Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Thoughts on Global Warming Debate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 12:49 AM
Original message
Thoughts on Global Warming Debate
I was listening to some conservative blowhard on the radio the other night basically ranting about liberals/progressives like lead shyster Al Gore pushing the global warming myth and predicting doom and gloom for our country (and businesses of course) at the diabolical hands of a bunch of "leftists" and environmental crusaders whose master plan is to continue to drum up a fake "crisis" (boy, they sure do know a lot about "fake crises") about global warming so that they can bilk the government (taxpayers) of millions of dollars (to be used for.........?). Interestingly enough, the host even tried to tie Al Gore and other environmental groups with Enron's activities. I don't know why exactly I feel the need to punish myself and/or intentionally crank up my blood pressure but I guess I just want to know what the other side is up to and what they are saying about their topic du jour. It's, of course, no secret that the one issue that REALLY drives many conservatives foaming crazy (i.e. Beck) is global warming, more specifically, the efforts by environmental groups to combat it, their most notable efforts of which include attempting to legislate more controls on man-made pollution/emissions (e.g. Kyoto).

Now, I've only read a few articles and listened to some of the debates about global warming so I do NOT consider myself an expert on the issue and, frankly, I don't know what to believe about it. However, to me, whether global warming exists or not is not really as important to me as the directly observable negative effects that we humans are having on our environment and the negative effects that they are having on us in turn.

It seems to me that, instead of getting bogged down in endless debates about the existence and/or causes of global warming, we should actually be debating whether we want to have a healthy and sustainable environment or if should all simply be free to just keep trashing the planet until it simply becomes unable to continue to sustain us and/or completely inhospitable to our continued existence (think about the movie, "Wall-E"). Global warming may or may not really exist and if it does, what is causing it is certainly open for debate but I don't think that anybody can argue with a straight face that some of the things that we are doing to our ecosystem are not eventually going to have some kind of pretty dire consequences for our ecosystem and, ultimately, ourselves and, if everybody agrees that having a healthy and sustainable planet for future generations is important then there is little reason that we all can't come to SOME kind of agreement about a reasonable course of action to take to preserve our environment. Maybe? Or am I just being too idealistic?

:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hanse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Global warming really exists. There is no debate.
Just a bunch of jackasses making fools of themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I tend to believe it DOES exist
as I consider myself to be a believer in science rather than religious mysticism. Unfortunately, some people will deny the existence of global warming with their last dying breath so stubborn are they but I just think that we should spend more time trying to convince people to be better stewards of the environment, something that IMHO should be a lot easier to do given that people can directly observe the negative effects that pollution has on our surroundings. Also, for the religiously inclined, I don't think that many people honestly believe that God gave us this beautiful planet for us to just trash it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hanse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. It's kind of like saying...
"Gee whiz, I don't know whether or not the Holocaust happened, but lets agree not to kill people."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-25-08 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. WhereTF did you come up with such an asanine analogy/comparison????
:wtf:

There is no f*****ing way the two things are even close to being comparable and I find it rather offensive (downright apalling, actually) for you to suggest/imply/insinuate that debating a scientific issue such as climate change is in any way comparable to debating a well-established historical event such as the Holocaust.

I don't even know what else to say about your post. Just...................:wtf:

Gee whiz, it's too bad that we can't all be civil to each other on DU.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. That's always been my POV
I'm less concerned with climate change than I am with the fact that we are polluting all of the fresh water on earth and scorching the skies. The fact that we may melt the icecaps is just more bad news.

Luckily, there's an easy solution in all cases- we quit polluting and we quit having unwanted children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. Oxford podcasts some fantastic climate change lectures from world famous scholars.
Edited on Wed Dec-24-08 02:00 AM by mahina
http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/

Or Al Gore at the Ted talks. This is a wonderful talk. I love Ted.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/al_gore_on_averting_climate_crisis.html

I know for my own part, I tend not to want to know those things that I feel overwhelmed by, or that are too depressing. I take heart at the great opportunities before us to make a positive difference.

I rec Nicholas Stern on the economics of climate change. Here's Nicholas Stern's argument to the deniers, somewhat slaughtered, below. The 'you' is not you, but the deniers.

If you want to be persuaded that there is no need to act, it would be on the basis that either the science is not good, that the future is irrelevant, or that we can adapt in the future.

The science is absolutely irrefutable. There is no serious scientific debate on the existence of global warming or its human inputs- none. If you don't accept the science, that is absurd.

If you think we can adapt in the future, you are disregarding the flow stock problem- we are adding CO2 to the pipeline now that will take 100 years to dissipate. It will be impossible to adapt by the time the problems are made inescapable, so that track is reckless.

