RightGirl has the climate change alarmists’ number
Sometimes you only need a few sentences to make a point*:
Forbes list of the 10 most polluted places in the world. Bottom line: We’re not on the list.
Climate and environment guilt is like white guilt. We’re wealthy and bored and we stopped going to church, so we need a reason to punish ourselves now that we don’t have the Rosary. So let’s freak out over someone else’s sins, and change all our lightbulbs. Yeah… that’ll save the world.
All this climate change alarmism took on religious overtones a goodly while ago, and really that’s the only framework from within which it is possible to form a good understanding of why some people are so up in arms about receding ice caps during the summer months…even though they returned to their normal boundaries during the winter.
* a lesson I have never fully grasped…
One obvious benefit of first-world nations leading the environmentally conscious charge is that we develop the technology to do it, and drive the price down through the mass market, making it a whole lot easier for the third-world nations to get their act together. There’s also the idea that calling for people to “do their part” at home makes it a more tangible concept, which should help support government initiatives to do this on a larger scale.
(Besides, a lot of the improvements being called for involve reduction of the use of fossil fuels, and of power in general, which is important for a whole pile of reasons besides fighting global warming.)
That would work in theory, except for the fact that it isn’t necessarily borne out as a conclusion by looking at history. Were what you say true, we’d expect to see a trend in third-world nations at the present time toward getting their acts together as regards things like stable democratic governance, rule of law, effective health care, and even anti-pollution mechanisms (which have existed for a few decades now, it serves to note). All of these are Western innovations, more or less, and all stand ready for adoption by any interested party or nation.
But adoption is not what we observe in these third-world nations.
Instead, we see a continuing legacy of corruption, social instability, and poverty among large swathes of the population. Yes, more and more, we see these nations bringing in, for example, modern equipment and technology…but more often than not, though they make use of things like cars and computers, they’re still down in the dumps in every other respect.
That’s because it’s not as simple as the West just “leading by example” and hoping for the rest of the world to take notice. There are fundamentally irreconcilable attitudinal differences between us and them that they will not make an active effort to bridge if we simply wait, passively, for them to take their cue from us.
Asking people to “do their part” is all well and good, but it’s also not going to cross the ideological gap between first- and third-world nations, let alone the technical gap. Heck, you need look no further than the state of most of these nations, most of which have received extremely generous development grants (counted in billions of dollars) from the U.N. and Western nations…and squandered every dollar.
Add to that the fact that most Western nations — and then especially Canada and the U.S. — have some pretty damn decent environmental records (as compared against most other nations in the world, especially the largest of them all in terms of population) and already do more than their fair share to trim and reduce the environmental impact of their every industry, business, and residence…and the claim that we in the West need to make yet more effort to lead other nations by setting an example that those other nations won’t even follow becomes specious, at best.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I am actually in favour of industries in Canada and the U.S. constantly making the effort to minimize their environmental impact, just as I am in favour of them continuing to develop ever more efficient and effective environmental controls on their processes and operations. But I’m not interested in doing so because I think we need to meet some artificial international standard, nor am I doing so because I think we need to set an example for others to emulate.
No, I think that way because those sorts of things are an important part of our being God’s stewards upon this Earth. And the important part about stewardship is that a morally upright steward will, when taking steps or making changes for the benefit of that over which he is steward, will make changes or take steps that are mutually beneficial to both the steward and that which he is entrusted to watch over.
Proposals such as those put forth in Kyoto and (more recently) Bali are not moral stewardship, because they will ultimately prove unduly harmful to the economies (and by extension, the people) of Western nations.
Environmental responsibility follows in lockstep with economic prosperity. The U.S. is the most recent example of this, but it is true historically as well. And this really shouldn’t come as a surprise, because the same trend is visible in an everyday context as well, in individuals — given the choice and the economic means to do so, most people will (to the limits of their ability) choose to live in a clean environment. Funnily, citizens of nations operate in exactly the same way.
I mention the U.S., and we see in their recent history this exact trend borne out. They’ve been riding high on an economic boom for the last 7 years. It’s not really surprising that in that same time period, they have done better than any other nation in terms of curbing the total growth in their environmental footprint.
That’s the point to consider, and the real flaw of Kyoto. No nation can realistically expect to reduce its environmental footprint below current (let alone historic) levels if it wants to sustain economic growth, because growth necessarily implies (and, in fact, actually means) an expansion in the capacity to produce goods. Higher production capacity necessarily makes for a larger environmental footprint, even if one’s principal export is food crops.
But for as much as its economy has expanded in recent years, the U.S. has done better than almost every other nation on the planet in terms of limiting the overall growth of its environmental footprint (again, this without signing on to Kyoto)
Oh, granted. But even then…how many advocates for Kyoto are also advocates for, say, the expanded development and use of nuclear energy? Sorry to say it, but if a person is lobbying for a reduced reliance on fossil fuels (which, in and of itself, is a good thing to want for) and is also lobbying against the increased use of nuclear power generation, that person is nothing but a hypocrite.
Nuclear power generation, in its proper operation, has a staggeringly low environmental footprint, even when compared against supposedly “green” power generation schemes. Windmills are devastating to local bird populations around wind farms. Solar panels are expensive to manufacture, and don’t generate all that much power per dollar of cost. And hydro dams…let’s not get started in discussing the damage hydro dams wreak on their immediate environments.
So even here, it’s not just that improvements are being called for, nor is it just that people are suggesting that we should try and cut our reliance on fossil fuels. It’s what improvements they are lobbying for, and what they are suggesting we do about that reliance.
That’s true even in the case of this issue of the lightbulbs. Will it really have all that much of an impact, or is this just a bone (and then, one which will have no objective effect) the Conservatives are throwing out there to make it seem as though they’re every bit as serious as the Liberals about this climate change issue?
Who said anything about Kyoto or Bali? I’m talking about whether something should be done here in Canada and the rest of the first world, not about specific plans. I haven’t researched Kyoto or Bali proposals enough to speak intelligently on them.
I realize there are serious problems getting the third world to clean up, particularly with all the corruption going on. And I’m not saying the West should just quietly do our thing and hope the third world gets inspired. To be honest, I don’t really know _what_ to do — I’m not in politics largely for this reason. I do know that, if something happens to convince or allow the third world to start adopting cleaner technology, having that technology already developed and cheaply available will make that a whole lot easier.
The Pope said something similar in his Message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace:
(He goes on to mention the problems developing nations face in doing the same — basically the problems you mentioned above — but he doesn’t seem to suggest any solutions either.) He also stresses the need for prompt action, within nations and between nations.
(I’m glad to see you saying we should do our best to be as clean as possible here, too. Your initial comments suggested that, since we’re not in the top 10 polluters, we can all crank up the coal fires and hop in our SUVs and not worry about it. Had me worried.)
As an aside, one thing I’ve never understood, and I realize this may be basic economics, but why the obsession with economic growth? What’s wrong with just being stable for a while?
In any case, I finally just had a look at the article RightGirl links to, and I don’t see what it has to do with anything. It’s talking about very local (but very serious) problems. More important is the fact that the industrialized nations are the ones spewing out most of the CO2, the major contributor to the global warming problem. (The US, for example, puts out more than 20% of the world’s CO2.) Seems to me it’s pretty important, then, for us to lead the way in doing something about it. (No, we can’t solve it by ourselves, and the US and China can’t do it alone. But the point is that everyone has to reduce emissions, including them (and us).)
See, I don’t even think we’ve settled the question of whether “something should be done”…at least, not in the sense where “something” means “any more than we are already doing.” We are doing, in North America, a fair bit already.
But the thing is, we already have that technology — in some cases, we’ve had it for decades. Emission-reducing scrubbers and cleaner-burning fossil fuel power generation methods are new developments, yes, but only in the sense that the 1970s and 1980s are not all that long ago relative to the entirety of human history. We already have, in widespread (mandatory!) use in North America, numerous very effective pollution controls which industries are already working to continually improve.
I’ve seen a number of these technologies first-hand, having worked for various companies associated with oil and gas production in Alberta.
The Pope’s suggestions are good ones, but it serves to note that even he is not advocating for meaningless gestures that may amount to no net environmental benefit (i.e. adopting these new lightbulbs, or Kyoto, or Bali, or whatever).
Let’s take his two points one at a time.
High levels of consumption: if people were really serious about this, people could effect meaningful change with just two small changes to their everyday lifestyles: stop eating fast food, and stop shopping at Wal Mart. It’s the mentality that underpins the fast food industry, and the new model of product quality that has emerged in the wake of Wal Mart’s market power and commitment to selling things for as cheap as possible that contribute not only to excess consumption in North America, but to monumental levels of waste production.
The fast food example is pretty obvious, but think about Wal Mart for a minute (this is why I will never shop at that store until and unless they are the only store left on the face of the planet that carries the product I need). For how much business they do, they can afford to dictate prices to manufacturers — manufacturers have to respond by reducing quality of product in order to meet the demanded price point set by Wal Mart. That’s their only option, unfortunately; material costs are static. So products fail faster and more often.
Now, with a failed product, a person has a choice whether to have it repaired or replaced. But with price points dropped so low because of Wal Mart’s market power, most consumers (even guys like me who don’t shop at Wal Mart) are finding a most interesting trend emerging in the market today: it is becoming cheaper to replace a damaged or defective product that it is to have it repaired.
A recent case that comes to mind is a broken camera my boss asked me about. To repair its cracked LCD screen would have cost about $200. To get the updated model of the camera would have cost $220. Net result: old camera ended up in the garbage, and a new one was purchased.
Wal Mart is but one example, but the trend that we can see in taking it as an example can be found everywhere. And if we wanted to effect meaningful change, that is where we would focus our efforts. Changing out our lightbulbs won’t have any real effect in terms of cutting emissions. Getting rid of practices, policies, and even companies that force prices down to such a low point that it is not economically viable to use a product to its maximum extent and/or have that product repaired, so as to keep using it, when and if it fails will do much more in both the short and long term.
But we’re not doing that. I think, though, that it’s those sorts of things that the Pope is advocating for.
Mind you, the world has a long-standing habit of ignoring what the Church’s leaders actually say. ;)
Alternative energy/energy efficiency: I’ve already discussed this (see my previous).
I know of very few people who would actually advocate for undue increases in Canada’s pollution output, and such people that do advocate for said increases can be safely ignored.
But neither do I believe we should “do something” merely for the sake of being seen to be doing something, especially if the something in question is an essentially meaningless, effect-less gesture.
Actually, water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas. CO2’s effect is marginal by comparison. And at any rate, the rate of warming is not worth getting alarmed over — the world has, historically, been as much as 5 to 8 degrees C warmer than it is now, and life got on just fine. No surprises here: the Earth warms and cools cyclically.
That ought not to come as a surprise, though; there’s a big glowing ball in the sky that has fitful periods of increased activity followed by periods of diminished activity, and it’s the Sun’s activity that determines — more than any other factor, so much so as to render said other factors statistically insignificant — whether the globe warms or cools. We’ve observed warming trends on Mars and several of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and on Neptune, and those planets don’t have heavily industrialized societies pumping C02 into their atmospheres.
Mars, in particular, has warmed up almost as much as we have during the time frame in which we’ve been recording temperatures there, and what little discrepancy exists can be explained away by the increased distance between Mars and the Sun as compared to Earth.
Except that even if we could reduce our CO2 production to levels not seen since 1990, we wouldn’t have one iota of effect on the current trends in Earth’s global climate.
It really is all about the Sun, and we can’t control that guy at all.
I completely agree that our society is horribly focussed on consumption. Something we need to fix, and soon.
As for the rest, good discussion (although your comment that the Earth has been a lot hotter and cooler than now, so we shouldn’t worry about it, scares me a little; did I misread that?). You mention that water is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2, which may be true, but the concern is whether putting the amount of CO2 into the air that we are each year is able to change the earth’s temperature. What else is up there doesn’t matter much for that, I think, unless it’s going down or something.
(Oh, I think you have the wrong link about whether reducing CO2 production would impact global warming trends; you linked to a post about An Inconvenient Truth, which is interesting and important (thanks!) but not what you’re talking about here. I’m very interested because I’ve heard the opposite, IIRC.)
A couple of other interesting things to bring to your attention:
The global average surface temperature since 1860 has an interesting shape: it starts rising sharply right around the Industrial Revolution, drops a bit after WWII, then starts taking off again near the end of the 1970s. That last bit is really fascinating, I think: it coincides with the introduction of the Clean Air Act and the introduction of emission scrubbers and such. What they’ve found is that the emission improvements focussed on smog and related particulate, stuff that looks awful in the sky and isn’t there naturally. The invisible stuff like CO2 wasn’t addressed so much. The thing about smog etc is that it reflects incoming heat into space. So you lose that, and keep the greenhouse gases, and it gets toasty.
As for the sun, the article linked from the article you link to doesn’t seem to discount anthropogenic (sp?) global warming. Moreover, expected effects of greenhouse gas emissions will dwarf any likely solar heating in the near future.
Oh, and I’m still not sure what the Forbes article has to do with climate change…?
*hat tip*
Have you ever heard of the Medieval Warm Period? How about the Little Ice Age? But more than just those things, did you read the previous Time Immortal posting I linked to?
…some 10,000 years ago, Earth’s climate was 4 to 5 degrees warmer (and possibly as much as 8 degrees warmer in parts of Siberia) than it is now…to such an extent that boreal forests could be found on the Arctic coastlines of the world. That means forests were found between 400 and 1000 kilometres beyond their present northern extents worldwide. That means that the world was, at one point, warm enough “to melt all glaciers below 5 km elevation, except the Greenland ice sheet, which was reduced by ca 20-50%.â€
And strangely, the world seems no worse for wear as a result of it. The climate of the world, being cyclical, cooled again, and the glaciers reasserted themselves, and the forests were pushed back.
If you find something there to be afraid of, do let me know. I’m simply citing data regarding historical trends in the Earth’s temperature, which is very cyclical (corresponding to cycles in solar activity).
Again, though, CO2 is a minor player as a greehnouse gas. Water vapor accounts for most of the greenhouse effect — that is, water vapor traps many times more heat than CO2 — with CO2 playing a bit role that, in terms of the actual temperature change it causes, is statistically insignificant.
You evidently missed the point about it that I was citing. In throwing out An Inconvenient Truth from the classroom, the British Court’s scientific experts found that:
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
Re-read that. An 800 to 2000 (!!) year lag exists between the time when atmospheric temperature begins to rise and when CO2 levels began to rise. There are two things to draw out of this: 1) there is no strong correlation between increases in CO2 levels and increases in global temperature, and 2) did you notice the order of events? Temperature rose first, then CO2.
That suggests that while the Earth might produce increased quantities of CO2 naturally when it warms (not surprising; there would be, among other things, wider expanses of forest as a result of temperature increases, with a correspondingly higher level of incidence of forest fires), increased quantities of CO2 do not themselves drive the temperature increase.
There’s one teensy problem with the graph you provide — it’s a classic hockey-stick graph, and has been debunked several times over. (That link is to a category of posts, not to any one specific post — you will likely have to read through quite a few of them).
Which is as it should be, I think; better to get the really harmful stuff out of the air (let’s face it…the stuff that “looks awful” is also typically very harmful to human beings) than to waste time on a gas like CO2 that a) really doesn’t hurt us all that much, and b) is something the natural environment is designed to deal with anyhow.
True, but like I say…if we wanted to curb the greenhouse effect, we’d do our damndest to restrict emissions of water vapor, which is (as I’ve noted) the principal greenhouse gas, and the gas most responsible for heat retention by the atmosphere. We wouldn’t be wasting our time on CO2.
Any person honest about science would not discount, 100%, anthropogenic global warming as a possibility…but then, if you read The God Delusion, Dawkins doesn’t categorically deny, 100%, the existence of God. The strongest statement he makes on the issue is that we can reliably conclude, based on whatever evidences he has misinterpreted, that God very likely does not exist.
“Very likely.” Even the ardent atheistic apologist can’t bring himself to say 100%. But I don’t think you or I would be fooled by the concession — Dawkins doesn’t believe God exists, and in fact believes God does not exist.
Now, Dawkins is wrong, of course, but that’s because he’s a crypto-positivist.
So while nobody should discount AGW as a possibility, we can look at other things (like water vapour, the historical relationship between warming and CO2 levels, and solar activity) and realize that it is very likely the case that AGW is a non-issue.
I have a generic category for climate change postings and semi-tangential stuff. It’s not directly related, but…well…it serves to note that the nations that would be most penalized by environmental initiatives proposed at Kyoto and Bali are (strangely) nowhere near being the most polluted.
Here’s a bit more on AGW and global CO2 production:
Or, how about this?
CO2 is a bogeyman, plain and simple.
No, it doesn’t. It’s talking about cities, not countries. There may be a correlation, but the article doesn’t make one. Just saying.
You make some good points on CO2 vs water. I’ll try to write more after I’ve had a chance to look into it a bit more. Thanks!
There is a correlation, by and large.
I’ll be here.
My point is that whether there’s a correlation or not, saying “the 10 absolute worst polluted cities in the world are not here” says absolutely nothing about whether or not climate change or other environmental damage is something the West is responsible for. Saying “we’re not the worst” doesn’t say we’re not bad. (I’m leaving aside for the moment the question of whether we’re bad or not; I’m just trying to say I think RightGirl’s point is entirely unsupported by the linked article, and indeed is completely unrelated. Yet she seems to be drawing some sort of satisfaction from the Forbes article. I don’t get it.)
The overall thrust of things like Bali and Kyoto, in part because they are targeting CO2 emissions instead of harsher pollutants and in part because of just who is drafting the statements that have emerged from such conferences, tend to point the finger at the West as the “worst of the worst” of polluters.
One thinks, briefly, of how China was not even required to be a signatory to Kyoto until about a year and a half ago (the Kyoto Protocol is itself several years older than that). That alone should have told us everything we needed to know about what a sham the whole thing was, and yet the opposite has happened; the alarmism has reached what is in and of itself an alarming crescendo, and the new resolutions out of Bali simply rehash the same tired clichés.
So yes, this article doesn’t explicitly say anything about whether or not climate change is something the West is in fact responsible for. Of course, we can be reasonably certain that the West is not — via its carbon emissions — responsible for any warming or cooling trends (parts of the Southern Hemisphere are cooling at the moment), because even a worldwide cessation of human CO2 production would result in a change in the atmosphere’s ability to trap heat of less than a percent of a percent.
But by the same token, one notes the rhetoric that usually accompanies advocacy for Kyoto, Bali, or the IPCC reports, and one notes that the West is cast as the villain in all of those bits of rhetoric.
Articles like this, while not specifically related to the issue of climate change, do stick a bit of a finger in the eye of that portrayal of the West as the villain of the piece; plain fact is, we’re not the villain at all. We enjoy the many benefits of our prosperity, which includes an increased priority placed on minimizing our environmental impact in every way we can. Few other places in the world — places outside of the West — do that. Many of them are, in fact, polluted hellholes. And if we were serious about doing something to “save the Earth” (so to speak), we’d focus our efforts not on reverting Western nations to carbon emissions levels of two decades ago, but on helping places like these 10 cities.
But we don’t do that. Perhaps you will think me paranoid, but methinks there is, on the air, the faintest scent of an anti-Western agenda at work.
By the way, Erf, I should apologize; it took until you replied to my reply to your question about the sidebar comments for me to realize who you were. I hope Christmas was good for you and your wife!