I posted this first in a discussion on another blog about a climate change skeptic who produced a film that was aired on television in England. So here, as the title to the blog post promises, is my rebuttal, followed by that of a blogger from blogspot called Wisco (apparently short for Wisconsin), in his blog called Griper Blade, Grumblings from the Heartland, and last but not least, is George Monbiot in The Guardian, from Wisco's blog.
SHORTER RESPONSE
The debate about climate change is over and that it has been for the most part from the impact of what mankind has been doing since industrialization in the mid 1800s is over. The winner is science (not science fiction). To back up my statement, I am relying on the huge peer-reviewed report (the last section of the four sections of which will be adopted and approved in Valencia, Spain, November 12-17, 2007), using peer-reviewed articles in the IPCC report, Climate Change 2007.
On one hand: There is the peer-reviewed Climate Change 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Association (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), put together or reviewed by hundreds of people. This report represents the current state of climate change science. The first section of the Climate Change 2007 report is 996 pages long, not including two of the four appendices (referred to in report as Annexes). Annex II lists the hundreds of coordinating lead authors, lead authors and contributing authors (I started to count the number of people included but got lost and gave up); Annex III lists expert reviewers and then expert reviewers from international organizations.
On the other hand: There are opinions by a fringe group of scientists who are ignored by mainstream scientists and sometimes are paid by or associated with or working for far-right wing, conservative Republican foundations or think tanks or far right-wing, conservative Christian groups or directly paid by oil and other polluting businesses. Some of the think tanks are attached to some universities. See the site Center for Media and Democracy, PR Watch and also the section called Sourcewatch for names of the lists of organizations and individuals that are known to belong to or paid by some of these organizations.
http://www.prwatch.org/
See also the book Banana Republicans by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber on the above site or more specifically:
http://www.prwatch.org/books/bananas.html
There are five other, great titled books listed there, about media manipulation by the far right-wing machine on various issues.
LONGER RESPONSE
My longer response to the skeptics or those who are undecided is from a blogger on Blogspot. Here is a great blog entry by Wisco on Tuesday, March 13, 2007, entitled 'Global Warming Swindle' is Ironically, a Swindle on his blog: Griper Blade, Grumblings From the Heartland:
http://griperblade.blogspot.com/2007/03/global-warming-swindle-is-ironically.html
The general address of blogspot is: http://www.blogspot.com/ . The blog entry also includes a response published in The Guardian from George Monbiot, the author of How to Stop the Planet From Burning.
Just pretend the following is indented to indicate Wisco wrote it and not me (technical difficulties, related to the fact that I am a techno-peasant).
A British video has been making the rounds of the right wing global warming denial crowd. The UK's Channel 4-produced video, titled The Great Global Warming Swindle, is pure crackpottery - porno for the Flat Earth Society. Among the claims made by this video is that global warming is a scam started by Margaret Thatcher to break the coal miners' union and move the UK to nuclear power. That the right has accepted this smear of a global figure they consider second only to Ronald Reagan shows you how desperate they are to find some reason to continue to believe they're not as wrong on climate change as they have been about pretty much everything since 2000 - or earlier.The video was directed by Martin Durkin. Durkin's history is bad. He's basically the British version of John Stossel. In 1997, he produced a documentary, titled Against Nature, which was nothing but an anti-evironmental screed. The claims made in that video quickly fell apart as interviewees for the piece complained that they were taken out of context and misrepresented as critics of environmentalism.
George Monbiot, The Guardian:
Mr Durkin has often been acused of taking liberties with the facts. In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which compared environmentalists like me to Nazis, conspiring against the world's poor. No one would suggest that green claims should not be subjected to critical examination, but the people he interviewed were lied to about the contents of the programmes and given no chance to respond to the accusations the series made. The Independent Television Commission handed down one of the most damning verdicts it has ever reached: the programme makers "distorted by selective editing" the views of the interviewees and "misled" them about the "content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part". Channel 4 was forced to make a humiliating prime time apology. After the series was broadcast, I discovered that the assistant producer and several of its interviewees worked for the rightwing libertarian magazine masquerading as Living Marxism, which has just been successfully sued by ITN. All the arguments Against Nature made had been rehearsed in LM. Another Durkin piece claimed to 'prove' that silicone breast implants were completely harmless. Now, Durkin is accused of doing exactly the same thing with The Great Global Warming Swindle as he had with Against Nature. Some people never learn...
The Independent:
It was the television programme that set out to show that most of the world's climate scientists are misleading us when they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon dioxide. And The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming. But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.
Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint. Says Wunsch, "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled. "While this sort of scandal would normally flare up and be forgotten, Durkin's timing is really bad this time around. This is the same Channel 4 that's still recovering from the Jade Goody Big Brother scandal, which resulted in accusations of racism toward a game show contestant and the channel itself. The resulting uproar sparked an international incident between the UK and India. This is pretty much the last thing they need. Martin Durkin may find it harder to get other programs produced in the future. Big loss.