The final argument is that the future is irrelevant- we live for the moment. That is an argument about use of resources and quality of life across generations, and it is unethical to say that our quality of life now is more important than our kids and grandkids lives in the future. So in a nutshell, to believe that we do not need to act now is either absurd, reckless, or unethical.


And I don't think you're being too idealistic at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillbillyBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-08 04:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. The slap em in the face analogy I use is " you don't flush your toilet into your
well do you?????"

and another thing that really gets my goat is the clear cuttng for paper that marketers stuff my damned mail box. I contact them and tell them they are wasting and polluting and I won't by the shit from fingerhut any damn way because it's trash that will end up in a landfill.
I also shred junkmail and use it for mulch in the garden. That seems to really piss em off!
I just saw this on CNN website:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/23/tennessee.sludge.spill/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

# Wall breach sends sludge downhill, causing damage to 15 homes
# Spokesman says 400 acres are coated by more than 500 million gallons of sludge
# Area affected is bigger than Exxon Valdez oil spill, spokesman says
# Footage shows dead fish, but sludge can't be deemed toxic until tests are done



"By Samira J. Simone
CNN


(CNN) -- A wall holding back 80 acres of sludge from a coal plant in central Tennessee broke this week, spilling more than 500 million gallons of waste into the surrounding area.
Environmental Protection Agency officials are on the scene and expect the cleanup to to take four to six weeks.

Environmental Protection Agency officials are on the scene and expect the cleanup to to take four to six weeks.

The sludge, a byproduct of ash from coal combustion, was contained at a retention site at the Tennessee Valley Authority's power plant in Kingston, about 40 miles east of Knoxville, agency officials said.

The retention wall breached early Monday, sending the sludge downhill and damaging 15 homes. All the residents were evacuated, and three homes were deemed uninhabitable, a TVA spokesman told CNN.

The plant sits on a tributary of the Tennessee River called the Clinch River.

"We deeply regret that a retention wall for ash containment at our Kingston Fossil Plant failed, resulting in an ash slide and damage to nearby homes," TVA said in a statement released Tuesday.

TVA spokesman Gil Francis told CNN that up to 400 acres of land had been coated by the sludge, a bigger area than the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Video footage showed sludge as high as 6 feet, burying porches and garage doors. The slide also downed nearby power lines, though the TVA said power had been restored to the area.

Francis said Environmental Protection Agency officials were on the scene and estimated the cleanup could take four to six weeks.

Some of the goop spilled into the tributary, but preliminary water quality test show that the drinking water at a nearby treatment plant meets standards.
"I don't want to drink it. I doesn't look healthy to me," Jody Miles, who fishes in the Clinch River, told CNN affiliate WBIR. "Do you reckon they can bring all this life back that's going to die from all this mess?"
Don't Miss

* Lawsuit seeks to halt drilling in Utah
* History of the environmental movement

Still, there is the potential for more sludge to enter the water supply through waste runoff.

"We're taking steps to stabilize runoff from this incident," Francis said.

Although video from the scene shows dead fish on the banks of the tributary, he said that "in terms of toxicity, until an analysis comes in, you can't call it toxic."

One environmental attorney called that statement "irresponsible." The ash that gives sludge its thick, pudding-like consistency in this case is known as fly ash, which results from the combustion of coal.

Fly ash contains concentrated amounts of mercury, arsenic and benzine, said Chandra Taylor, staff attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center.

"These things are naturally occurring, but they concentrate in the burning process and the residual is more toxic than it starts," she told CNN.

Appalachian environmentalists compared the mess with another spill eight years ago in eastern Kentucky, where the bottom of a coal sludge impoundment owned by Massey Energy broke into an abandoned underground mine, oozing more than 300 million gallons of coal waste into tributaries.

The water supply for more than 25,000 residents was contaminated, and aquatic life in the area perished. It took months to clean up the spill.

"If the estimates are correct, this spill is one and a half times bigger," said Dave Cooper, an environmental advocate with the Mountaintop Removal Road Show, a traveling program that explains the effect of an extreme form of mining.

While the full scope of the TVA spill is being determined, coal critics are already concerned about its long-term effects.

Cleaning up the mess, which could fill nearly 800 Olympic-size swimming pools, could take months or years, Taylor said.

"We're very concerned about how long it's going to take" to clean the spill, she told CNN.

Cooper agreed, saying, "It's 4, 5 feet deep. How are you going to scoop it up? Where are you going to put it?" "

This stuff ins freaking insane. We personally are doing the best we can to limit our out put.
change lights, add insulation and a host of other small changes. I am also trying to get the scratch up to make a solar oven that doubles as a solar heater for the house when not cooking.
Norhern Tool has Solar Sheet a house heating product cost about 2000$ but will save you a lot of carbon and cost of fuel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC