Eco-quiz (and Breathing Earth)

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Yay, another 'my opinion is true and yours isn't' thread!

It is my opinion that global warming is real and is an issue, albeit overblown by the usual doomsday types and denied by people who quite honestly want to continue doing what they do without any guilt.  I am from the 'decadent west' and have been following the climate variations and events in the Amazon for awhile now, and I simply find it impossible to believe that what we're doing is not having a deleterious effect on the planet as a whole and the things living upon (and even within) it.  Darth is right when he states that for every scientist out there willing to tell you bad times are coming there are two ready to say everything is fine, but bear in mind that we are creatures of reason (or should be) and are supposed to reason and think things through for ourself to the best of our ability.  I don't need a scientist, for example, to tell me everything is fine when reports of breathing-related problems in my state are rising each year (and not just because there are more people), nor do I need a scientist to do a careful study of pollution levels to tell me that when I was a kid I could walk outside and take a lungful of air without smelling gasoline, yet it's a rare day when I can do so now.  The point is, pollutants do have a very real effect on our lives.  They certainly aren't safe to breathe or people wouldn't die from carbon monoxide poisoning, they'd laugh and skip out of garages while singing 'duck and cover'.  If we can admit to ourselves that pollutants affect 'us' negatively, it's not a leap to suggest they affect the ecosystem negatively.  Or, think of humanity as a parasite -- it's a reasonable comparison!  If the Earth was a giant dog floating in space, and we were ticks thriving on it, naturally diseases we carry could be transferred to it and vice-versa.  Now stepping back a bit, the Earth isn't really alive in the sense that it can die, but the many things upon it which we rely upon to survive are.  Man made pollutants have been proven capable of destroying all forms of wildlife as well as plants, and this is just not a good thing at all!  Even if global warming and the reports of our negative effects on the ecosystem are 50% overblown...Even 75% percent, that other 25% should worry you.

[Nacho]

If you see REAL temperature charts, you' ll see that the warmest period in history was in the middle age, no factories, CFCs or cars in that period. Also, you can see that from the 70ies the temperature is rising. I don't know why... But I also can't say "it's because the Western countries capitalism..."

We have seen significative descents this last (XXth) century also. If the "enviromentalists" were correct, since the industrial revolution the temperature should have raised constantly.

And a graphic chart is not as difficult as reading a specific book.

Anyway... if asking for documentation is unfair, I should stop also, since I don' t want to read (again) classical "enviromentalists" books... 

The thing is clear. You say A. I say B. You say that, unless I change to A, I am ignorant. I say you, "read a book with evidences for B". You say you won' t... Ok, I won' t read "A books" either. End of discussion. This is not a fight I want to fight really...

But I would like to read what people (declared as enviromentalists) do for nature. Put a sticker of WWF adena in the car? Or stop using the car? Saying "America is crap because the produce too much C02" while they do still hapilly smoke their cigarette... Or lighting the cigarette off? Saying "Spaniard is retarded because they kill bulls... or stoping eating meat?

I know what I do for nature. I ride my bike, allways keeping the bundles of my food with me (sometimes for 100 kms. or more...) I live in a flat, where 30 other families live, while other of my friends (auto-declared as "enviromentalists") do live in a cottage. The same area where 30 families live just for a family! And they are hypocrital enough to criticise buildings as "anti enviroment concrete barriers"!

A curious case happened in Spain. The former government wanted to sollute the drought of the south. So they wanted to make a diversion of water from Ebro river, in Catalonia to the south. The "Enviromentalists" claimed that the descent of wealth (10%) could affect the quality of the sedimentation of earth in the delta in the next 100 years, go figure!

Result. New government, diversion cancelled... Millions of loses in tourism incomes for the drought, and a disproportionate spent in (future) sea water salt removers (that will increase the electricity spent and will produce salt pollution) (yeah, the salt produced from that salt removers is pollution, it is unusable for humans and toxical in the sea). There is still drought...

Also, a week after en "enviromentalist" group paralised the inagouration of a new road because the cave of the "red bat" was put in danger during the works. 7 people died in an accident because there was a dangerous curve in the older route.

So... Sorry if I don' t like "enviromentalists" a lot and I tend to be sceptical...