If you go through right wing blogs, this video is all over the place. The gullibility of these people is amazing. Riehl World says, "[The video] contained more science in debunking Global Warming than I have yet to see produced by the Global Warming crowd." That's right, some video produced by a proven charlatan is more solid than the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents the international consensus on climate science. In fact, global warming skepticism is such a noncompetitive field that Durkin couldn't find enough of them to fill the air time for his show. He had to misrepresent climate scientists as critics. I've said it before. We can stop listening to these fools. The media has been especially irresponsible in giving cranks the same legitimacy as the science - a failing they're also guilty of with evolution. There are two sides to every story, sure. But where we are now, the two sides are reality and laughable nutcases. CNN, for example, doesn't need to find an honest to goodness flat earther to tell everyone the moon landings were a scam every time there's a story about NASA. Likewise, there's no reason to find some global warming denier to comment every time there's a climate story. Although, as this story shows, the skeptics are an endangered species. Martin Durkin couldn't even find enough of them to fill air time on a TV show. Global warming denial is not a growth industry.
The debate is over.
-Wisco
Wisco's bit is over and it is me again. I think people who are committed to making changes to reduce the impact of climate change tend to get side-tracked by global warming skeptics. If your time is limited, you may want to limit the time you spend trying to argue with skeptics or trying to find answers to all the lines the anti-climate changers come up with.
Are they scientists who have had their ideas published in scientific journals after being peer-reviewed by other scientists? No.
Do they have any report equivalent to the report written by hundreds of scientists and researchers from around the world and peer reviewed by another very large group of scientists? And is their report based on the peer-reviewed articles of scientists published in scientific journals? I don't think so and no.
The right-wing Republicans are just mad because the majority of Americans (and Canadians) are already quite concerned about this issue. You would think skeptics would have hung up the towel when President Bush did and started the new skeptic's rant: I believe climate change is happening, but it will cost too much money, ruin the economy and result in massive job losses to do anything quick about it. That is the same line Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is using in Canada. I think they should stop hanging around together in international meetings as President Bush has been a very bad influence on Prime Minister Harper.
Take a look at the IPCC website and part of one of the summaries or reports so you have some idea of the level at which these reports and summaries are prepared and reviewed.
www.ipcc.ch/
You will have a better idea after that about how to judge the current world-wide state of scientific thinking on climate change versus science fiction. The standard for published scientific thinking is peer-reviewed articles in credible, scientific journals, which is what the IPCC reports are based on. Anything less that aims to undercut climate change science is mere science fiction and opinion.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Global Warming Skeptics Make Me "Mad"
Skeptics do make me mad because they will not see scientific fact and reasons but rely on opinions taken from I don't know where to make up their minds.
Really the title is just a lame way to segue into the topic of me possibly being "manic", which really has nothing to do with the environment or global warming. I do take medications (two kinds) for depression and now that the level has been adjusted, I think that part is just right.
However, because of some recent "episodes" at work, I have to see someone about what is behind the behaviour. A co-worker asked me if I had ever considered the fact that I might be manic. Well, no, I hadn't thought anything about that. I knew nothing about it either.
Later I asked the co-worker if they knew someone who was manic, and then said yes, a relative was. So it was hard to discount the advice. I ended up looking it up on the internet. It doesn't look good. A lot of the symptoms seem to apply. I think the question is just which of the categories I belong in.
In one way, it is useful to have some kind of explanation should it turn out to be the diagnosis, as my behaviour in work on at least two, three occasions has been anything but rational. Apparently my boss apologized for me once and told me she and the rest of staff were embarassed for me. Later, I had to apologize to four different groups of people, including three different levels of manager. Then I was embarassed, really embarassed.
I think it is something I need a mood stabilizer drug for. Hard to talk yourself out of what I do when the mood goes from normal to outraged at the snap of your fingers. It also is an answer to one question I had no answer to, which is I knew my mother's behaviour ( inappropriate comments which embarrass herself or others) must have some name to it. Didn't seem to fit in depression. It also seems manic part of manic depressive is also very often inherited. And it is very likely she also inherited it from her mother.
In some way, since I am already comfortable about telling people I am depressed and take medication for it, that it won't be any harder to add the manic part. People should be able to talk about mental illness problems with friends and family as easily as they do about other medical problems or illnesses. But it is not like that. And when you are "just" depressed, people who have never gone through it themselves or have had relatives go through it, think you are just sad about something and it will go away. Sometimes it is a reason. Sometimes there is no reason. Besides "manic" or "bi-polar" sounds like a REAL mental illness, not just that sadness thing people think you have and should pull yourself out of.
I have one button that says, I'm not crazy, I'm chemically imbalanced. People never think there is any physical component to mental illness. I never knew there was any physical component. There is.
There are chemicals called neurotransmitters which assist in transmitting messages from between nerve ends in the cells. When certain neurotransmitters which regulate mood are not available in sufficient quantities, the result can be depression. People who have a genetic disposition to depression may be more prone to the imbalance of neurotransmitter activity that is part of depression.
This explanation about the neurotransmitters is excerpted from:
http://www.kidshealth.org/teen/your_mind/mental_health/depression.html
But you can find similar explanations anywhere.
