I wonder how this will be spun.....

[JayB]

It seems some feel this is an all-or-nothing deal. Either water your lawn with gasoline and drive a tank to work, or live off alfalfa and get a thatched roof house off-grid.

 

Just think if a lot of people who COULD ride their bike to work for just ONE day a week did so, and continued to drive every other day. The step towards US energy independence would be significant. If people didn't switch to a hybrid but just used a vehicle that consumed a few mpg less for their daily commutes, the contribution would be enormous. OF COURSE it is not out of line to go on vacations that require air travel. Obviously it consumes a lot of fuel, but that is something we are willing to sacrifice to enjoy life. The point is, it's the little changes in our lives that can pay off big if everyone, all several billion of us in the USA who can, do.

 

In addition, this is not just about fringe enviro-wacko save the tree frogs stuff. This is about keeping America strong as a nation and beautiful as a country, and making sure it stays so for our kids. I want my kids (if I ever have them) to get a chance to appreciate what I have been given, and I know everyone here does too.

 

 

 

 

I think it's all about moderating one's sanctimony-to-BTU ratio a bit in accordance with the reality that even if you are making a laudable effort to conserve resources - it's impossible to live a normal life in this country without using an amount of energy that's several multiples of what, say, a nomadic goatherd in North Yemen does, and using/consuming marginally less in the way of resources than the guy down the street hardly gives one license to mount the pulpit and villify anyone with a V-8 engine or a three car garage. Let he who is without sin cast the first "I'm Changing the Climate!" sticker.

 

 

Conservation is great, and there are plenty of good reasons to live as efficiently as possible, but I think it'd be more effective to point out the tangible benefits of doing so - such as the fact that changing your habits so that you consume less energy is generally healthier and less expensive - rather than pointing to oneself as the sin-quo-non of eco-righteousness and condemning those who fail to reach the dizzying heights of eco-perfection that you have attained by consuming 3% fewer BTU's than the family next door and scrupulously recycling the bottles left over from the six pack of organic wheat-beer that you bought at the post-consumer harvest collective - aka upscale grocery store - down the street. If the guy next door with the F350 double-cab and massive gut and skyrocketing trigliceride count learns that he can fend off the heart attack, the gallstones, the ulcer, and the collection agency by changing his habits a bit that will be much more effective than any left-wing-tent-revival style denunciations from the dude in the Volvo-X Country.

 

FWIW I would be willing to wager that my household consumption is actually less than that of the more strident posters on this site. Since 1992 a bike has been my primary mode of daily transport for all but 3 years, I've always shared housing, recycled, left the AC off, worn sweaters or grabbed a blanket instead of turning off the heat, let the lawn go brown in the summer, mowed by hand, switched to the compact flourescent bulbs instead of incandescent, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The primary motivator has been that doing so is cheaper and healthier, leaving me more fit and more able to squander money on gear than I would be otherwise. The enviro angle is nice but my habits hardly leave me in a position to deify my lifestyle choices vis-a-vis the guy next door.

[iain]

it's impossible to live a normal life in this country without using an amount of energy that's several multiples of what, say, a nomadic goatherd in North Yemen does

 

Of course.

 

consuming marginally less in the way of resources than the guy down the street hardly gives one license to mount the pulpit and villify anyone with a V-8 engine or a three car garage. Let he who is without sin cast the first "I'm Changing the Climate Sticker."

 

You're discounting an important message by assuming everyone agrees with a vocal few. It's reasonable to fight for conservation tactfully. Instead of slapping a sticker on the neighbor's truck anonymously, genuinely ask, "that's a beast of truck, what are you hauling with that thing?" or "damn gas prices must be killing you commuting with the rig" when you take out the trash. Billboards with some frightening stats on gas payments per month would be effective. Maybe plant a few right on I-5 for rush-hour.

