This is interesting to me. I am more and more coming to the conclusion that global warming, if it exists is a problem, is not understood properly enough for us to discuss rational solutions. There just seems to be too much junk science and disagreement about the causes at this point. I do appreciate the so called “green architecture” movement, and I think we need to do more of it.
I also think we should focus more on recycling. Critics of recycling tend to focus on two problems - it is not cost-effective, and it is not convenient. Assuming most of us agree recycling would be good but for these two problems, I have a solution: we should build prisons next to landfills and require prisoners to separate trash. Reclaimed material would then be auctioned off in lots once a month by the government. Two things that no one wants to live near would thus be located in the same place, and society can realize the gains of recycling at almost no cost and with no additional inconvenience.
Any holes in this theory?
I just don’t know what to think about global warming. I’m sure you can imagine how my profession does everything in its power to brainwash (er, educate) me into believing the science behind global warming and why CO2 is bad. So when I read your blog today I decided to Google “is global warming real?” Surprisingly (or perhaps not), the top few links are to sites that dispute whether or not global warming is real and/or a problem. Pretty interesting scientific explanations (I haven’t had a chance to read them exhaustively). I think you’ll particularly like the Washington Post column at the top of the list. Anyway, I don’t know what to think. I guess, ultimately, I look at a semi spewing black smoke and I think, that can’t be good for me. I can’t afford solar panels (yet) or a hybrid car (yet), but as soon as I’m able I want to do what I can to reduce my impact on the environment. It’s like backpacking–take only photos, leave only footprints–but on a much, much bigger scale. And I’ll do it basically because I have faith that it’s the right thing to do, not because Al Gore won an Oscar or because the Guvernator drives an alternative fuel muscle car. I just hope that sometime in my lifetime the scientists can get on the same page and get the politicians to stop grandstanding over this thing.
By the way, I have seen “An Inconvenient Truth.” It was pretty powerful, and totally believable. But then again, so is the other side. And we wonder why the American public is ambivalent.
The Snopes links were interesting. I wonder why the Bush camp doesn’t make a bigger deal about his ranch being so eco-friendly?
Comment by ksdunham — May 6, 2007 @ 9:15 am
I hope I communicated my point that I think we all need to “do our part”, but that right now we don’t (and maybe can’t) know what to do. The science is in so much flux right now that I’m just not convinced that there really is a problem. For example, the global warming proponents claim the average temperature of the Earth has increased by about 2 degrees over the last 100 years. That gives me pause for two reasons - (1) Is 2 degrees that big a deal? if I changed your environment by 2 degrees, would you even notice? and (2) Does that mean we’re using official temperature figures from 1905? I’m supposed to consider that dead-nuts reliable?
Put that aside and let’s assume for the sake of discussion that global warming is real. Now what do we do? As an example, I read an article recently that argued that we need to pay attention to the different types of forests. I forget the details, but the basic point was that certain kinds of forests (South American rain forests, for instance) had a cooling effect and should be preserved, but that other kinds of forests (which you find all over this country) actually had a warming effect, with the bottom line being that the plant-a-tree hippies might actually be exacerbating the global-warming problem in the long run. I feel sorta like I did when there was a rash of news stories 15 years ago about this and that causing cancer, culminating in “the sun causes cancer”, at which point I said, well, I guess I’m gonna get cancer from something at some point, so I’m not going to worry about it any more.
I agree with you - we should each individually do our part, at a modest level (unless you WANT to go off the deep end, that’s certainly your right). I’m not saying we should all give up our cars and ride bicycles, but what’s wrong with buying a hybrid car, or using less electricity, or whatever. On a grander scale, the government can encourage that type of behavior without being overly Big Brother, I think, and I think that’s government’s highest and best role in this process. And I stand by my prisoners-sorting-trash idea, that’s win-win for everybody except those who deserve to lose (the prisoners).
I have not seen “An Inconvenient Truth”, which is why I deliberately did not and will not comment on it. I will probably do a follow-up post once I have the chance to watch it.
A mini-rant in response to your last question: I’m going to sound like a Bush fanboy here, when I’m clearly not, so take this in its intended spirit. But this is an example of what I think is our President’s greatest quality - his total lack of any apparent need to engage in pointless posturing. Let’s suppose President Bush held a press conference today in which he talked about his ranch house for 25 minutes and explained all the wonderful things he was doing to help the environment - would anyone give a shit? His supporters would love it, but they’re already supporters. His detracters (sp?) would cry foul and accuse him of just being political, and some of them would find some hyper-techincal way in which the ranch house was actually harming the environment and would make a big deal out of it for no good reason. In this regard he has taken the high road and done what you’re supposed to do, without all the “look at me” crap you see from most politicians. It’s the equivalent of the way Barry Sanders would make amazing touchdown run after amazing touchdown run and always - always - simply flip the ball to the official and trot back to the bench, with maybe a high-five or two along the way. Imagine what the world would be like if everybody quietly went about their business, doing what they’re supposed to do, with no one feeling the need to brag or call attention to themselves. I submit that if you really take an objective look at the body of work this President has put together over the last seven years, you would find a fair number of “good” things that he’s done that have not really been covered by the media and that he hasn’t really made an effort to publicize, for the simple fact that he has a core belief that he should just do the job he was elected (I know, I know) to do and go about his business.
But I digress.
Comment by Mike — May 7, 2007 @ 11:07 am