Climate Change & Global Warming

[Guest Anonymous]

[Guest Anonymous]

Yep, every post on Shetlink is another bucket full of CO2 into the atmosphere!

 

Good for you.. Keep up the good work.

[mate64]

Yep, every post on Shetlink is another bucket full of CO2 into the atmosphere!

...unless the power comes from a windmill.

[Gibber]

High leccy bills I can afford.. But how could you even suggest buying a new freezer every week if you were not part of our 'throw away' culture?

 

You'll find out when you leave the door open for long enough. Ordinarily I'd suggest closing it.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

The link below strengthens my last posts.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11630355

quote -"The highest losses were seen in Southeast Asia, where loss of habitat as forests are cleared for agriculture, including biofuel crops, is fastest."

[Guest Anonymous]

An interesting piece that, I think, most on this thread will learn something from.

It's a little long but worth it.

(I'm anticipating an enevitable "garbage", from AT)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Why I Am Not An Environmentalist:

The Science of Economics Versus the Religion of Ecology

Excerpt from

The Armchair Economist: Economics & Everyday Life

by Steven E. Landsburg

(pp. 223-231)

 

At the age of four, my daughter earned her second diploma. When she was two, she graduated with the highest possible honors from the Toddler Room at her nursery school in Colorado. Two years later she graduated from the preschool of the Jewish Community Center, where she matriculated on our return to New York State.

 

At the graduation ceremony, titled Friends of the Earth, I was lectured by four- and five-year-olds on the importance of safe energy sources, mass transportation, and recycling. The recurring mantra was "With privilege comes responsibility" as in "With the privilege of living on this planet comes the responsibility to care for it." Of course, Thomas Jefferson thought that life on this planet was more an inalienable right than a privilege, but then he had never been to preschool.

 

I'd heard some of this from my daughter before and had gotten used to the idea that she needed a little deprogramming from time to time. But as I listened to the rote repetition of a political agenda from children not old enough to read, I decided it was time for a word with the teacher. She wanted to know which specific points in the catechism I found objectionable. I declined to answer. As environmentalism becomes increasingly like an intrusive state religion, we dissenters become increasingly prickly about suggestions that we suffer from some kind of aberration.

 

The naive environmentalism of my daughter's preschool is a force-fed potpourri of myth, superstition, and ritual that has much in common with the least reputable varieties of religious Fundamentalism. The antidote to bad religion is good science. The antidote to astrology is the scientific method, the antidote to naive creationism is evolutionary biology, and the antidote to naive environmentalism is economics.

 

Economics is the science of competing preferences. Environmentalism goes beyond science when it elevates matters of preference to matters of morality. A proposal to pave a wilderness and put up a parking lot is an occasion for conflict between those who prefer wilderness and those who prefer convenient parking. In the ensuing struggle, each side attempts to impose its preferences by manipulating the political and economic systems. Because one side must win and one side must lose, the battle is hard-fought and sometimes bitter. All of this is to be expected.

 

But in the 25 years since the first Earth Day, a new and ugly element has emerged in the form of one side's conviction that its preferences are Right and the other side's are Wrong. The science of economics shuns such moral posturing; the religion of environmentalism embraces it.

 

Economics forces us to confront a fundamental symmetry. The conflict arises because each side wants to allocate the same resource in a different way. Jack wants his woodland at the expense of Jill's parking space and Jill wants her parking space at the expense of Jack's woodland. That formulation is morally neutral and should serve as a warning against assigning exalted moral status to either Jack or Jill.

 

The symmetries run deeper. Environmentalists claim that wilderness should take precedence over parking because a decision to pave is "irrevocable." Of course they are right, but they overlook the fact that a decision not to pave is equally irrevocable. Unless we pave today, my opportunity to park tomorrow is lost as irretrievably as tomorrow itself will be lost. The ability to park in a more distant future might be a quite inadequate substitute for that lost opportunity.