I could blame genetics. But it would be more fun to blame the global warming skeptics. It makes just about the same amount of sense as their opinions do.
Really the title is just a lame way to segue into the topic of me possibly being "manic", which really has nothing to do with the environment or global warming. I do take medications (two kinds) for depression and now that the level has been adjusted, I think that part is just right.
However, because of some recent "episodes" at work, I have to see someone about what is behind the behaviour. A co-worker asked me if I had ever considered the fact that I might be manic. Well, no, I hadn't thought anything about that. I knew nothing about it either.
Later I asked the co-worker if they knew someone who was manic, and then said yes, a relative was. So it was hard to discount the advice. I ended up looking it up on the internet. It doesn't look good. A lot of the symptoms seem to apply. I think the question is just which of the categories I belong in.
In one way, it is useful to have some kind of explanation should it turn out to be the diagnosis, as my behaviour in work on at least two, three occasions has been anything but rational. Apparently my boss apologized for me once and told me she and the rest of staff were embarassed for me. Later, I had to apologize to four different groups of people, including three different levels of manager. Then I was embarassed, really embarassed.
I think it is something I need a mood stabilizer drug for. Hard to talk yourself out of what I do when the mood goes from normal to outraged at the snap of your fingers. It also is an answer to one question I had no answer to, which is I knew my mother's behaviour ( inappropriate comments which embarrass herself or others) must have some name to it. Didn't seem to fit in depression. It also seems manic part of manic depressive is also very often inherited. And it is very likely she also inherited it from her mother.
In some way, since I am already comfortable about telling people I am depressed and take medication for it, that it won't be any harder to add the manic part. People should be able to talk about mental illness problems with friends and family as easily as they do about other medical problems or illnesses. But it is not like that. And when you are "just" depressed, people who have never gone through it themselves or have had relatives go through it, think you are just sad about something and it will go away. Sometimes it is a reason. Sometimes there is no reason. Besides "manic" or "bi-polar" sounds like a REAL mental illness, not just that sadness thing people think you have and should pull yourself out of.
I have one button that says, I'm not crazy, I'm chemically imbalanced. People never think there is any physical component to mental illness. I never knew there was any physical component. There is.
There are chemicals called neurotransmitters which assist in transmitting messages from between nerve ends in the cells. When certain neurotransmitters which regulate mood are not available in sufficient quantities, the result can be depression. People who have a genetic disposition to depression may be more prone to the imbalance of neurotransmitter activity that is part of depression.
This explanation about the neurotransmitters is excerpted from:
http://www.kidshealth.org/teen/your_mind/mental_health/depression.html
But you can find similar explanations anywhere.
I could blame genetics. But it would be more fun to blame the global warming skeptics. It makes just about the same amount of sense as their opinions do.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Toxic Toothpaste
I know. I should have my head examined.
How did I ever think that if the government allowed corporations to pollute our water, soil and air and agri-businesses to spray pesticides over all the produce that we eat, that my toothpaste or shampoo or body lotion would be safe to use. I just did.
Why would my government allow corporations to sell us everyday products with ingredients that were anywhere from mildly to highly toxic. Carcinogenic, bio-accumulative, and hormone disrupting ingredients in things that I use everyday and thought were safe. Not only that, but the government would allow most children these days to be more contaminated with toxic substances than their parents.
Here's some websites where you can see this for yourself. The first one is Toxic Nation, and the headline is: Pollution. It's In You.
www.toxicnation.ca
Scroll down the page until you get to the Latest Reports, and click on Polluted Children, Toxic Nation: A Report On Pollution in Canadian Families or click on this:
http://environmentaldefence.ca/toxicnation/resources/publications.html#1
Isn't that cheery? I didn't think so. If that doesn't make you mad, try another website about what is in the personal care products that you and your family use every day. The website is called Skin Deep, though the web address is:
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com
Try searching for the brand of your shampoo or toothpaste. Wouldn't you think a shampoo just for kids like the following would be safe?
L'Oreal Kids 2 in 1 Shampoo, Extra Gentle, Burst of Fruity Apricot
However, this shampoo is listed as a high hazard product (8 out of a 10), with 100% shampoos and 100% conditioners having lower concerns) with ingredients in the product linked to:
-- Cancer
-- Violations, Restrictions & Warnings
-- Allergies/immunotoxicity
-- Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Neurotoxicity, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Irritation (skin, eyes, lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concern, Biochemical or cellular level changes
How about a brand of body lotion? An Avon product should be safe, shouldn't it?
Avon Moisture Therapy Intensive Body Lotion
This body lotion is also high hazard (9 out of 10), with 99% other moisturizers with lower concerns. Ingredients in this product are linked to:
-- Cancer
-- Developmental/reproductive toxicity
-- Violations, Restrictions & Warnings
-- Allergies/immunotoxicity
-- Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Neurotoxicity, Endocrine disruption, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Multiple, additive, exposure sources, Irritation (skin, eyes, lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concerns, Occupational hazards, Biochemical or cellular level changes
The website that has this information lists every individual ingredient in a product, how hazardous it is, and what kinds of concerns there are with using a product.