[Darth Mandarb]

Darth and Geoffkhan: You both think we should do something about pollution (you apparently don't care about endangered species and all that, so let's limit the debate to pollution). Well, we all need to change our way of living. The pollution won't go away if we don't change things. It will grow worse. That's how this debate started. As simple as that. Case closed.

Come on now ... of course I care about endangered species.  I care about pollution.  I think that we have the brain power and technology to make the air cleaner (or at least slow it's worsening condition).

This opens up a whole other can of worms.

I recently bought a new car.  I looked into "hybrids" and the like.  While the prices were [surprisingly] reasonable the minimum wait period was 7 months.  That could possibly be a good thing if it means so many people are interested in getting them that the wait period is that long.  However ... if "hybrids" are so much better, why are they making so few of them?  It all goes back to oil and I'm NOT getting into a discussion about that

The point of that story is that while I would be willing to drive a less polluting car ... I can't put my life/job/career on hold for 7 months.  Reality simply doesn't work that way.

While I'm at home there are no lights on that don't need to be.  I don't run ceiling fans unecessarily.  I take as short of showers as I'm able to.  When I leave the house I power off everything that doesn't need to be running.

I think the reality of the situation is that people simply aren't going to stop living their lives to solve this problem.  What needs to happen, as I see it, is that technology needs to be developed to make our daily routines less impactful.

[LimpingFish]

I'm too lazy, too shallow, and too comfortable to care.

Call me when the air drops below breathable, and they don't make a factor suncream strong enough to block out those pesky UV rays. 8)

Edit: I got 1.7 on that quiz.

[Andail]

Progzmax, that was very thoughtful reading, thank you.

Darth, when we first touched upon the subject of endangered species, you sounded a bit indifferent, something like "well, species died out before in the history of the earth, from volcanos or whatever, nothing much to do".
What I read now makes me happy and warm, even though I can't help but wonder what your previous stance was all about, and why you chose to refute our arguments so fiercely, when actually you do agree that things need to be done in order to change stuff and make the world better.
Please note that I never separated other people from myself, I've always said "we need to do this and that, we must be aware of this and that." I'm not a bit better than anyone else. I'm not the environmentalist hippie character you picture driving a car with pedals and living on fruit and water.

Nacho...I don't know, I didn't fully grasp the sentiment of your last string of arguments. This might have to do a little with me being high from glögg. Can you take out the core of your argument and rephrase it a bit? Only bring the crucial parts, please, I can only focus for so long.

[Nacho]

Sorry my English 

The thing basically is... People I know that have autolabelled themselves as "enviromentalists" do the same that I do towards nature that I do... Or less, so much less. If not counterproductive actions. A little less conversation, a little more action! Excuse me if I am sceptical about them.

[Kweepa]

If you see REAL temperature charts, you' ll see that the warmest period in history was in the middle age, no factories, CFCs or cars in that period.

I'm not sure what you mean by REAL temperature charts. Is someone presenting FAKE ones?

Here's a wikipedia page talking about the Medieval Warm Period:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Note that the temperature is climbing quickly at the end of the graph, and overtakes the temperature from the MWP.

Also, you can see that from the 70ies the temperature is rising. I don't know why... But I also can't say "it's because the Western countries capitalism..."

The scientific consensus is that greenhouse gases are causing that rise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
A majority of scientists believe/agree that human activities are responsible for the greenhouse gases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
So, maybe you can't say, but the experts can.

[RickJ]

I think it's interesting that both sponsors of this quiz have offices in large buildings in large cities, Oakland Ca and Washington DC.   They likely communte on a freeway for an hour or more twice daily. The buildings in which they work likely don't have windows that open but instead have industrial strength HVAC systems to heat, cool, and ventilate 24/7.   

If these folks really believed in the dire consequences they predict they would not continue living they way they do.   Al Gore has a Mansion in Tenesse that he rarely visits, yet it's heated  and cooled year round.   He is still riding around in limo's and not a bicycle.  He could at least down size to a hybird.  It's sort of like the religious fanatic who goes around preaching about the end of the world comming next friday but still keeps his long term investiments.   I mean if it was a sure thing why wouldn't you go out and buy beer for everyone or feed the hungry or something? 

