Smoking, Marriage and Climate: What Can I Do? (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:03 PM GMT on April 03, 2013

Share this Blog
19
+

Smoking, Marriage and Climate: What Can I Do? (2)

This week I have a guest blogger, Doug Glancy, who was one of the student advocates responsible for starting my class on climate change problem solving. Doug’s piece continues the series in response to the question, “What can I do about climate change?” It is a call for social organization.

What Smoking and Marriage Equality Can Teach Activists About Efforts to Catalyze Climate Action

In February, Duke University released a poll that found that more than 84% of Americans believe climate change is occurring. Climate activists were elated, and many began to say that we’ve turned the corner on efforts to catalyze action. However, beneath the encouraging headline was a far more important number: only one third of Americans support federal efforts to address the issue. I am not discounting the fact that the vast majority of Americans now believe climate change is occurring. However, overselling this statistic is fraught with peril, as it is the second number that defines our direction when the rubber hits the road.

For affirmation of this belief, one need only look at the decades-long struggle to reduce smoking. As early as the 1950’s, the majority of doctors believed smoking posed significant health risks. By the 1970’s, the majority of Americans believed that smoking had deleterious effects. Nevertheless, it wasn’t until the late 80’s that overall smoking rates began to plummet. The transition did not occur because a doctor or scientist said smoking was bad for one’s health, it occurred because smoking became socially unacceptable.

Unfortunately, in the battle to address climate change we do not have the luxury of time for opinion to sway. Fortunately, the strategic marriage of behavioral economics and technology provides the tools to speed up the pendulum. What is needed now is messaging which leverages cutting edge research into why we make the choices we do including core drivers such as moral conviction, a desire for equality and good old-fashioned peer pressure. (For a quick introduction read Contagious by Jonah Berger).

One need only look to the events of last week to see how opinions can change in a timeframe exponentially quicker than in the past. As recently as the late 90’s, the vast majority of American opposed extending marriage rights to the LBGT community. Just over a decade later, over half the nation supports marriage rights.

There is little doubt that some of the explanation for this remarkable achievement lies with Americans expanding their view of morality and furthering equality. However, it would be shortsighted to discount the tremendous impact of peer pressure. Last week, despite little coordinated effort, nearly 3 million Americans changed their Facebook profile to support marriage equality. These 3 million individual decisions provided a social cue to tens of millions more.

What does this all mean for the efforts to address climate change? It means that we must move beyond statistics about the beliefs of 99% scientists. It means we must move beyond over-reliance on frames, such as the plight of the polar bear, which only speak to certain segments of society. It means we must make addressing climate the moral imperative of the day and use technology-assisted peer pressure to spread the message. We have the knowledge and technology to be good ancestors, its time to leverage it.

Doug Glancy
Principal Resileris

Doug has over a decade working on climate, energy and sustainability issues across the public, private and nonprofit sectors. He holds a BS in Political Science from Trinity College and MBA/MS from the University of Michigan, where he focused on climate change and corporate sustainability. In addition to speaking engagements, Doug has contributed to a groundbreaking report on Corporate Climate Change Strategies for the Pew Center on Climate Change, and led two delegations to the United Nations Climate Change Conference. He is an Executive Board member of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

The piece also fits well with my earlier pieces

The Optimist’s Time,

The Role of Short Timers

A Bridge of Time.


Links to the Series

Setting Up the Discussion Deciding to do something, definition of mitigation and adaptation, and a cost-benefit anchored framework for thinking about mitigation

Smoking, Marriage and Climate Behavioral changes and peer pressure

Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts A little detail on efficiency and thinking about how individuals can have more impact than just that of a single person

The Complete List Eight categories of things we can do to reduce greenhouse gases

We Are What We Eat Food and agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 306 - 256

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

Quoting Xandra:
Climate conspiracy theorist... Limbaugh rewards child climate skeptic with an iPad...snip
ThinkProgress.org had a good take on this:
It is little surprise that Alex stumbled onto climate denier talking points, since nearly all climate denier books have ties to conservative think tanks. Internal documents obtained by ThinkProgress last year revealed that the right-wing, Koch-funded think tank Heartland Institute developed a curriculum teaching children that climate science is a controversial matter. On the other hand, a mere 24 peer-reviewed articles reject global warming, compared to a staggering 13,926 scientific articles that substantiate it.

