Global Warming Crisis: Dissidents on the Left

[INDY500]

http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn06092007.html

Lots of good stuff from a most unexpected source. I encourage those of you interested in the topic to read it.

But I do like this:

"There are hundreds of reasons--political, pragmatic and economic, health and environmental--for cleaning up our environment, for conservation of energy, for developing alternate fuels, cleaning up our nuclear program, etc.

Global warming is not one of them."

 

[BVS]

from a most unexpected source.

Is that because they usually support all the other Marxist movement?

 

[INDY500]

Re: Re: Global Warming Crisis: Dissidents on the Left

Is that because they usually support all the other Marxist movement?

They say as much in the first paragraph:

The claque endorsing what is now dignified as "the mainstream theory" of global warming stretches all the way from radical greens through Al Gore to George W. Bush, who signed on at the end of May. The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism by the weight of the global emergency.

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Crisis: Dissidents on the Left

They say as much in the first paragraph:

Um, yeah you missed my point.

 

[INDY500]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Crisis: Dissidents on the Left

Um, yeah you missed my point.

That's secondary anyway, even Marxists, I suppose, have the right to be concerned about the environment.

But did you take anything away from the article after reading what the scientists had to say?

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Crisis: Dissidents on the Left

But did you take anything away from the article after reading what the scientists had to say?

Yeah, that they are in the minority of the scientific populace. You'll always find those in the science community...

 

[maycocksean]

I don't know if this is the right thread for this or not. I've been thinking about starting a seperate thread but I don't want to duplicate what others are already discussing.

I have a couple of questions about global warming. They are sincere questions. . .I'm not trying to stir things up or anything. And I'm looking for sincere answers.

What exactly is the big deal with global warming? I mean I understand the need to cut down on the negative "footprint" we leave on the planet. . .that's just common sense. . .but is imminent catastrophe really looming because of global warming? I understand about sea levels rising and all that, but won't that happen over a long period of time and won't people just adjust, i.e. move away from coastal areas or even abandon outright some places (like the little island I live on) gradually? Hasn't the earth's climate changed several times over history and wouldn't we expect that to continue? Might the fight to stop global warming actually be a futile fight to maintain the status quo?

Also I've heard it said that even if we went to zero carbon emissions now, global warming is basically irreversible now and we'd still see the results. Should the focus then be more on adaptation rather than trying to somehow stop global warming?

Finally, doesn't it seem like the most practical way to slow humanity's impact on the planet would be to return to a kind of hunter/gatherer type of lifestyle that is much more low impact? Is it possible to live a "modern" lifestyle and enjoy it's benefits without the attentandant negative effects to the planet?

I guess I ask these questions because sometimes this issue seems entirely politicized with the global warming mockers on the right and the alarmists on the left. And in my experience when things get politicized, reason often gets left out.

so any thoughts?

 

[2861U2]

What exactly is the big deal with global warming? is imminent catastrophe really looming because of global warming?

I feel the same way, here. I'm tired of people calling global warming a "national security issue" when it isnt. Millions of people (including criminals) crossing the southern border is a threat to my security. Radical islamists who want to kill me are a threat to my security. The earth's temperature rising half a degree is not.

Havent people been trying to cut back on carbon emissions since the '70s? Apparently not much is working, so why continue talking about it? Weren't we in fear of another ice age 30 years ago?

Dennis Miller made a good point the other night. Some people who believe in this global warming "emergency" also believe in evolution. So why not just believe that the earth's climate is evolving?

But hey, as long as it keeps Algore busy and not running for office, he can blather all he wants.

 

[BVS]

Havent people been trying to cut back on carbon emissions since the '70s? Apparently not much is working, so why continue talking about it?

You're kidding right?

 

[2861U2]

You're kidding right?

correction: 1980s.

 

[BVS]

Even then, your logic is, well you can't get people to do anything so give up?

Then let's give up on the war as well!

