Jihad vs. McWorld by Benjamin R. Barber proposes an interesting way to look at this problem. He argues a country's energy consumption per capita compared with the world average consumption per capita is a measure of equality, that is, the ratio of a country is lower than the world average, the country's energy allocation is lower than what equality entitles it.
Another of his indicator measures energy efficiency of an economy. He says inequality of energy available for individuals in various countries might be somehow less reproachable if the said country produces more than other countries with the same amount of energy. The measurement of this indicator is GDP divided by energy consumption of the country. In other words, it measures how many dollars a country produces with 1 barrel of petrol, for example.
I have too many things to learn about BBCode to replicate Barber's tables on the Agora but here is a link to the World Bank statistics of GDP and here is a useful page of energy statistics.
Skepticism
-
M. Henri Day
- Grand Panjandrum
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:24 am
- Location: Stockholm, SVERIGE
I've been wondering when the Evangelicals would get 'round to remembering their duties as the Earth's stewards. They are welcome on board this fragile vessel....
Henri
March 10, 2005
Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
A core group of influential evangelical leaders has put its considerable political power behind a cause that has barely registered on the evangelical agenda, fighting global warming.
These church leaders, scientists, writers and heads of international aid agencies argue that global warming is an urgent threat, a cause of poverty and a Christian issue because the Bible mandates stewardship of God's creation.
The Rev. Rich Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals and a significant voice in the debate, said, "I don't think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created."
The association has scheduled two meetings on Capitol Hill and in the Washington suburbs on Thursday and Friday, where more than 100 leaders will discuss issuing a statement on global warming. The meetings are considered so pivotal that Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and officials of the Bush administration, who are on opposite sides on how to address global warming, will speak.
People on all sides of the debate say that if evangelical leaders take a stand, they could change the political dynamics on global warming.
The administration has refused to join the international Kyoto treaty and opposes mandatory emission controls.
The issue has failed to gain much traction in the Republican-controlled Congress. An overwhelming majority of evangelicals are Republicans, and about four out of five evangelicals voted for President Bush last year, according to the Pew Research Center.
The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of 51 church denominations, said he had become passionate about global warming because of his experience scuba diving and observing the effects of rising ocean temperatures and pollution on coral reefs.
"The question is, Will evangelicals make a difference, and the answer is, The Senate thinks so," Mr. Haggard said. "We do represent 30 million people, and we can mobilize them if we have to."
In October the association paved the way for broad-based advocacy on the environment when it adopted "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," a platform that included a plank on "creation care" that many evangelical leaders say was unprecedented.
"Because clean air, pure water and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order," the statement said, "government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."
Nearly 100 evangelical leaders have signed the statement.
But it is far from certain that a more focused statement on climate change would elicit a similar response.
In recent years, however, whenever the association latched onto a new issue, Washington paid attention, on questions like religious persecution, violence in Sudan, AIDS in Africa and sex trafficking of young girls.
Environmentalists said they would welcome the evangelicals as allies.
"They have good friendships in places where the rest of the environmental community doesn't," Larry J. Schweiger, president and chief executive of the National Wildlife Federation, said. "For instance, in legislative districts where there's a very conservative lawmaker who might not be predisposed to pay attention to what environmental groups might say, but may pay attention to what the local faith community is saying."
It is not as if the evangelical and environmental groups are collaborating, because the wedge between them remains deep, Mr. Cizik said. He added that evangelicals had long been uncomfortable with what they perceived to be the environmentalists' support for government regulation, population control and, if they are not entirely secular, new-age approaches to religion.
Over the last three years, evangelical leaders like Mr. Cizik have begun to reconsider their silence on environmental questions. Some evangelicals have spoken out, but not many. Among them is the Rev. Jim Ball of the Evangelical Environmental Network, who in 2002 began a "What Would Jesus Drive?" campaign and drove a hybrid vehicle across the country.
Mr. Cizik said that Mr. Ball "dragged" him to a conference on climate change in 2002 in Oxford, England. Among the speakers were evangelical scientists, including Sir John Houghton, a retired Oxford professor of atmospheric physics who was on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a committee that issued international reports.
Sir John said in an interview that he had told the group that science and faith together provided proof that climate change should be a Christian concern.
Mr. Cizik said he had a "conversion" on climate change so profound in Oxford that he likened it to an "altar call," when nonbelievers accept Jesus as their savior. Mr. Cizik recently bought a Toyota Prius, a hybrid vehicle.
Mr. Cizik and Mr. Ball then asked Sir John to speak at a small meeting of evangelical leaders in June in Maryland called by the Evangelical Environmental Network, the National Association of Evangelicals and Christianity Today, the magazine. The leaders read Scripture and said they were moved by three watermen who caught crabs in Chesapeake Bay and said their faith had made them into environmentalists.
Those leaders produced a "covenant" in which 29 committed to "engage the evangelical community" on climate change and to produce a "consensus statement" within a year.
Soon, Christianity Today ran an editorial endorsing a bill sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, along with Mr. Lieberman, that would include binding curbs on heat-trapping gases. Mr. Ball said the strongest moral argument he made to fellow evangelicals was that climate change would have disproportionate effects on the poorest regions in the world. Hurricanes, droughts and floods are widely expected to intensify as a result of climate change.
Evangelical leaders of relief and development organizations had been very receptive, he said.
"Christ said, 'What you do to the least of these you do to me,' " Mr. Ball said. "And so caring for the poor by reducing the threat of global warming is caring for Jesus Christ."
