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

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

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.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

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: 256 - 206

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

256. greentortuloni
4:11 PM GMT on April 06, 2013
I've really gotta start reading before posting....
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
255. allahgore
4:11 PM GMT on April 06, 2013
Quoting greentortuloni:



Don't care to post true statistics eiether do you. Here is the fact sheet from the Fish adn Wildlife service.

Estimates from cars alone run run around 60,000,000 while turbines run about 30,000. In other words, cars kill 2000 times as many birds. Builds kill even more, so do pesticides.

Hey bird lover, I have an idea. We stop drinving cars and stop using pesticides. Then we can build 50000 TIMES as many windmills and still have same number of birds.


uh, jinx on you


How many birds are killed with oil spills?
Member Since: February 18, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 774
254. greentortuloni
4:10 PM GMT on April 06, 2013
Quoting AGWcreationists:


My point is, far more birds are killed by wind turbines than pipeline spills. Yet images of fouled birds are always trotted out when there is an oil spill. But we never see pictures of turbine chopped-up birds on these pages. I guess some bird kills are more significant than others, depending upon one's agenda.

And the same estimate I linked to predicted up to a million birds killed per year if turbine growth continues.


Fair enough point: birds are used as photo ops. But the point you are missing is that they are used because there is no way to take a meaningful picture of the damage that oil does to an environment long past the death of a few birds. It is a symbol of what oil is doing to the environment.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
253. greentortuloni
4:05 PM GMT on April 06, 2013
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.



Don't care to post true statistics eiether do you. Here is the fact sheet from the Fish adn Wildlife service.

Estimates from cars alone run run around 60,000,000 while turbines run about 30,000. In other words, cars kill 2000 times as many birds. Builds kill even more, so do pesticides.

Hey bird lover, I have an idea. We stop drinving cars and stop using pesticides. Then we can build 50000 TIMES as many windmills and still have same number of birds.


uh, jinx on you
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
252. Naga5000
4:04 PM GMT on April 06, 2013
Quoting AGWcreationists:


My point is, far more birds are killed by wind turbines than pipeline spills. Yet images of fouled birds are always trotted out when there is an oil spill. But we never see pictures of turbine chopped-up birds on these pages. I guess some bird kills are more significant than others, depending upon one's agenda.

And the same estimate I linked to predicted up to a million birds killed per year if turbine growth continues.


It's unfair to argue the two on bird deaths.


Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

Feral and domestic cats


Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines


130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial)


100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides


70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles


60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers


40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines


10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

Source: Link

Anyways, arguing the negative effect on birds of turbines vs. oil spills is asinine. Oil spills cause way more damage to the environment than just bird deaths, and the burning of fossil fuels causes even more damage than that.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 5734
251. greentortuloni
3:57 PM GMT on April 06, 2013
Quoting nymore:
Not sure what you are asking? I am talking about over the oil spill in Arkansas. By the way which you seem to agree with in your own post (number 83).

I am not sure what the laws are in Europe but here there are a couple for crossing high pressure gas with heavy equipment, such as amount of ground cover which differ from tracked to wheeled. We cross utilities all the time and dig them often, the only requirement is to call a locator (One Call 811) at least 48 hours before you dig. It is recommended you spot the line to make sure the locate is correct. Locators have a 2 foot leeway either side of the locate. It is also recommended you use your own locating equipment to sweep with-in 20 feet of your run/dig/bore line just to make sure nothing was missed, such as something installed by the owner of the property.


I said Keystone beuse you responded to the comment "Just think,, they have the power to prevent ANY overflights of the newest Keystone leak. Can you belive that? NO overflights, no photos, no way to keep them honest" which mentioned Keystone. I thought you were saying that all of Keystone had the no fly zone. My misunderstanding.... which makes the rest of my post pointless.

However, discussing the rest of it: I know nothing about no fly zones honestly, not being a pilot. I understood oil refineries and nuclear power plants had permanent no fly zones but I have no source for that and admit I actually have no idea if it is true or not.

As for digging and crossing, I was thinking more high voltage lines, high prsure gas, some water lines and especially train tracks. To me, anything I had to check for was a utility. Trains especially are random chance in Europe, either it happens with no fuss, or the whole thing is delayed for months. All the others except high pressure gas are relatively stright forward, as you mentioned. I think, in the end, I just hired manual excavations for almost every single dig I did. It only saved me a few times, but all it takes is the first time that someone digs 5 feet down and smells gas and you thank god there is no debate about fault because your equipment is idling 200 yards away (at what 200 quid an hour per? not counting support crew). - I won't mention how I learned to be careful :(.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting cyclonebuster:


So that makes it ok then?
Gulfstream kinetic energy prevents that.


