” but they will keep releasing or release new pollutants (I am looking at you CFLs).

RE CFLs what I understand is that the mercury released from air pollution for powering incandescent bulbs (thru burning fossil fuels) over less power needed for CFLs is greater than the mercury that ends up in the environment from peole who inappropriately disposed of their CFLs. See mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/cfl-vs-incandescent-battle-of-the-bulb

But you raise a very valid concern – some of the solutions also have risks and harms. And this is a very good topic for this thread.

We want to do the right thing to mitigate climate change, but we need follow a holistic approach and consider ALL the negatives and positives of the alternatives v. all the negatives and positives of conventional measures.

In addition to those fossil fuels which release mercury when burnt (which has been decreasing due to EPA regs), they also release other local and regional pollutants that harm and kill, such as miscarriages. Just read this about health consequences of coal burning: wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/03/coal-health-costs. And there are cancer alleys in places where oil is processed, oil spill harms, and also harms from mountaintop removal for coal and from coal ash spills (like in Tennessee – see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill

Even with nuclear there are harms and dangers, starting with uranium mining wreaking havoc for local peoples and miners, then the risk of disasters such as Fukushima, and where to deposit spent uranium and radioactive waste. I know nuke power has been proposed as a way to mitigate AGW, and many “warmers” promote it. I am not totally againt nuke power, but we need to look at it holistically. Are there more GHGs involved from cradle to grave in the nuclear power production chain than in burning fossil fuels? And we also need to do much much better to safeguard the health and well-being of uranium miners and locals in mining areas, and make sure nuke plants are safer, and address the disposal issue (and possibilities of dirty bombs, etc). Also the (usually coal) peaking plants needed to supplement nuke power in peak electricity times (which amounts to about 25% of the energy mix), since nukes have to run at a fairly constant level. For instance, the energy nukes generate on off-time could be “stored,” e.g., by pumping water into a higher reservoir, then releasing it as hydro-power during peak hours, etc., reducing or eliminating coal peaking operations.

People against wind power often bring up bird kills (which are a very tiny fraction of bird kills from other human activities and from cats), but compared to what? GW, exascerbated by fossil fuel burning, is expected to make over 50% of bird species go extinct by next century, and is already harming birds in various ways. And the other pollutants from extracting, processing, burning, and spilling fossil fuels also harms birds in various ways. Also, I’ve read the wind power people are working on measures to reduce bird kills, like radar detecting migrating flocks and shutting down the wind-generators, and locating wind generators in less bird-sensitive areas.

Probably the the most important thing we can do re the negative side-effects of all these energy sources is to to reduce our energy usage, which can be done in ways that do not reduce our living standards. That is step one, REDUCE.

When they ask “paper” or “plastic” in the check-out line, we could be presenting our own reusable bags, REUSE.

So doing the EC (environmentally correct) thing is not always a matter of “somewhat less harmful A” v. “somewhat more harmful B,” because there is often C, D, and so on that are even much more benign alternatives.

RE CFLs, they now have “super-low” mercury CFLs (see allegroshops.com/bulbrite-industries-cf13sd-lm-13w-super-mini-low-mercury-compact-fluorescent-coil-soft-daylight-set-of-12-509114.html?gclid=COjzusWoibYCFWamPAodN2MA6w).

Also I’ve heard they are doing better with LED lights now – making them less eye-blinding, softer & warmer with more natural glow.

Bless all who seek to be part of the solution.

 

[Stillness]

None. My own impact has been negligible in the grand scheme of things. The earth will eventually be destroyed anyway, sooner or later.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What I so often see, including here, are alarmist statements about what MMGW is doing/going to do to us all. We must reduce energy usage, we’re told.

And yet, when the MMGW believers say what they think we should do about it, it’s things like re-using paper bags and growing one’s own tomatoes.