 

A variation on the environmentalist theme is that we owe the wilderness option not to ourselves but to future generations. But do we have any reason to think that future generations will prefer inheriting the wilderness to inheriting the profits from the parking lot? That is one of the first questions that would be raised in any honest scientific inquiry.*

 

Another variation is that the parking lot's developer is motivated by profits, not preferences. To this there are two replies. First, the developer's profits are generated by his customers' preferences; the ultimate conflict is not with the developer but with those who prefer to park. Second, the implication of the argument is that a preference for a profit is somehow morally inferior to a preference for a wilderness, which is just the sort of posturing that the argument was designed to avoid.

 

It seems to me that the "irrevocability" argument, the "future generations" argument, and the "preferences not profits" argument all rely on false distinctions that wither before honest scrutiny. Why, then, do some environmentalists repeat these arguments? Perhaps honest scrutiny is simply not a part of their agenda. In many cases, they begin with the postulate that they hold the moral high ground, and conclude that they are thereby licensed to disseminate intellectually dishonest propaganda as long as it serves the higher purpose of winning converts to the cause.

 

 

The hallmark of science is a commitment to follow arguments to their logical conclusions; the hallmark of certain kinds of religion is a slick appeal to logic followed by a hasty retreat if it points in an unexpected direction. Environmentalists can quote reams of statistics on the importance of trees and then jump to the conclusion that recycling paper is a good idea. But the opposite conclusion makes equal sense. I am sure that if we found a way to recycle beef, the population of cattle would go down, not up. If you want ranchers to keep a lot of cattle, you should eat a lot of beef. Recycling paper eliminates the incentive for paper companies to plant more trees and can cause forests to shrink. If you want large forests, your best strategy might be to use paper as wastefully as possible — or lobby for subsidies to the logging industry. Mention this to an environmentalist. My own experience is that you will be met with some equivalent of the beatific smile of a door-to-door evangelist stumped by an unexpected challenge, but secure in his grasp of Divine Revelation.

 

This suggests that environmentalists — at least the ones I have met — have no real interest in maintaining the tree population. If they did, they would seriously inquire into the long-term effects of recycling. I suspect that they don't want to do that because their real concern is with the ritual of recycling itself, not with its consequences. The underlying need to sacrifice, and to compel others to sacrifice, is a fundamentally religious impulse.

 

Environmentalists call on us to ban carcinogenic pesticides. They choose to overlook the consequence that when pesticides are banned, fruits and vegetables become more expensive, people eat fewer of them, and cancer rates consequently rise.* If they really wanted to reduce cancer rates, they would weigh this effect in the balance.

 

Environmentalism has its apocalyptic side. Species extinctions, we are told, have consequences that are entirely unpredictable, making them too dangerous to risk. But unpredictability cuts both ways. One lesson of economics is that the less we know, the more useful it is to experiment. If we are completely ignorant about the effects of extinction, we can pick up a lot of valuable knowledge by wiping out a few species to see what happens. I doubt that scientists really are completely ignorant in this area; what interests me is the environmentalists' willingness to plead complete ignorance when it suits their purposes and to retreat when confronted with an unexpected consequences of their own position.

 

In October 1992 an entirely new species of monkey was discovered in the Amazon rain forest and touted in the news media as a case study in why the rain forests must be preserved. My own response was rather in the opposite direction. I lived a long time without knowing about this monkey and never missed it. Its discovery didn't enrich my life, and if it had gone extinct without ever being discovered, I doubt that I would have missed very much.

 

There are other species I care more about, maybe because I have fond memories of them from the zoo or from childhood storybooks. Lions, for example. I would be sorry to see lions disappear, to the point where I might be willing to pay up to about $50 a year to preserve them. I don't think I'd pay much more than that. If lions mean less to you than they do to me, I accept our difference and will not condemn you as a sinner. If they mean more to you than to me, I hope you will extend the same courtesy.