Among those speaking at the two meetings this week are Sir John and Dr. Mack McFarland, environmental manager for DuPont, who is to describe how his company has greatly reduced emissions of heat-trapping gases.
Such an approach appeals to evangelicals, Mr. Haggard said, adding, "We want to be pro-business environmentalists."
Mr. Cizik said he was among many evangelicals who would support some regulation on heat-trapping gases.
"We're not adverse to government-mandated prohibitions on behavioral sin such as abortion," he said. "We try to restrict it. So why, if we're social tinkering to protect the sanctity of human life, ought we not be for a little tinkering to protect the environment?"
Mr. Lieberman added: "Support from the evangelical and broader religious community can really move some people in Congress who feel some sense of moral responsibility but haven't quite settled on an exact policy response yet. This could be pivotal."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Henri
March 10, 2005
Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
A core group of influential evangelical leaders has put its considerable political power behind a cause that has barely registered on the evangelical agenda, fighting global warming.
These church leaders, scientists, writers and heads of international aid agencies argue that global warming is an urgent threat, a cause of poverty and a Christian issue because the Bible mandates stewardship of God's creation.
The Rev. Rich Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals and a significant voice in the debate, said, "I don't think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created."
The association has scheduled two meetings on Capitol Hill and in the Washington suburbs on Thursday and Friday, where more than 100 leaders will discuss issuing a statement on global warming. The meetings are considered so pivotal that Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and officials of the Bush administration, who are on opposite sides on how to address global warming, will speak.
People on all sides of the debate say that if evangelical leaders take a stand, they could change the political dynamics on global warming.
The administration has refused to join the international Kyoto treaty and opposes mandatory emission controls.
The issue has failed to gain much traction in the Republican-controlled Congress. An overwhelming majority of evangelicals are Republicans, and about four out of five evangelicals voted for President Bush last year, according to the Pew Research Center.
The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of 51 church denominations, said he had become passionate about global warming because of his experience scuba diving and observing the effects of rising ocean temperatures and pollution on coral reefs.
"The question is, Will evangelicals make a difference, and the answer is, The Senate thinks so," Mr. Haggard said. "We do represent 30 million people, and we can mobilize them if we have to."
In October the association paved the way for broad-based advocacy on the environment when it adopted "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," a platform that included a plank on "creation care" that many evangelical leaders say was unprecedented.
"Because clean air, pure water and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order," the statement said, "government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."
Nearly 100 evangelical leaders have signed the statement.
But it is far from certain that a more focused statement on climate change would elicit a similar response.
In recent years, however, whenever the association latched onto a new issue, Washington paid attention, on questions like religious persecution, violence in Sudan, AIDS in Africa and sex trafficking of young girls.
Environmentalists said they would welcome the evangelicals as allies.
"They have good friendships in places where the rest of the environmental community doesn't," Larry J. Schweiger, president and chief executive of the National Wildlife Federation, said. "For instance, in legislative districts where there's a very conservative lawmaker who might not be predisposed to pay attention to what environmental groups might say, but may pay attention to what the local faith community is saying."
It is not as if the evangelical and environmental groups are collaborating, because the wedge between them remains deep, Mr. Cizik said. He added that evangelicals had long been uncomfortable with what they perceived to be the environmentalists' support for government regulation, population control and, if they are not entirely secular, new-age approaches to religion.
Over the last three years, evangelical leaders like Mr. Cizik have begun to reconsider their silence on environmental questions. Some evangelicals have spoken out, but not many. Among them is the Rev. Jim Ball of the Evangelical Environmental Network, who in 2002 began a "What Would Jesus Drive?" campaign and drove a hybrid vehicle across the country.
Mr. Cizik said that Mr. Ball "dragged" him to a conference on climate change in 2002 in Oxford, England. Among the speakers were evangelical scientists, including Sir John Houghton, a retired Oxford professor of atmospheric physics who was on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a committee that issued international reports.
Sir John said in an interview that he had told the group that science and faith together provided proof that climate change should be a Christian concern.
Mr. Cizik said he had a "conversion" on climate change so profound in Oxford that he likened it to an "altar call," when nonbelievers accept Jesus as their savior. Mr. Cizik recently bought a Toyota Prius, a hybrid vehicle.
Mr. Cizik and Mr. Ball then asked Sir John to speak at a small meeting of evangelical leaders in June in Maryland called by the Evangelical Environmental Network, the National Association of Evangelicals and Christianity Today, the magazine. The leaders read Scripture and said they were moved by three watermen who caught crabs in Chesapeake Bay and said their faith had made them into environmentalists.
Those leaders produced a "covenant" in which 29 committed to "engage the evangelical community" on climate change and to produce a "consensus statement" within a year.
Soon, Christianity Today ran an editorial endorsing a bill sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, along with Mr. Lieberman, that would include binding curbs on heat-trapping gases. Mr. Ball said the strongest moral argument he made to fellow evangelicals was that climate change would have disproportionate effects on the poorest regions in the world. Hurricanes, droughts and floods are widely expected to intensify as a result of climate change.
Evangelical leaders of relief and development organizations had been very receptive, he said.
"Christ said, 'What you do to the least of these you do to me,' " Mr. Ball said. "And so caring for the poor by reducing the threat of global warming is caring for Jesus Christ."
Among those speaking at the two meetings this week are Sir John and Dr. Mack McFarland, environmental manager for DuPont, who is to describe how his company has greatly reduced emissions of heat-trapping gases.
Such an approach appeals to evangelicals, Mr. Haggard said, adding, "We want to be pro-business environmentalists."