Those are miniscule steps. They might make a person feel better, but what is their actual impact on the MMGW some think is happening? I think what many are not willing to tell us are the really draconian measures the more radical forces really have in store for us…including the environmentalists whose agenda is promoted by Obama. We know about some of those measures, though probably not all. Much of it is very troubling…much more troubling and costly, both to individuals and to the economy, than re-using paper bags. Remember Obama’s promise to “make utility bills skyrocket”? Remember the EPA shutting down all coal power plants whether they’re polluting or not? Remember the refusal to allow the Keystone Pipeline? And how can anyone forget “cap and trade”; the “twofer” that will line the pockets of people like Al Gore who dispossess South American farmers in order to grow eucalyptus trees in order to “sell” that “carbon sequestration” to American industries that will nevertheless continue their current practices, and line the pockets of third world dictators who are rewarded for keeping their populations in a primitive state.

The problem one so often sees with MMGW enthusiasm is that it supports the intentions of the true radicals while seeming more benign.

 

[Ridgerunner]

RE CFLs what I understand is that the mercury released from air pollution for powering incandescent bulbs (thru burning fossil fuels) over less power needed for CFLs is greater than the mercury that ends up in the environment from peole who inappropriately disposed of their CFLs. See mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/cfl-vs-incandescent-battle-of-the-bulb

.

I encourage people to read this citation. It’s 100% opinion. No facts underlying its premise. None. It starts with the unpremised conclusion that incandescent bulbs “create” more merculry pollution than the mercury bulbs do, (by using more energy which, we are told to assume, generates more merculry) and, not surprisingly, ends with that conclusion.

No studies. No underlying facts. Just conclusions.

This, unfortunately, is typical of most MMGW articles. No foundational information. Just conclusions.

 

[Farsight001]

What I so often see, including here, are alarmist statements about what MMGW is doing/going to do to us all. We must reduce energy usage, we’re told.

And yet, when the MMGW believers say what they think we should do about it, it’s things like re-using paper bags and growing one’s own tomatoes.

Those are miniscule steps. They might make a person feel better, but what is their actual impact on the MMGW some think is happening? I think what many are not willing to tell us are the really draconian measures the more radical forces really have in store for us…including the environmentalists whose agenda is promoted by Obama. We know about some of those measures, though probably not all. Much of it is very troubling…much more troubling and costly, both to individuals and to the economy, than re-using paper bags. Remember Obama’s promise to “make utility bills skyrocket”? Remember the EPA shutting down all coal power plants whether they’re polluting or not? Remember the refusal to allow the Keystone Pipeline? And how can anyone forget “cap and trade”; the “twofer” that will line the pockets of people like Al Gore who dispossess South American farmers in order to grow eucalyptus trees in order to “sell” that “carbon sequestration” to American industries that will nevertheless continue their current practices, and line the pockets of third world dictators who are rewarded for keeping their populations in a primitive state.

The problem one so often sees with MMGW enthusiasm is that it supports the intentions of the true radicals while seeming more benign.

Once again, this thread is about the level of responsibility to feel for global warming, not about whether or not you think global warming is real. Your posts are off topic, and therefore against the rules.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And read this one cited above: Just read this about health consequences of coal burning: wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-new…l-health-costs.

Same thing. No real facts establishing a direct cause/effect relationship between coal burning and disease or death. Just the conclusion.

 

[lynnvinc]

Now, I may need clarification from those who know way more about this issue than I do - but when talking about CO2 and it’s impact on climate change ---- I don’t think we are talking about ‘pollution’ as in that which makes the air unbreathable - or water unusable…

Actually there is another negative side effect of CO2, aside from GW, and that is it is causing ocean acidification (never mind the warming), which is have negative effects on sealife and on sea food production, so I think that those who wish to be good stewards of God’s creation would most certainly want to reduce their CO2 emissions for that reason alone, even if they doubt the greenhouse effect and GW are real. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

So there you have it, we would all agree, whether or not we accept AGW, we need to reduce our CO2 emissions, as well as other things that are harming the environment.

I remember the weatherman when we were in Chicago area some 15 years ago, Tom Skilling. He was a GW skeptic (I think he now accepts it) – I always considered him a humble and good person – but he always used to say there are many other reasons we should reduce our energy use, etc.