 

In the current political climate, it is frequently taken as an axiom that the U.S. government should concern itself with the welfare of Americans first; it is also frequently taken as an axiom that air pollution is always and everywhere a bad thing. You might, then, have expected a general chorus of approval when the chief economist of the World Bank suggested that it might be a good thing to relocate high-pollution industries to Third World countries. To most economists, this is a self-evident opportunity to make not just Americans but everybody better off. People in wealthy countries can afford to sacrifice some income for the luxury of cleaner air; people in poorer countries are happy to breathe inferior air in exchange for the opportunity to improve their incomes. But when the bank economist's observation was leaked to the media, parts of the environmental community went ballistic. To them, pollution is a form of sin. They seek not to improve our welfare but to save our souls.

 

There is a pattern here. Suggesting an actual solution to an environmental problem is a poor way to impress an environmentalist, unless your solution happens to feed his sense of moral superiority. Subsidies to logging, the use of pesticides, planned extinctions, and exporting pollution to Mexico are outside the catechism; subsidies to mass transportation, the use of catalytic converters, planned fuel economy standards, adn exporting industry from the Pacific Northwest are part of the infallible doctrine. Solutions seem to fall into one category or the other not according to their actual utility but according to their consistency with environmentalist dogma.

 

 

In the last weeks of the 1992 presidential campaign, George Bush, running as the candidate of less intrusive government, signed with great fanfare a bill dictating the kind of showerhead you will be permitted to buy. The American Civil Liberties Union took no position on the issue. I conjecture that if the bill had specified allowable prayerbooks instead of allowable showerheads, then even the malleable Mr. Bush might have balked — and if he hadn't, we would have heard something from the ACLU. But nothing in the science of economics suggests any fundamental difference between a preference for the Book of Common Prayer and a preference for a powerful shower spray. Quite the contrary; the economic way of thinking forces us to recognize that there is no fundamental difference.

 

The proponents of showerhead legislation argued that a law against extravagant showers is more like a law against littering than like a law against practicing a minority religion — it is designed to prevent selfish individuals from imposing real costs on others. If that was the argument that motivated Mr. Bush, then — not for the first time in his life — he had fallen prey to bad economics.

 

There are good economic reasons to outlaw littering and other impositions (though even this can be overdone — walking into a crowded supermarket is an imposition on all the other shoppers, but few of us believe it should be outlawed). But in most parts of the United States, water use is not an imposition for the simple reason that you pay for water. It is true that your luxuriant shower hurts other buyers by driving up the price of water but equally true that your shower helps sellers by exactly the same amount that it hurts buyers. You would want to limit water usage only if you cared more about buyers than sellers — in which case there are equally good arguments for limiting the consumption of everything — including energy-efficient showerheads.

 

Like other coercive ideologies, environmentalism targets children specifically. After my daughter progressed from preschool to kindergarten, her teachers taught her to conserve resources by rinsing out her paper cup instead of discarding it. I explained to her that time is also a valuable resource, and it might be worth sacrificing some cups to save some time. Her teachers taught her that mass transportation is good because it saves energy. I explained to her that it might be worth sacrificing some energy in exchange for the comfort of a private car. Her teachers taught her to recycle paper so that wilderness is not converted to landfill space. I explained to her that it might be worth sacrificing some wilderness in exchange for the luxury of not having to sort your trash. In each case, her five-year-old mind had no difficulty grasping the point. I fear that after a few more years of indoctrination, she will be as uncomprehending as her teachers.

 

In their assault on the minds of children, the most reprehensible tactic of environmental extremists is to recast every challenge to their orthodoxy as a battle between Good and Evil. The Saturday morning cartoon shows depict wicked polluters who pollute for the sake of polluting, not because polluting is a necessary byproduct of some useful activity. That perpetuates a damnable lie. American political tradition does not look kindly on those who advance their agendas by smearing the character of their opponents. That tradition should be upheld with singular urgency when the intended audience consists of children. At long last, have the environmentalists no decency?

