End Of The World As We Know It
I want to explain why I think many proponents of Global Warming are ‘fundamentalist’ in their beliefs and behaviour. This is prompted by my previous post and the conversation with Christian X Burnham in the comments.
I started recycling before it was fashionable. I used to walk carrying bags filled with glass, paper and cans to the nearest recycling containers. Then I used to ride my bike with all the recycling. I did this for well over 10 years before my council started home collections. I used washable nappies with my son. I’ve not used disposable menstrual products for almost 10 years now. I’ve used cloth shopping bags one out of two times I go shopping for almost 10 years now. I filled my toilet cisterns with bottles of water eons ago and when it’s just my son. I have never left the tap running when I brush my teeth and go INSANE when Brian does it. I have a water meter. Half of the lightbulbs in my house are those horrible fluorescent things. I’m obsessive about turning off lights in rooms I’m not using and regularly go around turning off all the lights Brian and my son have left on (and shouting at them about it). I wash my clothes at 30 degrees (C). I’ve never owned a clothes drier. I’ve owned three different cars - two were Fiat 500s, one is Brian’s old Ford Focus- all of them were bought when I was working daily in a place which took 1.5 hours each way to get to via public transport (namely: Sky Sport, Network of the World, Three Mills for Sunshine). When my son was in nursery school I would ride 20 miles a day on my bike taking him to and from school. When he was in primary school, we’d take the bus… until I started on Sunshine. Whereas before I got rid of my other cars fairly soon after finishing my job, I’ve kept this car because I need it. Either I drive him to school in 15 minutes or it takes up to 45 minutes on the bus - each way, there, back, there, back. I don’t have the time for an extra 2 hours of travelling a day to take public transport.
I could go on with my ‘green credentials’, but I hope you get the point.
I’ve been pretty keen on cutting down on ‘rubbish’ for a while so have recycled and reused for ages. I’m positive it’s because of this public service film that was always on tv when I was growing up. I grew up in the oil-crisis 70s and so have always turned off lights and kept my heating down. It’s just how I was raised.
So I do all this because I want to, it makes me feel good and because I want the planet to be a nice place to live - I don’t want air pollution and litter everywhere. But that’s really my motivation. I don’t think I have the right to force anyone else to do any of these things. I’d like it if other people wanted to have clean air and less rubbish, too, but I can’t force anyone to want that.
The difference between me and a Global Warming fundie is as vast as the difference between someone who helps an old lady across the road and the Taliban. Let me explain.
Doing good things for other people is hardwired into us. Empathy and selflessness are needed for the survival of our species. Equally we need to be selfish in order to ensure the survival of ourselves as individuals. People constantly have an internal battle between being selfish and selfless. Some lean more towards one than the other.
Many religions worked out that being selfless is better for everyone. If *everyone* helped everyone, no one would need to be selfish. So they wrote all kinds of stuff about loving thy neighbour and helping the poor and giving to charity and forgiving and generally being a good person to everyone. Great.
Now one doesn’t need to be religious in order to do good things for other people, that’s clear, but equally one doesn’t need to be an atheist to do bad things (I wonder what percentage of criminals in jail believe in God?). Still many - not all- religious people think that one can’t truly be a good person unless they believe in God. Most religious people will tolerate non-believers, but when it comes down to it, a non-believer is a bad person because they deny the ultimate Good ie God. For many Christians and Muslims, if you don’t believe in God you are evil and it doesn’t matter if you spend your life doing charity work and giving all your money to the poor, you are, as one of my relatives believes of me, an evil, nasty horrible person who will burn in Hell. Your deeds do not matter, your intention does. This, incidentally, is why it’s perfectly acceptable and desirable for a fundie Muslim to blow themselves and many others up - because their *intention* is good.
One step up from that is the religious person who doesn’t want there to be ANYONE alive who doesn’t believe exactly what they believe. They use physical and psychological threats in order to make other people comply. Some resort to actual violence.
I think where we are at right now is the ‘psychological threat’ stage of the whole Global Warming thing. What is the difference between ‘If you don’t change your whole entire life and do everything inhumanly possible to save the planet YOU WILL DIE A HORRIBLE WEATHER RELATED DEATH!!!’ and ‘If you don’t believe in God and follow every single rule he has decreed YOU WILL BURN FOREVER IN THE FIREY PITS OF HELL!!!’…? And when someone says, ‘Hey, I think there might be a different/better way of doing things’ they are met with cries of ‘HEATHEN!!!’. And if someone says, ‘I don’t want to stop driving my car/wear a burkha’ the fundies try everything they can to force that person to do something they don’t want to do. And we can’t even question things in polite company for fear of being branded an evil person and getting shouted and screamed at by a fundie.
The other week Deek/Dean Whitbread (the guy in this video, Google him, I won’t give him a link) actually told me during a discussion about ‘the environment’ that he couldn’t see any reason why people needed to fly in planes. When I tried telling him, ‘No, you don’t have any reason to take a plane, other people do’, he went mental shouting ‘blahblahlah! No they don’t! anticapitalistnonesense!!! blahblahblah!!’ I tried to say that it was his choice if he didn’t ever want to fly again, but he couldn’t force anyone else to not fly, but that was met with, ‘80ssocialistnonsense!!! blahblahblah!!!!’