If you believe that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming and that, that is a really bad thing then what are you prepared to sacrifice in your own life to prevent it?  I have yet to hear a plan that actually puports to be a solution that actually prevent it from happening.  There are only half ass "steps in the right direction"  that would have very little if any affect.   What are you willing to sacrifice to prevent global warming and it's dire consequences from happening?

The solution is quite simple;  STOP BURNING CARBON BASED FUELS for energy.   Are you willing to do this?   Is Al Gore or any other enviromental activist willing?  If all these horrible predictions are a reality why wouldn't everyone be all for it.  Well, perhaps the doubters wouldn't be but what about the true believers?   So if you are really serious about it you would support the following:

• A worldwide ban on the production, distribution, and use of petroleumn.
  
• A worldwide ban on the production, distribution, and use of coal.
  
• A worldwide ban on the production, distribution, and use of natural gas.
  
• A worldwide ban on air conditioning
  
• A worldwide ban on electricity unless generated from Wind, Solar, Hydro, or Nuclear
  
  Well, who among you want to sign up?   I didn't think so.  How about just the first one?  Can we do just the first one?  It would be a step in the right direction and not only that it would show those asswholes in the middle east not to mess with the west.  Well is there anyone for banning petroleumn???
  
  I have listened and read a lot of what the so called experts have to say.   The idea that there is positive feedback and that the greenhouse effect will runaway is kind of silly.   In Earth's history there have been enough volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, comets, variations in the sun's output and the earth's orbit and tilt to have triggered any instabilities that are sensitive to a few percent increase in carbon dioxide or degrees in temperature.  If any such instabilities existed Earth would have become a lifeless Venus or Mars a long time ago.   Since it took us 4.5 billion years to evolve from a pool of amino acids,  the fact that we are here should tell us that the average temperature of the earth has been remarkably stable for a very very long time. 
  
  If you look at Earth's history the only thing constant about iit's average tempurature is that it is constantly changing.   The fact that it may increase a few degrees doen't bother me in the least bit.  I feel sorry for the poor bastards that have beach front property or live below sea level but other than that I don't see why I should give a shit.  The earth has been much hotter and much colder in the past; more than once.  We just finished a mini ice age just a few hundred years ago so is it that much of shock to learn that it is still warming up?   
  
  Since the Earth's temperature is always on the move the only other possibility if for it to be going down.  Now I ask you which would you choose, if you had a choice?  I guess it depends upon where you live but if you take a global view a few degrees cooler Earth would be harder to live with than one that was a few degrees warmer. 
  
  

[evenwolf]

 

What are you willing to sacrifice to prevent global warming and it's dire consequences from happening?

Eggs.  I'm willing to give up eggs Rick.

[Kweepa]

• A worldwide ban on air conditioning
  

Why pick on air conditioning? What about central heating? Or anything else that uses energy?

• A worldwide ban on electricity unless generated from Wind, Solar, Hydro, or Nuclear
  

Or other renewable sources, like switchgrass.

Well, who among you want to sign up?   I didn't think so.

Why exactly does that sound so bad? Sounds good to me. Obviously there would be a transitional period - you've got to spend energy to make the backbone for this system.

[MrColossal]

I'd like to see your sources for how you know the lifestyle and living habits of the people that run this survey, Rick.

[evenwolf]

Eric, I think RickJ's point was not that they didn't WANT low energy consuming lifestyles, but rather THEY CANNOT possibly have low energy consuming lifestyles if they work out of this office building:



And I'm with Rick here.   If these people want to do their mass public marketing and government lobbying for a cause so trivial they should move their office to a mountain cabin somewhere and live off bugs and daisies.

Hypocrites I say!    I took the test and I consume 12 planets the size of earth!  Beware me and Rick's hunger rage!

[Traveler]

The fact that it may increase a few degrees doen't bother me in the least bit.  I feel sorry for the poor bastards that have beach front property or live below sea level but other than that I don't see why I should give a shit.  The earth has been much hotter and much colder in the past; more than once.  We just finished a mini ice age just a few hundred years ago so is it that much of shock to learn that it is still warming up?   

Wow, this became a lot longer than I inteded.

Well, maybe it should bother you, at least a bit. When the average global temperature rises, a lot of ice will melt, as you said, so those with beach property will be probably better off selling in time . However, having higher ocean levels can have more effect than that.