 

 

Economics in the narrowest sense is a science free of values. But economics is also a way of thinking, with an influence on its practitioners that transcends the demands of formal logic. With the diversity of human interests as its subject matter, the discipline of economics is fertile ground for the growth of values like tolerance and pluralism.

 

In my experience, economists are extraordinary in their openness to alternative preferences, life-styles, and opinions. Judgmental clichés like "the work ethic" and the "virtue of thrift" are utterly foreign to the vocabulary of economics. Our job is to understand human behavior, and understanding is not far distant from respect.

 

Following our graduation day confrontation, I sent my daughter's teacher a letter explaining why I had declined her invitation to engage in theological debate. Some of the opinions in that letter are more personal than professional. But the letter is above all a plea for the level of tolerance that economists routinely grant and expect in return. Therefore I will indulge myself as an example of how the economic way of thinking has shaped one economist's thoughts.

 

 

Dear Rebecca:

When we lived in Colorado, Cayley was the only Jewish child in her class. There were also a few Moslems. Occasionally, and especially around Christmas time, the teachers forgot about this diversity and made remarks that were appropriate only for the Christian children. These remarks came rarely, and were easily counteracted at home with explanations that different people believe different things, so we chose not to say anything at first. We changed our minds when we overheard a teacher telling a group of children that if Santa didn't come to your house, it meant you were a very bad child; this was within earshot of an Islamic child who certainly was not going to get a visit from Santa. At that point, we decided to share our concerns with the teachers. They were genuinely apologetic and there were no more incidents. I have no doubt that the teachers were good and honest people who had no intent to indoctrinate, only a certain naïveté derived from a provincial upbringing.

 

Perhaps that same sort of honest naïveté is what underlies the problems we've had at the JCC this year. Just as Cayley's teachers in Colorado were honestly oblivious to the fact that there is diversity in religion, it may be that her teachers at the JCC have been honestly oblivious that there is diversity in politics.

 

Let me then make that diversity clear. We are not environmentalists. We ardently oppose environmentalists. We consider environmentalism a form of mass hysteria akin to Islamic fundamentalism or the War on Drugs. We do not recycle. We teach our daughter not to recycle. We teach her that people who try to convince her to recycle, or who try to force her to recycle, are intruding on her rights.

 

The preceding paragraph is intended to serve the same purpose as announcing to Cayley's Colorado teachers that we are not Christians. Some of them had never been aware of knowing anybody who was not a Christian, but they adjusted pretty quickly.

 

Once the Colorado teachers understood that we and a few other families did not subscribe to the beliefs that they were propagating, they instantly apologized and stopped. Nobody asked me what exactly it was about Christianity that I disagreed with; they simply recognized that they were unlikely to change our views on the subject, and certainly had no business inculcating our child with opposite views.

 

I contrast this with your reaction when I confronted you at the preschool graduation. You wanted to know my specific disagreements with what you had taught my child to say. I reject your right to ask that question. The entire program of environmentalism is as foreign to us as the doctrine of Christianity. I was not about to engage in detailed theological debate with Cayley's Colorado teachers and they would not have had the audacity to ask me to. I simply asked them to lay off the subject completely, they recognized the legitimacy of the request, and the subject was closed.

 

I view the current situation as far more serious than what we encountered in Colorado for several reasons. First, in Colorado we were dealing with a few isolated remarks here and there, whereas at the JCC we have been dealing with a systematic attempt to inculcate a doctrine and to quite literally put words in children's mouths. Second, I do not sense on your part any acknowledgment that there may be people in the world who do not share your views. Third, I am frankly a lot more worried about my daughter's becoming an environmentalist than about her becoming a Christian. Fourth, we face no current threat of having Christianity imposed on us by petty tyrants; the same can not be said of environmentalism. My county government never tried to send me a New Testament, but it did send me a recycling bin.