 

Of course, what your neighbor does is his/her business, it's a free country. You're free to be an asshole, but you won't get many friends either. This is where, in my opinion, government should play a role. Yes, you should be free to buy a gas-guzzler. But, for the burden that places on our society, we are going to hit you with taxes rather than reward you with exemptions. I'd be happy to pay more to counteract the Tacoma I drive, or get rid of it. Money talks, unfortunately.

 

rather than pointing to oneself as the sin-quo-non of eco-righteousness and condemning those who fail to reach the dizzying heights ....snip...dude in the Volvo-X Country.

 

You seem to have a lot of upscale assholes in Seattle. Yes, Portland has a few too, but I think you are again pigeonholing the "environmental movement" into distortion. This is often what I see Fox News (and really any new station) do, usually with some story about "environmentalists" want to ease the suffering of flies, quoting some ELF maniac. There are a lot of people - feet firmly planted on the ground - who are not like the above yet still want to do the right thing w/o self-righteousness.

 

FWIW I would be willing to wager that my household consumption is actually less than that of the more strident posters on this site.

 

No need to boast. I think most people fall into your category.

 

The words "conservationist" or "environmentalist" need to be replaced with something like "patriot" or similar. It is patriotic to protect our homeland, and part of that is showing respect for the natural resources that made this country the superpower that it is. That's the kind of ad campaign the "environmental" movement needs to develop to succeed. You can't do it by insulting people, and that goes both ways.

[rbw1966]

I'm linking to his gallery, for God's sake! If he doesn't want the world to see the results of exceeding one's abilities, all he has to do is kill the link...or shut up with his 'when were you in the military?' harping.

 

That image is not from my gallery Mssr. Fairweather. I have only two photos in my gallery and they are both very old ones taken of the aftermath from a Smith gathering. Care to try again?

 

By the way, you can post that pic as often as you like.

 

But I think it's really fabulous that he has a 'partner' like you to stick up for him.

 

So do I.

[j_b]

I think it's all about moderating one's sanctimony-to-BTU ratio ...

 

just frikin classic! the only ones sanctimonious in this thread are those who attack folks for their choice of vacation and issue the usual blanket demonizations of the order of "environmentalists are stupid hippies" that JayB is now famous for. Do you always have to dumb down a discussion when you feel you are not getting any traction with your arguments?

 

airplane traffic is responsable for just a small % (~3?) of global CO2 emissions, while highway traffic is somewhere near 50% (or whatever ridiculously high number i can't recall at the moment). so even though greenhouse gas emissions due to airplanes should be considered, if we want society to address human-induced global warming effectively it stands to reason to look at CAFE standards first.

[JayB]

 

"just frikin classic! the only ones sanctimonious in this thread are those who attack folks for their choice of vacation and issue the usual blanket demonizations of the order of "environmentalists are stupid hippies" that JayB is now famous for. Do you always have to dumb down a discussion when you feel you are not getting any traction with your arguments?"

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

compelling argument

Edited May 2, 2005 by j_b

[JayB]

Just too easy.

 

I rode my bike to work today, like I have for 80% of my adult life - the net BTU savings from which allow me to increase the sanctimony with no net increase in the BTU-to-sanctimony ratio - thereby keeping it a safe distance below your own....

[AlpineK]

Hey j_b how come you're attacking Jay B when it was Fairweather who was pitching the biggest fit about Jim's vacation to Europe.

[Jim]

Hey j_b how come you're attacking Jay B when it was Fairweather who was pitching the biggest fit about Jim's vacation to Europe.

 

JayB gets points for self-powered transport. He may yet leave the dark side.

