Anyone seen the film,
An Inconvenient Truth? I watched it last night with my father-in-law and it was disturbing. I found the content to be very alarming as Al Gore shared statistics over the past few decades on heightened CO2 levels, temperature changes, melting ice caps, and freaky nature as of late. Yes, this grabs my attention and I wonder what the earth will be like for my sons when I am gone. I highly recommend this film and maybe it would be good to show it at our place with friends over so that we can have discussion afterward and find simple solutions to some of the environmental problems we are facing.
Would anyone be into that?An interesting note too on this topic is that when listening to talk radio (I listen to both liberal and conservative), I hear the Left embrace these ideas and stand behind Gore, but then some conservatives mock the ideas found in the film and treat global warming as a myth (maybe because they believe liberals are evil). This is bothersome to me, because as Gore said, this is not about politics and one side or the other, but is rather a moral issue.
9 comments:
{Disclaimer: This is not necessarily my opinion below; I just thought I would articulate the conservative argument a little}
I don't think that conservatives believe "global warming is a myth" (nor do I think that conservatives generally believe liberals are evil, at least no more so than liberals believe conservatives are evil). No one denies the world is getting warmer, the issue is: what is the cause of the warming, and realistic solutions thereto.
Throughout global history, the earth has had warmer phases and cooler phases, all without human intervention. The mere fact that world is warmer than it has been in thousands of years does not necessarily implicate humanity.
Gore’s stance is that we need to make everyday decisions to stop the world from getting warmer. If, in the end, our decisions have no or an insignificant impact, then why fool ourselves?
For instance, a recent UN supported report found that livestock contributes to global warming (and other serious environmental problems) more than the use of fossil fuels. Yet, Gore, and many others, has proposed sweeping legislation that would seriously inhibit the use of fossil fuels with serious economic impact to America. And although Gore will say that this is not a political issue, how we deal with global warmer has an enormous political impact.
As for mockery, look at the poster you posted. The film came out during the Katrina disaster. The implication is that global warming was directly responsible for increased hurricane activity. If I remember correctly, there was quite a bit of talk about how last year’s horrific hurricane season was expected to be routine. Yet this year has been one of the quietist seasons in years. I think many conservatives feel that such apocalyptic claims are worthy of ridicule.
If the UN report is accurate, more realistic approaches to global warming should include vegetarianism as well as a nifty new hybrid.
I understand you are articulating the conservative argument, so here's the rebuttal:
I agree most conservatives don't believe global warming is a myth, but the loudest conservative voices are doing the bidding of the oil companies and others with profit motives. You see the disinformation echoed on Fox News, in The Weekly Standard, on conservative talk radio on conservative blogs, and until recently, from the White House.
The oft-cited historical warming cycles explanation has already been debunked by the vast majority of climate scientists. The arguments you are making come straight from the oil companies. Here is a bit from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
January 3, 2007
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3
A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
The fact of livestock contributing more than the burning of fossil fuels (when all aspects of the process are totalled) only adds to our knowledge of how to address the problem - it gives us more guidance on addressing the issue, not less.
Additionally, the reliance on fossil fuels is a problem beyond the global warming issue - just ask the out-of-work fisherman in areas devastated by oil spills, or the kids with respiratory illness from living near busy roads or refineries, or a spouse whose husband or wife died in Iraq so the richest oil region in the world could be "secure" for American business interest.
To me, it still sounds like fossil fuels are a real problem - and now we can add livestock to the issues we need to address in a major way.
As far as Katrina and global warming, the consensus is that warming ocean surface temperatures do effect storm strength. From the The Pew Center on Global Climate Change:
Will global warming increase the frequency or intensity of hurricanes in the future?
Just about everyone is now aware of climate change, so when an extreme weather event occurs, it is not unusual for people to ask if it is the result of global warming. Because of the link between higher ocean temperatures and hurricanes, there is speculation that hurricanes will increase in frequency or intensity in a warmer world, with higher wind speeds and greater precipitation. As stated above, the frequency of hurricanes has not increased on average over the long term. However, scientists believe that global warming will result in more intense hurricanes, as increasing sea surface temperatures provide energy for storm intensification. An MIT study published recently in Nature provides the first data analysis indicating that tropical storms are indeed becoming more powerful over time.
Higher ocean temperatures may also influence the tracks of hurricanes, increasing the likelihood of hurricanes tracking through the Caribbean or making landfall on the U.S. east coast. Although his phenomenon is not very well understood, a track of unusually deep and warm water appears to have led Katrina directly to the Gulf Coast when it struck Louisiana and Mississippi.
While some conservatives may find "apocalyptic claims are worthy of ridicule," I find it laughable since the claims they ridicule are supported by the best, broadest collection of scientists. Some people also ridiculed the idea that the earth was round, that it orbited he sun instead of the other way around, or that we evolved from primates ... despite the scientific evidence.
Once the science skeptics are overwhelmed with the reality of global warming, most will regret their ridicule of environmentalists and get on board.