 

Although I have vowed not to get into a discussion on the issues, let me respond to the one question you seemed to think was very important in our discussion: Do I agree that with privilege comes responsibility? The answer is no. I believe that responsibilities arise when one undertakes them voluntarily. I also believe that in the absence of explicit contracts, people who lecture other people on their "responsibilities" are almost always up to no good. I tell my daughter to be wary of such people — even when they are preschool teachers who have otherwise earned a lot of love.

 

Sincerely,

 

Steven Landsburg

 

 

 

* My friend Alan Stockman has made a related point. There seems to be general agreement that it is better to transfer income from the relatively rich to the relatively poor than vice versa. It seems odd then to ask present-day Americans to make sacrifices for the benefit of future generations who will almost surely be richer than we are.

[ArabiaTerra]

Economics? A science? You could have fooled me.

 

It's an interesting piece, NorthernXposure. It really illustrates the way some people can rationalise greed as being something good. Of course, it ignores the very centre of the Environmentalists case, which is that current environmentalism and AGW theory is backed by science and the science tells us that we face a very uncertain future if we carry on the way we are going.

 

Now, what does the "science" of economics tell us about the future? Well, nothing actually, because economics has consistently failed to predict anything, ever. Economics relates to Science the way Astrology relates to Astronomy. You'd be as well reading tea-leaves as consulting an economist about the future.

 

I feel sorry for that guy's kids.

[Guest Anonymous]

I feel sorry for that guy's kids.

 

If that's MY kids you feel sorry for then you've stepped way over the mark and you can stick your pathetic pity. Your attitute towards people who refuse to follow your views is hinging on psychotic! Get yourself a life before it's too late!

[Fjool]

^ Steady now.

[Guest Anonymous]

Unlike AT, I never apologise unless I've no intention of repeating the offence.. I am very protective of my family and it's not the first time this antagonist has made reference to them.

 

Keep banging away at the buttons and you'll hit the right one eventually!

[Malachy]

I think it was blindingly obvious that AT was referring to the man who wrote the article rather than to the poster when he mentioned kids.

 

I found it a terrifying rather than an interesting article. What is interesting though is that he writes as if he is some kind of helpless maverick outside the mainstream, whereas in fact his view of economics (actually, he deliberately misuses that word - he actually means capitalism) is the dominant one, the one that dictates our laws and our politics. He is not an outsider, fighting some all-powerful environmentalist conspiracy that is brainwashing the world's children - he's an economics professor and part of the mainstream elite.

 

However, in his obsession with money, and his belief that there is no value in the world, only price, he is clearly leading a hugely impoverished life.

[Malachy]

However, I think NorthernXposure may find that AT actually holds quite similar views to Mr Landsburg (though he wouldn't admit it, of course).

 

For, while Landsburg measures everything in dollars, and sees no other value in the world, AT sees only Carbon emissions. His countless letters and posts in support of the VE windfarm express a belief that all actions can be measured in Co2 emissions alone. Building on Shetland's hills is fine, he argues, because the amount of carbon (theoretically) saved, will be more than the amount emitted during construction. Simple!

 

Both Landsburg and AT would dismiss the possibility that Shetland hills have an intrinsic value, which can be measured neither in Co2 nor in dollars. I would say both are utterlywrong.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

Excellent observations from Malachy, I cant agree with Landsbergs way of thinking, we should be teaching both ourselves and the younger generations the lessons of how to make do without unecessary waste, at all levels.

All us born from the 70's through to the present day have lived through an age of gross over-consumption by the developed world.

This age will come to an end as sure as it began

[ArabiaTerra]

However, I think NorthernXposure may find that AT actually holds quite similar views to Mr Landsburg (though he wouldn't admit it, of course).

 

For, while Landsburg measures everything in dollars, and sees no other value in the world, AT sees only Carbon emissions. His countless letters and posts in support of the VE windfarm express a belief that all actions can be measured in Co2 emissions alone. Building on Shetland's hills is fine, he argues, because the amount of carbon (theoretically) saved, will be more than the amount emitted during construction. Simple!

