Why don't we do anything about global warming...

Why don’t we do anything about global warming…because we can’t.

To do anything substantive would cause a financial and population backlash of unimaginable proportions.

And what we could do, even with drastic measures, would not cure global warming but only slow things down.

In addition, there is no one global entity to control all the green house gas emitters. China an India plan on adding more dirty coal burning electric plants to feed their burgeoning economies.

Yes, we have Kyoto, but…the largest polluters of green house gasses have exempted themselves from it.

“As of June 2007, a total of 172 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries). Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

We can’t start wars over green house gas like we do oil…even then we would have to go to war right here at home before we point fingers at other countries.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm

As far as foreign wars, many of these newly rich nations seem to be in a war of sorts to see who can build the biggest and the tallest. Well, the bigger the building is the more energy it takes to power it and the more green house gas is given off to pay for the ego behind the monstrosity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ta … _buildings

Thoreau once said when people invited him to dinner they ‘put their pride’ in how fancy and expensive a meal they could make. Whereas he put his pride in how simple and inexpensive a meal he could make.

Where do we put our pride?

We surely don’t put it in living within our means and in balance with nature.

In the US, 93.2% of our electric comes from non renewable, greenhouse gas producing methods.

If we are looking to hydroelectric and renewable sources, 4.46% of our electric comes from hydroelectric and 2.34% comes from renewable energy production.

Out of this 2.34% of renewable sources, an undisclosed portion still contributes to global warming despite its prestige of being a ‘renewable energy source’ as it involves the burning of wood, black liquor, wood waste, municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, tires, agriculture byproducts and biomass.

Only a fraction of the 2.34% of renewable electric energy that is produced comes from geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind.

eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricit … pates.html

Lets say we decided to turn off the coal fired plants for 25% of a 24 hour day to save some fossil fuel.

Saving 25% seems to be a modest proposal.

So they shut the coal fired plants down for 6 hours during peak daytime operation.

And lets say we don’t care that all the frozen food in the markets will thaw out and the refrigerated foods will spoil.

And lets say the workforce will sacrifice their jobs for the 6 hours every day while the electric is shut off.

And we put up with the gridlock and accidents from not having traffic lights and the doctors and hospitals all shut down.

And people just hold their noses over the backed up sewage that cannot be processed when the electric is off.

The real problem with trying to implement even a modest 25% fossil fuel saving plan is this - it just can’t be done.

Coal fired plants are not of the nature to be turned off and turned on with the flip of a switch.

If a coal fired plant was turned off and completely cooled down it would take many days to bring it back online. If a coal powered plant was shut down even for 6 hours, it would take between 10 to 12 hours to bring it back to operational capacity.

In addition, when the plant is started back up, all the fossil fuel that is consumed in the startup does not make electric, it just goes to bring things back up to speed. And during startup, the plant operates at lower temperature and produces more pollution at those lower temperatures. And if that is not enough, startups of that magnitude send out power surges that destroy transformers and cause grid problems.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant

There is no ‘simple or easy answer’ to this issue nor is there even a ‘not so simple and hard answer’ to our dilemma.

The world is in a death spiral. it is just how we have built our world over the years.

It would be one thing if we all reverted back to rural living, burning trees for fuel and housing and living within our comfortable means allotted to us by nature, as our ancestors did back in the day. But ten billion people can’t burn the trees!

The World Coal Institute estimates world energy reserves as follows:

“At current production levels coal will be available for at least the next 155 years compared to 41 years for oil and 65 years for gas.” (See footnote #1)

worldcoal.org/pages/content/ … ?PageID=21

Even though this was written a few years ago and it is based on ‘current production and consumption’ it gives the same haunting message to the generations to come.

We may not see the end of our free flowing energy as we know it - but some of our descendants will in the not so distant future. This is the legacy they will inherit from us.

Mankind is just a little ‘too smart’ for his environment and learned to live beyond natures intended means.