I don’t see why that’s any different from someone who is anti-choice when it comes to abortion. Can anyone tell me what the difference is?
This is the big problem with the whole Global Warming thing, Environmentalists have become Fundamentalists… And really the claims of ‘But it’s too late not to do anything drastic!!’ sound a whole lot like, ‘The end is nigh!’ Don’t believe me? Why not read what Patrick Moore, founder member of Greenpeace, thinks of what the environmental movement he started has become…
I am very, very wary of believing anything I’m told without questioning it. As I get older I analyse my ‘beliefs’ more and more and try and make sure I can rationally justify everything that I do, say or think. Once I started doing that I found a lot of things that I previously believed were built on nothing more concrete than, well, belief. So whereas I see the valid points in the whole Global Warming thing, I’m not a ‘true believer’. The good things I do aren’t motivated by Global Warming and I think there may actually be some other things we need to focus on that are more important than Global Warming. (I don’t think saying that invalidates any of the ‘environmentally friendly’ things I do… does it?)
If you think I’m a bad or evil person for thinking that Global Warming isn’t the single most pressing problem the human race faces, then I invite you to look at your own beliefs and work out what they are built on. Here are some questions to get you thinking:
- Do you want to help all people on the planet or do you think that humans are like a cancer and only do harm to the planet?
- Do the good things people do for the environment, sometimes even unknowingly, count even if they don’t believe in Global Warming, or do they have to support Global Warming for it to really make a difference?
- Do the good things people do for the environment like having their loft insulated and their windows draft-proofed count even if they also do ‘bad’ things like drive short distances they could walk?
- Is there a point at which people are doing enough for the environment or can they always do more?
- Is Western civilisation built entirely upon ’sins’ like money, waste and science?
- Is progress bad?
- Do you think the government should legislate to force everyone to live ‘ethically’?
- Do you think people should be punished for their ’sins’ such as driving cars, taking a plane, using a clothes drier instead of hanging their laundry up?
- Is Jeremy Clarkson the devil in disguise?
That last one is a trick question.
production 
QR Code DVD 
32 Comments, Comment or Ping
giagia
And I must point out that I, in no way, think that Christian X is a fundie environmentalist. There’s nothing he said that made me think that. This was merely rolling around in my head this afternoon.
Feb 13th, 2008
Pete
I agree with you about the fundamentalist approach - and it suits these people to make you feel guilty. It is also rather like the old fashioned religions, where leaders dictated what you should or shouldn’t do, so that they could personally break all the rules for their own gesellschaft selves.
I do think it is good to do what you can for the environment, but not at the expense of living a fulfilling life!
Feb 13th, 2008
Alex
Here is my lawyer answer…”it depends.”
All opinions depend fundamentally on the basis from which the opinion arises from.
I believe, to better understand someone’s position on complex issues like “saving the environment” one must first understand his/her understanding of what he/she thinks “environment” is.
Many believe that “environment” is that green stuff out there or the blue wet stuff or the polar ice. To be honest, living in a city in the U.S.A., I have no real contact or connection to this “green stuff.”
Some believe the “environment” represents natural resources from which society is built on. We exploit it for advancement and wealth…accordingly, “environment” is a commodity…to be sold, bought, and traded. These try to make money from it before it’s “gone.”
But there are some that believe “environment” means everything…including us, humans. So by saving the “environment,” we are in fact saving ourselves. These few actually understand how ecology works. These few understand that an extinction of one species can cause the extinction of some other species…way far down the chain. And us, humans, are connected in this chain…like our limbs to our bodies. Imagine cutting off your own foot to eat it…and then the lower leg…then the thigh…pretty soon, one may understand that what you are actually doing is suicide. And that is exactly what humans are doing with this planet…we are destroying everything that keeps us alive.
You get one guess as to which of the above I belong to.
Feb 13th, 2008
Christian X Burnham
Hey, I feel famous! Give me some time to read and respond.
Feb 13th, 2008
Christian X Burnham
OK, my first thoughts.
I live in Houston, Texas, where the pendulum swings the other way. I just don’t meet anyone who thinks we should give up cars and planes. BTW, if you ever want to experience a city that’s built for the automobile, them come to Houston. It’s impossible to walk anywhere.
I’m Irish/English and do follow the news back home and my brothers, sisters and parents live in Ireland and England. So, I do have some idea of the differences between the US and British cultures.
My boss (in Houston) is a physics professor who’s also heavily involved in Green party politics. He drives a car, which isn’t big by US standards, but nevertheless he drives everywhere. He also takes far more flights than I do. He’s also a meat eater.
In short, I have a hard time recognizing fundamentalist environmentalism in my boss, or the other people I know who deeply care about the environment. I’m sure that the description fits a few people, but I don’t meet them.
I’m not personally much of a Greeny at all. I am however very concerned about the data coming in with regards to global warming. You don’t have to be a dippy-hippy flower child to get deeply worried about GW. Well, not unless Al Gore is your idea of a flower-child.