 

[2861U2]

This was in this month's Limbaugh Letter. I'm sure I'll take hell for posting this, but I cant resist, it's too funny:

***************

Here's yet another innocent activity the environmental wackos want you to feel guilty about: eating, because it (surprise, surprise) causes global warming.
Yes, according to Helene York, director of "socially conscious" Bon Appetit Management Company Foundation: "Food- and all the energy it takes to make it- is one of the largest human activities contributing to global warming." Like, for example, bananas, which travel thousands of miles in high-speed refrigerated ships to reach your planet-destroying breakfast plate. Bad.
As Ms. York explained to CNSNEWS.com: "The average American creates 2.8 tons of co2 emissions each year by eating, even more than 2.2 tons generated by driving."
So her organization "will encourage chefs and diners to think about how their food choices could help ease the climate crisis."
I'll pass.

 

[BVS]

Well when you eat as much as him it may be a concern...

 

[maycocksean]

This was in this month's Limbaugh Letter. I'm sure I'll take hell for posting this, but I cant resist, it's too funny:

***************

Here's yet another innocent activity the environmental wackos want you to feel guilty about: eating, because it (surprise, surprise) causes global warming.
Yes, according to Helene York, director of "socially conscious" Bon Appetit Management Company Foundation: "Food- and all the energy it takes to make it- is one of the largest human activities contributing to global warming." Like, for example, bananas, which travel thousands of miles in high-speed refrigerated ships to reach your planet-destroying breakfast plate. Bad.
As Ms. York explained to CNSNEWS.com: "The average American creates 2.8 tons of co2 emissions each year by eating, even more than 2.2 tons generated by driving."
So her organization "will encourage chefs and diners to think about how their food choices could help ease the climate crisis."
I'll pass.

This isn't particularly helpful. That's what a lot of this discussion comes across to me--a lot of mocking on the Right and alarmism on the left. I'm not hearing much that makes sense to me.

 

[BVS]

I think it comes down to this, the right has never given a shit about the environment and the left has always had the foresight to take care of it, but that brings us to a standstill. A tug o war... There really haven't been that many significant changes in how we approach our environment so I think the left has stepped up by exaggerating the timeline of the emergency in order to try and pull ourselves out of this standstill we're in.

 

[maycocksean]

I think it comes down to this, the right has never given a shit about the environment and the left has always had the foresight to take care of it, but that brings us to a standstill. A tug o war... There really haven't been that many significant changes in how we approach our environment so I think the left has stepped up by exaggerating the timeline of the emergency in order to try and pull ourselves out of this standstill we're in.

While I agree with the first statement--that the right has never cared for the environment, I don't think that should justify exaggerating the facts on the left.

I want to know what's truly at stake here and what can/should be done to change it, hyperbole and exaggeration aside. If Manhattan ends up under 20 feet of water, but it happens gradually over the next say 500 years, is that really truly a crisis?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think it comes down to this, the right has never given a shit about the environment and the left has always had the foresight to take care of it, but that brings us to a standstill. A tug o war... There really haven't been that many significant changes in how we approach our environment so I think the left has stepped up by exaggerating the timeline of the emergency in order to try and pull ourselves out of this standstill we're in.

Yes, by supporting the building of new nuclear power plants over the last few decades. The green movement is political and has various agendas, I don't think that it is paranoid to point that out. When the mainstream parties catch on to some of their policies their working some angle for their benefit.

 

[LJT]

Ugh can we maybe just forget about global warming as a reason for helping the environment (even though I do consider it a problem).......fossil fuels will go soon enough, best reason among many to go renewable, as well as not having to rely on the Russians for gas in Europe or the Saudis for oil.

We are never going to get a consensus between every country, too many people are just too self-interested.

Even if global warming is not our fault, it makes sense to at least prepare for the consequences of it eg water wars, increased famines, desert size increasing=less inhabitable land.

If none of this makes any sense to at least make it a very high priority if not a top one, then we're just making trouble for ourselves in the future.