But mankind does not seem ‘smart enough’ to fix the mess that it has created.

Yes, mankind has done great things over their reign on earth, but we must always remember nature does not bow to us…in the end we all bow to nature.

Our population has grown to levels where it has passed the point of no return for supporting a sustainable human population as we know it today.

And leading the pack of over consumers is the USA.

nationmaster.com/graph/ene_o … onsumption

Consumption is ingrained in us and we know no other way. And even if we wished to amend our ways, how could all our retirement funds take the hit? America is built on borrowed money, spending and consumerism.

And what does all that consumerism lead to?

It leads to the mess we are in now and the bigger mess the world will be in once India and China pick up momentum to copycat the envious lifestyle that they have held in high esteem as the ‘American Dream’

I love our country and would rather live here than anyplace else in the world. But be that as it may, our country and the rest of the world is built on unsustainable means and the bill is coming due soon for our spending spree.

Since the US is said to be about 75% Christian and was founded on maximum freedom for its people, I doubt whether the US will ever come up with a population control plan. It would be too controversial and it goes against promoting life, certain religions and personal freedoms.

And let me be clear, I am not promoting atheism – for if I had to die in a hot box from global warming, I would rather die with the Christians praying than with the atheists cursing.

See:

“What the hell would we need ‘spiritual values’ for when we can have real values.”

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=509.0.

And while I cannot deny the wisdom of promoting life as many religions profess and personal freedom, sometime we must accept the lesser of two evils if promoting life turns into being more destructive to life than ‘not promoting’ it.

It then becomes a decision whether to choose between the ‘greater good for the whole’ or the ‘greater personal right for the individual’… and the whole be damned. (Whole meaning entire human population of our planet.)

For instance, on a farm if the plants are planted packed like sardines (or ‘packed like sushi’ as they say in Japan) the plants do not flourish.

In nature, trees that are overcrowded weed themselves out by nature’s decree. But if man forced the trees to not weed out and forces crowding the trees may die from disease due to a forced and unsustainable growth plan.

So it goes with how our planet is evolving…a sad but exactly true statement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

Now, I a not a tree hugger, green peace freak or communist. I drive dirt bikes, love 2 stroke 500cc thumpers, run jet skis and snowmobiles and could consume along with the best of em.

But I do respect and admire nature and most of all I respect and admire life and have had to ‘mend my ways’ so to speak once it sunk in how things were. And in the process I have given up a lot of personal desires for the greater good of the whole.

You see, the problem is not with the earth having enough land for all its people - the problem is with earth providing ad infinitum for all the needs the people crave.

The more people born, the more heat is produced from their life and all their cravings, As such, the warmer and more polluted the earth gets and the more energy they all use and the earths resources are depleted.

Fueling the problem of consumption is the games the Federal and World banks play with interest rates. They manage the economies in ways to fuel consumption and mask the real trend. Witness the recent cries for Federal bankers to lower interest rates…so the stock market can go up…fueled by spending of the consumer.

It is drug habit that Greenspan got us hooked on and we just can’t get away from.

Our economy is not based on sustainable health - it is based low interest credit to encourage compulsive spending, debt and living a life of constant consumption with a ‘disposable mentality’ when it comes to durable goods.

All this consumption to artificially fuel our economy to make our retirement funds only go up contributes to more and more global warming and the depletion of our natural resources. Then the governments juggle the numbers to make the inflation figures seem artificially low, so everyone’s retirement portfolio will make them happy so they will continue to buy and consume more…and on it goes…IT IS ALL WE KNOW

You see, no other animal destroys its environment except mankind. We are the only ones that do not accept and live within our comfortable means. We not only debt with our finances we debt with our environment. What we are borrowing in terms of petroleum, coal and natural gas takes millions of years for nature to make. Yet we are using it all up in just a few hundred years…we can never pay it back.