Have a look at this article on Alternet, by Vanja Petrovic. Posted August 15, 2007.
The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products.
Investigative journalist Mark Schapiro discusses why companies that manufacture hazard-free products for the European Union often produce toxin-filled versions of the same items for America and developing countries.
American industry would have you believe that taking potentially hazardous and toxic chemicals out of everyday consumer products--removing phthalates from children's toys and cancer-causing coal tar from hair dye--would damage our economy and result in a loss of American jobs. In his latest book, Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everday Products, Mark Schapiro busts this myth and reveals the grim fact that some companies, whether American or international, often have two production lines: one that manufactures hazard-free products for the European Union and another that produces toxin-filled versions of the same items for America and developing countries.
For more on this article:
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/59714
So how do you feel about how your government protects you now?
How did I ever think that if the government allowed corporations to pollute our water, soil and air and agri-businesses to spray pesticides over all the produce that we eat, that my toothpaste or shampoo or body lotion would be safe to use. I just did.
Why would my government allow corporations to sell us everyday products with ingredients that were anywhere from mildly to highly toxic. Carcinogenic, bio-accumulative, and hormone disrupting ingredients in things that I use everyday and thought were safe. Not only that, but the government would allow most children these days to be more contaminated with toxic substances than their parents.
Here's some websites where you can see this for yourself. The first one is Toxic Nation, and the headline is: Pollution. It's In You.
www.toxicnation.ca
Scroll down the page until you get to the Latest Reports, and click on Polluted Children, Toxic Nation: A Report On Pollution in Canadian Families or click on this:
http://environmentaldefence.ca/toxicnation/resources/publications.html#1
Isn't that cheery? I didn't think so. If that doesn't make you mad, try another website about what is in the personal care products that you and your family use every day. The website is called Skin Deep, though the web address is:
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com
Try searching for the brand of your shampoo or toothpaste. Wouldn't you think a shampoo just for kids like the following would be safe?
L'Oreal Kids 2 in 1 Shampoo, Extra Gentle, Burst of Fruity Apricot
However, this shampoo is listed as a high hazard product (8 out of a 10), with 100% shampoos and 100% conditioners having lower concerns) with ingredients in the product linked to:
-- Cancer
-- Violations, Restrictions & Warnings
-- Allergies/immunotoxicity
-- Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Neurotoxicity, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Irritation (skin, eyes, lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concern, Biochemical or cellular level changes
How about a brand of body lotion? An Avon product should be safe, shouldn't it?
Avon Moisture Therapy Intensive Body Lotion
This body lotion is also high hazard (9 out of 10), with 99% other moisturizers with lower concerns. Ingredients in this product are linked to:
-- Cancer
-- Developmental/reproductive toxicity
-- Violations, Restrictions & Warnings
-- Allergies/immunotoxicity
-- Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Neurotoxicity, Endocrine disruption, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Multiple, additive, exposure sources, Irritation (skin, eyes, lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concerns, Occupational hazards, Biochemical or cellular level changes
The website that has this information lists every individual ingredient in a product, how hazardous it is, and what kinds of concerns there are with using a product.
Have a look at this article on Alternet, by Vanja Petrovic. Posted August 15, 2007.
The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products.
Investigative journalist Mark Schapiro discusses why companies that manufacture hazard-free products for the European Union often produce toxin-filled versions of the same items for America and developing countries.
American industry would have you believe that taking potentially hazardous and toxic chemicals out of everyday consumer products--removing phthalates from children's toys and cancer-causing coal tar from hair dye--would damage our economy and result in a loss of American jobs. In his latest book, Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everday Products, Mark Schapiro busts this myth and reveals the grim fact that some companies, whether American or international, often have two production lines: one that manufactures hazard-free products for the European Union and another that produces toxin-filled versions of the same items for America and developing countries.
For more on this article:
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/59714
So how do you feel about how your government protects you now?
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Greenpeace ship, Arctic Sunrise, in Toronto, September 1-3, 2007
I received a postcard today from Greenpeace. It shows a picture of the Greenpeace ship, Arctic Sunrise going among ice somewhere (Arctic I imagine). It is a ship that gets in the way of Japanese whaling fleet, has done research on the impacts of climate change off the coast of Greenland, and disrupted pirate fishing.
The ship is coming to Toronto September 1-3 and there are public tours from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. at John Quay, Harbourfront.
I have mixed feelings about Greenpeace. Whenever there are comments needed from an international spokesperson about the environment, Greenpeace is usually there to speak out. However, I find the focus of saving whales, etc., a bit remote from my life and the climate change problems of industrialized countries that needs to be remedied.
Don't get me wrong. I don't get particular sentimental about dogs and cats, but I have seen whales to and from Alaska and in the St. Lawrence Seaway close to or at Tadousac. I was particularly lucky to see some pods of Beluga whales a couple summers ago. Tadousac is a great place for watching whales. The road stops and you go onto a ferry to get your car to Tadousac. You can see whales even from that small ferry crossing. If you walk along the beach you can also see the small whales like belugas or minke whales from the shore.