Mr. Cizik said he was among many evangelicals who would support some regulation on heat-trapping gases.
"We're not adverse to government-mandated prohibitions on behavioral sin such as abortion," he said. "We try to restrict it. So why, if we're social tinkering to protect the sanctity of human life, ought we not be for a little tinkering to protect the environment?"
Mr. Lieberman added: "Support from the evangelical and broader religious community can really move some people in Congress who feel some sense of moral responsibility but haven't quite settled on an exact policy response yet. This could be pivotal."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
曾记否，到中流击水，浪遏飞舟？
Henri,
FYI, I am StoutRex in the yourdictionary agora.
The Guardian is a notoriously left wing and anti American newspaper. They also do not like dissenting commentary. They refused to allow me to respond to their attempt to influence the 2004 election in the United States.
The author of the article you quoted is right about one thing, though. The Kyoto Accords will do nothing to prevent global warming. Based on what I found here
http://eteam.ncpa.org/eteam_news/20050215aetn.htm
It seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the framers of the Kyoto accords was not to prevent global warming, but to do harm to the U.S. economy. I find it very interesting the Kyoto accords exempt China, who, though many don't yet realize it, is the chief economic and military rival of the U.S.
You might also check out this report in the Jewish World Review.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0701/t ... 061901.asp
Here's an excerpt:
"What causes honest scientists to keep falling into this trap? There is a presumption today that to be "progressive" and to have what is called a "social conscience" means being anti-business, anti-industry, anti-technology. Notice, for example, that every government-funded scientist who supports the global warming theory is portrayed as independent, unbiased, trustworthy -- while any dissenter is likely to be described, not as a scientist, but as a "representative of industries whose business depends on fossil fuels." Scientists are offered three alternatives: to be a "concerned" environmental advocate, to be dismissed as a shill for Big Oil or to be "neutral," apolitical, and therefore irrelevant. "
And, as a scientist, Henri, I'm sure you'll find this interesting reading (sounds to me like the global warming dissenters are much more honest as scientists than the proponents of global warming):
Global Warming Dissenters
Many scientists do not accept that humans play a significant role in global warming. They have been derided and ridiculed by proponents of anthropogenic global warming but the dissenting scientists ...
1. ... consider that the proponents of global warming often make false claims, unsubstantiated assertions and unreasonable assumptions; show selectivity of data, and falsely believe that a correlation between factors automatically means that one is influencing the other. (Dissenting scientists consider that a correlation shows only a possible link and that the mechanism must be explained and quantified if the link is to be proven.)
2. ... ask for clear evidence of assertions where that evidence is supported not by mathematical model but by physical observations. Dissenting Scientists deplore the notion that data and conclusions can be validated against mathematical models because those models are themselves the product of assumptions and have recognised deficiencies.
3. ... consider that the IPCC Policy-Makers' Summary lacks integrity because doubts and qualifying statements were removed from the summary after scientists had endorsed the documents; uncertainties became certainties, possibilities became absolutes.
4. ... ask for accuracy in all comments and reports about global warming because reports of issues that relate to specific regions or circumstances have too often become unjustified generalisations. (For example: the recent report on climate change in the Arctic did not clearly specify the sources of its climate data and this makes it impossible to independently verify the basis for the comments, to determine if the conditions are widespread or localised and to decide whether the conclusions are reasonable.)
5. ... ask that ALL relevant factors be taken into account when drawing conclusions about any change in climate. Many dissenting scientists have questioned the accuracy of statements about global warming, specifically whether the temperatures at observation points have been influenced by changes in the surrounding environment. Others are well aware of the difficulty of determining the extent of the influence of natural events, such as well-recognised cyclic conditions (eg. ENSO, NAO), on climate and the problem of determining just what is "normal".
6. ... question the accuracy of the famous "hockey stick" graph of temperature. They note that five independent studies have refuted the graph and consider that its use in support of arguments for global warming and in policy formulation should be discontinued.
7. ... dispute the common notion that carbon dioxide has a SIGNIFICANT impact on climate. They can show research to prove that anthropogenic carbon dioxide directly causes only very minor warming and while they acknowledge possible reinforcing feedback from other sources, they point to the continuing uncertainty about the extent of that feedback.
8. ... point to many inconsistencies in the supposedly strong correlation of CO2 and temperature. Ice core records show instances where temperature clearly rose before CO2 or where temperature fell even as CO2 levels remained elevated. Dissenting scientists also point to the global warming that occurred before 1945 when carbon dioxide levels had shown little change and the cooling that occurred between 1945 and 1985 even while CO2 levels were rising. They question the validity of the concept of "inertia", by which the elevated levels CO2 today will cause a temperature increase in 20 or 30 years time, and they ask for clear evidence that such inertia exists.
9. ... are appalled by the reliance on mathematical models that do not properly model several well-recognised climate factors such as the transfer of heat from the tropics to the polar regions and, perhaps the most obvious weather element of all, clouds. The climatic influence of clouds varies by the cloud density, by cloud height, by day of year and by time of day. (For example: In northern Finland, a winter day under thick cloud is often more than 10 degrees warmer than a similar day under a clear sky. This large difference means that just a small increase in the number of cloudy days can dramatically affect the average monthly temperature. The potential impact of increased cloud cover in Arctic regions was not mentioned in the Impact statement for the polar regions in the IPCC TAR of 2001 !)
10. ... look first to nature and original research for possible explanations of events and observations that others quickly assert are the products of global warming. Often the dissenting scientists find more than one possible explanation, which to them highlights the uncertainty of natural climate and rashness of ascribing such events to human causes.