 

Both Landsburg and AT would dismiss the possibility that Shetland hills have an intrinsic value, which can be measured neither in Co2 nor in dollars. I would say both are utterlywrong.

You misunderstand me, Malachy. The way I see it, the threat from climate change is so great that Shetland's hills are doomed if we don't do something about our emissions. To say that Shetland's hills have an intrinsic value is fine as long as you also accept the fact that that value is depreciating all the time due to the changing climate.

 

It is the climate which we have had for the last several thousand years which created Shetland's hills as they are today.

 

That climate is changing, and the hills will change with it and unless we get control of our pollution then that change will alter Shetland and the rest of the world with it out of all recognition.

 

We have had 0.5 degrees of temperature rise already. There is another 1 degree already coming as the carbon to cause it is already in the atmosphere. That gives us 1.5 degrees by around 2030-2040. This is guaranteed.

 

If present emissions continue it will be more.

 

At between 2 and 3 degrees, the rainforests get hit with almost permanent drought. Which means they burn. All of them.

 

The burning of the rainforests will release enough carbon to raise the temperature another full degree, putting us between 3 and 4 degrees. This is enough to melt all of the permafrost.

 

There is ten times as much carbon locked up in the permafrost as there is in the rainforests. The melting of the permafrost will release this. This raises the temperature a further 1 degree or more putting us at between 4 and 5 degrees above pre-industrial.

 

5 degrees or more of warming will begin to destabilise the shallow water methane hydrates deposits in the Arctic. There is estimated to be ten times as much carbon locked up in the hydrates as there is in the permafrost, 100 times as much as all the rainforests combined.

 

This would lead to a temperature rise of 6, 7 or maybe even 8 degrees. That's more than the difference between the heart of the last ice age and today, and it could happen within the next 2 to 3 hundred years. The change at the end of the last ice age took 5 thousand years.

 

Or we could build the windfarm, and hundreds more like it and keep the temperature rise to around two degrees. There would be change even then, but it would be limited compared to what I have outlined above.

 

If we allow the temperature to rise by much more than 2 degrees, then nature takes over and all of the natural carbon sinks around the world begin to give up their carbon. At this point climate change becomes unstoppable, no matter what we do.

 

If you want more details on this, I recommend the book Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, it outlines the current state of the science clearly and concisely.

 

NortherXposure, I was referring to the kids of the economist who wrote the article you posted. If that wasn't clear, then I apologise for the confusion.

[Malachy]

If you want more details on this, I recommend the book Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, it outlines the current state of the science clearly and concisely.

 

It's a little patronising to assume that the reason for my disagreement with you is merely my own ignorance. I've read that book and numerous others - I feel I have a pretty decent understanding of the science. I fully understand that the climate is changing, and that humans have had a significant role in the changes now taking place. However, I've never read any scientist make a statement like this:

 

We have had 0.5 degrees of temperature rise already. There is another 1 degree already coming as the carbon to cause it is already in the atmosphere. That gives us 1.5 degrees by around 2030-2040. This is guaranteed.

 

I don't think anything is guaranteed when you're speaking about the future, and science doesn't ever come with that kind of certainty. And I certainly don't believe that covering every hill with wind turbines is guaranteed to help us. The fact is that human beings will use up every scrap of fossil fuels they can get their hands on, whether windfarms are built or not; so all of that Co2 will get into the atmosphere anyway. If you think that's not going to happen, you are very much mistaken. I don't like it, you don't like it, but we don't make the rules. Windfarms won't delay that, and they certainly won't stop it. All they'll do is make some people rich, and destroy even more of the land that we haven't already destroyed.

 

We live on a finite planet, and I see no signs that we are going to hit those limits at anything other than breakneck speed. Windfarms will keep us running for a little longer, but I feel no inclination to assist in that particular race.