I completely agree that science and technology is going to provide many of the solutions. We’ve got to go forwards and not backwards. One exciting idea is to cover a small amount of the surface area of the Moon with solar panels. The energy can then be beamed down in the form of microwaves to collectors on Earth. This would totally eliminate the need for fossil fuels, solve the energy crisis and give us a chance of halting global warming. http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-8/iss-2/p12.pdf
Unfortunately, slowing down GW is going to involve more than individual choices. For us to stand a chance, we need to get agreements enacted globally. This is a global problem, and it’s going to require a global solution. Realistically, the only way to get anything done is for the politicians to change laws and increase taxes in some areas. Personally, I’d prefer to be taxed for GW than for funding the US war effort.
I’ll probably post more later. There’s a lot to get through.
Feb 14th, 2008
giagia
Good point, Alex, about the ‘environment’ meaning ‘everything’. I’m not joking when I say that there are a sizable percentage of environmentalists who genuinely think that humans aren’t important and that we should do everything we can to save the *planet* not us.
At a talk recently Brian, after explaining just how old and HUGE the universe is and how teeny tiny and insignificant we are, showed this photo and said that to him the most important thing on that photo was the lights, not the land…
Afterward a guy came up to him, a fundie environmentalist, and said that he didn’t think the lights were important at all, he thought the planet was. Brian reminded him that there are 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe, each with 100,000,000,000 stars and many of those have planets around them. Yet we’ve never had a hint of intelligent life elsewhere.. So did the environmentalist *still* think the planet was the most important thing? Yes.
In fact, just this evening Brian, who is in Serbia giving a talk tomorrow, spent the evening trying to convince some people that humans were more important than the planet…
They are all around us… and growing day by day.
Christian, be glad you’re not associating with any envirofundies they are deeply deeply frustrating. This must be how ‘normal’ Christians and Muslims feel about the whackjobs. :)
Feb 14th, 2008
Christian X Burnham
To clear up any possible confusion. I’m not a Christian. In fact I’m not religious at all.
Feb 14th, 2008
giagia
I didn’t think you were, Christian. :) Though I’ve had loads of Christian comment spam since I put up this post! ;)
Feb 14th, 2008
Alex
People believe in things that they don’t truly understand. This causes a lot of problems for society. Religion does not own monopoly on such prejudices. I am afraid that there are environmentalists, with very small knowledge, act based upon dangerous misconceptions.
Even before humans got here, the environment faced massive extinctions and fluctuations. But nature and the inherent mutations built-in to the system, kept life going. Yes, mutations are not unnatural…it is part of nature…it is working as intended (if there was an intent behind it).
I try my best to avoid stupid people. They are easy to find as they tend to be the most vocal.
Feb 14th, 2008
Christian X Burnham
To be honest, I’ve never heard anyone worry literally about ‘the planet’. That phrase is used as a shorthand for the small surface shell, which supports life. That’s the interesting bit.
I can sort of see how the phrase ‘humans are destroying the environment’ might lead the listener to think that the environment is being placed at a higher priority than humanity. That’s a fairly superficial analysis though. I think environmentalists who have given it some thought realize that since we live in the environment and need it to survive, if we want humanity to continue we have to preserve our shared environment.
In short, I don’t accept the idea that we should stop worrying about GW because of the alarmist tendencies of a few. I’m worried about GW because of the consensus of very serious scientists who have pored over the data and are publishing their conclusions in respected journals.
There is absolutely no comparison between these scientists and religious fundamentalists who proclaim that the end of the world is nigh. It is good to be skeptical, but you’ve also got to take the data seriously.
I completely agree that alarmist do-gooders exist. I don’t agree that GW is not one of humanity’s biggest problems. It is perhaps only matched by nuclear war and disease in its potential threat to mankind.
A good book to read is Jared Diamond’s ‘Collapse’, in which he shows how past civilizations have come to an end because of the ruin of their environment. This time the difference is that we’re having effects on the global environment through changing the entire climate. That’s terrifying.
————————————————————
A footnote. I wanted to point out that I’m not coming at this from a religious perspective. I’ve got nothing against religious people arguing their points, but if they base those points on religion, I feel compelled to ask why I should agree with or respect their private belief systems.
Feb 14th, 2008
jasmine
The thing is, at some point in the past, the future stopped being a promise and started being a threat. I think this happened because of Richard Nixon. No, really. This is my logic.
Back in the 60s, the space programmes of the world were promising to lead us to a brand new and extremely groovy future. Fusion power was twenty years away and global warming wasn’t really on our radar.
Nixon changed all that. By killing the Apollo programme, he turned off the exploration of the universe even as he was SIGNING THE FUCKING PLAQUE that’s on the DAMNED MOON. At that moment, everything changed. Technology wasn’t going to revolutionize our lives. Funding moved from exploration (Apollo) to the DoD-maimed Space Shuttle and its spy satellites and its Vandenberg launches and its COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME.