If Limbaugh thinks a 13-year-old is where to find the truth about climate science, perhaps he can next invite a 12-year-old to discuss evolution.

Yet many top Republicans in the Senate and House subscribe to the same view. The climate zombie caucus has a wide net of Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), former ranking member of the Senate Environment Committee James Inhofe (R-OK), House Science Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX), and House Science subcommittee chair Chris Stewart (R-UT), and many others.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
Neapolitan and Nymore - Not being a pilot, I'm getting confused about this airspace issue. So could someone tell me:

1. Is the no fly zone for the Arkansas spill defined as 80 sq miles horizontally (on the ground) by 1000 feet vertically? Just read the NOTAM Nea linked to and found answer to this question is yes.

2. What does that mean as a practical matter? Presumably scheduled airlines can fly over the site if their regular routes call for that. What about smaller commercial and private aircraft? Do they have to file flight plans and/or have them approved? Is that a point at which the FAA (through some agent) can prohibit an overflight?

3. What heights do small aircraft and helicopters usually fly at? Info found on google says helicopters generally fly at 500 to 2000 feet although most have a much higher limit. I would think small planes would be able to fly even higher, but I don't know. FAA rules seem to have height minimum of 1000 feet over congested areas and 500 over other areas, but at what height do, for example, traffic and news helicopters fly?

4. What about this claim concerning cameras? I realize that there are exceptionally long range lenses, but can they be used in a moving aircraft at 1200 or 1300 feet? Again, what about those traffic and news helicopters?

I understand there are safety considerations here (although I don't think the forest fire comparison is necessarily apt because of the smoke and visibility problems in a fire). My questions are about whether the restrictions are reasonable. Thanks.
1) Yes, roughly 80 square miles from 0' to 1000' AGL.

2) Any plane can fly over the area so long as they remain above 1000' AGL. (Note, however, that nearly all of the Exxon-imposed restricted area is within Little Rock's Class E controlled airspace, which extends from 700' AGL upward.)

3) There are all sorts of rules that determine the distances aircraft must remain from the ground, buildings, people, other aircraft, and so on. Those are dependent on aircraft type, size, clouds, type of airspace, type of geography, etc. So it's difficult to say what's "usual". However, news helicopters generally try to stay above 500', though they can and will certainly go lower if the situation warrants it (and, you know, some massively profitable corporation hasn't coerced the government into forbidding it).

4) Some large broadcast outfits have access to helicopters equipped with cameras that can take amazingly stable long-distance shots. (Have you seen some of those amazing 16:9 HD shots coming out of LA recently?) But, still, no matter how well stabilized and clear, an image shot from five miles out and/or several thousand feet up is never going to adequately capture the sometimes subtle extent of an oil spill the way, say, video shot from a helicopter hovering at five hundred feet right over the target would. (Which, much as some may disagree, likely played a part in ExxonMobil's implementation of the restriction.)

(Forest fire operations generally involve a relatively high-flying spotter/control aircraft, as well as numerous tankers making multiple passes through, as you mentioned, shifting clouds of smoke. So any comparisons between that and the Mayflower cleanup aren't worth much.)

Again--and this, to me, is very valid--my problem with the airspace restriction isn't so much that it's there or even how large it is, but that the company that created the mess has been given control over who can fly over the site. That seems a little like a murder suspect dictating to the police detectives where, when, and how they're allowed to collect evidence. And that should strike just about anyone who isn't an unapologetic fan of Big Energy as wrong.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
Quoting Xandra:
Climate conspiracy theorist Limbaugh rewards child climate skeptic with an iPad

[…] So kids, if your parents won’t buy you an iPad, call up Rush Limbaugh and tell him you need to do more research about how global warming is a hoax, or “Feminazis,” or Fast and Furious, or whatever else Limbaugh is bloviating about that day.



Good news - His sponsors leaving. Limbaugh now averages a loss of 10 sponsors per day.





Hey Alex go to this link and click on it with your new ipad... It will be a good start for you to learn more about global warming sponsored by NOAA not Rush Limbaugh..