One of the most heart wrenching things I have seen for any wild animal, was a small whale who was being cared for at Mote Marine in Sarasota, Florida. The animal was sick and I'm not sure whether it had also tried to beach itself. Volunteers along with the staff quietly kept the whale wet and took care of him or her. Any visitors were told to keep very quiet in order not to disturb or upset the whale, as being injured was enough of a disturbance.
There is something about seeing a wild animal and, in particular, a wild animal in distress that really was very moving. Later I learned that the animal did not survive. But I will never forget standing there quietly and seeing all the staff and volunteers, who stayed with the whale around the clock, and who were caring for him so very quietly. It was distressing to know that the whale was very very sick and probably would not survive. I think because people do not have much contact with whales and because of their size, people are drawn to them and their plight in a way quite unlike say, a species of fish.
Sometimes I think Greenpeace is stuck a bit and does not realize that many of their boomer supporters who care about the environment are still not the kind of people who will chain themselves to buildings or logs or whatever. I see pictures of people who look very young all the time in the orange jumpsuits bringing attention to some stunt or other. Okay, it does keep Greenpeace in the news; but I cannot relate to that kind of activity. I also believe it stereotypes environmentalists into the chain-yourself-to-the-tree variety.
I believe that the influence of regular people, particularly if they are acting together, can be very strong with government or corporate officials. This is the way that Amnesty International works - many, many individuals who band together to bring attention to a person and issue, by the flood of letters that are sent on their behalf to governments or companies.
I only wish that Greenpeace had a bit more like this that people could do in the letter writing or signing petition online type of action. They usually have two or three things, but these do not change very frequently at all. I think this would broaden not only their support and legitimacy to other groups of people, but that it would provide another avenue for bringing environmental and climate change issues to governments and corporations.
I think
The ship is coming to Toronto September 1-3 and there are public tours from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. at John Quay, Harbourfront.
I have mixed feelings about Greenpeace. Whenever there are comments needed from an international spokesperson about the environment, Greenpeace is usually there to speak out. However, I find the focus of saving whales, etc., a bit remote from my life and the climate change problems of industrialized countries that needs to be remedied.
Don't get me wrong. I don't get particular sentimental about dogs and cats, but I have seen whales to and from Alaska and in the St. Lawrence Seaway close to or at Tadousac. I was particularly lucky to see some pods of Beluga whales a couple summers ago. Tadousac is a great place for watching whales. The road stops and you go onto a ferry to get your car to Tadousac. You can see whales even from that small ferry crossing. If you walk along the beach you can also see the small whales like belugas or minke whales from the shore.
One of the most heart wrenching things I have seen for any wild animal, was a small whale who was being cared for at Mote Marine in Sarasota, Florida. The animal was sick and I'm not sure whether it had also tried to beach itself. Volunteers along with the staff quietly kept the whale wet and took care of him or her. Any visitors were told to keep very quiet in order not to disturb or upset the whale, as being injured was enough of a disturbance.
There is something about seeing a wild animal and, in particular, a wild animal in distress that really was very moving. Later I learned that the animal did not survive. But I will never forget standing there quietly and seeing all the staff and volunteers, who stayed with the whale around the clock, and who were caring for him so very quietly. It was distressing to know that the whale was very very sick and probably would not survive. I think because people do not have much contact with whales and because of their size, people are drawn to them and their plight in a way quite unlike say, a species of fish.
Sometimes I think Greenpeace is stuck a bit and does not realize that many of their boomer supporters who care about the environment are still not the kind of people who will chain themselves to buildings or logs or whatever. I see pictures of people who look very young all the time in the orange jumpsuits bringing attention to some stunt or other. Okay, it does keep Greenpeace in the news; but I cannot relate to that kind of activity. I also believe it stereotypes environmentalists into the chain-yourself-to-the-tree variety.
I believe that the influence of regular people, particularly if they are acting together, can be very strong with government or corporate officials. This is the way that Amnesty International works - many, many individuals who band together to bring attention to a person and issue, by the flood of letters that are sent on their behalf to governments or companies.
I only wish that Greenpeace had a bit more like this that people could do in the letter writing or signing petition online type of action. They usually have two or three things, but these do not change very frequently at all. I think this would broaden not only their support and legitimacy to other groups of people, but that it would provide another avenue for bringing environmental and climate change issues to governments and corporations.
I think
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
This Can't Be Good - Lake Superior Drops 1 Foot in 1 Year; also Glacier Melting article
There are a few skeptic bloggers (global warming) on blog.ca who say things like, let's stop all the fuss and panic over global warming.
I don't know about you, but this excerpt from an article from the Toronto Star just doesn't seem like a good thing, especially if it a sign of things to come.
I say, Go ahead and panic a bit, and then go shopping to buy a compact fluorescent bulb or a programmable thermostat or a green-friendly cleaning product.
Biggest Great Lake seen heading for record lows
Jonathan Spicer, Reuters
Published: Wednesday, August 15, 2007
TORONTO (Reuters) - Warmer, drier weather coupled with alterations to the waterways of North America's Great Lakes will likely drive Lake Superior down to record low water levels sometime this year, experts say.