Everyone lost interest in the amazing, progressive future, and got locked into this paranoid, cold future of ridiculously expensive technology that doesn’t do anything you want it to do (nuclear weapons, Star Wars anti-ballistic missiles and a Space Shuttle that can barely get into orbit twice in a row). Fusion funding pretty much evaporated and nuclear power turned into a white elephant that nobody knew what to do with.
Nixon did that, with one decision. He turned the future into a threat, and that’s where all this stuff comes from. Fundies- both religious and environmental- see the future as a threat to be mitigated, rather than a promise to be fulfilled.
Some of us are trying to make the future a promise again. Help us!
Feb 14th, 2008
Nicholas Butler
Heres my un englightened and un informed understanding of the issue. Reading books like Cosmos by Sagan I always understood that mans presence in the scale of time on this earth is equivalent to the final full stop on your blog if yuor blog represented the history of the earth. Weve barely been here more than a moment in the scale of things.
We have been accelerating our understanding and our communication and we have moved from thinking the earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around the earth to understanding that the things we have discovered are only the Index page on the whole of existence.
In twenty years I seem to remember we have moved from Global cooling and oil crisis to global warming and extreme weather crisis.
Could it be that no idea today will be correct tommorow.
That the best we can hope for is to be socially and personally responsible to each other from our neighbourhoods to our nations.
Another great read again Gia, thank you.
Feb 14th, 2008
giagia
Christian said: “There is absolutely no comparison between these scientists and religious fundamentalists who proclaim that the end of the world is nigh.”
I agree, the issue is NOT the scientists… It is, as we’ve seen in earlier discussions with Ralph, people who take information released by scientists and run with it, distort it and otherwise spin it so it results in the ‘end of the world’ scenario they most want to see.
I’d disagree that past civilisations ended because of the ruin of their environment (of course I’ve not read the book you recommended so my mind could change!), I think civilsations ended because they became complacent and didn’t change, progress and grow. Sure, perhaps some of that resulted in environmental issues, but nothing that bad cos, well, Egypt, Rome and Greece, for example, are populous and busy today…
The only way I can see that environmental damage could become so great that it could end all of civilisation is if we don’t explore space. It’s like living in an empty, sealed box, eventually everything will be used up (even if you ‘conserve’ your water, air and food) and if you want to survive you need to break out of there.
Feb 14th, 2008
giagia
Jasmine, yea! Totally! The future RULES!
25 years ago I distinctly remember thinking that by the time I was 30 we would have had a nuclear war. I was convinced of it. I grew up being terrified of it. I know I wasn’t alone at all in thinking that. We all were terrified.
The future 25 years ago was bleak. All that came to mind were scenes out of ‘Threads’ - black, charred landscapes, friends and family destroyed, dead, burned, in pain.
The future 25 years ago totally fucking sucked.
I turned 30 nine years ago in July. In 1999. I had a beautiful little boy, an excellent job, great friends and actually, though it didn’t work out in the end, a great relationship. I lived in London - the best, most amazingly brilliant city in the world. I was into all of the coolest things at the time like the ‘net, technology, gadgets. It was fun, exciting and joyous. New Year’s Eve 1999 was one of the most memorable times in my life - one of those completely unexpected moments of wonderment you can’t even plan. It was that night that I realised ‘the future’ didn’t suck at all. ‘The future’ was better than I could have ever hoped for… minus flying cars and hoverboards, of course.
The future will ALWAYS be better than today in my mind. And when I think it, I make it so.
Feb 14th, 2008
giagia
Christian, I really do urge you to read what Patrick Moore says (Greepeace Patrick Moore, not the astronomer:). It’s long, 20-some pages, but some of the things he has to say about how Greenpeace has manipulated the debate are actually quite shocking.
He says: “It is not always easy to balance environmental, social, and economic priorities. Compromise and co-operation with the involvement of government, industry, academia and the environmental movement is required to achieve sustainability. It is this effort to find consensus among competing interests that has occupied my time for the past 15 years.
Not all my former colleagues saw things that way. They rejected consensus politics and sustainable development in favor of continued confrontation and ever-increasing extremism. They ushered in an era of zero tolerance and left-wing politics. Some of the features of this environmental extremism are:
*Environmental extremists are anti-human…
*They are anti-science and technology….
*Environmental extremists are anti-trade, not just free trade but anti-trade in general….
*They are anti-business…
*And they are just plain anti-civilization.
Let me give you some specific examples that highlight the movement’s tendency to abandon science and logic and to get the priorities completely mixed up through the use of sensationalism, misinformation and downright lies.
Seriously read it.
Feb 14th, 2008
Christian X Burnham
I read 10 pages of the Moore article.
I agree that some environmentalists are anti-scientific and motivated by weird politics. Some might even be characterized as ’self-hating humans’.
There are extremists in everything political. There are liberal extremists and right-wing extremists. There are pro and anti environmental extremists. There are plenty of conspiracy nuts and people who ignore the data.
Greenpeace is largely an advocacy group, which is going to self-select for the people who care deeply about the environment but might not be knowledgeable about the science. I’m not here to defend GP and it doesn’t surprise me that they commit all sorts of scientific errors and make alarmist projections.