My point is, far more birds are killed by wind turbines than pipeline spills. Yet images of fouled birds are always trotted out when there is an oil spill. But we never see pictures of turbine chopped-up birds on these pages. I guess some bird kills are more significant than others, depending upon one's agenda.

And the same estimate I linked to predicted up to a million birds killed per year if turbine growth continues.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A new low for News Corp on global warming.

Angry Summer Down Under: Murdoch Paper Hosts Op-Ed that Attacks Scientists while Australia Sizzles

Murdoch Paper Hosts Op-Ed that Attacks Scientists while Australia Sizzles

The Australian, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, published an opinion piece from James Delingpole, a well-known columnist from the UK who makes a sport of misrepresenting climate science and attacking scientists. Delingpole criticized the head of the Climate Commission and suggested he be tried by a judge in a black cap, a vile reference to a type of trial traditionally reserved for passing the death sentence. Is this a return to the days of vilifying scientists for communicating important science to the public? I had hoped those days were over.

The Australian’s decision to publish this piece is immensely disturbing. Freedom of speech is important, but Delingpole’s views misinform readers and his call for scientists to be put on trial under penalty of death has no place in reasonable discourse about climate change science or policy. Murdoch’s press has a history of distorting the reality of climate change and attacking scientists, as UCS analysis has shown, but this piece was more extreme than any other I’ve read. It’s time to take the climate disruptions seriously and move on from these ugly attacks.


----------

Watch: the biggest global warming denier in the UK, James Delingpole, admits he can’t do science.


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2037
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Tell this duck it isn't dire you nitwit..

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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
You can fly 1,100 ft away from any of it. All it says is with-in 5 NM you have to maintain an altitude of no less than 1,001 ft AGL. Quit trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

You really want to scare them, tell them how many cubic inches or cubic centimeters it is after all it will be a much larger number so it will look more dire.
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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14846
Allahgore, what technologies are you referring to with this statement?

"If you think the technology is not here you have kool-aid spilled all over your bib."

Spathy I'm afraid you'll get your small federal government the same day CB gets his tunnells.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Right. Just as keeping the media--and even curious citizens armed with nothing more than cellphone cameras--away from the Deepwater Horizon spill site, onshore staging areas, and hundreds of miles of oil-polluted beaches in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida was done as a "safety precaution".

Because of the Mayflower spill, the FAA has closed off nearly 80 square miles of Arkansas airspace to non-ExxonMobil aircraft--at ExxonMobil's request. That's 2.1 trillion cubic feet of air into which no pilot dare venture. Seems a bit excessive for a little old spill, doesn't it?

For those interested, here's the FAA's page detailing the relevant NOTAM. And here's a bit of the affected sectional:

EM
You can fly 1,100 ft away from any of it. All it says is with-in 5 NM you have to maintain an altitude greater than 1,000 ft AGL. Quit trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

You really want to scare them, tell them how many cubic inches or cubic centimeters it is after all it will be a much larger number so it will look more dire.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2303
Quoting greentortuloni:


Over Keystone as well? Do you have a source?

A lot of utilities are no fly zones and carefully regulated. I can tell you this from having crossed a lot utilities with contstruction equipment (crossed, not dug) and can tell you what a load of paperwork it can be.

On the other hand, given that the pipeline bisects the country, I can't believe the whole thing is a no fly zone or that it doesn't have reasonable limits.
Not sure what you are asking? I am talking about over the oil spill in Arkansas. By the way which you seem to agree with in your own post (number 83).

I am not sure what the laws are in Europe but here there are a couple for crossing high pressure gas with heavy equipment, such as amount of ground cover which differ from tracked to wheeled. We cross utilities all the time and dig them often, the only requirement is to call a locator (One Call 811) at least 48 hours before you dig. It is recommended you spot the line to make sure the locate is correct. Locators have a 2 foot leeway either side of the locate. It is also recommended you use your own locating equipment to sweep with-in 20 feet of your run/dig/bore line just to make sure nothing was missed, such as something installed by the owner of the property.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2303
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.
Right. Just as keeping the media--and even curious citizens armed with nothing more than cellphone cameras--away from the Deepwater Horizon spill site, onshore staging areas, and hundreds of miles of oil-polluted beaches in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida was done as a "safety precaution".