Higher levels mean larger water surface which results in more water evaporating into the air. More water molecules in the air trap more heat in the lower atmosphere. An other possible effect of more water (and/or carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere that higher amounts may reflect more sunlight (more clouds are formed), so less sunlight will reach the surface. (Heat will not leave, though, because thicker clouds may reflect it back.)

More humidity and higher temperatures in the lower atmosphere might easily result in more severe weather more frequently: higher average wind speeds, more tornados and hurricanes, etc. Higher surface temperature can in itself increase evaporation, so it may become a chain reaction. Since the planet has weather patterns, changes will be different in different areas: some will warm up, but some may even cool down.

The climate shift will most definitely have an adverse effect on the ecosystem, which is very sensitive to changes. The possibility of less sunlight will cause some plants to die off which can have a cascading effect on other species. (Some others will flourish due to more CO2.) On thing to note is that places where humans grow crops may become unusable, because of changing conditions. That's something that may hit you easily, even if the rise of ocean levels won't have a direct effect on you.

I fully agree with those who say that global warming is a fact - it is, every single study shows that. It can be argued whether it's a natural process or something done by humankind, but it really doesn't matter, because the end result can be the same.

The real problem with global warming is that it happens on enormous scales, both in size and in time: if we don't act in time to counter the (possible, not sure) bad effects, we won't have a second chance if it actually goes bad, because it may become a runaway process that'll take hundreds or thousands of years to reverse. By then there may be no more humans if the change is bad enough. Life itself will likely stay around, but after the last 3 or so thousand years, it'd be nice if humans actually colonize the galaxy.

---------------
I just added this, since evenwolf replied while I was writing.

The relatively few large office buildings are much less of a problem than poorly built apartment buildings. The building that I live in (apartment in Texas) couldn't be sold/rented in many European countries, it's so badly built. And this is not a worn-down building, it's in good shape - at least from what I've seen when I was looking for a place to rent. Here are some of the problems, that are mostly there in other apartments:

• Painted in a dark color, so during summer it heats up more easily (I have to run more AC to keep any tolerable temperature) and during winter it cools down faster (again, more AC needed to keep it somewhat warm. During summers I keep ~28 C, during winter ~21 C.)
• Windows and doors are so low quality that in winter the whole place cools down from 25 C to ~19 C in less than an hour. There are gaps all over the place, I had to put sealing tape around every frame.
  
  I have actually seen places where there were gaps between the window edge and the wall, that you could see through. When I asked the aparment lady who showed me the place about it she said that it was one of the reasons they had it on sale. They offered me the place for $800 a month - a 1 bedroom hole. I don't know if they fixed it eventually.

Most large office buildings are actually very efficient, and they're becoming more and more so. (Sure there are bad ones, but most companies are not willing to pay higher rates for heating, water, etc., so the owners are forced to fix the buildings.) There are a lot more leaky apartments out there, all over the world (I didn't mean to bash only on American ones, the same s true for many buildings in Hungary, where I'm from. The problem is that people don't have much of a choice, since you either buy a house or rent and both depend on your wallet: if you cannot/not willing to pay a *lot* more, the building will not be energy efficient because the builder is not forced by anyone: one must live somewhere so even poorly built buildings can be rented.)

[Phemar]

I'M SERIAL GUYS, IT'S MANBEARPIG!!

[EagerMind]

The solution is quite simple;  STOP BURNING CARBON BASED FUELS for energy.

Actually, the solution is quite a bit simpler than this: it's called achieving a sustainable balance. No one's saying we need to go back to horse carriages. But isn't it a bit eye-opening that the average fuel economy of cars is worse today than it was 20 years ago (thanks predominately to the popularity of SUVs)? How about if governments stopped pumping billions of dollars into fuel subsidies and instead invested just a fraction of that money into exploring alternative energy sources? How about encouraging the construction of "green" buildings which can use 30-70% less energy than conventional ones? A recent HBO special pointed out that a theoretical 100 square mile solar panel in the middle of the Mohave Desert (which for reference is 22,000 square miles) could supply the entire power needs of our country. So why haven't we gotten started building it? Not very drastic stuff I'm talking about here, and it would make a difference.