The excesses of some campaigner environmentalists does nothing to prove or disprove GW. It does mean that we have to be skeptical of what we hear and see on television, but that’s always true.
Again, I concede that there are some environmentalist nuts out there. I’ll also concede that many people have overly romantic views of nature and have a wrong-headed view of what is and isn’t natural, but that doesn’t change my opinion in the slightest that there exists a consensus view amongst experts in the scientific community that GW is a serious threat.
I think we mostly agree on the general principle that when it comes to advocacy in conflict with science then it’s usually best to choose science. (Scientists aren’t perfect though and sometimes the advocates are right. It’s the ‘process’ of science and not the scientists themselves that I have the ultimate trust in.)
——————————————————-
The Jared Diamond book I mentioned is very worth reading. He’s a respected scientist and uses hard data to back up his case. He’s on the board of the Skeptic magazine and can’t easily be characterized as an environmental nut. Everyone should also read Diamond’s ‘Guns Germs and Steel’, which is a classic.
Even Michael Shermer, who I often disagree with had a chapter on an ancient civilization which was destroyed through environmental collapse. (I can’t remember which book it was.)
Feb 14th, 2008
Jim
Gia, I don’t think Ralph intentionally spinned what he stated about Hawking Radiation theory being false when it was just an error in the calculations which Stephen corrected. Who hasn’t said things without thinking it through? I’ll admit, I made that mistake more than once. Ralph either didn’t understand what he was reading, or didn’t read the article completely when reaching the word ERROR since he was blinded by fear. It still bothers me a little, but I’m keeping an open mind while making my peace. ;)
There are people who are simply concerned for the environment, and there’s the over the top environmental extremists, but like them, there are extremist scientists, stuck in their views, not researching other scientific studies in conflict with theirs. It’s there way, they don’t want to hear it, nothing will change their mind. Now if they’re right in their calculations, I don’t see why they should change their mind, but it’s also wise to keep an open mind to others.
In the right hands, science and technology can continue to make this world better than it is now. Even religion can play an important role for those looking for spiritual guidance, valuing all life around the world. ALL LIFE…
Feb 14th, 2008
giagia
One of the issues I have with eco-fundies is that their beliefs are reported as fact… it all creeps up on you until you get otherwise ‘normal’ people thinking it’s acceptable to say that humans don’t matter, the *planet* does or shouting at you in a restaurant that NO ONE HAS A REASON TO RIDE A PLANE!!!! (though I wouldn’t say that particular person is ‘normal’ :)
It’s the creeping fundamentalism that I worry about… and if left unchecked and unchallenged (as it’s increasingly becoming more and more difficult to do) it will run away from us… and governments will be pledging billions upon billions to what could potentially be a MASSIVE black hole with very, very little benefit or return. We’ll all take our eyes off the ball and instead buy into a way of thinking that mightn’t be the very best thing for *everyone*.
Again. I don’t think there’s anyone sensible that will say that the weather *isn’t* changing. But I’m not convinced all of the information we are being told is actually accurate and is, instead, being used to manipulate our emotions.
Feb 14th, 2008
Christian X Burnham
What more would it take to convince you that GW is an urgent threat? There’s already a consensus amongst the scientific experts.
Feb 14th, 2008
Ralph
Christian, those thousands upon thousands of scientists all over the world warning us about global warming are extremists. OK!
Gia, I admit, I went off the deep end when I stated Hawking Radiation theory is false when it was just an error Stephen Hawking corrected after rereading it again. It’s still a theory, and like how scientists exploded the H-bomb when some of their own stated the possibility that it might ignite the atmosphere, I don’t think we should chance it again in hope a micro black holes would simply evaporate harmlessly. Now that’s just my oppion, and I know you’re set on yours and I respect you for that.
On the topic of global warming, I think both sides are playing with our emotions, but how can you deny a consensus amongst scientific experts warning us about this threat. The only scientists we should believe are the ones who paint everything rosey? There’s not many of them around.
Big Oil is holding back on technology that can help fight against GW, and the funny thing is that they can profit from this technology if they would take the lead in it’s development. I don’t mind if I’m restricted to pumping water into my hydrogen car at filling stations at the same price as gas.
Feb 14th, 2008
giagia
Christian, I will be convinced when there aren’t soooo many things like these:
On the one hand we are told that polar bears are drowning and dying in droves because of global warming.
On the other hand the polar bear population has risen by between 10 and 30 thousand in the past 40 years.
What about this (pdf) letter from a Canadian Government Manager of Wildlife Research saying that polar bears are not threatened and “the future of polar bears is secure”.
What about the fact that the polar bear quota for hunters went up in one Canadian province to 518 per year.
Between Canada and Greenland there are almost 1,000 polar bears HUNTED every year.
If polar bear deaths are that upsetting to the population of the world that they can be used to emotionally blackmail us into ‘doing more’ for the environment, then wouldn’t you think the first step should be banning hunting rather than investing billions upon billions of dollars into cutting CO2 emissions? Just, you know, as a sensible first step?
OK what about CO2 emissions?