Because of the Mayflower spill, the FAA has closed off nearly 80 square miles of Arkansas airspace to non-ExxonMobil aircraft--at ExxonMobil's request. That's 2.1 trillion cubic feet of air into which no pilot dare venture. Seems a bit excessive for a little old spill, doesn't it?

For those interested, here's the FAA's page detailing the relevant NOTAM. And here's a bit of the affected sectional:

EM
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14846
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.


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21013
In addition to my post #114 I just found the site of a new series which has been started by Deutsche Welle English (notice, it's not a religious site, it's "Germany's international broadcaster"). The series is about attitude and actions towards the protection of nature/creation in various religions.

Overview in "Global ideas".
Here you also find links to previous not religious topics in respect to environmental challenges.


Starter of the new series:
Preaching to save the climate

From climate sins to the climate apocalypse, the dialogue surrounding climate change is taking on religious undertones. Now preachers and religious leaders are trying to turn their followers into climate believers.

In the 12th century, St. Francis of Assisi preached that man must respect all creation and the environment. And that message was repeated again now, nearly a thousand years later, by the newly-elected head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis.

He called on the world to preserve the environment: "Let us be guardians of creation and of the plan He has embedded therein, guardians of the environment; let us ensure that the path of our world is not marked by death and destruction."

But it's not just Christianity that touches on the theme of the relationship between man and nature. It's a topic embraced by all the world's religions. And those beliefs play an important role in the world because more than 80 percent of the world's population consider themselves religious, believing in a higher force.

Authoritative and influential

The leaders of the world's religions often shape and decide what themes are central to their believers. They select which passages to emphasize from the holy scriptures, too.

"They influence people's view of the world, and the way they act," American ethnologists James Peoples and Garrick Baley say in their book "Humanity: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology." Imams, for instance, often tell their believers about the Prophet Muhammad, whose favorite color was green - also the color of environmentalism.

Religious leaders carry a great deal of authority as well. They offer orientation and guidelines to their congregations, they help regulate family life, they decide which rituals are performed at marriages, deaths or conflicts and they give meaning to the unexplainable, the mystical.

That means they also determine, to a certain extent, the actions of their followers. Now, many of them are trying to use that influence to turn their believers into climate warriors.


Read the whole article on Deutsche Welle English

Nice weekend for everybody! Barb
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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.


Over Keystone as well? Do you have a source?

A lot of utilities are no fly zones and carefully regulated. I can tell you this from having crossed a lot utilities with contstruction equipment (crossed, not dug) and can tell you what a load of paperwork it can be.

On the other hand, given that the pipeline bisects the country, I can't believe the whole thing is a no fly zone or that it doesn't have reasonable limits.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Climate Change is like an intersection with stop signs the Red Light won't go up until more people are killed...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21013
Quoting spathy:
Green

"For example, the asinine electric bike laws in Europe state that, roughly, a vehicle is not a bike if it weighs more than 80 pounds, is not powered partially by pedaling, is powered at speeds over 25 km/hr and has a motor greater than 250 watts. What does this mean? That electric bikes don't work on hills. Further, that if a bike is developed that exceeds any of those restrictions, that bike is a motorized vehicle and requires all the safety testing of a motorized vehicle, requires licensing, insurance and a specialized driver's license."

Your example is of a Gov run amok.
Not a free enterprise failure,as in a blockage of prosperity that could lead to a green energy future.

Free enterprise is free to profit within the laws.
A free society is not free to circumvent its laws to gain from or reduce a profit of any free enterprise that is following the law.


I know that seems circular but its not. It is very stable linear law.


Ok, I'll try to answer your points in the time I have here.

I don't have a thing against oil a priori. I was a car/motorcycle buff as I imagine any high school boy is.

I am anti-oil because I believe CO2 is destroying the world. If a viable carbon removal process is found, I don't really care anymore, at least I now think electric vehicles are much more elegant and functional than oil, but that is something else.

What I see is simply that by allowing the free use of air and free pollution, the common resources that have made this planet home to humans are being detroyed. That is the beginning and middle of the problems I have with free enterprise. In other words, it breeds like a virus until it kills the host - note: it doesn't HAVE to do that, there are symbotic organisms, but in this case it does.