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Climate conspiracy theorist Limbaugh rewards child climate skeptic with an iPad

[...] So kids, if your parents won't buy you an iPad, call up Rush Limbaugh and tell him you need to do more research about how global warming is a hoax, or "Feminazis," or Fast and Furious, or whatever else Limbaugh is bloviating about that day.



Good news - His sponsors leaving. Limbaugh now averages a loss of 10 sponsors per day.


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2405
Neapolitan and Nymore - Not being a pilot, I'm getting confused about this airspace issue. So could someone tell me:

1. Is the no fly zone for the Arkansas spill defined as 80 sq miles horizontally (on the ground) by 1000 feet vertically? Just read the NOTAM Nea linked to and found answer to this question is yes.

2. What does that mean as a practical matter? Presumably scheduled airlines can fly over the site if their regular routes call for that. What about smaller commercial and private aircraft? Do they have to file flight plans and/or have them approved? Is that a point at which the FAA (through some agent) can prohibit an overflight?

3. What heights do small aircraft and helicopters usually fly at? Info found on google says helicopters generally fly at 500 to 2000 feet although most have a much higher limit. I would think small planes would be able to fly even higher, but I don't know. FAA rules seem to have height minimum of 1000 feet over congested areas and 500 over other areas, but at what height do, for example, traffic and news helicopters fly?

4. What about this claim concerning cameras? I realize that there are exceptionally long range lenses, but can they be used in a moving aircraft at 1200 or 1300 feet? Again, what about those traffic and news helicopters?

I understand there are safety considerations here (although I don't think the forest fire comparison is necessarily apt because of the smoke and visibility problems in a fire). My questions are about whether the restrictions are reasonable. Thanks.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2405
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54864
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54864
Quoting Skyepony:


How many of you moderators would like the OLD Arctic back?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
I guess I should have posted this earlier, to some it a may be a chance to refresh.

This is from the Federal Air Regulations

3-5-3.Temporary Flight Restrictions

a. General. This paragraph describes the types of conditions under which the FAA may impose temporary flight restrictions. It also explains which FAA elements have been delegated authority to issue a temporary flight restrictions NOTAM and lists the types of responsible agencies/offices from which the FAA will accept requests to establish temporary flight restrictions. The 14 CFR is explicit as to what operations are prohibited, restricted, or allowed in a temporary flight restrictions area. Pilots are responsible to comply with 14 CFR Sections 91.137, 91.138, 91.141 and 91.143 when conducting flight in an area where a temporary flight restrictions area is in effect, and should check appropriate NOTAMs during flight planning.

b. The purpose for establishing a temporary flight restrictions area is to:

1. Protect persons and property in the air or on the surface from an existing or imminent hazard associated with an incident on the surface when the presence of low flying aircraft would magnify, alter, spread, or compound that hazard (14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(1));

2. Provide a safe environment for the operation of disaster relief aircraft (14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(2)); or

3. Prevent an unsafe congestion of sightseeing aircraft above an incident or event which may generate a high degree of public interest (14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(3)).

4. Protect declared national disasters for humanitarian reasons in the State of Hawaii (14 CFR Section 91.138).

5. Protect the President, Vice President, or other public figures (14 CFR Section 91.141).

6. Provide a safe environment for space agency operations (14 CFR Section 91.143).

There are plenty of good reasons to get on ExxonMobil, but the NOtice To AirMen (NOTAM) simply is not one of them
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
295. Skyepony (Mod)
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 197 Comments: 38784
Quoting Neapolitan:
You know that old saying about how one should stop digging when he finds himself in a hole? Well, it's probably time you should hand over the shovel, don't you think?
You mean the hole I dug then buried a pilot in earlier.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
No problem, a lot of people have the same wrong impression including a few here, one of which is a pilot and should know better.
You know that old saying about how one should stop digging when he finds himself in a hole? Well, it's probably time you should hand over the shovel, don't you think?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
Quoting allahgore:


What side of the bayou you dwell?
Well over 1,000 miles north of the bayou
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting allahgore:



I went with the coals; cooked some alligator, shrimp, oysters, ribeyes, deer sausage and some pork steaks! glad spring is here down in south LA!
Nice sounds tasty. If you were to BBQ here today, it would have included about 5 inches of snow falling, adding to the 16 inches or so still on the ground. BBQ season will be a little late this year around here.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting indianrivguy:


I sit corrected, I'm not sure exactly where I heard or read that but I thank for for setting me straight.