 

[maycocksean]

Another question:

Will it be possible for the entire world's population to reach what the Western world generally considers a "normal" standard of living without having a dramatic impact on the earth's climate, even with taking steps to reduce our carbon output (but still maintaining what could be considered a "modern" lifestyle)? Is the "modern" lifestyle sustainable (albeit with changes here and there to reduce the carbon footprint) for "everyone" or only if it's limited to the lucky few?

And if it's not possible for everyone to live a modern western lifestyle than what should be the goal. . .should we all take a decrease in standard of living so everyone can raise their standard X degrees or do we just passively accept that some people are lucky enough to live a modern life and the rest should be just thankful if they're not living in extreme, life-threatening poverty?

 

[LJT]

I don't think there will ever be a standardised western form of living throughout the world, it wouldn't be sustainable as we go about it now.

It would be pompous and arrogant in the extreme to tell other developing countries you must stop industrialising so much to prevent global warming, so we can maintain our own standards of living. China isn't actually doing too bad on the green front as such, it's seeing some bad effects from global warming such as increased desertification, they see a problem in it.

Not everyone can live the modern lifestyle anyway, there will always be the poor of one kind or other, it just wouldn't be possible really, unless robots take over most of the manual work in the world, but you would probably end up with a massive disenfranchised unemployed underclass of people, bit sci-fi but who knows

Honestly, I don't think global warming can be averted, i'm starting to see it as some sort of negative feedback mechanism to reduce the human population. As a whole we really aren't that great on working together to sort things out.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Another question:

Will it be possible for the entire world's population to reach what the Western world generally considers a "normal" standard of living without having a dramatic impact on the earth's climate, even with taking steps to reduce our carbon output (but still maintaining what could be considered a "modern" lifestyle)? Is the "modern" lifestyle sustainable (albeit with changes here and there to reduce the carbon footprint) for "everyone" or only if it's limited to the lucky few?

And if it's not possible for everyone to live a modern western lifestyle than what should be the goal. . .should we all take a decrease in standard of living so everyone can raise their standard X degrees or do we just passively accept that some people are lucky enough to live a modern life and the rest should be just thankful if they're not living in extreme, life-threatening poverty?

If we developed means of energy production that were both sustainable and economically viable; but then we would suffer the negative effects of running out of rare metals - which natually lends to economically viable meteorite mining and space travel

 

[LJT]

So we have two choices, the planet becomes a bit like Tatooine, or we start space mining...win win I say

 

[shart1780]

If global warming is as bad as they say it is the Earth won't be like Tatooine (although it would be cool to have aliens and space ships around here). I think they're afraid it will either become more like Hoth or Mon Calamari.

Wow I'm a nerd.

We'll either have a new ice age or our planet will have way more water and plant life, according to them.

 

[2861U2]

Today's Dilbert was pretty funny.

If you havent seen it - http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2061101070619.gif

 

[joyfulgirl]

What exactly is the big deal with global warming?

I recommend reading The Weathermakers by Tim Flannery http://www.theweathermakers.com/ and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report issued earlier this year http://www.ipcc.ch/. The changes predicted even by midcentury are dramatic and extremely alarming. We're not talking about 500 years from now. We're talking this century. I really don't want to argue with 2500 scientists and 6000 studies. If that's not enough information to go on, nothing will be.

 

[maycocksean]

I recommend reading The Weathermakers by Tim Flannery http://www.theweathermakers.com/ and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report issued earlier this year http://www.ipcc.ch/. The changes predicted even by midcentury are dramatic and extremely alarming. We're not talking about 500 years from now. We're talking this century. I really don't want to argue with 2500 scientists and 6000 studies. If that's not enough information to go on, nothing will be.

That's the kind of information I'm looking for. I would definitely consider mid-century as a crisis. It could be the end of where I live!

I guess the next question would be what needs to be done right away to prevent further change, or slow it's progress and what is beyond our ability to control and thus to what extent do we need to be looking at adaptaptive strategies. . .like evacuating my island