11. ... believe that factors other than carbon dioxide may have a far greater influence on our climate. Some are natural - such as emissions of solar particles and winds, solar magnetic forces and sun-spots, cosmic rays, natural cyclic shifts in the earth's centre of mass, changing jet-streams, volcanoes, clouds, Rossby waves - and some may be anthropogenic - such as aerosols, other airborne pollutants, emissions from aircraft, water vapour emissions.
12. ... do not agree among themselves on the causes of climate change but they do agree that there is still much to learn about the interaction of natural climate elements, and that human involvement in climate change cannot be properly determined until we better understand the actions of those natural elements.
13. ... are scientists concerned only with a fundamental notion of Science; discovering the truth about nature. They reject the notion that "truth" is settled by consensus rather than correctness, and they deplore the political use of incomplete knowledge for social and other purposes. They deplore those who promote "consensus" and use smears and insults to denigrate those who strive for truth and honesty.
14. ... are concerned that, on the evidence available, implementing the Kyoto Accord will be expensive and have no discernible effect on the average global temperatures. Further, they consider that an even greater reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will produce little benefit but be even more detrimental to national economies.
15. ... refute allegations of having vested interests and suggest that proponents of global warming can not only be accused of having financial vested interests but also having their reputations to defend in a field with no easy answers.
William (a.k.a. StoutRex)
FYI, I am StoutRex in the yourdictionary agora.
The Guardian is a notoriously left wing and anti American newspaper. They also do not like dissenting commentary. They refused to allow me to respond to their attempt to influence the 2004 election in the United States.
The author of the article you quoted is right about one thing, though. The Kyoto Accords will do nothing to prevent global warming. Based on what I found here
http://eteam.ncpa.org/eteam_news/20050215aetn.htm
It seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the framers of the Kyoto accords was not to prevent global warming, but to do harm to the U.S. economy. I find it very interesting the Kyoto accords exempt China, who, though many don't yet realize it, is the chief economic and military rival of the U.S.
You might also check out this report in the Jewish World Review.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0701/t ... 061901.asp
Here's an excerpt:
"What causes honest scientists to keep falling into this trap? There is a presumption today that to be "progressive" and to have what is called a "social conscience" means being anti-business, anti-industry, anti-technology. Notice, for example, that every government-funded scientist who supports the global warming theory is portrayed as independent, unbiased, trustworthy -- while any dissenter is likely to be described, not as a scientist, but as a "representative of industries whose business depends on fossil fuels." Scientists are offered three alternatives: to be a "concerned" environmental advocate, to be dismissed as a shill for Big Oil or to be "neutral," apolitical, and therefore irrelevant. "
And, as a scientist, Henri, I'm sure you'll find this interesting reading (sounds to me like the global warming dissenters are much more honest as scientists than the proponents of global warming):
Global Warming Dissenters
Many scientists do not accept that humans play a significant role in global warming. They have been derided and ridiculed by proponents of anthropogenic global warming but the dissenting scientists ...
1. ... consider that the proponents of global warming often make false claims, unsubstantiated assertions and unreasonable assumptions; show selectivity of data, and falsely believe that a correlation between factors automatically means that one is influencing the other. (Dissenting scientists consider that a correlation shows only a possible link and that the mechanism must be explained and quantified if the link is to be proven.)
2. ... ask for clear evidence of assertions where that evidence is supported not by mathematical model but by physical observations. Dissenting Scientists deplore the notion that data and conclusions can be validated against mathematical models because those models are themselves the product of assumptions and have recognised deficiencies.
3. ... consider that the IPCC Policy-Makers' Summary lacks integrity because doubts and qualifying statements were removed from the summary after scientists had endorsed the documents; uncertainties became certainties, possibilities became absolutes.
4. ... ask for accuracy in all comments and reports about global warming because reports of issues that relate to specific regions or circumstances have too often become unjustified generalisations. (For example: the recent report on climate change in the Arctic did not clearly specify the sources of its climate data and this makes it impossible to independently verify the basis for the comments, to determine if the conditions are widespread or localised and to decide whether the conclusions are reasonable.)
5. ... ask that ALL relevant factors be taken into account when drawing conclusions about any change in climate. Many dissenting scientists have questioned the accuracy of statements about global warming, specifically whether the temperatures at observation points have been influenced by changes in the surrounding environment. Others are well aware of the difficulty of determining the extent of the influence of natural events, such as well-recognised cyclic conditions (eg. ENSO, NAO), on climate and the problem of determining just what is "normal".
6. ... question the accuracy of the famous "hockey stick" graph of temperature. They note that five independent studies have refuted the graph and consider that its use in support of arguments for global warming and in policy formulation should be discontinued.
7. ... dispute the common notion that carbon dioxide has a SIGNIFICANT impact on climate. They can show research to prove that anthropogenic carbon dioxide directly causes only very minor warming and while they acknowledge possible reinforcing feedback from other sources, they point to the continuing uncertainty about the extent of that feedback.
8. ... point to many inconsistencies in the supposedly strong correlation of CO2 and temperature. Ice core records show instances where temperature clearly rose before CO2 or where temperature fell even as CO2 levels remained elevated. Dissenting scientists also point to the global warming that occurred before 1945 when carbon dioxide levels had shown little change and the cooling that occurred between 1945 and 1985 even while CO2 levels were rising. They question the validity of the concept of "inertia", by which the elevated levels CO2 today will cause a temperature increase in 20 or 30 years time, and they ask for clear evidence that such inertia exists.