EDIT; I removed it, thanks again, I hate being wrong from lack of proper diligence arrrg.
No problem, a lot of people have the same wrong impression including a few here, one of which is a pilot and should know better.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
This is simply false. The no fly zone is only 1000 ft AGL, it is simply a safety issue as they have their own equipment flying in that zone. Any good camera can read the label on your golf ball at a thousand feet.


I sit corrected, I'm not sure exactly where I heard or read that but I thank you for setting me straight.

EDIT; I removed it, thanks again, I hate being wrong from lack of proper diligence arrrg.
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2587
From IHT Rendezvous:

Whom Do You Trust on Climate Change?

By CHRISTOPHER F. SCHUETZE



THE HAGUE — As the debate on global warming steadily drifts away from whether it is real toward how it will affect our future, a new British study looks at the sources people trust to stay informed on the issue.

An online poll commissioned by the Carbon Brief, a British climate and energy news blog, found that 69 percent of respondents in the United Kingdom consider scientists the most trustworthy source on the issue (49 percent say they are ‘quite trustworthy’, while 20 percent say they are ‘very trustworthy’).

Surprisingly, environmental groups are the second-most trustworthy source (39 percent), ahead of the BBC (31 percent), friends and family (30 percent) and various other types of media, according to the poll, which was published this week.

“It might reflect who people see talking about these issues,” said Christian Hunt, the editor of the Carbon Brief, in a telephone interview.

Politicians rate dead last, with only 7 percent of the poll’s respondents saying they were trustworthy on the issue.

The study is based on 2,035 online interviews conducted with U.K. residents at the end of January of this year. Roughly consistent with British opinion polls of recent years, it found that 89 percent of respondents believe climate change is real, with 56 percent of respondents saying climate change had been caused by human actions.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting AGWcreationists:
Now, care to show pics of birds killed by wind turbines? They're just as dead. And a lot more of them, too.

Estimates run from 100K to 440K.


And those numbers are paltry compared to the number of birds cats kill each year: Link

So will you call for controls on cats?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:

There are climate change deniers, misinformers, and the like in other countries too. Finding an article quoting one in a different language might have some sort of exotic allure, or seem like it suggests something bigger, but really its neither of those things and you've been fooled again. Sometimes my only reaction can be "seriously, where do you come up with this nonsense?"

1. The best part (or sad part) of this whole thing is that regardless of how correct or honest of a prediction this is by Chabibullo Abdussamatow, in 5 to 10 years when climate scientists are still overwhelmingly predicting future warming to continue, we'll hear someone claim "but just 5 years ago a scientist was still predicting an ice age and you now want us to still believe in a warming climate?"

2. Another good aspect is that Abdussamatow, just like Lindzen and Easterbrook, to name a couple, actually made a somewhat specific prediction other than simply "it is not going to keep warming" or "it isn't warming." Abdussamatow: "From about 2014 the average annual temperature will begin to fall and [reach 1.5C lower than today by 2050]. The [ocean temperatures] will decrease by one degree. The temperature drop will go faster from 2015 on." Lindzen and Easterbrook's models of our climate system were both shown to be inaccurate; both of their forecasts also turned out to be very off-the-mark. People want to complain that the various climate models and IPCC reports have not recreated our climate and it's variability very closely... have those people even looked at the other predictions?
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=17 and http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=23

3. Abdussamatow claims that dropping solar activity will bring the cooler temperatures and a new ice age, and that we are only slight rising/staying steady because of the warming momentum in the oceans. The interesting thing is that some scientists have already addressed the question of "what will happen if we enter another grand solar minimum?" Turns out, it will just take a few years for the enhanced greenhouse effect to overwhelm the changes in solar activity: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=21

Habibullo I. Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Observatory of the RAS thinks solar irradiance is in for a “bicentennial decrease”. And has been kind enough to predict it. Unfortunately it won’t be obvious until about, what, 2016, that he is hopelessly wrong. But it beats most of the nutters who just wurble and nitpick and never predict anything.