The only solution to that is regulate that. However, for all the reasons you know, that is not being done.

The last problem I have with free enterprize is that it doesn't regulate natural monopolies well. It is like the VHS / Betamas competition. VHS won but supposedly Betamax was a better system. Eventually Betamax failed. This was market dirven, no laws, no restrictions, etc. The better choice failed.

Similiarly, oil is no longer the best choice for the planet. Yet it has a natural monopoly, an artificial natural monopoly in that if eletric had a century of research and development, it would have the same or better infrastructure. So free enterprise, as you defined it, has no recourse to change the path it is on for the good of society.

The bike example was exactly that: a natural monopoly of cars and regular bikers that want to protect their position in society. The laws banning and regulating electric bikes are needed. I don't want kids on essentially electric motorcycles running down my grandmother, or anyone else, on the bike paths. Just like you don't want oil pollution in your yard. Those laws however don't arise from free enterprise, they are a structural necessity to balance the various demands of different members of society. OR if you prefer, they are a fundamental structural part of a free enterprise society. If you want to remove those laws, you have individual feudalism where might triumphs. So what you see as government run amuck, to me is a structural deficit to any society including free enterprise. How do you encourage free enterprise, balance public good, and yet keep the field open for innovation. The answer to me isn't as simple as blaming government.

Further,in a free enterprise society, free enterprise uses those laws as part of the playing field. If you don't believe this, go sit in any business class in teh world and they will discuss the methods of changing the laws and society to benefit the business.

In the long run, the free market might succeed to move from oil to electricity. But that is where we differ. You see the problem as "A desire by an impatient populace,uncaring of our constitutional constraints,is perceiving a blockage of change." This is not accurate. You act like we want to ban large sodas or gay marriage. We don't. We care about the constitution but we:
1. know there is a blockage (as per the points above plus all the other points covered elsewhere.)
2. have the evidence that climate change is occuring and deadly. THis is like saying the air raid warnings at Pearl Harbor are unconstitutional and impatient.
We don't have the time and the virus will kill the host, or cause the host to kill us. If the free enterprise system cannot respond to an emergency like this, then it is not a valid system.

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
The anomaly bet at PP is using the baseline of the WMO, which is 1961-1990. The results are derived from these three indexes. The GISS, HadCRUT4 and NOAA/NCDC.

The Handicappers at UKMet put their prediction at between 0.43C and 0.71C with their best estimate at 0.57C.

Those thinking of betting at any of these sites will have to use a middleman as it is illegal to bet online in most if not all of the USA.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2303
Quoting indianrivguy:
Just think,, they have the power to prevent ANY overflights of the newest Keystone leak. Can you belive that? NO overflights, no photos, no way to keep them honest.

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.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2303
In Sign of Warming, 1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years.

"Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance."

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2037
Third major oil spill in a week: Shell pipeline breaks in Texas



Thousands of gallons of oil have spilled from a pipeline in Texas, the third accident of its kind in only a week.

Shell Pipeline, a unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, shut down their West Columbia, Texas, pipeline last Friday after electronic calculations conducted by the US National Response Center showed that upwards of 700 barrels had been lost, amounting to almost 30,000 gallons of crude oil.

By Monday, Shell spokespeople said inspectors found %u201Cno evidence%u201D of an oil leak, but days later it was revealed that a breach did occur. Representatives with the US Coast Guard confirmed to Dow Jones on Thursday that roughly 50 barrels of oil spilled from a pipe near Houston, Texas and entered a waterway that connects to the Gulf of Mexico. READ MORE

They promise and swear that their pipes, tanks and fittings will NEVER cause an ecological problem, and when it does, they pull out the stops to hide it, and lie about the true scope of the pollution. [EDIT Removed an incorrect statement from here.] This is like the millions of gallons of dispersant they used to keep the BP oil in our GOM "out of sight" and therefore, eliminate their responsibility and culpability for the event.

Frac that.. ohh, that's another one.. did you know they are exempt from ALL clean water requirements, that they can pollute at will with no legal consequence for the damages.. Washington, bought and paid for.... I hope you watched the video I posted #193.

