The reason I don't like the way this Global Warming thing is going:

[glowing]

I have been aware of issues concerning the environment for quite some time. Heck I took extra classes while my classmates were out partying to take a minor degree in environmental science. So, I understand what my impact is on the world. While I don't think that I shouldn't experience life, I also appreciate other lifeforms that inhabit this planet with me. I've changed all my cleaning supplies to green products, including shampoo and makeup. I've lived with less because things don't bring me satisfaction, living life and experiencing people and places brings me pleasure. Gardening is one of my favorite past-times because it brings me appreciation for the very basics of life.

The reason why I don't like the way Global Warming is playing out is because it creates fear. Fear of the tipping point. Fear of human extinction. Calling this a crisis creates a hurry up mentality that makes decisions become rushed and decisions we may regret later on. I think it would be best to change our dependency on oil. Subsidize alternative energies, tax the hell out of the oil and coal industry (and impose stiff fines when they don't abide by the law), stop paying for infrastructure with the gas tax (its the only way to encourage cities, counties, and states to build public transportation that works), and make products that we buy at the store all bio-degradable. John Edwards is right, we can bring back our creative, innovative work-force by pushing for these kind of changes.

Anyway, if we are over the tipping point, if we are in crisis, if we are to react without insight and thoughtfulness, we end up with a bigger mess. Look at the knee-jerk reaction that occurred after 9/11. Our stewardship of the land should not be a knee-jerk reaction, but a life-long commitment to the stability, health, and beauty of our world. Its going to take more than a Prius to fix the environment. It takes, in some people's case, a real life-altering change.

[Totally Committed]

1. I don't know if you get the Sundance Channel, but Robert Redford has taken that same feeling

and made an environmental program that is about hope and solutions rather than fear. It's called "The Green". I'm looking forward to watching it.

http://www.sundancechannel.com/thegreen#/homePage

TC

[glowing]

2. I don't think I do. I would love someone to spin the positive than the

negative. This world is so beautiful... yes, there are places we've trashed and continue to trash... but there's a lot this earth has to offer and we don't have to rape it to enjoy it.

[zeemike]

3. Fear in itself is not a bad emotion

And if fact there are no bad emotions. They are there for a reason, mostly to keep us from doing something stupid.
But there are bad people that manipulate emotions in people...we have seen it used so well in the last 6 years.
But at the same time there is great hope as the fear of global warming finally causes people to act. We have the knowledge right now to drastic-ly reduce the burning of fossil fuels and i do believe that we will do it even if we have to drag some to it kicking and screaming.

[glowing]

5. The thing is, unless its economical and feasible, most people have

no choice. Its easier for some of us, harder for other's. I do compromise a lot for organic food and special cleaners. Some people would love to change, but they are just trying to survive. It won't happen unless smart, planned policy is addressed. Some of them I have mentioned before. Part of the environmental science training was also policy making. I learned more from the policy side than the "this is wrong, that is wrong". It is much harder to make good policy that keeps every interest happy. In reality, we are just going to have to piss off the oil companies and electric companies. But when that happens, expect to pay for it. Infrastructure needs to be in place to lead people. Individual change is great. Our life-journey is one of the most important reasons why we are here, I think. But like that old saying you can lead the horse to the trough, but you can't make it drink... same here you can teach and preach, but you can't change someone who doesn't want to... so the change has to come with smart, innovative policy to make sure those old horses drink their fair share.

People like myself need to be hired at a level where we have policy making power... I understand the science and I understand the policy... I don't think we should leave this to our congress-critters who think the internets are tubes and global warming is hooey, or that bio-fuels will save us. They should see the final draft of the legislation and vote..

[fed-up]

11. our wallets decide policy-we can't leave it up to "policy makers" we have to take responsibility nt

[glowing]

23. Like I said, some of us have the choice and we are making those

decisions... but some have no choice and policy must be enacted... smart policy.

[frogcycle]

4. can't for the life of me find your point

the problem has been foreseen for decades, and the evidence has been collecting. A handful of people started turning thermostats up or down, buying more-efficient cars and appliances, adding insulation, recycling everything they could etc., etc., way back then.

The vast majority of the public, and most importantly the elected representatives, have been oblivious to the warnings, preferring to stay fat, dumb, and happy as the trend continued and is now accelerating.

But you say creating a sense of fear of the end game will create panic and cause... what? More people doing the above? Is that bad? The only drastic, panicky move(s) that could backfire would be legislation with requirements poorly thought through that miss the mark (e.g.: "Patriot Act"). But even then, it is unlikely that any precipitous moves will exacerbate the problem. Unless someone listens to the infamous quote from Ronald Reagan that trees are the culprit for putting hydrocarbons into the air, and rushes out and cuts them all down only then to learn they were sequestering CO2, I can't see the "fear" being such a bad thing.