A testable prediction by a nutter
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
278. Skyepony (Mod)
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Looks like scientists in other countries not jaded by the unlimited funding see an ice age in our not-too-distant-future. The article is in German. Those of you who wish to read it will have to translate it. It's extremely simple with Chrome. Almost automatic.

Link


The cold got displaced from the Actic on both sides. Baltic Sea got a late season freeze..

The Arctic Sea ice areas north of there are both behind.

Barents Sea


Greenland Sea is almost normal after struggling..

SOurce
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 197 Comments: 38784
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Looks like scientists in other countries not jaded by the unlimited funding see an ice age in our not-too-distant-future. The article is in German. Those of you who wish to read it will have to translate it. It's extremely simple with Chrome. Almost automatic.

Link
More nonsense from an old and well-known denialist. Abdussamatov has long claimed that there's no such thing as a greenhouse effect, and that global warming is entirely a by-product of growing solar irradiance--both assertions that have the distinct disadvantage of being completely unsupported by either observations, theory, or thousands of actual climate scientists. Abdussamatov made the same prediction last year--that an ice age will commence in 2014, peak in 2055, and last for nearly 200 years, after which things will get toasty again.

As I've said to you before, you'd gain at least a little more credibility around here if you would post information about climate change written by climate scientists and published in peer-reviewed papers; merely scanning tabloids for the inane babblings of guys like Abdussamatov is never going to get you anywhere, I'm afraid...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
i think i know what we all need

something really big and its called greenland

faster and faster

watch and see
it will happen
for all to see
the truth that
no one will
deny if seen

faster and faster
it will be


The Quelccaya Ice Cap is also melting quickly. It is the largest ice cap in the tropics.

1,600 years of ice accumulation has melted there in the past 25 years and the ice cap is now the smallest it has been in at least the past 6,300 years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Looks like scientists in other countries not jaded by the unlimited funding see an ice age in our not-too-distant-future. The article is in German. Those of you who wish to read it will have to translate it. It's extremely simple with Chrome. Almost automatic.

Link

There are climate change deniers, misinformers, and the like in other countries too. Finding an article quoting one in a different language might have some sort of exotic allure, or seem like it suggests something bigger, but really its neither of those things and you've been fooled again. Sometimes my only reaction can be "seriously, where do you come up with this nonsense?"

1. The best part (or sad part) of this whole thing is that regardless of how correct or honest of a prediction this is by Chabibullo Abdussamatow, in 5 to 10 years when climate scientists are still overwhelmingly predicting future warming to continue, we'll hear someone claim "but just 5 years ago a scientist was still predicting an ice age and you now want us to still believe in a warming climate?"

2. Another good aspect is that Abdussamatow, just like Lindzen and Easterbrook, to name a couple, actually made a somewhat specific prediction other than simply "it is not going to keep warming" or "it isn't warming." Abdussamatow: "From about 2014 the average annual temperature will begin to fall and [reach 1.5C lower than today by 2050]. The [ocean temperatures] will decrease by one degree. The temperature drop will go faster from 2015 on." Lindzen and Easterbrook's models of our climate system were both shown to be inaccurate; both of their forecasts also turned out to be very off-the-mark. People want to complain that the various climate models and IPCC reports have not recreated our climate and it's variability very closely... have those people even looked at the other predictions?
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=17 and http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=23

3. Abdussamatow claims that dropping solar activity will bring the cooler temperatures and a new ice age, and that we are only slight rising/staying steady because of the warming momentum in the oceans. The interesting thing is that some scientists have already addressed the question of "what will happen if we enter another grand solar minimum?" Turns out, it will just take a few years for the enhanced greenhouse effect to overwhelm the changes in solar activity: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=21


Yikes... some of those alternative predictions make the IPCC look like the best of the best at this!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:
...The problem we have right now is that we are facing a huge threat. The free enterprise system has created a large part of that threat and the free enterprise system is actually blocking its solution in the sense that to change the system 1) there is going to be a loss of revenue by the current producers of that threat so they will fight it with accumulated monies and 2) the infrastructure (both legal and physical) that currently exists is not a level playing field for new entrants. ...


