The swindle?
In response to my post about Al Gore, Lat wrote:
Ever see "the great global warming swindle"? I personally think that human contribution to global climate change is minimal at best, but we still have a huge environmental responsibility regardless, and there are plenty of other reasons to change habits for the sake of the environment.
There is a small but dedicated group of people, mostly on the far right, who'd like to keep saying that the human causes for global warming is a myth. [But I do agree with Lat that we should take global warming in context of other environmental issues.] Paul Krugman has a good commentary about what he calls the Gore derangement syndrome. I've been following this viewpoint as well, and I strongly question their motivations. Their films and websites contain too much vitriol to be credibly scientific. [Coincidentally, Joel Achenbach has been thinking the same thing.]
After living in Beijing for nearly a year, it is practically impossible to deny the human impact on the environment. The air here is thick and brown. On the worst days, I can't run for more than 15 mins without gasping. I've also been monitoring air quality every day for the past month, and in terms of particulate matter (soot) in the air, Beijing is among the worst. The best days for good air is only after it rains, or if there are strong winds. Without that, the air progressively gets worse. Then there is the issue of cloud seeding. When important events take place in the city, the sky is guaranteed to be blue because they had triggered rainstorms during the night. The sky was deep blue at the 1 year mark before the Games, during National Day, and now for the Party Congress. Winter, like in Canada, is becoming warmer and warmer. Beijing used to enjoy significant snowfall, but now, during the whole year there might be 1 day of snow, which then quickly melts away. As I witness the environmental catastrophe happening here, there is no doubt in my mind that humans are to blame for climate change.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The great global warming swindle... what a joke. Do some investigation on who made that movie and the response to that movie, then make an informed decision.
To say humans have minimal negative effect on the environment is insane, in my opinion.
Whilst true that we still don't fully understand the complexity of climate, surely we can't keep putting unnatural amounts of pollutants in our waterways/atmosphere and turn a blind eye to it thinking it'll be right?
Is anyone actually claiming that people have minimal effect on the environment?
I don't think that that anyone is really saying that. The arguments that are occurring are much more precise, and hence also less important.
The resounding success of environmental authorities and global accords (such as the Montreal accord on ozone depleting substances) is firmly entrenched and accepted. There is no debate that mankind has a serious effect on the environment. Nor is there any debate that there is climate change, or from the opposite perspective that there has always been climate change. Neither is really debatable.
What is being debated is whether there is a process of global warming, whether mankind is driving this, what specific actions of man are producing this result, and what the best solutions are.
These are much more specific arguments, therefore more complicated, and also in an odd way possibly less important.
Go ahead, reread that last sentence. Whats he on about? I'll tell you: the way we're polluting/destroying resources the global warming debate is irrelevant, because society will collapse from other pollution related side effect _way_ sooner. I'm not saying the air is unimportant; just that most countries' freshwater is already spoiled, and that this is one of our much more pressing crises.
The great global warming swindle is really the fact that this obsession with global warming is actually distracting us from more pressing, dramatic and accepted environmental problems.
Ay, there's the rub. And while I'm all for solving long-term problems, shouldn't we perhaps try to deal with the ones that are _really_ urgent?
Post a Comment