[j_b]

because of a) the usual non-sequitur to prevent any meaningful discussion; nobody was being sanctimonious until fairweather reproached jim for his vacation and JayB told us how he probably conserved more than anyone here (it should be easy for him to show us where people were being preachy if it were the case) and b) the usual portrayal of environmentalists as stupid hippies. basically, it is indeed "too easy" to show that apart from a limbaughesque ability to insult people by association and following closely the rightwing book on "how to not discuss the environment and how to demonize environmentalists", JayB's meaningful contribution to this thread is nil as far as i am concerned. if he really intended to contribute anything else he'd have chosen to answer the comment about why we should address CAFE standards instead of solely trying to bash his opponent a little more (no surprise though, it is standard operating procedure for him).

 

as for fairweather,

Edited May 2, 2005 by j_b

[Peter_Puget]

Short of time but I am somewhat confused as to “spin”. The IPCC report mentioned near the end of the article contains this:

 

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” —IPCC report

 

Those wishing to control people through taxation would benefit from this little write-up. link

[JayB]

Increasing cafe standards will certainly lower C02 emissions in the US, but where it gets tricky is trying to figure the extent to which a given increase in CAFE standards will actually reduce trend C02 emissions on a global basis, and how much this trend reduction will actually affect global temperatures - and that's assuming other factors affecting the climate cycle stay constant over the duration of the interval under consideration.

 

Increasing the fuel efficiency of the car that the average American drives will certainly decrease CO2 emissions - but when Xing Mi and Pradeep start commuting home to the ranch style home with the AC and the plasma screen TV the net effect on the atmospheric C02 concentrations brought about by this change in the US may not be as significant as some are suggesting.

 

Step in the right direction - yes. Panacea. No.

[AlpineK]

You may want to look at how terms are defined. In the geologic sense 100 to 200 years is a couple seconds. Most reports I've read make predictions over that time period however a long time period is probably 100,000 years or more.

[JayB]

"the usual portrayal of environmentalists as stupid hippies. basically, it is indeed "too easy" to show that apart from a limbaughesque ability to insult people by association and following closely the rightwing book on "how to not discuss the environment and how to demonize environmentalists",

 

I am clearly trashing the very notion that conservation has any benefits at all here:

 

"Conservation is great, and there are plenty of good reasons to live as efficiently as possible, but I think it'd be more effective to point out the tangible benefits of doing so - such as the fact that changing your habits so that you consume less energy is generally healthier and less expensive - rather than pointing to oneself as the sin-quo-non of eco-righteousness and condemning those who fail to reach the dizzying heights of eco-perfection that you have attained by consuming 3% fewer BTU's than the family next door and scrupulously recycling the bottles left over from the six pack of organic wheat-beer that you bought at the post-consumer harvest collective - aka upscale grocery store - down the street. If the guy next door with the F350 double-cab and massive gut and skyrocketing trigliceride count learns that he can fend off the heart attack, the gallstones, the ulcer, and the collection agency by changing his habits a bit that will be much more effective than any left-wing-tent-revival style denunciations from the dude in the Volvo-X Country"

 

I think you are conflating my mental picture and verbal depictions of you* in particular with my general impressions of people who are concerned about the environment. How's the mileage on the X-Country anyways?

 

*Probably completely inaccurate but still personally amusing.

 

 

 

 

[AlpineK]

I agree that not involving China and India is the biggest weak point of the Kyoto treaty. On the other hand increasing CAFE standards has the effect of putting a stick behind the carrot. Detroit is very resistant to increasing milage standards for their vehicles. It's a very short sighted view. Just look at the problems GM is having; part of it is due to them missing the hybrid boat.

 

The auto makes sure pitched a fit for years over installing air bags in cars, but it doesn't seem to have caused a major disruption in their sales. In the end forcing Detroit to increase their milage standards will make them more competative in the market place and thus more profitable.

[cj001f]

I agree that not involving China and India is the biggest weak point of the Kyoto treaty.

China and India have signed on to the Kyoto protocol. They are not subject to reductions in greenhouse gases under Kyoto. With per capita GDP's at PPP of $4900 and $2600, respectively (US =$33000), what are they supposed to cut? Wood stoves for the farmers?

 

India and China are the future of conservation, but we can't preclude them from the basics, food, shelter, transportation - and many in Asia don't yet have those.

[rbw1966]

I've actually found JayB's contribution more compelling to this discussion than just about anyone elses, including my own.

 

I think the homonyms are arguing for the same objective via different routes. Who cares why someone does the right thing as long as they do it?

 

I rather enjoyed JayBs rip on hippies.

[Peter_Puget]

You may want to look at how terms are defined. In the geologic sense 100 to 200 years is a couple seconds. Most reports I've read make predictions over that time period however a long time period is probably 100,000 years or more.

 

In a geologic sense 100k is very short as well.

[j_b]

let's not forget that kyoto was negotiated in 1997 when china's private car ownership was quasi-non-existent. the reality is that nations dragged their feet forever, negotiated to empty the accord of far-reaching measures and eventually some decided not to sign it because it is flawed (not far reaching and inclusive)

 

basically, at this juncture, the protocol has minimal objectives considering what has to be done and it should be seen as a useful platform to build momentum.

[AlpineK]

China and India have signed on to the Kyoto protocol. They are not subject to reductions in greenhouse gases under Kyoto.

 

That's true, but they need to feel a little pain too. I know people who go to Bejing, and they bring back stories of a nasty city covered in coal dust. I figure just switching to oil would reduce the total carbon output. They may not have to meet the level of reductions a first world country should, but they need to agree to do more.

[cj001f]

They may not have to meet the level of reductions a first world country should, but they need to agree to do more.

China currently consumes less energy than the US. The US has 4 times the population. Explain to me, and the chinese, why we should continue to be so blessed?

 

China's currently has an energy shortage. They don't have enough oil or coal (the mines are being pushed hard, hence all the accidents) to reliably feed their economic growth. Longterm I'm sure they'll change, but it won't happen soon.

[j_b]

"Measurements in China between 1960 and 1990 show a rapid increase in aerosols in heavily populated regions. The 25% increase in aerosol optical depth was accompanied by a 35% reduction in visibility, a 20% decrease in direct solar radiation, and a decrease in temperature that matched the spatial pattern of the optical-depth increase. Estimates of the forcing in the most highly affected region, the Yangtze River delta, range from -10 to -30 W m-2 depending on the season

 

[...]

 

Considerations of human health are currently driving reductions in reflective aerosols, especially sulfates, so the present trend is to decrease emissions that provide climate cooling. Actions to reduce black carbon emissions through particulate controls, combustion improvements, or fuel switching will also be accompanied by decreases in reflective particles. For example, reduced coal use in China has decreased both black carbon and sulfate emissions over the past five years, and the estimated effect is a positive climate forcing (Streets et al., 2001). This trend may seem undesirable from a global-climate perspective, but it does have climate benefits by reducing regional perturbations. In order to compare mitigation measures, climate-change metrics that go beyond global averages are needed."

 

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/pollution02/summaryc.html

 

i.e. net effect is cooling (at least at the regional scale). but this is not meant to say that the brown cloud is not dangerous pollution.

[Peter_Puget]

Attachment #1

[Peter_Puget]

Why did gasoline consumption grow so rapidly during the early years of the 55 MPH speed limit -- and why did it plunge when speed limits returned to local control?

 

 

J_B can do an analysis on the impact of recessions of gas utilization. They seem to be a big player. I wonder why he hasn’t mentioned the imminent decline in world wide oil production. (search on his user name for posts predicting this.) Certainly that the absolute slow down and soon decline of oil supplies coupled with an ever increasing world wide hunger for oil will have an impact.

[j_b]

Short of time but I am somewhat confused as to “spin”. The IPCC report mentioned near the end of the article contains this:

 

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” —IPCC report

 

sigh .... perhaps the full quote would be useful: "Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential." (bold emphasis is mine)

 

contrarily to PP ..., i'll provide the link:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/501.htm