[glowing]

7. No, I'm tired of being "afraid" of something... I am ready to embrace

something I love, receive nourishment from, and want to protect. My point is that rushing legislation doesn't always work... And I feel that if its rushed we will mess it up... I rounded my explanation in a previous reply. I think one of the worst policies ever enacted was carbon trading... it gave people carbon pollution rights, if one company is well below their carbon emmissions, they will sell their carbon emission rights to a larger company or an older company with dated technology who will need the extra carbon rights. It isn't reducing the carbon emission, just allowing for some companies to profit off of selling carbon emissions... Anyone can buy them, if you wanted, you could buy a chunk and it would never be used again by electric co. So, instead of making the companies with higher carbon emissions add scrubbers and upgrade their plants, they buy the extra from other companies and guess what.. carbon emission is still just as bad as ever. This policy sucks.

[lazer47]

6. At some point you better get scared enough to get serious

or your going to find yourself living in a very warm TRASH PILE,,

[glowing]

8. are u kidding me... Aparently, you haven't been reading the posts.

I won't be frightened, I will go forward with knowledge, and a clear head. When I hear crisis, I think of those old movies with the monster stomping through the city and the little people running around screaming and causing chaos. That is fear. Intelligence is a whole other ball game. But thanks for posting.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Agreed, but...

our species has rarely, if ever, made fundamental changes to our lifestyles unless convenience, profit, or a crisis was at the root of the change. It's simply too much to ask of 6 billion people that they change their habits for some future benefit. Several billions are already working to achieve what they see as a future benfit-- our standard of living.

Personally, I suspect we're past the tipping point and a visible crisis will soon arise. We're already running out of fresh water and oil and large populations are facing possible starvation. Even here in the US the Oglala aquifer is in danger of diappearing and that wipes out much of Midwestern agriculture-- including all that corn for ethanol. Global warming is just a really nice touch on top of where we're headed-- no water and no food.

Besides the overuse of resources, we can't forget the poisoning and destruction of what we have left. Every state has not only Superfund sites, but vast areas with acidified lakes, algae blooms, poisoned streams from mining runoff...

So, in a next-to-worst-case scenario, we may be looking at fuel and water rationing and vastly fewer conveniences until technology and lifestyles adapt to future shortages. (The worst case is too brutal to contemplate.)

Ultimately, the problem is too many people. Malthus was wrong in his time, but right in the very long run-- the planet can only support so many humans. And, the more humans it supports, the fewer other things it can support.

[EST]

10. While I agree with you that more can be accomplished, especially

on a long term basis and as a continuous process with care and concern, rather than fear, the Christian religion, as well as many others, has made a pretty good living for a couple thousand years through fear.

There needs to be the old two-pronged approach, of course, and fear does have its place. People live, strive and adapt with multiple inputs, and, unfortunately, a very large motivator is fear, however applied.

The other side of this is the way it affects large groups of people. Here in this country, we tend to group ourselves into one of two political groups, republicans, whose primary motivation is fear, and democrats, whose primary motivation is empathy. In order to motivate pukes, you have to threaten 'em with something to arouse their fear, and to motivate democrats, you have to show them an opportunity to contribute, or help. There seems to be need for both.

[Joe Fields]

12. Most people (Americans) have to be jolted into the reality of this situation.

Americans,(especially our leaders) historically have waited until a problem becomes a crisis, before getting serious about solving it. This IS a crisis. It has become just that.

[donsu]

13. we should be afraid - nothing of any import has been done

nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Consider the change in culture needed - a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions

That just seems more than a message of optimism alone can achieve. We need to change the fuels that the whole world runs on. And not just a personal decision to own a car, or get one entirely powered by renewable sources, either - that may only reduce your emissions by 20%. The everyday objects we use will have been manufactured with CO2 producing processes. The only way that we can impose the huge taxes on fossil fuels is with a massive effort to fight the industries that will oppose that.

The only remotely comparable cultural change that I can think of that has ever happened in Western societies is the World Wars, and the change to complete commitment in them. And that only came about through fear.

[glowing]

22. What will happen to the people who have so little when CO2 taxes

are implemented... You must think of everything that uses CO2... food production, transportation, electricity... Yes, we are going to have to piss off the big companies, but we have to do it by cutting their tax free legislations and their subsidies and send these subsidies and tax free legislation towards sustainable, renewable sources.