I think that is the correct posture to take if one simply cannot accept AGW is real:
“I don’t believe it is real, but there are many other good reasons we should be doing things to reduce our environmental harms, including reducing our CO2 emissions.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Once again, this thread is about the level of responsibility to feel for global warming, not about whether or not you think global warming is real. Your posts are off topic, and therefore against the rules.

The topic itself is open, the way it’s posed. If this is an “invitation only” thread solely for those who believe in MMGW, then it’s in the wrong place being in the “open” threads.

But when you use an open thread to propagandize for one point of view, you can reasonably expect opposing points of view to appear in it, and should not attempt to silence disagreement in this manner. Restrict access to the thread or live with it.

It must be realized that the way those who do not believe in MMGW are answering is with the direct response “none”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually there is another negative side effect of CO2, aside from GW, and that is it is causing ocean acidification (never mind the warming), which is have negative effects on sealife and on sea food production, so I think that those who wish to be good stewards of God’s creation would most certainly want to reduce their CO2 emissions for that reason alone, even if they doubt the greenhouse effect and GW are real. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

So there you have it, we would all agree, whether or not we accept AGW, we need to reduce our CO2 emissions, as well as other things that are harming the environment.

I remember the weatherman when we were in Chicago area some 15 years ago, Tom Skilling. He was a GW skeptic (I think he now accepts it) – I always considered him a humble and good person – but he always used to say there are many other reasons we should reduce our energy use, etc.

I think that is the correct posture to take if one simply cannot accept AGW is real:
“I don’t believe it is real, but there are many other good reasons we should be doing things to reduce our environmental harms, including reducing our CO2 emissions.”

Oops! Take note, Lynnvinc, that Farsight would not approve of your post. Here you’re defending the theory of MMGW when you should only be talking about whatever guilt you feel for the contributions you make to MMGW.

 

[lynnvinc]

What I so often see, including here, are alarmist statements about what MMGW is doing/going to do to us all. We must reduce energy usage, we’re told.

And yet, when the MMGW believers say what they think we should do about it, it’s things like re-using paper bags and growing one’s own tomatoes.

Those are miniscule steps. They might make a person feel better, but what is their actual impact on the MMGW some think is happening? I think what many are not willing to tell us are the really draconian measures the more radical forces really have in store for us…including the environmentalists whose agenda is promoted by Obama. We know about some of those measures, though probably not all. Much of it is very troubling…much more troubling and costly, both to individuals and to the economy, than re-using paper bags. Remember Obama’s promise to “make utility bills skyrocket”? Remember the EPA shutting down all coal power plants whether they’re polluting or not? Remember the refusal to allow the Keystone Pipeline? And how can anyone forget “cap and trade”; the “twofer” that will line the pockets of people like Al Gore who dispossess South American farmers in order to grow eucalyptus trees in order to “sell” that “carbon sequestration” to American industries that will nevertheless continue their current practices, and line the pockets of third world dictators who are rewarded for keeping their populations in a primitive state.

The problem one so often sees with MMGW enthusiasm is that it supports the intentions of the true radicals while seeming more benign.

Unfortunately there are no silver bullets to solve the AGW problem as with point-source pollution, in which we can make a factory clean up its act.

AGW is a matter of non-point-source pollution – like synthetic fertillizer run-off from millions of Midwestern lawns, gardens, and farms, eventually into the Mississippi & causing dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. That’s why legislation will not help much, and ultimately many and various voluntary actions are the only thing that will solve the problem.

Which means “the angel is in the details,”… or everyone in their daily lives (people rich & poor and young & old, biz, schools, gov, everyone, as JPII said in 1990) needs to do whatever they can to reduce their GHG emissions, from the tiniest to the largest steps.

All I’ve ever asked re AGW is that people (whether or not they accept AGW) do what they can without lowering their living standards & without net cost to them. And if they cannot or don’t want to do Measure A, then they can select from Measures B thru Z, or come up with their own unique measures.

One cannot climb Mt. Everest until they have taken that first tiny step. And an expansive, glistening post-card worthy beach is made up of many many precious grains of sand.

And as Mother Teresa said, no matter how small our good deed is, our love makes it infinite. The gift of a lima bean from a baby in a high-chair to her mother is indeed a very precious gift in the mother’s eyes,… and in God’s eyes.

I think all I would ask for is people’s love of God and of others, even if there is nothing else one can do or give.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Unfortunately there are no silver bullets to solve the AGW problem as with point-source pollution, in which we can make a factory clean up its act.

AGW is a matter of non-point-source pollution – like synthetic fertillizer run-off from millions of Midwestern lawns, gardens, and farms, eventually into the Mississippi & causing dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. That’s why legislation will not help much, and ultimately many and various voluntary actions are the only thing that will solve the problem.

Which means “the angel is in the details,”… or everyone in their daily lives (people rich & poor and young & old, biz, schools, gov, everyone, as JPII said in 1990) needs to do whatever they can to reduce their GHG emissions, from the tiniest to the largest steps.

All I’ve ever asked re AGW is that people (whether or not they accept AGW) do what they can without lowering their living standards & without net cost to them. And if they cannot or don’t want to do Measure A, then they can select from Measures B thru Z, or come up with their own unique measures.

One cannot climb Mt. Everest until they have taken that first tiny step. And an expansive, glistening post-card worthy beach is made up of many many precious grains of sand.

And as Mother Teresa said, no matter how small our good deed is, our love makes it infinite. The gift of a lima bean from a baby in a high-chair to her mother is indeed a very precious gift in the mother’s eyes,… and in God’s eyes.

I think all I would ask for is people’s love of God and of others, even if there is nothing else one can do or give.

It’s a minor point, hardly worth quibbling over, but aren’t CO2 additions to the atmosphere both point (as with factories, homes, cars) and non-point (as with agricultural exposure of dirt to air, rotting vegetation and human breath) sources?

But I also agree with your encouraging people to do things that save money and avoid needless waste, even though I do not agree with your purpose in doing them.

And I certainly agree with making adaptations to agricultural practices that improve productivity (e.g., “mob grazing”, biochar) and reduce reliance on chemical fertilizers, that would also reduce expiration of CO2 into the atmosphere and reduce the creation of vast “heat sinks” due to widespread desertification.

 

[lynnvinc]

Oops! Take note, Lynnvinc, that Farsight would not approve of your post. Here you’re defending the theory of MMGW when you should only be talking about whatever guilt you feel for the contributions you make to MMGW.

No, in the actual post (beyond the poll question) I said I also wanted us to discuss mitigation measures by getting beyond the AGW/noAGW debate.

So it is entirely appropriate to talk about how mitigation measures for some other problems also serve as mitigating measures for AGW. At least if someone feels responsibility for some other problem and they do things to mitigate that problem that also mitigate AGW, that is something very good indeed.

I guess the worst thing would be for people to purposely emit more GHGs simply bec they hate “warmers” or “alarmists” (as they call us), even if it means wasting money and resources, and doing other environmental/human-health harm. A couple of people on CAF have actually expressed in the past that they did those things to spite the “warmers” … tho I took it just as a mean joke against us warmers, and not something they really did.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, in the actual post (beyond the poll question) I said I also wanted us to discuss mitigation measures by getting beyond the AGW/noAGW debate.

And I have done that, not as a MMGW believer, which I’m not, but for other reasons. Indeed (and not to beat that drum any more than I have to) if Allen Savory (and the University of Missouri, incidentally…probably others) believe “mob grazing” can reverse desertification, that might have more effect on global warming (if it exists) than all other measures put together, seeing what a vast part of the globe is undergoing desertification.

And encouraging the growth of “adolescent” trees, both in forests and in silvoculture. That’s a lot of carbon being sequestered. It just astonishes me that some of the environmental radicals (not including you) want to burden poor people with “skyrocketing utility bills” and make industries buy “credits” from eucalyptus growers in Brazil who throw peasants off the land, while doing absolutely nothing to encourage proper private forestry in this country.