9. ... are appalled by the reliance on mathematical models that do not properly model several well-recognised climate factors such as the transfer of heat from the tropics to the polar regions and, perhaps the most obvious weather element of all, clouds. The climatic influence of clouds varies by the cloud density, by cloud height, by day of year and by time of day. (For example: In northern Finland, a winter day under thick cloud is often more than 10 degrees warmer than a similar day under a clear sky. This large difference means that just a small increase in the number of cloudy days can dramatically affect the average monthly temperature. The potential impact of increased cloud cover in Arctic regions was not mentioned in the Impact statement for the polar regions in the IPCC TAR of 2001 !)
10. ... look first to nature and original research for possible explanations of events and observations that others quickly assert are the products of global warming. Often the dissenting scientists find more than one possible explanation, which to them highlights the uncertainty of natural climate and rashness of ascribing such events to human causes.
11. ... believe that factors other than carbon dioxide may have a far greater influence on our climate. Some are natural - such as emissions of solar particles and winds, solar magnetic forces and sun-spots, cosmic rays, natural cyclic shifts in the earth's centre of mass, changing jet-streams, volcanoes, clouds, Rossby waves - and some may be anthropogenic - such as aerosols, other airborne pollutants, emissions from aircraft, water vapour emissions.
12. ... do not agree among themselves on the causes of climate change but they do agree that there is still much to learn about the interaction of natural climate elements, and that human involvement in climate change cannot be properly determined until we better understand the actions of those natural elements.
13. ... are scientists concerned only with a fundamental notion of Science; discovering the truth about nature. They reject the notion that "truth" is settled by consensus rather than correctness, and they deplore the political use of incomplete knowledge for social and other purposes. They deplore those who promote "consensus" and use smears and insults to denigrate those who strive for truth and honesty.
14. ... are concerned that, on the evidence available, implementing the Kyoto Accord will be expensive and have no discernible effect on the average global temperatures. Further, they consider that an even greater reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will produce little benefit but be even more detrimental to national economies.
15. ... refute allegations of having vested interests and suggest that proponents of global warming can not only be accused of having financial vested interests but also having their reputations to defend in a field with no easy answers.
William (a.k.a. StoutRex)
Last edited by William on Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
M. Henri Day
- Grand Panjandrum
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:24 am
- Location: Stockholm, SVERIGE
Thanks for your posting William ! I am no climatologist and thus build (like yourself ?) my understanding of this issue on secondary sources, which means that I not competent to here discuss such matters as the details of the mathematical models on which climatic predictions are based. I must confess, however, that I am hardly impressed by arguments of the type
To the issues of substance. I am in agreement with Katy that a pattern of cyclic climatic changes existed long before H sap sap appeared on the scene and appointed himself the world’s steward – indeed, these facts and theories elucidating them have been uncovered by many of the self-same climatologists derided by those to whom you provide links. Thus such processes as the procession of the equinoxes, the Sun’s orbit through the galaxy, or collisions with heavenly bodies such as asteroids and comets and massive volcanic eruptions, which lie outside our control (something for which we should perhaps be thankful ?) can certainly influence global climate. The issue here is whether, in addition to these processes, others, over which we do have some control – and thus responsibility – also exert destabilising and anti-homeostatic effects on our climate. There is mounting evidence that this is indeed the case. Call it, if you like, a Pascalian wager, but it is at our peril – and that of those who come after us – that we, both residents of the United States and the 95 % of humanity that lives elsewhere, ignore this evidence. There are those who are talking about placing men on other planets, but somehow I doubt that such plans constitute a viable alternative to keeping our planet livable. We’d feel awfully lonely without it….
Henri
Just why would the framers of the Kyôto protocols wish to harm the US economy ? On the contrary, my impression is that political and economic leaders around the world are hoping and praying that, despite the present US administration’s reckless deficit financing of bloated military spending and tax cuts, the US economy will not collapse – not, of course, due to a sudden paroxysm of altruism on the part of these leaders, but simply because such a collapse could give rise to world-wide reverberations which would make those produced by the Wall Street Crash of 1929 seem like a gentle summer breeze. This holds especially true for the Chinese leadership, as that country, together with Japan and South Korea, holds nearly half of all outstanding US treasury notes in foreign hands (if Hongkong is included, some 56 %), and has little interest in seeing its investment disappear in a financial melt-down. The reason that the production of climatic gases in such countries as China, India, and Brazil was not regulated under the Kyôto agreement was that at the time the agreement was framed, both their absolute and their per capita production was much lower than that of the developed countries (as you know, the US stands for about ¼ of the total global production of such gases). But given the rapid industrial development these countries have enjoyed over the last few years, it is obvious that any successor to the Kyôto treaty (which expires in 2012) must, if it is to have an appreciable effect on climatic change, include restrictions on the production of climatic gases by these developing countries, as well as on those by the developed countries. The problem is that unless the US leadership exhibits that it takes the changes already observed and those predicted seriously and contributes to making Kyôto a success, it is unlikely that there will be a successor....It seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the framers of the Kyoto accords was not to prevent global warming, but to do harm to the U.S. economy. I find it very interesting the Kyoto accords exempt China, who, though many don't yet realize it, is the chief economic and military rival of the U.S.