Response: Sir Nickolas Stern, Author of The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change has stated that:

"Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen. The evidence on the seriousness of the risks from inaction or delayed action is now overwhelming. We risk damages on a scale larger than the two world wars of the last century. The problem is global and the response must be a collaboration on a global scale."



... So, at the end of my coffee and my time now, what is the role of government in climate change?

1. Change the legal and physical infrastructure so that competing products can compete. This means that a legal point of view has to be found that will allow this in the face of money from oil, which is doubtful.

Response

a. Use existing regulatory authority, the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),

2. Create economic incentives to encourage clean energy. Also elimate subsidies for mature energy technologies that no longer need them.

3. Monetize the use of the commons.


The importance of internalizing the externalities has been recognized by economists since the Adam Smith, including Hayek and Friedman.

A carbon tax is the best way to do this, cap and trade is too subject to market manipulations.


4. Else do it themselves.

5. Or else create a seed bank and archives of information for whomever is left to try to start over.

.

Right now though, free enterprize will not solve the problem in time. If there were 50 or even 25 years, possibly. But we don't have that. We have perhaps less than two, likely less than ten.

My hope is on China. The US is locked by the GOP into the road to hell.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Looks like scientists in other countries not jaded by the unlimited funding see an ice age in our not-too-distant-future. The article is in German. Those of you who wish to read it will have to translate it. It's extremely simple with Chrome. Almost automatic.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
i think i know what we all need

something really big and its called greenland

faster and faster

watch and see
it will happen
for all to see
the truth that
no one will
deny if seen

faster and faster
it will be
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54864

I guess this is ok????
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting allahgore:


The only point is that you said we need to leave ALL the carbon in the ground now!


Novimus dicebas.

Non tam ingenio, quanto tu putas.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting spathy:
Cal me stuck on stupid. Say I repeat the same things every time I post(not uncommon here)
Ok
But please hear me out!
Please!?


With a broken economy,trillions of dollars in debt,a shrinking workforce,a stock market high built on Gov Spending/useless /harmful stimulus programs followed by delusional money printing, give me a historical/logical reason to continue this fiscal path of failed monitary insanity.
And then further tell me how The NOW fiscal hell hole we are in is better than the 80 years from now climate disasters.And how that debt and stagnation will help us in a Warming World.
People are dying Now.Millions have died recently because of Non free economies/despotic rulers/etc....
How on Gods green Earth are any nations going to afford the research and development needed to remove the Earth from fossil fuel dependency when the entire World(basically)is in debt beyond fathomable figures)?

This is a serious question.

This is the worst recovery from a downturn. The only comparable is the great depression. Why is it comparable?
Because the same Keynesian tactics are being deployed.
The only other severe downturn that is comparable is the recession of the late 70s/early 80s.(That recovery was a reverse of Keynesian philosophy)quite opposite the great Depression.
The recovery from that similar downturn/ the late 70s and early 80s(more severe than the recent)had typical recovery numbers.(if not fantastic lasting good numbers)

Anti Keynsian tactics(free market/low tax/responsible/not radical regulation,has proven economic results,proven debt reduction via economic growth,proven funds a plenty by the private sector and the Gov confiscation to fund the needed research and development needed to advance society as a whole into the new generation.

Millions employed,fantastic /copious amounts of tax revenue collected by the Gov.
Gov quickly absorbed that and demanded that "it needed more. Way more that the GDP growth or the Population percentage growth.
When will Keynesian methods of spending and debt be put to rest as a viable revenue for recovery?

And when will the People that want a clean Earth,(Just as I do) with fuels that arent Carbon based,realize that "you"cant get there via debt and a stagnant economy.

I want a World with NO Carbon emissions!


We cant get there on dreams,hopes,desires and trillions of dollars in debt,forwarded by pushing the string that requires more debt!

Mr Rood is correct!

We as a society need to change ourselves.
We cant spend our way to clean energy!
We need to change the way we live and consume, on our own/via peer pressure and communication with our neighbors and our local Gov.

To steal a phrase: It takes a village.
That means you and I being able to communicate and converse with our neighbors and within our village.
Not the distant,bulky,slow to react,inefficient Federal Gov.