And even if you are of a religious bent that think God created it all 6000 years ago. What took 6000 years will still be used up in a fraction of the time it took to create it.

Some theists say we need to pray harder to God to fix our mess. Other theists say it is Gods punishment raining down on us?

No telling since God doesn’t have much to say on this topic.

See:

‘Why is God silent - I don’t know?’

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=504.0

The scary thing is China and India are just starting to bloom with their demands for fossil fuels We haven’t seen anything yet with the meteoric rise of gas, energy and over consumption.

In China the per capita car ownership rate is 40 car owners per 1000 persons. In India it is much lower, running 8 cars per 1000 people. As these two giants evolve more of their population will want cars…in India, they are making a $2500 car as well.

greencarcongress.com/2006/05 … car_o.html

msnbc.msn.com/id/20394364/

But what can one say about the problem unless people just cut back reproducing?

Everyone has a desire to have some sex stimulation and through that stimulation comes more and more people.

And everyone has a desire to keep warm when it is cold or to keep cool in the heat or move about the earth and wear clothes. And it is from all those desires that global warming fueled through the expenditure of fossil fuels takes place.

But the sad reality is even if people cut back having babies, we are only delaying the inevitable and that alone will not fix the problem. It can be compared to men stuck underwater in a crippled submarine. The more they move around, the quicker they run out of air and die. The less they move, the longer they can live…but the end result is the same.

Now maybe some genius will come up with a replacement for petroleum, natural gas and coal to meet all out needs. But it is unrealistic to think we can grow enough corn to fuel all the trucks, airlines, cargo ships, cars and other needs we humans have in addition run all the power plants and factories, heat and cool our homes.

You see all our energy needs are met with non sustainable non renewable resources whether it be coal, petroleum, or natural gas. Even nuclear power is dependent on the mining of uranium and has limits as to how long the supply will last.

msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

But lets not project too far in the future and try to keep our minds on the problems at hand.

$10 a gallon gas in the future? What about $30 a gallon gas??

No doubt! All we have to do is look to history for the answer.

When I first took notice of gas prices in the early 70’s gas was .22 cents a gallon.

No one would have thought that gas would take a 1360% rise in price in 3 1/2 decades.

In addition to cars and gasoline, tons of other products and industries are dependent on crude oil as a component for their products.

lmoga.com/refoutput.htm

I can see how life has degenerated in recent years and this is just the tip of the berg for things to come. I am not an alarmist as one lady accused me, but I would do humanity a disservice if I did not bring this topic up now an again for discussion.

See my post

“Your sanity is my sanity and my sanity is your sanity.”

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=628.0

When you bring up population control the talk naturally turns to China and India.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m … i_71563390

And population control alone is a controversial subject to discuss

…“when you get beyond the mythology and seriously examine the one-child policy, it is clear the policy is not viable even if one can stomach the horrendous human rights violations it entails.”

From:

overpopulation.com/faq/count … ld-policy/

But in reality, there is no such thing as ‘opinionated’ - ‘provocative’ ‘controversial’ subjects. The contemplative life finds it joy in discovering truth. And the truth does not set such limits on itself as being ‘too controversial’ to be true.

These are only subjective and prejudicial states of mind. Such ‘mind blocks’ may bother one, but do not bother another. As such, all problems related to ‘controversial subjects’ such as this are problems created in the mind…the mind of ego based, prejudicial man.

If you find yourself being distracted with such thoughts as ‘too controversial’ just ask yourself if the proposed controversy is true, false or I don’t know?

That method may help you become truth based and not ego based. You will have made a ‘choice divorced of need’…you wont ‘need your ego’ to support the truth…the truth will be able to stand on its own.

Any President would do doubt have little success in getting anything done with population control. We can hear the cries now…Communist!..Atheist!..Baby Killer…Hitler!!!

So the best thing for the President to do would be to put it before the public every 2 or 3 years in a national election to get America’s verdict on the subject and our country mindful of the issue.