Lake Superior, the world's largest body of fresh water by surface area, has declined precipitously over the last decade but plunged down another 30 cm (1 foot) in the last year alone amid an "extreme drought," putting pressure on both commercial shipping and fish habitats.
"That's a dramatic fall," Cynthia Sellinger, a hydrologist at the U.S. Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, told Reuters. "Lake Superior has been in and out of an extreme drought since 2003, and now the drought has got more extreme on the lake's western basin."
For more of the article, here is the address: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=280c9963-8017-4439-9f84-79c88cd9418e&k=37510
Someone gave me a copy of June's National Geographic. The cover story is:
The Big Thaw: Ice on the Run, Seas on the Rise
On the first page of the story on page 56, it says:
The Big Thaw, It's no surprise that a warming climate is melting the world's glaciers and polar ice. But no one expected to happen this fast.
An explanation is also on the page to accompany the picture on the facing page. The caption says:
When melt water surging across Greenland's ice drains to the bedrock, the ice sheet slides faster to the sea -- one of the many feedback processes speeding global ice loss.
The part that says: "one of the many feedback processes speeding global ice loss" sounds a bit scary, doesn't it. It is only ONE of the MANY feedback processes. Yikes.
I don't mean to depress you by putting in articles that underline how serious the problem is. It is meant as a motivator to do something about it (besides blogging, I mean).
When I get a bit discouraged, I like to send emails to Harper or John Baird, the Environment Minister - questions, comments, anything I think of. I don't know why, but I find it very satisfying.
In the National Geographic article, there are before and after shots of glaciers - you know, one years ago when there was a sizable glacier, and more recently when it is visibly much, much smaller.
There is also on page 64-65, a diagram spreading out over two pages of the different stages in how ice sheets, like those over Greenland and West Antarctica, are shrinking:
1. Surface melting begs more melting.
2. Melt water fractures ice and lubricates the bottom, speeding flow.
3. Thinner ice has a weaker grip on the land and can't hold the accelerating glacier.
4. Warmer oceans erode floating ice at its base.
Climate Connections For more coverage of Earth's changing climate from National Geographic and NPR, visit ngm.com/climateconnections and npr.org/climateconnections. Then join a discussion in our forum at ngm.com/0706.
I don't know whether I should find another scary, panicky article for tomorrow (for the skeptics) or a good news story.
I have all kinds of newspaper clippings on my cubicle wall at work (and yes, people do think it is weird to have made global warming wallpaper, but putting up so many articles on a whole wall).
All I have to do is remember to bring one home.
I don't know about you, but this excerpt from an article from the Toronto Star just doesn't seem like a good thing, especially if it a sign of things to come.
I say, Go ahead and panic a bit, and then go shopping to buy a compact fluorescent bulb or a programmable thermostat or a green-friendly cleaning product.
Biggest Great Lake seen heading for record lows
Jonathan Spicer, Reuters
Published: Wednesday, August 15, 2007
TORONTO (Reuters) - Warmer, drier weather coupled with alterations to the waterways of North America's Great Lakes will likely drive Lake Superior down to record low water levels sometime this year, experts say.
Lake Superior, the world's largest body of fresh water by surface area, has declined precipitously over the last decade but plunged down another 30 cm (1 foot) in the last year alone amid an "extreme drought," putting pressure on both commercial shipping and fish habitats.
"That's a dramatic fall," Cynthia Sellinger, a hydrologist at the U.S. Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, told Reuters. "Lake Superior has been in and out of an extreme drought since 2003, and now the drought has got more extreme on the lake's western basin."
For more of the article, here is the address: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=280c9963-8017-4439-9f84-79c88cd9418e&k=37510
Someone gave me a copy of June's National Geographic. The cover story is:
The Big Thaw: Ice on the Run, Seas on the Rise
On the first page of the story on page 56, it says:
The Big Thaw, It's no surprise that a warming climate is melting the world's glaciers and polar ice. But no one expected to happen this fast.
An explanation is also on the page to accompany the picture on the facing page. The caption says:
When melt water surging across Greenland's ice drains to the bedrock, the ice sheet slides faster to the sea -- one of the many feedback processes speeding global ice loss.
The part that says: "one of the many feedback processes speeding global ice loss" sounds a bit scary, doesn't it. It is only ONE of the MANY feedback processes. Yikes.
I don't mean to depress you by putting in articles that underline how serious the problem is. It is meant as a motivator to do something about it (besides blogging, I mean).
When I get a bit discouraged, I like to send emails to Harper or John Baird, the Environment Minister - questions, comments, anything I think of. I don't know why, but I find it very satisfying.
In the National Geographic article, there are before and after shots of glaciers - you know, one years ago when there was a sizable glacier, and more recently when it is visibly much, much smaller.