First let’s look at the country by country break down for CO2 emissions. So the top 10 are:
USA
China
Russia
India
Japan
Germany
Canada
UK
South Korea
Italy
But what about per capita? How polluting are individuals in each country?
Well, the US is *still* pretty high up there in 10th place.
Followed immediately by Canada.
Australians are 13th place.
The UK, however, is 37th place.
China, the country who is always pulled up for being so damned polluting - well, individually they are the 91st worst polluters.
India that other bad polluter, 133rd worst polluting individuals.
Now, I agree, Americans, Canadians and Australians, as individuals, can certainly do better, there’s no question there. But British people? As individuals we emit less CO2 than individuals in the island nation of Palau (wherever the fuck that is)- how *exactly* are we supposed to cut our carbon emissions… by *doing more*?
Well France is 63rd on the per capita list. They’re 70-something percent nuclear… of course, I think that’s a good option.
We in the UK are given guilt trips because we are all living so wastefully. We’re less polluting people than the freakin hippy Norwegians, Finish and Danes for goodness sake. Of the G8 countries Germany, Italy and France have lower per capita emissions than the UK.
So is it really sensible for the UK to start, for example, ‘fining’ people for driving non-hybrid or electric cars by charging them higher rates to park on the street outside their homes (irrespective of how much they may actually drive their car?). It is really sensible for the UK to invest billions in all kinds of emissions lowering ’stuff’, when the only reason we’re kind of high on the total emissions list is cos we’ve got a pretty big population (even France is number 15 as far as *total* emissions are concerned). And what about poor China? They’ll be fined just cos there’s a lot of them, not because as individuals they are particularly polluting…
What about extreme weather? There does indeed seem to be an increase in extreme weather events and the cost of extreme weather is rising very rapidly. But deaths from extreme weather are down by almost 500,000 per year from the 1920s… And one of the reasons the *cost* is going up is because, well, people are richer all over the world and they have more stuff to lose.
So…
I ask… is the sensible thing to invest billions upon billions in reducing CO2 emissions or should we just hurricane-proof people’s homes (which, incidentally lowers the cost of damages enormously?). You know how they say, ‘there isn’t bad weather, just inappropriate clothing’? Is the most sensible thing to invest all your time and money in trying to get it to stop raining… or just get an umbrella? There’s a tornado on the horizon - do you spend all of your time and money investing in research for a ‘tornado stopper’ or do you open all your windows and go to your basement? There’s a flood warning - do you invest all your money in finding way of making the water disappear - or do you move as much as you can to your upper floors, turn off your electricity and move to higher ground? That’s simplifying it enormously, but it makes my point.
So really, what are the most sensible things we should do initially? I’m still not convinced the extreme suggestions of environmentalists are the most sensible thing to do … that’s it.
Feb 15th, 2008
Christian X Burnham
Sounds like you’ve been reading Bjorn Lomborg. (I’ll post more later.)
Feb 15th, 2008
giagia
Actually, I read about the first 20 pages of his book, then Brian took it from me and I haven’t had it back! So yes, the polar bear thing is actually what made me question climate change a lot more.
Though when I really started questioning things though is when I looked into nuclear power. I realised that the media and anti-nuclear campaigners had been less than truthful about things and sometimes completely and utterly off the mark. For example, I recently saw in a newspaper that 9,000 people died because of Chernobyl. The UN’s World Health Organisation after a 20 year study attributed the deaths of only 47 people to the accident. They also said that up to 4,000 people would die prematurely because of it (and went on to say that by far the most dangerous thing for the community is the psychological issues they have because of fear, stress, drug and alcohol abuse and not the radiation….)…
But the newspaper printed that 9,000 people died because of Chernobyl. Before I started looking into nuclear power, I would have taken that figure as a fact. And it isn’t.
So I am *very* wary of people’s motivations when it comes to the environment… they are the same people who tell newspapers that 9,000 people died at Chernobyl.
Feb 15th, 2008
Christian X Burnham
I’m not an expert in polar bear populations. The article you link to makes clear that the rise in the population over the last few decades is due to a moratorium on hunting.
This is what Wikipedia has to say (with sources).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
The polar bear is a vulnerable species at high risk of extinction. Zoologists and climatologists believe that the projected decreases in the polar sea ice due to global warming will reduce their population by two thirds by mid-century.[4][1][5][6] Local long-term studies show that 7 out of 19 subpopulations are declining or already severely reduced.[7][8]
(See the original article for sources.
Feb 15th, 2008
Christian X Burnham
Unilateral action on GW isn’t going to work. I agree that it is almost useless for Britain to cut down on carbon emissions while other countries are still polluting. We clearly need multilateral agreements such as the Kyoto protocol.
The US and UK have a duty to lead the way in cutting their emissions. The politics is such that agreement with other countries can only work if the rich countries are seen to be taking action.
Fining people for driving polluting cars in London is more a matter of the local environment and air quality. Again, it won’t by itself have much effect on GW. It might make London a more pleasant place to live- I don’t know.