Put America on record.

Then at least the President could say he tried, but the people of the US prefer to thumb their noses at the rest of the world and the US will do as they like.

nationmaster.com/graph/ene_o … onsumption

If anyone is against population control and has no other viable alternative to offer other than Communist!..Atheist!..Baby Killer…Hitler! - when they are asked what can be done to slow down global warming - slow down over consumption - slow down the destruction of the human race that hell bent on growing at an unsustainable pace - they should respond: (See footnote #2)

“I just don’t care…that is someone else’s problem not mine.”

Now, I don’t claim to have the magic bullet to fix all our woes. I’m just a simple philosopher not a scientist or genius. All I can do is to bring the problem to the forefront and ask that we all work in a healthier direction that the one we have been headed in. And when we can understand that all humans are interdependent and not independent of one another, we come to realize that we all share the same breath.

See:

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … ?topic=8.0

Footnote #1:

Something to think about is coals dependence on crude. Our crude oil (41 years of reserves) will be depleted much sooner than our coal (155 years of reserves) This brings up certain problems of production and distribution. For instance, coal is delivered to power plants by rail. The trains are powered by diesel fuel, which is made from crude oil. Now, we may be able to resort back to old technology and start running coal fired steam locomotives to deliver the coal, but this will have a negative effect on the green house gas emissions. But even before the coal can be delivered it has to be mined and processed…and most of that mining is powered by crude as well.

coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/mcoal.htm

Footnote #2:

It seems global warming can’t be fixed, it can only be slowed down…too many people on earth to fix it…to many demands…too many cravings…best we can do is to slow it down.

Take care,

V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher

I dont condon killing. What is needed is self control and a sense of responsibility to one’s society. people dont walk out side and get pregnant. However, it is not the amount of people that is the problem but what the people are doing. so there is no need to control the birth rate but what people do once they are here. CONTROL. what a bad word which brings me back to the beginning. What is needed is self control and a sense of responsibility to one’s society

Wow that was quite a speach. I did not read it all as I’ve had enough lectures on the subject, and I think you would have reached more people if you had shortened your argument, I doubt that anyone or very few people would have read that. Anyway I think you summed the matter up in this last sentance. To be honest though, anyone who actually knows anything about conservation will have realised this already. The trick to conservation is not to reverse the forces of nature but to roll with the punches as it were. I know of no professional bodie that is actually trying to stop glabal warming. In my experience with companies such as BTCV, and the national wildlife trusts here in england as well as though my knowlege of others, I have found that none infact claim that this is their goal. Global warming is a natural step of our planets evolution. Things change as the climate has several times since the birth of life on our earth. The consern is our impact as humans is speeding up the process. This accelerated climate change means that many species that would have survived the natural course of the world now will not. The consern is with what we as humans are responsible for

Myself, I like it that it’s warmer out.

Also, I like it that, where I live, compared to when I was a kid, the air is cleaner, the water is much cleaner, there is much more wildlife (when I was a kid, no one ever saw a coyote. Had one in the back yard the other day), there is much more public land to enjoy, and that consumer goods are, on the whole, much cheaper.

I think we should ask if life in China and India has “degenerated”. One way to control the population is to let starving people starve. That’s what many mammal populations do - they overfeed, and then starve. As a result, they don’t reproduce as much. That’s nature.

We don’t do anything about it because that is not easy. After 500,000 years of evolving toward doing things the easy way, it’s, hard to do things the hard way, even if it’s the right thing to do.

If one likes it warmer, one should consider moving to where it is warm, rather than moving the warm to himself. It’s the hieght of arrogance to shove the indigenous creatures and diversity aside just so we can live like their southern cousins. It’s like the moron who lives in the desert and plants trees for privacy and protection, while the other guy lives in the forest and cuts them all down for the view.