Also, its not just CO2 that is the problem. Methane is equally as bad. The thing is too, that we need to figure out, what is the best atmospheric mix for the planet. oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon are the main components of the atmosphere. We could not live in an O2 only environment. In fact our bodies are mainly comprised of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon... these things are called the building blocks of life. Plants would not grow without carbon dioxide... What needs to be agreed upon is what is the best atmospheric mix and what can we do to ensure that it is as stable as possible. Also, something interesting that was occuring about the time that I was graduating, was the fact that the ocean was trapping more carbon than previously thought... what we wanted to know in the marine science side (my major degree)was what would happen to the dynamics within the ocean with excess carbon? How would that change the ecosystems within the ocean and how would that effect our planet. I would also encourage anyone who is really serious about the environment and atmospheric and oceanic systems to do some basic homework... Coriolis effect, winds, jet streams, and upwelling...then you will be better prepared to understand the hypothesis that are out there and which one's seem plausible and which one's seem to be junk science....you need to weed through the garbage for real.

Anyway, become inquisitive. Science is about questions and searching for answers. You don't need a degree to be a scientists.. believe me there are more captains out there that know more about certain subjects, than the best studied scientific professional.

[Matsubara]

15. Good post. The knee-jerk solutions will be nuclear and ethanol...

...both disasctrous long-term, and the opposite of a solution, but mark my words, that's where the corpora-whore politicians will take this thing.

Just what we need, super-expensive food and radioactive waste all over the place.

[glowing]

21. Exactly, but don't speak too loudly... there's many on here who have

told me where to go on nuclear energy and have accused me of being a repug. In general, I don't know anyone in the environmental field, that isn't bought, that thinks nucs are a good thing.

[Tesha]

16. I agree with your post, but...

> Anyway, if we are over the tipping point, if we are in
> crisis, if we are to react without insight and thoughtfulness,
> we end up with a bigger mess. Look at the knee-jerk reaction
> that occurred after 9/11.

I agree with your post (that the things we do must be done
with thoughtfulness and care), but I do want to point out
that what happened after 9/11 wasn't "knee jerk"; I firmly
believe that *EVERYTHING* that the Bush Administration did
(including the promoting of the USA PATRIOT Act) was planned
well ahead of time.

Somewhere (and I'm sorry, but I can't remember where),
someone did an analysis of the language in PATRIOT I.
It turns out that a lot of it was a sort of grab-bag
of regressive language that had been advanced before
in the name of the War on Drugs and other similar
anti-democratic contexts. 9/11 just gave the Republicans
an opportunity to finally ram all this garbage through
a suddenly-receptive Congress and American populace.

Tesha

[Tesha]

17. I'll take this opportunity to plug my bible again...

I encourage *EVERYONE* to read the classic literature
on the question of what we need to do and what the
future could look like (if we're sensible about it):

• Ecotopia -- A novel describing an ecological utopia
  that was formed when the western halves of Northern
  California, Oregon, and Washington seceded from the
  United States.
  
  
• Ecotopia Emerging -- A prequel that describes
  how Ecotopia came about and the technological and
  political manouvering that made it possible.

Both are by Ernest Callenbach and at least the first
novel is still in print. Both novels ring stunningly
true with what's going on right now, except Callenbach
posits our war with Brazil rather than anyone in
the Middle East.

Tesha

[blues90]

18. Personally , I don't understand fully what took people so long to

even begin to realize all the waste and pollution has been going on for many years and why we have to reach a point of desperation then react . I know in principal why but for me I have always known we were on the wrong course .

Certainly now to be in a rush will create alot of wasted time and mistakes as well as alternet sources of fuel that may prove useless and just as damaging and wasteful .

We really need as the world society to cut back on everything in our life styles and be more than willing to sacrific and I just don't see many people doing this , many feel as long as they are not exposed they will continue and let others do the sacrificing .

It's not just cars we need tro get better millage and fuels we need to eliminate most of the cars and develope mass transit and make people use it with force if necessary .

[glowing]

24. Yes, and in this country if you don't stop subsidizing roads with a gas

tax, that won't happen... Transportation needs to stop being funded by the gallon of gas in a car... Why would any federal, state, or county try to implement fuel efficiency... they lose money with every extra mile we can get out of our gallon.

[alarimer]

19. I think it's is much too late to do anything

Not that we shouldn't reduce Co2 emissions simply because it's the right thing to do but I believe we have irrevocably changed the climate. Even if we totally stopped all new greenhouse gas emissions, there is all that extra stuff in the atmosphere to get rid of. Also the Earth has warmed too much and unless we find a way to cool it, those polar bears are never going to get their ice back. The best we can do is slow the rate of increase in Co2 and slow the extinction rate. We will not eliminate it altogether, no matter how many CF lights we install.

Also all the ice melting in the Arctic is changing the circulation patterns of the ocean, something we will not get back. Ever.

[AZBlue]

20. Unfortunately that's the only way to inspire and move the average Joe in this country.

The average American doesn't want to be bothered with a lot of facts and data - they want their news in 30-second sound-bites. So, if you don't present the worst case scenario - which is truly scary - they won't do a damn thing about it. It might interfere with their TV schedule and we can't have that!