Yes, part of the problem with New Orleans was the inadequate and antiquated drainage systems and flood barriers. But, if the sea levels rise we’re going to see many other cities flooded in the same way. The cost of keeping that land above water is eventually going to be prohibitive.
According to the research, hurricanes won’t increase in frequency but they do seem to be increasing in intensity. Again, we can do more to save lives, but it’s impossible to avoid the damage to property and ensuing economic destruction. It’s a little bit facetious to claim that people affected ’should just get an umbrella’ (even metaphorically).
Also, many of the hurricanes hit second and third world countries that can’t afford to spend billions in preventive measures. Cuba, Haiti and central American countries will see more and more deaths accompanying any increase in hurricane severity.
Yes the richer countries will be able to hold off the worst effects of GW… for a while at least. But changing the atmosphere will eventually have dire consequences for everyone. Let’s not wait until London disappears under water before we do anything about it.
Feb 15th, 2008
giagia
Ralph, you said, “how can you deny a consensus amongst scientific experts warning us about this threat.”
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the ways which environmentalists use the information from scientists and then project their own ‘anti-civilisation’ ideology into it, and decide that unless we stop living like we are, stop progressing etc, then WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!! It’s not too dissimilar to your Hawking Radiation thing. ;)
I don’t think I’ve ever said that there aren’t changes happening with the weather. I also don’t think I ever said that those changes won’t continue.
What I have said is that I’m not entirely sure that the worst case scenarios that are constantly being bandied about are what will actually happen (no one knows that, not even climate change scientists), but that’s what we are planning for. I’ve also said that the proposals made by environmental fundamentalists deny humanity the possibility of continuing to grow and thrive and will need to be enforced *by law* (with fines or even jail time as punishment?) in order to get everyone to do what they propose.
I don’t like that. It goes against everything I find right and good in existence. It denies people the freedom to choose how they want to live for their brief life and goes against everything it means to be human.
What I want is *positive* solutions. *Smart* solutions. Solutions which benefit everyone rather than forcing everyone to live a shit and unhappy life.
Feb 15th, 2008
jasmine
Well, how about these changes. All of them are environmentally beneficial, all of them are living in the future.
1) Ditch your desktop and buy a laptop.
Yes, it’s true, laptops use less energy than desktop computers, and these days you can do anything with them. Groovy.
2) Cars: Ditch your hybrid and buy a turbodiesel
Common-rail diesels get better MPG than hybrids, and they don’t contain huge, filthy battery packs made of poison. They’re made of ordinary car stuff, can be easily serviced by any competent mechanic, and they have that lovely turbo whistle. Plus, they are lighter and faster.
3) Lights: Ditch your compact fluorescents and buy LEDs.
LEDs are far more efficient than CFLs, don’t contain mercury, and they come on instantly at full brightness. They’re also less flickery and last almost forever (about ten times longer than fluorescent lamps).
There’s three things you can do that are positive, slightly offbeat, and futuristic. They’ll reduce your carbon footprint and no hair shirt is required :-)
Feb 15th, 2008
R J Adams
Here’s the thing; while you’re all having your intellectual discussions about this and that, the planet is laughing at you. Whatever humans decide to do over global warming won’t bother the planet one iota. It’s not the planet we’re about saving. The planet isn’t in crisis; we are. If there’s any doubt about that just ask yourselves one question: how long can we go on existing on a rubbish dump? That’s what our planet has become - a rubbish dump. Whether it is the seas, the land, or the atmosphere, we’re turning it into a rubbish dump. Frankly, whether you burn an environmentally friendly light bulb or the old-fashioned incandescent variety makes not one iota of difference. You can drive a Ferrari or ride a bicycle, the planet couldn’t care less. As long as industry is pumping shit into the atmosphere, poisons into the seas, and toxic chemicals all over the land masses, anything you and I, as individuals, do to counteract such massive pollution is negligible.
Don’t talk to me of saving the planet. The planet isn’t in any danger. It is you and I, and our children, who are the potential victims, and the myriad animal species we are exterminating every day. Evolution doesn’t give a fuck about that. It will just begin again. So lets stop being so airy-fairy and intellectual, and make a simple decision: do we want our species to survive, or not? It’s that simple. QED.
Feb 16th, 2008
giagia
RJ- exactly the PLANET is going to be fine. 99% of all species that have ever existed have been made extinct well before we probably even knew how to start a fire. Yet the planet still goes on.
WE are the important ones. People. As far as we know right now we are the only ‘intelligent’ life in a 13.7 billion year old universe. We have created music which makes people want to get up and dance. We are able to put little squiggles down on some wood pulp, which has been pressed and dried, that creates all kinds of pictures, thoughts and emotions in our minds. We built the pyramids, the Guggenheim Museum and the Eiffel Tower. We’ve figured out how to protect ourselves from the elements, travel great distances in a short amount of time and leave the relative safety of our planet and take some tiny steps out into the violent and deadly Universe… and survive.
We are AMAZING!!
I want people to continue to be amazing. I want people all over the planet to have food and clean water. I want people all over the world to have a ‘life’ instead of just stay alive. I want people all over the world to have a choice about how they live their short life.