An unknown entity, who is doing a good job of hiding itself, is putting BIG money pressure on the City of Ft. Pierce, and St. Lucie County to build a petroleum and LNG distribution center at the Port of Ft. Pierce. They are sneaking around behind the scenes trying to get all the politicians in line before the public discovers them. I am of the opinion that this is because they know that it will not stand up to public scrutiny, so it "had" to be a done deal before the public found out. There is a mandated update of the port going on. We have had workshops and public meetings. Not once was this "tank farm" mentioned...

Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2920
Quoting spathy:
I dont see why I am getting such a lashing for this type of statement. Perhaps and most likely its because of my previous /more harsh statements.That were a bad attempt at stating the same thing.
Or is there another reason?
Don't go getting all paranoid. If you come in here lashing out at everyone and everything in sight, somebody's sure to lash back. My position is just what I said before: you don't think that AGW/CC is a huge threat that needs to be dealt with now; I do; and neither of us will be able to change the other ones mind. So - nothing to talk about.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2715
I dont see why I am getting such a lashing for this type of statement. Perhaps and most likely its because of my previous /more harsh statements.That were a bad attempt at stating the same thing.
Or is there another reason?
Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
Quoting FLwolverine:


Ok Good luck to you too.
But I did state solutions to the end goal of a non Carbon energy future.
I just asked how you get there with no money.
So I dont consider climate change to be a more immediate threat than total societal collapse while on the precipice of global warming future catastrophes.
That to me seems to be a logical (non extreme) viewpoint.
A purposeful or just a resultant collapse of economies or society in order to prevent a horrific calamity and expense to future society seems counterentutive to me.
How about we keep the economy growing so we can afford the research needed to perfect non Carbon energy?
NOT bankrupt us NOW so we cant adapt or change for any future calamity. Global warming or other.
Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
Green

"For example, the asinine electric bike laws in Europe state that, roughly, a vehicle is not a bike if it weighs more than 80 pounds, is not powered partially by pedaling, is powered at speeds over 25 km/hr and has a motor greater than 250 watts. What does this mean? That electric bikes don't work on hills. Further, that if a bike is developed that exceeds any of those restrictions, that bike is a motorized vehicle and requires all the safety testing of a motorized vehicle, requires licensing, insurance and a specialized driver's license."

Your example is of a Gov run amok.
Not a free enterprise failure,as in a blockage of prosperity that could lead to a green energy future.

Free enterprise is free to profit within the laws.
A free society is not free to circumvent its laws to gain from or reduce a profit of any free enterprise that is following the law.


I know that seems circular but its not. It is very stable linear law.
Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
Quoting spathy:
219. greentortuloni 5:5

snip.......

"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"

On that point I reject the premise.

OK. Now it's settled. You, spathy, do not consider climate change a huge threat. Most of us on this blog do, including Dr Rood and Dr Masters. So there's nothing more for us to discuss with you, spathy. Your ideas will never solve the problem that we "warmists" perceive, and we will never convince you there is a problem.

Nothing for us to talk about. Bye, spathy. Good luck.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2715
And Greento
I would ask you to consider the changes needed to have a prospering economy that the Federal Gov is too reactionary in response/yet slow to notice results,and I would further ask what new laws would be needed to reign in the blockage by the free enterprise system?
Or more to the point. What Constitutional amendments are needed to mitigate the "damage" done by the free enterprise system?

Because that would be the proper response to your perceived enterprise system hindrance.
Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
219. greentortuloni 5:5


"Sorry, these are personal thoughts and full of personal jargon. The point is that government is a tool and has its uses and its time and place. The equation "bigger gov = worse" simply isn't true for all times and places. Nor is "gov = corrupt".

I agree on that isolated point.

"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"

On that point I reject the premise.

A desire by an impatient populace,uncaring of our Constitutional constraints,is perceiving a blockage of change.

Our system is purposefully slow and arduous as to mitigate the whims of popularity.

Stick to the rules.and given a coherence of the the rule of law, The tortoise will weed out the pesky Hare between your teeth,thus avoiding chaos in the absence of uniform law.

ie avoiding many unintended consequences of feel good now legislation.


Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
217. greentortuloni 5:21

I am not exactly sure of the exact definition of Wormtongue being used here. But I do know that there must be worms in my tongue that disconnect the transmission to my typing fingers,via my brain.