If you look at Earth's history the only thing constant about iit's average tempurature is that it is constantly changing.   The fact that it may increase a few degrees doen't bother me in the least bit.

I think this completely misunderstands the problem. The Economist recently published a survey on global warming which, in my opinion, is the most even-handed assessment of the issue that I've seen. I'll quote an excerpt here which pretty much sums it up:

Climate change is complicated and uncertain, but, as our survey this week explains, the underlying calculation is fairly straightforward. The global average temperature is expected to increase by between 1.4°C and 5.8°C this century. The bottom end of the range would make life a little more comfortable for northern areas and a little less pleasant for southern ones. Anything much higher than that could lead to catastrophic rises in sea levels, increases in extreme weather events such as hurricanes, flooding and drought, falling agricultural production and, perhaps, famine and mass population movement.

Nobody knows which is likelier, for the climate is a system of almost infinite complexity. Predicting how much hotter a particular level of carbon dioxide will make the world is impossible. It's not just that the precise effect of greenhouse gases on temperature is unclear. It's also that warming has countless indirect effects. It may set off mechanisms that tend to cool things down (clouds which block out sunlight, for instance) or ones that heat the world further (by melting soils in which greenhouse gases are frozen, for instance). The system could right itself or spin out of human control.

This uncertainty is central to the difficulty of tackling the problem. Since the costs of climate change are unknown, the benefits of trying to do anything to prevent it are, by definition, unclear. What's more, if they accrue at all, they will do so at some point in the future. So is it really worth using public resources now to avert an uncertain, distant risk, especially when the cash could be spent instead on goods and services that would have a measurable near-term benefit?

If the risk is big enough, yes. Governments do it all the time. They spend a small slice of tax revenue on keeping standing armies not because they think their countries are in imminent danger of invasion but because, if it happened, the consequences would be catastrophic. Individuals do so too. They spend a little of their incomes on household insurance not because they think their homes are likely to be torched next week but because, if it happened, the results would be disastrous. Similarly, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the risk of a climatic catastrophe is high enough for the world to spend a small proportion of its income trying to prevent one from happening.

And the slice of global output that would have to be spent to control emissions is probably not huge. The cost differential between fossil-fuel-generated energy and some alternatives is already small, and is likely to come down. Economists trying to guess the ultimate cost of limiting carbon dioxide concentrations to 550 parts per million or below (the current level is 380ppm, 450ppm is reckoned to be ambitious and 550ppm liveable with) struggle with uncertainties too. Some models suggest there would be no cost; others that global output could be as much as 5% lower by the end of the century than if there were no attempt to control emissions. But most estimates are at the low endâ€"below 1%.

The technological and economic aspects of the problem are, thus, not quite as challenging as many imagine. The real difficulty is political. Climate change is one of the hardest policy problems the world has ever faced. Because it is global, it is in every country's interests to get every other country to bear the burden of tackling it. Because it is long term, it is in every generation's interests to shirk the responsibility and shift it onto the next one. And that way, nothing will be done.

No one denies that the planet's climate has changed dramatically throughout history and will continue to do so. But that doesn't make human-driven climate change all fine and dandy. Climate change - whether natural or man-made - will have potentially huge consequences for the entire planet and everyone and everything on it. We may not be talking about the Earth becoming an uninhabitable, chemically-poisonous greenhouse like Venus, but really, does it need to get to this point for us to take the issue seriously? Previous climate-driven mass extinctions have wiped out 70-80% or more of all species (plant and animal) on the planet. Yes, despite all that (or maybe because of it) humans and all the other creatures on this earth are still here, alive and well. But are we really supposed to be ok with this if this is a potential outcome? If we're the one's causing it, then it's in our interest to stop it.

It's precisely this natural variance in weather that makes measuring the beast so difficult. The incontrovertible evidence demanded by global-warming rejectionists just doesn't exist. But if you take into account all the natural variations in climate (the graphs and articles that Steve McCrea linked to are quite good), all the evidence suggests that temperatures are rising and we're causing it.