To the issues of substance. I am in agreement with Katy that a pattern of cyclic climatic changes existed long before H sap sap appeared on the scene and appointed himself the world’s steward – indeed, these facts and theories elucidating them have been uncovered by many of the self-same climatologists derided by those to whom you provide links. Thus such processes as the procession of the equinoxes, the Sun’s orbit through the galaxy, or collisions with heavenly bodies such as asteroids and comets and massive volcanic eruptions, which lie outside our control (something for which we should perhaps be thankful ?) can certainly influence global climate. The issue here is whether, in addition to these processes, others, over which we do have some control – and thus responsibility – also exert destabilising and anti-homeostatic effects on our climate. There is mounting evidence that this is indeed the case. Call it, if you like, a Pascalian wager, but it is at our peril – and that of those who come after us – that we, both residents of the United States and the 95 % of humanity that lives elsewhere, ignore this evidence. There are those who are talking about placing men on other planets, but somehow I doubt that such plans constitute a viable alternative to keeping our planet livable. We’d feel awfully lonely without it….
Henri
曾记否，到中流击水，浪遏飞舟？
Henri, you only mentioned catastrophic causes of climatic changes. There is also a growing body of evidence that indicates a correlation between sunspot activity and climate changes. These seem to have something to do with fluctuations in the solar wind. And there are recent discoveries that seem to indicate that even gamma ray bursts from sources outside the solar system contribute to climate change.these facts and theories elucidating them have been uncovered by many of the self-same climatologists derided by those to whom you provide links. Thus such processes as the procession of the equinoxes, the Sun’s orbit through the galaxy, or collisions with heavenly bodies such as asteroids and comets and massive volcanic eruptions, which lie outside our contro
And finally. Change to a warmer climate might not be all that bad. Consider the lengthening in the growing season in northern climates, and the decrease in energy use to produce heat in cold weather.
There is also clear evidence that those who would have us believe that green house gases are going to cause catastrophic global warming have been less than honest in their presentation of facts. What would be their motive?
You know as well as I that the U.S. economy is based on the use of energy. The increased costs to reduce green house gases would make the U.S. much less competitive on the world market. I am not an economists but I have a brother-in-law who earned his phd in economics at Pennsylvania State University and has worked for the U.S. General Accounting Office for the last 30 years. When I get a chance I will ask his opinion on the matter.
I also suspect any data that indicate that the U.S. produces 1/4 of the worlds green house gases. Does this statistic include gases other than carbon dioxide, gases such as methane? I believe the Peoples' Republic of China produces and uses large quantities of methane.
William
In the world filled with ecological abuses, I believe one statistic is being ignored that the US also leads the world in protection laws, informed choice education and legislation against things like arsenic, DDT and spectrocides on crops. With China's increased manufacturing, how do they stand up as polluters, for example, besides methane? Any good dairy produces more than it's share of that.
Katy
Henri? what say you on that?
Katy
Henri? what say you on that?
-
M. Henri Day
- Grand Panjandrum
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:24 am
- Location: Stockholm, SVERIGE
William, I too, have read about solar wind fluctuations and gamma ray bursts as possibly influencing climate and certainly have no basis for dismissing these ideas out of hand - on the contrary, they sound most reasonable to me. But when you write that I «only mentioned catastrophic causes of climatic changes», you indicate that you failed to read my posting carefully - while collision with another heavenly body (larger than the grains of dust the Earth is constantly colliding with) would be - and has been - catastrofic indeed, it strikes me as inaccurate to place the procession of the equinoxes (a 26000 year cycle) and the Sun's orbit through the galazy (a 220 - 230 Myear cycle) in this category. But all these (possible) contributors to climatic change share one significant characteristic - they are neither man-made, nor under his control (No nor [that of] Woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.) As I wrote in my earlier posting,
I shall be very interested in hearing your brother-in-law's view of the matter ! My suggestion is that a world-wide compact regarding greenhouse gases would increase the competitivity of the US economy vis-a-vis countries like China, as energy is, generally speaking, used much more effectively in the US than it is in China (but rather less effectively than in Northern Europe, so the competitivity of US products would sink slightly here). But this is only a static view. Given the enormous resources that the United States enjoys with respect to scientific and engineering manpower (much of it imported, it is true, from other countries, but the point is that it is there, readily available to US capital), it strikes me as reasonable to believe that the US could lead the world in discovering more energy efficient methods, were that to become an important political and economic priority. (Unfortunately, the present Administration has its priorities elesewhere.) Moreover, as you probably know, the Kyôto accords contain - and any successors will surely contain - provisions which allow for trade in «emission credits». These would allow, for example, a US firm to purchase credits from an inefficient Chinese plant which would then use the money to reduce its release of climatic gases, thereby effecting a much larger reduction than would the case if the same amount of money had been used to reduce release of such gases from a more efficient US plant. In Europe, these credits are now being used to clean up inefficient plants in Eastern Europe. (I am not entirely happy with these provisions, as they can be and are being used by Western corporations to avoid a necessary clean up of operations at home, but properly regulated they can make the process of reducing the release of anthropogenic greenhouse gases much more rapid, effective, and efficient. [Edit : Here's an article from today's Washington Post which reflects some of the criticism that has been expressed concerning the trade in emissions.]) In my view, the US would have much to gain - not only in good will, but with respect to the bottom line - were it to take the lead in global efforts to deal with this problem. And should the US do so, China will certainly come in from the cold - as all observers can see for themselves, China still considers the US «the glass of fashion and the mould of form» (not, of course, what the US says - the Chinese leadership, having over 2000 years of continuous experience with «spin», is not naive - but what the US does) when it comes to being a «modern, advanced country») and join whatever accords are in force at the time.