I am pretty sure I have seen the same affliction in every single blogger here.
So please forgive my infestation. I try my best to overcome the affliction.
Some worms are more proliferate than others it seems. Yet depending on the vantage point,some worm damage is more visible /more community wide,ammunition worthy than others.
The vocal majority here doent seem to recognize the internal individual effects.Just the obvious subjective distasteful effects in others.
Worm tongue or split tongue.
Its fun once or twice.
But otherwise its demeaningfully arrogant.
Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
@Spathy 214

There are some good points in your post. I think the debate about whether government or private enterprise should solve the problem is valid.

So a couple of points of my own.

Government is not a homogenous block entity. Government is composed of lots of sub agencies and a lot of really good talented people (relatively, jack asses in any group). It also has, at the top, a problem with civilian control, i.e. politicians. This top heavy control works well for some solutions, it doesn't work well for others. To me, this was the essential failure of communism: the top down approach to decision making and fearful environment 1) destroyed most knowledge channels and 2) couldn't have handled the variability necessary for efficiency. Given that all economies have a distributed efficiency factor, this inevitably ate away at any chance for technological success over the long run, especially given the state of technology at the time.

Sorry, these are personal thoughts and full of personal jargon. The point is that government is a tool and has its uses and its time and place. The equation "bigger gov = worse" simply isn't true for all times and places. Nor is "gov = corrupt".

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.

For example, the asinine electric bike laws in Europe state that, roughly, a vehicle is not a bike if it weighs more than 80 pounds, is not powered partially by pedaling, is powered at speeds over 25 km/hr and has a motor greater than 250 watts. What does this mean? That electric bikes don't work on hills. Further, that if a bike is developed that exceeds any of those restrictions, that bike is a motorized vehicle and requires all the safety testing of a motorized vehicle, requires licensing, insurance and a specialized driver's license.

I am trying to fight it, but you can't believe how hard it is. Not just europe-wide but even locally. Bike organizations don't want electric bikes to exist. Automobile organizations don't want them to exist. etc. etc.

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.

2. Create economic incentives to encourage clean energy.

3. Monetize the use of the commons.

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.

All of these have problems of course, except for the last.

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: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting allahgore:


FOIA can get the pics it's the law!


Thats all just fine. My insurance company isnt going to spend the money needed,My local Police arent going to even consider that option,And I cant afford the time or money to do so.
That does me no good unless I file a lawsuit.
Thanks for the obvious non help.
But I understand the helpful thought, Thanks AllGore.
Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
Quoting allahgore:


well is a worm tongue the same as a brown shirt? what size do you wear? We are stuck with fossil fuels until it runs out. There is new technolgy but it will be passed on when the dirty oil companies are ready for us to get it. If you think the technology is not here you have kool-aid spilled all over your bib. It's sad that WE THE People bend over and take it from the big oil companies but it is what it is no matter what you or I think. Pretty spider graphs and people yelling in mega-phones and holding protest signs needs too stop it's time for ALL of us to get to work.


So now it's rambling nonsense style wormtonguing?

Trying to sort the comment out:

1. There is new tech but big oil controls it.
2. Grass roots protesting is distasteful to you.

Were there any other points?

Seriously, you make an effort to come across as being hip to this whole situation but you never back up what you say with anything resembling content, e.g. catch phrases, cliches, and pretty sentences that don't add up.

I pin my hope on your last sentence: "it's time for ALL of us to get to work" because the rest of what you have said is blog junk. You are like the clever person who is respected for their clever words until the fighting starts and then you find a job shuffling papers well behind the lines, e.g. a wormtongue. So I repeat, can you not face this directly and state cleanly and clearly what your positions are and how your constant comments taking the urgency out of other people's arguments jibe with your positions. Just start over and explain like it without references to previous comments like was the first comment on your own personal blog.



Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting ScottLincoln:

Unfortunately they do not give much information about how they are judging the anomaly. They say "from the WMO" and "based on the long-term average" - both of those are not concrete enough. They probably need to specify what the baseline period is, and what dataset or combination of datasets. I believe that the WMO just uses existing datasets and does not do their own analysis.

If they get a bit more specific or someone finds a different betting site that does, I will have some thoughts on which number to pick.

Without any major volcanic eruption, unexpected solar oddity, and ENSO-neutral conditions, I would expect a GISS anomaly of 0.72C (plus-or-minus 0.16C) for 2013:
https://www.sites.google.com/site/wmscottlincoln/ home/other/global-temperature-contributors/forecas t


Unfortunatly i have to go through a proxy to bet from Italy. Shame because Paddy Power is decent about bets e.g. they've already paid out on manchester even after being burnt last year.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
What is the "R" value of Co2?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 136 Comments: 21013
Quoting Skyepony:
Had another climate gaming site bookmarked. They seem to be having a $700,000 cash shortfall & maybe about to be insolvent..