There is also on page 64-65, a diagram spreading out over two pages of the different stages in how ice sheets, like those over Greenland and West Antarctica, are shrinking:
1. Surface melting begs more melting.
2. Melt water fractures ice and lubricates the bottom, speeding flow.
3. Thinner ice has a weaker grip on the land and can't hold the accelerating glacier.
4. Warmer oceans erode floating ice at its base.
Climate Connections For more coverage of Earth's changing climate from National Geographic and NPR, visit ngm.com/climateconnections and npr.org/climateconnections. Then join a discussion in our forum at ngm.com/0706.
I don't know whether I should find another scary, panicky article for tomorrow (for the skeptics) or a good news story.
I have all kinds of newspaper clippings on my cubicle wall at work (and yes, people do think it is weird to have made global warming wallpaper, but putting up so many articles on a whole wall).
All I have to do is remember to bring one home.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Green Bits from The Economist
From from The Economist, on Economist.com, August 13, 2007:
Carbon connoisseur
The baffling menu of emissions-offsets option
When all you want is a drinkable wine at an affordable price, the sommelier's list in a posh restaurant can seem more of a hindrance than a help. So it is with carbon offsets. The list of options can seem long and confusing when set against the simple objective of getting somebody else to reduce greenhouse gases on your behalf. And, given the intangible nature of offsets, buying a dodgy short on a tonne of carbon is just as easy as getting a corked bottle.
Quality is the offset market's most pressing issue, according to a new study of the voluntary carbon market by Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance. The report counted 14 third-party offset standards, and seven registries, few of which are more than a year old. Offset retailers that accredit and verify their own products according to proprietary standards at least double these totals. With the price of offsetting a tonne of CO2 ranging from 45 cents to $45, and growing fears of sharp practice by "carbon cowboys," the industry needs guidance on quality.
For more of this article, copy this to your search engine: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9637956&fsrc=RSS
From The Economist, on Economist.com, July 16th, 2007:
Losing sleep over climate change
Poor countries may be worried than rich ones
The biggest problem in the fight against climate change is the issue of how to involve poor countries. Developing-country governments are reluctant to bear the costs of averting climate change. Two reasons are generally given: first, that rich countries are largely responsible for global warming, and second, that people in developing countries have more immediate problems to worry about.
The first point is indisputable. Industrialisation is the rich world started long before that in the poor world; carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for around 200 years, so developed countries have contributed far more of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than developing ones have.
For more of this article, copy this to your search engine:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9637956&fsrc=RSS
From The Economist, on Economist.com, August 6th, 2007:
Another man's poisson
The argument for giving up fish
No meal could have been more perfect than a seafood feast I enjoyed on the beach last week in the San Juan Islands, off the coast in Washington state. A friend and I fired up a grill using twigs gathered from nearby driftwood (yes, it's legal). Our stockpile included a dozen oysters fresh from a nearby farm, plus a slab of tender Alaskan salmon that we marinated in Teriyaki sauce and grilled to a scrumptious pinky-brown. It was definitely the best moment of the summer.
Gather your oysters while ye may - because, come September, fish will be banned from my diet. I tried this once before, when I became a vegetarian at the age of ten. The precipitating event was a pig-roast picnic held by my grandparents. I can still remember my anguish as that huge animal turned slowly on a pit.
For more of this article, copy this to your search engine:
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348924&story_id=9610798
Carbon connoisseur
The baffling menu of emissions-offsets option
When all you want is a drinkable wine at an affordable price, the sommelier's list in a posh restaurant can seem more of a hindrance than a help. So it is with carbon offsets. The list of options can seem long and confusing when set against the simple objective of getting somebody else to reduce greenhouse gases on your behalf. And, given the intangible nature of offsets, buying a dodgy short on a tonne of carbon is just as easy as getting a corked bottle.
Quality is the offset market's most pressing issue, according to a new study of the voluntary carbon market by Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance. The report counted 14 third-party offset standards, and seven registries, few of which are more than a year old. Offset retailers that accredit and verify their own products according to proprietary standards at least double these totals. With the price of offsetting a tonne of CO2 ranging from 45 cents to $45, and growing fears of sharp practice by "carbon cowboys," the industry needs guidance on quality.
For more of this article, copy this to your search engine: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9637956&fsrc=RSS
From The Economist, on Economist.com, July 16th, 2007:
Losing sleep over climate change
Poor countries may be worried than rich ones
The biggest problem in the fight against climate change is the issue of how to involve poor countries. Developing-country governments are reluctant to bear the costs of averting climate change. Two reasons are generally given: first, that rich countries are largely responsible for global warming, and second, that people in developing countries have more immediate problems to worry about.
The first point is indisputable. Industrialisation is the rich world started long before that in the poor world; carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for around 200 years, so developed countries have contributed far more of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than developing ones have.
For more of this article, copy this to your search engine:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9637956&fsrc=RSS
From The Economist, on Economist.com, August 6th, 2007:
Another man's poisson
The argument for giving up fish
No meal could have been more perfect than a seafood feast I enjoyed on the beach last week in the San Juan Islands, off the coast in Washington state. A friend and I fired up a grill using twigs gathered from nearby driftwood (yes, it's legal). Our stockpile included a dozen oysters fresh from a nearby farm, plus a slab of tender Alaskan salmon that we marinated in Teriyaki sauce and grilled to a scrumptious pinky-brown. It was definitely the best moment of the summer.