With regard to methane, Katy, (which mol for mol is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO[sub]2[/sub], but quantatively not nearly as important), the (Han) Chinese are not noted for being milk-drinkers, and the number of cows in China is relatively low, with regard to the country's size and population. (There are, of course, some water buffaloes there, to the delight of classical landscape artists, but I doubt that they greatly affect the general situation.) Here, perhaps, we should take a closer look at the Netherlands - one of the most densely populated countries on the planet (nearly 400 individuals/km[sup]2[/sup]), with, I am told, more cows than people. If this is indeed the case, the amount of CH[sub]3[/sub] released to the atmosphere from that little country must be enormous....
Henri
While we as yet can do little about the influence of fluctuations in the solar wind striking the Earth - and indeed, do not yet possess a very good understanding of the processes involved, we now have, I believe, a fairly adequate understanding of the effects of man-made climatic gases on our environment. While you suggest that a rise in global temperatures might not be harmful - and living in sub-Artic regions as I do, I might be inclined to agree with you - the devil here, as elsewhere, is in the details. The effects of temperature change are not, of course, evenly distributed, and while the inhabitants of some places might prefer higher temperatures, those of others definitely would not. Add to this changes in the distribution of rainfall (precipitatory events, pace Apo !), and it is not difficult to see that such changes could prove catastrophic to a very large number of people. Add to this the fact that these changes seem to be taking place very rapidly, and the difficulties and problems they pose become very evident....The issue here is whether, in addition to these processes, others, over which we do have some control – and thus responsibility – also exert destabilising and anti-homeostatic effects on our climate. There is mounting evidence that this is indeed the case.
I shall be very interested in hearing your brother-in-law's view of the matter ! My suggestion is that a world-wide compact regarding greenhouse gases would increase the competitivity of the US economy vis-a-vis countries like China, as energy is, generally speaking, used much more effectively in the US than it is in China (but rather less effectively than in Northern Europe, so the competitivity of US products would sink slightly here). But this is only a static view. Given the enormous resources that the United States enjoys with respect to scientific and engineering manpower (much of it imported, it is true, from other countries, but the point is that it is there, readily available to US capital), it strikes me as reasonable to believe that the US could lead the world in discovering more energy efficient methods, were that to become an important political and economic priority. (Unfortunately, the present Administration has its priorities elesewhere.) Moreover, as you probably know, the Kyôto accords contain - and any successors will surely contain - provisions which allow for trade in «emission credits». These would allow, for example, a US firm to purchase credits from an inefficient Chinese plant which would then use the money to reduce its release of climatic gases, thereby effecting a much larger reduction than would the case if the same amount of money had been used to reduce release of such gases from a more efficient US plant. In Europe, these credits are now being used to clean up inefficient plants in Eastern Europe. (I am not entirely happy with these provisions, as they can be and are being used by Western corporations to avoid a necessary clean up of operations at home, but properly regulated they can make the process of reducing the release of anthropogenic greenhouse gases much more rapid, effective, and efficient. [Edit : Here's an article from today's Washington Post which reflects some of the criticism that has been expressed concerning the trade in emissions.]) In my view, the US would have much to gain - not only in good will, but with respect to the bottom line - were it to take the lead in global efforts to deal with this problem. And should the US do so, China will certainly come in from the cold - as all observers can see for themselves, China still considers the US «the glass of fashion and the mould of form» (not, of course, what the US says - the Chinese leadership, having over 2000 years of continuous experience with «spin», is not naive - but what the US does) when it comes to being a «modern, advanced country») and join whatever accords are in force at the time.
With regard to methane, Katy, (which mol for mol is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO[sub]2[/sub], but quantatively not nearly as important), the (Han) Chinese are not noted for being milk-drinkers, and the number of cows in China is relatively low, with regard to the country's size and population. (There are, of course, some water buffaloes there, to the delight of classical landscape artists, but I doubt that they greatly affect the general situation.) Here, perhaps, we should take a closer look at the Netherlands - one of the most densely populated countries on the planet (nearly 400 individuals/km[sup]2[/sup]), with, I am told, more cows than people. If this is indeed the case, the amount of CH[sub]3[/sub] released to the atmosphere from that little country must be enormous....
Henri
曾记否，到中流击水，浪遏飞舟？
Ah, Henri, it's not so much the methane I was wondering about in China, but the bi-products of thier increased manufacturing...... newly industrialized nations are rarely concerned with their pollutants, and the results thereof on the surrounding communities, Naturally Chinese concern for human life is, of course legendary......I was just pointing out that methane is a natural bi-product, not that China has an overabundance of bovines.... And you knew that.
Katy
Katy
-
M. Henri Day
- Grand Panjandrum
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:24 am
- Location: Stockholm, SVERIGE
Sorry, Katy, I seem to have misunderstood your posting - I thought you were talking about methane release in connexion with dairying ! (And indeed, while the bovine population in China is relatively small, they do have an awful lot of pigs, and pigs produce an awful lot of methane (as do we !), so China is not out of the woods there, either....)