Spathy~ I see your point about where we get out power & how much we need to consume needs to change to change this. Seems like some laws need to change though. Everything is set up for us to consume from a global market.


Thanks Sky

That comment means a lot to me.
I dont care weather Global warming/man made or not is actual. I would love a cleaner planet away from dirty?now needed Carbon based fuel sources.

We can get to that goal with a vibrant economy and an active populace that is not dependent on Government for community solutions.
We cant get there if a large portion of us are desperate/living paycheck to paycheck/never ending subsistence on external subsidized support,combined with a continued demonization of the companies that we as a society demand production from,and at the same time rely on the Pro-ported grotesque profits that support our governance and its(Gov) grotesque expansion beyond its bounds.

Yes some companies do evil things. (Most DONT!)
If the Government wasnt so large,cumbersome and incompetent the existing laws could be enforced.
But because of an inability (via normal populace) (and elected officials)to know all the tens of thousands of regulations,and an inability for either of them to comprehend them,there just seems to be the desire to pass new laws and regulations(that cost more money) that neither the law makers nor the public can read and understand ,and full circle... the Gov cant enforce.\Because???
The Gov cant tabulate the rules it has past so it just passes new laws.
Yet mind you,lets not forget. The public and especially the business owner must comply with every single rule that our legislators have long forgotten,didnt read to begin with,and wont be enforced until there is a vendetta or ATM agenda to be furthered.

Convenient inefficiency of the worst kind.
Please tell me that anyone believes that Exon would still be in business if they came any where close to the same book keeping as our Federal Government.

And when Exon comes to the front stage and claimed it needed more money(from the citizens)(wealthy or otherwise) because it couldnt do its job otherwise.
Would Exon get the same benefit of the doubt as the Fed Gov?
The Fed Gov ...
The single biggest " " Big in the US economy.
The very same Big Business ,indebted to the tune of a yearly 40% of the US GDP.

And yet so many attach the word big to whatever company de jour is the evil. Find me one company that is in debt to the tune of 40 % of the US GDP and free market capitalism be damned!
SHUT IT DOWN!/REIGN IT IN!/DONT YOU DARE BAIL IT OUT!
The US Government is the largest TOO BIG TO FAIL entity that gets very little scrutiny from the L and the R.

Guess what folks.
The US Government is closer than ever to failing.
And all the peoples earnings,all the workers wealth,all the richest stash,cant repay more than two years of the Humpty Dumpty Too Big to Fail Biggest Big there is.
And all the kings rhetoric and all the kings army cant put that piggy bank back together again.
Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
You know what, never mind. It's not worth my time to discredit the post.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 5734
Had another climate gaming site bookmarked. They seem to be having a $700,000 cash shortfall & maybe about to be insolvent..


Spathy~ I see your point about where we get out power & how much we need to consume needs to change to change this. Seems like some laws need to change though. Everything is set up for us to consume from a global market.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 365 Comments: 42557
Oops!@
Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
If my blatherings have been incoherent here in the past/as a whole.(they have) Please read this last post to get a grip on where my thinking is based.
I want a clean non Carbon future.
But we just cant ever hope to get there via Federal Government and stagnating policies.
I beg of you to contemplate that reality.
Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
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.
Member Since: June 8, 2008 Posts: 65 Comments: 10663
I wouldn't go that high with the odds. Looking at forecast vs actual through time forecast has done well. Every time GISS near flatlines for a year it takes a pretty big jump, which it's fixing to do & that would put it right around 0.7C.

Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 365 Comments: 42557
Quoting misanthrope:


Wow, talk about your pot calling the kettle black. Notice that ScottLincoln wrote "all of the data," not "all of the warming." It's truly amazing how some very intelligent people's brains can go soft when discussing subjects in which they have a strong ideological stake. Plain and simple, ideology makes you stupid. And sullivanweather, I'm not attacking you here, I'm simply pointing out that you've made a fool of yourself every time that you've delved into the subject of climate change. If I'm not mistaken, it was you that tried to make the case that climate change was a fraud because Al Gore owned a zinc mine. 'Nuff said, don't ya think?



360
Member Since: February 18, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 774

Viewing: 256 - 206

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

Top of Page

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

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.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.