Yes conservatives do belive that global warming is a myth and that we are fooling ourselves if we think we can harm the planet (hello the A-bomb) I have heard some come right out and say it. We can harm the planet and we need to take care of what God has give us with a little more respect and if people belive farting cows are the cause I dont what to do with that!
Ryan, I think it would be cool to watch the film with others & discuss. I haven't seen it yet, I know it's been generating a lot of interest in my circles as a planner and I'm always up for discussing this stuff with others.
K-mo: you said that humanity shouldn't necessarily be implicated in what could be a warming trend. However, the evidence is overwhelming that it's very likely. And if human action is not the direct cause, we still should be concerned because this "warming trend" will spell big trouble either way. To me, inaction would be a huge mistake, and I think making some huge changes in our daily lives is a perfectly acceptable, if not wise, decision for the future.
Another way to look at it: Cutting fossil fuel use and eliminating as much CO2 emissions as possible would have other "spin-off" benefits - for instasnce, all the other pollutants that are emitted during fuel combustion would also be reduced. We need to start thinking this way - there are linkages in our actions that affect a number of different aspects of the environment, not just "global warming".
I think it goes without saying, but just to reiterate, my post was not intended to be a discussion of the merit of the conservative argument. My point was simply this: Conservatives’ motives behind apprehension towards global warming issues should not be summed up into a statement that conservatives simply believe global warming is a myth or that they are somehow just trying to spite evil liberals.
In response to Ryan’s question about what can be done, in light of recent reports, I think the most meaningful change a person can make is to consume a lot less beef and diary- or cut it out altogether.
No matter how strongly you feel about fossil fuels, the simple fact is that you will still need to use technology that runs on fossil fuels- a technology which not change in the near future. But this very moment you can choose to stop consuming beef and diary.
Kevin- Thanks for your comments. I sometimes hear Conservatives such as Hannity and Coulter say things about the environment and/or saving water, etc... that are very anti-environment. It is troubling to me because I do think that some conservative, not all as I said "some", (same is true for liberals) oppose points because they really believe that liberals are of the dev-ee-yel (or something like that). I think that in general we see this in politics because both sides stick to their issues so strongly at times and disallow good ideas from the other side because they are from "the other side." That's what I'm saying. And so when it comes to what Al Gore presents, there might be a general suspicion from conservatives and/or Republicans because our way of doing things teaches us to be suspicious of the other side. That's how I see it. Lastly, interesting note on the idea of mockery and the poster. Thankfully the film did not major on Katrina, though it was certainly mentioned and was appropriate for the subject matter.
By the way, do you eat meat? Just curious since we have not eaten together for so long. I still eat meat, but I'd like to hear how not eating meat can positively impact the environment.
Anna doesn't eat any livestock meat (she eats fish). I rarely eat beef.
I think David and Nicole have stopped or seriously cut down on beef as well.
As to how it will affect the environment:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=livestock+environment+global+warming&btnG=Search
K-mo - I agree, if there was a significant shift towards vegetarianism, there would be significant energy savings.
On the point re: fossil fuels: as an urban planner, my work tends to focus around reshaping the city according to smart growth principles. One key goal is reducing automobile dependency, and creating new development in cities that is transit, pedestrian and bicycle oriented. The problem I see is that the American way of life is completely auto-centric, mostly because our cities and suburbs (and our lives, really) have been designed to make cars (not necessarily people) happy. There are many complex reasons for this, but a key factor is cheap oil and strong policies in the last several decades to keep oil cheap (even if it means bombing the shit out of places like Iraq in under the big lie of an alleged war on terror).
There is no quick or easy solution, you're right -- but that doesn't mean we should all just give up. I believe it makes a lot of sense for people to try to live closer to where they work, to take transit as much as they can, and even (for some) to try to limit their family vehicles to 1, etc. Sure, none of these may be feasible for certain families or persons, but we're making cities more livable, walkable and building more transit -- it's happening everywhere, and people are starting to choose to live closer to urban centers because they get it.
The way I see it, we will eventually get to the point where "Peak Oil" happens, prices will rise dramatically and permanently, and we'll have to completely rethink our transportation system, the food production system, and so many other aspects of American life that our cities and suburbs will be very different places in about 50 years. We have to plan for that and start acting on it NOW, we can't just stick our heads in the sand and act like it's hopeless, even though it might feel like it.
I heard the global warming topic on Hannity yesterday actually. I sometimes listen to his show to see what he thinks. And it followed fairly closely to what Kevin was saying, though I had to get out of the car and couldn't listen to the second half. Though I didn't listen to all of it, I think the unfortunate thing is that the conversation probably did not steer toward taking better care of the earth, but rather how the human cause of global warming is a liberal agenda somehow. If someone believes that global warming is human caused or just a natural 1500 year process, that's fine, but let's get around to having the conversation about how we need to take care of the earth.
Post a Comment