I’m not rich my any means, but I do not want to live a life of struggle and poverty. I don’t think I’m unusual. I don’t think very many people would *choose* to struggle. Yet that is what the envirofundies want. They feel Western civilisation is *evil*, they hate wealth, achievement and financial success, they see anyone with ‘comfort’ as an enemy. They aren’t, however, motivated by allowing the underprivileged to rise up out of poverty, they are motivated by tearing down ’success’.
That is what I object to.
I don’t just want our species to ’survive’, I want us to thrive. All of us.
And we can’t do that by going backwards.
Feb 16th, 2008
giagia
According to the research, hurricanes won’t increase in frequency but they do seem to be increasing in intensity. Again, we can do more to save lives, but it’s impossible to avoid the damage to property and ensuing economic destruction. It’s a little bit facetious to claim that people affected ’should just get an umbrella’ (even metaphorically).
It *was* slightly facetious… BUT what makes more financial sense? Spending up to $5000 per home in Florida to hurricane proof it OR letting it and everything the owner owns get destroyed then replaced- like for like- by insurance thereby increasing insurance premiums for everyone?
And what will actually help people worldwide more: the investment in carbon credits or the clean development mechanism proposed by Kyoto (which, of course, doesn’t include loads of developing and developed countries, nor does the CDM include the forests at all, the deforestation of which in the next five years will count for more emissions from all aircraft since the Wright Brothers until at least 2025) the success of which is questionable by even by environmental groups. They are based on *fines* - including fining people for driving and heating their homes, which takes even more money out of the average’s person’s wallet and the economy and into ‘big business’ thereby fucking up the economy even more.
OR
Providing *incentives* - financial or otherwise- which benefit everyone - individuals and businesses, the poor and the rich, developing and Western nations?
Also, many of the hurricanes hit second and third world countries that can’t afford to spend billions in preventive measures. Cuba, Haiti and central American countries will see more and more deaths accompanying any increase in hurricane severity.
But the West ends up spending billions in aid after the fact. So why can’t we instead invest a lot less before the fact in providing early warning systems, hurricane proof homes and general preventative measures?
Yes the richer countries will be able to hold off the worst effects of GW… for a while at least. But changing the atmosphere will eventually have dire consequences for everyone. Let’s not wait until London disappears under water before we do anything about it.
The oceans have risen by 20cm over the past 100 years and over the course of the past the past several 100 millions years the sea levels have been considerably higher than they are now.
Maybe we need to consider different solutions to the issue of rising sea levels cos I suspect they will continue to rise irrespective of whether we invest £100 billion per year trying to follow the Kyoto agreement.
One of those solutions might actually be to encourage settlement away from the coasts…
Feb 16th, 2008
Christian X Burnham
OK, I’m going to bend over backwards to agree with you that a lot of environmentalists are annoying. It seems like you’ve been exposed to too many holier than thou Guardianistas who want to make everyone feel guilty about everything.
I’m with you on that one. I’m a self hating liberal myself. I can’t stand listening to a group of liberals whining about politics, about how Bush and Blair are fascists, or how we’re destroying the planet. It’s all so self-congratulatory- they think they’re smart ones who really understand just how bad life is. They think that we should be be in a perpetual state of guilt for being white/male/Western/consumerist etc. etc.
I agree that many liberals don’t want to admit how good we’ve actually got it. We have a longer life expectancy, less disease, less war, greater democracy, more money and better technology than any time in history.
Having said that…
The above doesn’t change the fact that GW looks like it’s going to be a very serious problem.
I agree that guilt doesn’t help. I also agree that there’s very little we can do to avert the temperature rise. Even if the Kyoto protocol was fully implemented in the US and every country around the world, it probably wouldn’t do much except buy us a few years.
I don’t know what the answers are, but we have to start listening to the scientists who understand the severity of the situation.
Preventative measures will play an important part, but I don’t think it’s the whole answer.
Feb 18th, 2008
jasmine
RJ wrote:
Frankly, whether you burn an environmentally friendly light bulb or the old-fashioned incandescent variety makes not one iota of difference. You can drive a Ferrari or ride a bicycle, the planet couldn’t care less. As long as industry is pumping shit into the atmosphere, poisons into the seas, and toxic chemicals all over the land masses, anything you and I, as individuals, do to counteract such massive pollution is negligible.
…
That’s completely idiotic. How’s this for a concept? The industrial products that are creating this pollution are made for a reason: because people are buying them. Mercury pollution, for example, is produced by industrial processes like the manufacture of compact fluorescent lamps. If we buy LED lamps instead, which don’t use mercury, industry will use less mercury, so industry will mine less, so industry will pollute less.
Duh.
Industry doesn’t pollute for fun. Industry pollutes because it makes things people are buying, like catalytic converters (which are horrible) and compact fluorescent lamps (which are horrible). If we use things that don’t require pollution (like diesel engines, which don’t need catalytic converters, or LED lamps that don’t have mercury in them, or computers manufactured with RoHS materials which don’t have lead in them) then industry will pollute less.
It’s simple economics.
Feb 18th, 2008
Reply to “End Of The World As We Know It”