We have become a society that is distant from our neighbor and more reliant on the Federal Gov to do the things that a connected village would do naturally.

Please step back and stop looking at the Federal Gov to cure all that is wrong,and all that you fail to do as a community. And do your duty in concert with your neighbor to do what a local family knows how to do best.


I read your post twice or thrice, and much of what you say is 100% true. Its true enough that i won't try to argue the fine points with which i find exception - there is too much pointless erudition and rhetoric in the world already. (Except for: 80 years? I fervently wish!)

But, i must say (as you request) - Yup, your stuck and, like everyone else, pretty repetitious.

You and GreenTortuloni whom i also respect highly are both looking at the elephant with blindfolds on.

He feels one nasty part of the beast and says, "The elephant is filled with corporations doing whatever they can to make money. Whatever they can." You know that statement is true and i don't think you are here to play games so go ahead admit it to yourself (you don't have to admit it on-line).

You feel a different equally nasty part and say, "The elephant has a government that is broke and inept." To that statement i must reply, "Well duh." My guess is that greent knows its true. He will quibble, but just because his job is boring. :-) (Just a playful jab dude.)

When i've tried to sell a carbon tax, or some other mechanism to use government to solve the AGW problem, I've tried to do it to be/appear to be hopeful. Obviously, our governments are going to do nothing about either the economic situation (because they can't) or AGW (because of people like you. (Sorry.) ).

And the oil, coal, and gas companies are going to keep doing their thing.

SO:

I've come to accept that there are some things an average Joe can do.
1. build community
2. prepare - physically, emotionally, spiritually
3. grieve

There are steps/process in the grieving process. It doesn't matter whether you think there are five or seven, or that they all happen at once.

I was going to post links to community building, good prepper sites, and give books on grieving, but that is just more rhetoric isn't it? You can use google/amazon as well as i.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:


I figured the number would have been higher for the BP spill in the GOM.


Estimated. It's hard to get a true count in the marshlands and migrating birds. They actually did a fine job of setting up the barriers to protect coastlines. It could have been much worse. If you look at marine life deaths, however, it's much worse.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3690
Quoting allahgore:



Working out good; thanks for asking. I am getting ready to BBQ and have some friends over. I am debating do I BBQ with coal or nat gas.
Go with the coals and some wood. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM BBQ
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Neapolitan:
Yeah, I know what the NOTAM says; I have a pilot's license and everything. And while you may feel free to paint any picture you like in defense of ExxonMobil, 80 square miles is an awful lot of airspace to close off for a cleanup at the request of the very company whose malfeasance necessitated that cleanup. Perhaps there's nothing Machiavellian about ExxonMobil's burning desire to keep all press far and away--that we are, in fact, "making a mountain out of a molehill"--but given the corporation's environmental record, it would require a massive amount of gullibility to flatly claim at this point that everything they're doing is on the up-and-up.
For one I am making no defense of ExxonMobil. If you are a news org and you don't have a camera that will take great photos or video from 1,100 ft away, overhead even, well then you are not much of a news org or photographer for that matter.

You just like scaring people by showing x amount of airspace is taken away. When the reality is you can fly over it all you want, you just have to maintain an altitude greater than 1,000 ft. Which I believe is the minimum distance required by the FAA for all aircraft in the USA. It is in the regulations for vertical separation of aircraft below 29,000 ft. with no horizontal distance.

Edit: It just a safety issue no conspiracy. I believe although I am not sure but it would be the same way around forest fires.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting allahgore:



Working out good; thanks for asking. I am getting ready to BBQ and have some friends over. I am debating do I BBQ with coal or nat gas.


Go nuclear. Nothing like irradiated baby back ribs.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3690
Quoting allahgore:


How many birds are killed with oil spills?
Quoting allahgore:


How many birds are killed with oil spills?


Depends, estimates of the BP Gulf spill were roughly 7,000. The Exxon Valdez was an estimated 90,000 - 270,000. The real point is, oil spills cause way more damage to the environment that just bird deaths...
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3690
I've really gotta start reading before posting....
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220

Viewing: 306 - 256

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
46 °F
Scattered Clouds