As regards the release of both greenhouse gases and other pollutants, we seem to be in fundamental agreement that the rapid industrialisation that China has undergone in the past two decades poses enormous problems, both for the Chinese population, and for the rest of the world (the same is true, but in somewhat lesser degree, at least as regards impact on the rest of the world, for other rapidly industrialising nations, like India and Brazil). The points I wished to make in this connexion were two : 1) that a properly regulated regime of emission credits can facilitate reducing emissions in an economically effective manner, and 2) that, as I read the signals, the Chinese leadership, in the present state of their attempt to modernise China and make the country wealthy and powerful, which has been going on for a century and a half , are much inclined to follow the lead of the United States (again, actions, not words). Were the US to support Kyôto and successors, China would certainly follow after. As a matter of fact, Chinese environmental problems are so severe that the Chinese leadership has been forced to deal with them for purely internal reasons, irrespective of external example or pressure. One of the problems that China faces, however, contrary to what many assume (I myself didn't realise the extent of this problem before coming to Beijing in 1979), is that the writ of the government does not always - or, indeed, most of the time ? - extend to lower levels of government, which tend to thwart central policies if they run against the interests of local power-brokers. Thus despite strict laws against logging on hillsides, designed to prevent erosion and resulting floods, the few trees that remain are still liable to be cut and sold for huge profits.
As regards the «legendary» Chinese concern for human life, my own impression is that Chinese people are as concerned for the lives of their near and dear as any other people. But as in the United States, the lex talionis remains very strong in China - less, in fact, among the leadership, which is seeking to mitigate the harsh Chinese penal code, in which some 68 offenses can be punished with execution, than among the Chinese people themselves. Be that as it may, the Chinese government abolished capital punishment for offenses committed by minors (under 18 years) several years prior to the recent decision of the US Supreme Court on this matter. I believe - but certainly cannot prove (didn't Tim call this «faith» ? - that were the US to abolish capital punishment, the Chinese leadership, at considerable political risk to themselves, would soon do the same....
Henri
As regards the release of both greenhouse gases and other pollutants, we seem to be in fundamental agreement that the rapid industrialisation that China has undergone in the past two decades poses enormous problems, both for the Chinese population, and for the rest of the world (the same is true, but in somewhat lesser degree, at least as regards impact on the rest of the world, for other rapidly industrialising nations, like India and Brazil). The points I wished to make in this connexion were two : 1) that a properly regulated regime of emission credits can facilitate reducing emissions in an economically effective manner, and 2) that, as I read the signals, the Chinese leadership, in the present state of their attempt to modernise China and make the country wealthy and powerful, which has been going on for a century and a half , are much inclined to follow the lead of the United States (again, actions, not words). Were the US to support Kyôto and successors, China would certainly follow after. As a matter of fact, Chinese environmental problems are so severe that the Chinese leadership has been forced to deal with them for purely internal reasons, irrespective of external example or pressure. One of the problems that China faces, however, contrary to what many assume (I myself didn't realise the extent of this problem before coming to Beijing in 1979), is that the writ of the government does not always - or, indeed, most of the time ? - extend to lower levels of government, which tend to thwart central policies if they run against the interests of local power-brokers. Thus despite strict laws against logging on hillsides, designed to prevent erosion and resulting floods, the few trees that remain are still liable to be cut and sold for huge profits.
As regards the «legendary» Chinese concern for human life, my own impression is that Chinese people are as concerned for the lives of their near and dear as any other people. But as in the United States, the lex talionis remains very strong in China - less, in fact, among the leadership, which is seeking to mitigate the harsh Chinese penal code, in which some 68 offenses can be punished with execution, than among the Chinese people themselves. Be that as it may, the Chinese government abolished capital punishment for offenses committed by minors (under 18 years) several years prior to the recent decision of the US Supreme Court on this matter. I believe - but certainly cannot prove (didn't Tim call this «faith» ? - that were the US to abolish capital punishment, the Chinese leadership, at considerable political risk to themselves, would soon do the same....
Henri
曾记否，到中流击水，浪遏飞舟？
hahahahh, I rather doubt this. I'm sure I'm not alone in it either.
and 2) that, as I read the signals, the Chinese leadership, in the present state of their attempt to modernise China and make the country wealthy and powerful, which has been going on for a century and a half , are much inclined to follow the lead of the United States Henri
Katy
The US is leading the world in conservation, and innovation, barring mass euthanasia, we are booming population-wise, All over the world, and homes, domociles of all kinds are made of wood, primarily, I'm sure there are some drawbacks, but rather than spending all our time pointing our fingers , the US is looking for solutions.STRIKING A BALANCE between human demands and environmental concerns is becoming increasingly important. While nature has been bountiful, we must also recognize its limitations. This is especially true with forest products, ever popular because of their unique contribution to an enhanced standard of living.
Lyptus® represents a new concept in forest management. A premium-grade hardwood, Lyptus® is grown in South America on highly productive plantations, interspersed with reintroduced indigenous trees to preserve native ecosystems. Wood is produced using proprietary technology in a sustainable and environmentally responsible manner. Thus, Lyptus® customers can feel good about using this premium-quality hardwood, and also be assured of continuous supplies throughout the foreseeable future.
Many factors distinguish Lyptus® from other hardwood species. A natural hybrid of Eucalyptus grandis and E. urophylla, Lyptus® thrives in the warm climate of Brazil, permitting harvesting in just 14 to 16 years as opposed to 50 to 70 years in colder regions.
http://www.higginshardwoods.com/product ... ber/lyptus
yptus® is one of the newest hardwood flooring innovations in decades. Grown in plantations that preserve natural habitat ecosystems, Lyptus® represents a smart alternative for sustainable building. Featuring a clear face and no knots, holes or gum pockets, Lyptus® is also a fine choice for aesthetic appeal.
from here
this is just one example, What I want to hear from now on, is more bragging on one's country than putting down of other's.
Katy
Return to “Good Word Suggestions”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 71 guests