Gather your oysters while ye may - because, come September, fish will be banned from my diet. I tried this once before, when I became a vegetarian at the age of ten. The precipitating event was a pig-roast picnic held by my grandparents. I can still remember my anguish as that huge animal turned slowly on a pit.
For more of this article, copy this to your search engine:
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348924&story_id=9610798
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Buzz Hargrove, Canadian Auto Workers, Whining Again About the Poor North American Car Companies
I did not like it the first time Buzz Hargrove complained in the press about how doing something about car emissions or fuel economy would hurt the car companies and result in worker layoffs.
Now he is whining about how unfair it is to the poor North American car companies to have rebates on cars with good fuel economy and penalty fees for the cars that are gas guzzlers. (Are you dropping the Liberals, Mr. Hargrove, and supporting the Conservatives?)
The problem I have with both of these statements is that it is not the fault of Canadian citizens that the North American car companies sat on their duffs all these years while Toyota designed and built and started selling more and more hybrid cars. They knew or should have known that the environment was becoming very important to Canadians and been proactive and adapted their products accordingly.
GM used to huff and haw about when they would ever get a hybrid car up and running. Oh, well, maybe in four years, but only if.... Then GM drops from the number #1 car company in the world down to #2 behing Toyota. All of a sudden GM announces that it is going to have several new designs in no time flat.
Mr. Hargrove, greening a business does not equal losing money and laying off workers. At the 2007 Energy and Environment Conference June 18-20 in Toronto, I heard many company CEOs or managing directors talk about how they had greened their businesses, registered hundreds and hundreds of new patents or designed innovative new products and have made a pile of money in the process. (GM's electric prototype, the Volt, was at the conference, too, along with a Toyota Prius and a Mercedez-Bentz Smart Car.) So I believe North American car companies are fully capable of adapting themselves if they set their minds to it.
During World War II, some car companies in North America were asked to retool their plants to manufacture airplanes or other military items. It did not take them ten or twenty years to think about doing it first. One plant was retooled and in production within a year; another was ready in 18 months.
Should I sympathize with badly managed dinosaur companies who should have acted for the common good years ago and started building hybrids and cars with better fuel economy, instead of flogging the hugely polluting SUVs; the same car companies that were happy to continue polluting the air our children breathe and to continue contributing to global warming despite the fact they knew or should have known this is the most serious dilemma the world is facing.
At one time in the past, corporations were directed by their values and their morals. Now corporations are selfish and greedy and profiteering, like pirates, unconcerned what reprehensible things they must do to society and the environment in the process.
So I am not going to worry about North American car companies who have only been concerned about themselves and shareholders (if they have them).
I worry about my children and the other children in Canada, and what kind of earth will be left for them as adults with children of their own. I worry about how much time is left for us to stop global warming before it is too late.
Now he is whining about how unfair it is to the poor North American car companies to have rebates on cars with good fuel economy and penalty fees for the cars that are gas guzzlers. (Are you dropping the Liberals, Mr. Hargrove, and supporting the Conservatives?)
The problem I have with both of these statements is that it is not the fault of Canadian citizens that the North American car companies sat on their duffs all these years while Toyota designed and built and started selling more and more hybrid cars. They knew or should have known that the environment was becoming very important to Canadians and been proactive and adapted their products accordingly.
GM used to huff and haw about when they would ever get a hybrid car up and running. Oh, well, maybe in four years, but only if.... Then GM drops from the number #1 car company in the world down to #2 behing Toyota. All of a sudden GM announces that it is going to have several new designs in no time flat.
Mr. Hargrove, greening a business does not equal losing money and laying off workers. At the 2007 Energy and Environment Conference June 18-20 in Toronto, I heard many company CEOs or managing directors talk about how they had greened their businesses, registered hundreds and hundreds of new patents or designed innovative new products and have made a pile of money in the process. (GM's electric prototype, the Volt, was at the conference, too, along with a Toyota Prius and a Mercedez-Bentz Smart Car.) So I believe North American car companies are fully capable of adapting themselves if they set their minds to it.
During World War II, some car companies in North America were asked to retool their plants to manufacture airplanes or other military items. It did not take them ten or twenty years to think about doing it first. One plant was retooled and in production within a year; another was ready in 18 months.
Should I sympathize with badly managed dinosaur companies who should have acted for the common good years ago and started building hybrids and cars with better fuel economy, instead of flogging the hugely polluting SUVs; the same car companies that were happy to continue polluting the air our children breathe and to continue contributing to global warming despite the fact they knew or should have known this is the most serious dilemma the world is facing.
At one time in the past, corporations were directed by their values and their morals. Now corporations are selfish and greedy and profiteering, like pirates, unconcerned what reprehensible things they must do to society and the environment in the process.
So I am not going to worry about North American car companies who have only been concerned about themselves and shareholders (if they have them).
I worry about my children and the other children in Canada, and what kind of earth will be left for them as adults with children of their own. I worry about how much time is left for us to stop global warming before it is too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