OK, so that still doesn't prove anything. But isn't it reasonable to take a little extra effort now to avert potentially catastrophic consequences in the future? As the excerpt above points out, we make choices like this all the time. Why should this be any different? I don't see anyone saying that pollution is a good thing, so even if the worst-case scenarios are a myth or temperatures are moving independently of our actions, we'll at least have cleaned up the planet for future generations.

Honestly, given how little effort would be required to make a positive impact, and the potential consequences of not making a change, I really don't understand why this is such a point of contention. It's just good economic sense, and in more ways than one.

[Nacho]

Steve... "someone is presenting fake ones?"

To summarise... Yes. Hockey stick is a fake.

[Pumaman]

Even if we just look at this in purely economic terms, the recently published Stern Report reckons that if we do nothing, global wealth will fall by 20% by 2100 due to the effects of the global temperature increasing.

The problem with trying to get people to take climate change seriously is that:
(a) people don't see the consequences of their own actions -- when I drive my car, I don't see people dying in famines in Africa as a result
(b) it needs everyone across the world to buy into the solution -- if I stop driving my car, it's not going to make any difference unless everyone else does the same

Therefore, it's very easy for people to shrug off their responsibilities by saying "there's no point me giving up my lifestyle if everyone else continues polluting". Realistically the only way to change things is for governments worldwide to change their tax regimes to penalise polluters and give tax breaks for clean energy; however these sorts of policies are likely to be unpopular and would probably get the government thrown out of office.

So in conclusion, yes the planet is screwed, so let's just enjoy it while it lasts.

[Ali]

I think the problem is that we are habitual polluters. We're not proud polluting, it's just comfortable and familiar.

I think the only thing to do is for us to change our habits. This is unpopular because it will mean short-term upheaval and we won't see the benefits. It seems to me that the best thing to do is make what changes we can, whether or not our neighbours do the same. The more normal an ecologically sound lifesyle seems the more people will adopt one.

Either that or edge our way slowly uphill.

[Adamski]

Once we get that water/hydrogen fueled combustion engine sorted and nail down the specifics of fusion power, all this will go away. Come on boffins, get to it! I'll order the pizzas.

[Babar]

My head hurts. This is such a confusing and interconnected topic.

Sure, the Earth's temperature will naturally be waving up and down for most of it's life.
Sure, Humans are messing it up even more.
Sure,  in as little as a 1000 years, we may not even be around to care.
Sure, the Earth will still probably be here.
Sure, extravagant lifestyles (cars, living methods, etc.) are definitely causing problems.
Sure, the whole world does not share these extravagant lifestyles.
Sure, the whole world would probably WANT to share these extravagant lifestyles.
Sure, if the whole world shared these extravagant lifestyles, it would all finish much more quickly.
Sure, it's gonna finish anyway.
Sure, humans act as a parasite on the Earth's resources.
Sure, humans will act as a parasite whatever they do, they've got to consume something.
Sure, there are ways that are less consumption heavy than what we are using now.
Sure, in 100 years, we'll probably find the problems with these "new" methods of consumption, that cause just as many problems.

I can't answer for anyone but myself. I do my best to do my best. I find it necessary to use a car, because anywhere I go is too far to go by any other means. However, I use a car that runs on CNG (no electric type cars available here yet). I use one that's about the same lengthwise as my height (for the simplest comparison of power consumption). I eat vegetables out of my own backyard. All my fridges/ACs are CFC free. The only gas used in the house is for the cooking of food, and even that is reduced when I use my solar oven. In a few years, lots of what I'm doing to help may very well be discovered to be harmful in some other way. It's hardly possible NOT to harm something, considering that we are bringing something "foreign" into the way things naturally work. How far will we go to get to the max "naturalness"? I'm not a psycho-naturalist, but I do what I can.

It's a problem that most people consider their freedom being infringed on if they can't do what they want. Why shouldn't someone who can get a huge SUV get a huge SUV? Or even 2? Why the fuck shouldn't I smoke if I want to? "It doesn't matter that I'm doing something wrong, something wrong would happen anyway! Look at this person, who's doing something even wronger than me? Why should I stop?".

The thing most people seem not to realise is that it's incredibly easy to change a gajillion people's views/actions on a certain thing. Communism is horrible and eats babies, right? And those damn Nazis! And it's no longer cool to smoke, is it? And freedom! Freedom is good isn't it? Everyone needs freedom!