To the extent ANYTHING is cleaner or better, environmentally, than it was, all the credit goes to the environmental movement. Industry may now pat themselves on the back for all the good “they” have done in cleaning up, but they were brought along, kicking and screaming, at the point of an EPA regulation they fought like banshees.

There is less public land to enjoy, not more. But it is a good thing that now even poor people can enjoy cheap pieces of plastic shit that break within a week. After all, they can just run down to Wal-Mart and get another one. =D>

I do agree about the over-population/crash idea. In fact, the one thing that was supposed to set us apart from nature is not being used to do so. Because it’s hard.

Charlie, are you calling me a moron? I think you are.

Whether or not it’s the right thing to “do” is a matter of opinion. My point, however facetiously I expressed it, is that the Earth’s climate has changed much over the millennia, evidently, and the Earth knows no right or wrong. It just is. The climate knows no right or wrong, it just is. And the “natural world” of nonhuman species knows no right or wrong, it just is.

If you are such a nature-boy, Charlie, get off the computer, go to the nearest “natural” spot to where you popped out of the womb, and live in a yurt.

I don’t take any credit away from anyone who wants to claim it for things being better - I am not talking politics - the fact is, things are better than when I was young - as i stated. No reason to get all emotional - it’s just a fact.

Another fact is that there is more public land near where I live than there was forty years ago. Look it up.

Planting trees in the desert is moronic? many animal species propagate plant species - wherever they will grow. Birds in particular spread seeds. Are birds moronic? Nature has no intentions.

  1. Earth’s climate has changed. But we had nothing to do with it. Now we do. We shit in our own nest. Moronic.
  2. Don’t pull the “hypocrite” argument on me. If there were no roads, I would not have to cross one to get to a roadless area. Your argument is the same as blaming Crazy Horse for using a Winchester.
  3. Thing are better for YOU. Things have gone down hill, precipitously, for the non-human natural environment. You have been fooled by “view sheds” specifically designed to fool. Those who have an evironmental conscience live in a world of wounds.
  4. Planting trees in the desert is moronic. Your correct use of the phrase “wherever they will grow” is overshadowed by the fact that they won’t grow there of their own accord and birds don’t damn rivers and suck ground water dry to make it happen.
  5. I don’t know where you live, but I am not aware of any case in the U.S. where government has purchased new public lands and opened them up to use by the public. I am aware of exchanges (particularly near metropolitan areas), where developers trade their remote holdings for valuable urban land. But that is an offset.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’d take global warming over global cooling anytime. So would most of Russia apparently.

cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3901 :-s

Charlie - we are a part of the natural world, and a part of its evolution. My point is that I am not blaming anyone for anything. The fact is, we in the “developed” world have, for centuries, altered our environment - to its detriment, in the eyes og the greenies. Europe cut down its forest. London was, during the Industrial Revolution, a skank pit…

Now, we are “post-industrial” and very wealthy - so it is in our interest to try to keep the “developing” world from, well, developing. So let’s get all “environmental”. We can afford it. But most of the world cannot.

Take away their petroleum-based fertiliser. Let them starve. It’s good for the environment.

In fact, I have no problem with this. I’m just trying to call a spade a spade. I don’t think you’re a hypocrite - I think you’re leaving an awful lot of facts out of the argument.

Decide where your conscience resides. We could go back to the Middle Ages - but that was when Europe’s forests were denuded. So let’s go further back. The nonhuman natural environment has no conscience at all. You keep yours where you want it. But I am an individual. The rabbit that is eaten by the cougar is dead - he doesn’t care anymore about the natural environment, or the right and wrongs of competition. The starving people of the world do seem to care - so let’s kill them all, so they won’t care anymore. Competition. If you’re on the side of trees, against people - that’s okay with me. I am just trying to show that there are two sides to the story.

yeah, things are better for me. that’s all that counts to me. That’s why my position is what it is. Anything else would indeed be foolish. For me to adopt a view according to what’s good for you is folly.

Live in your world of wounds. Bleed. I don’t care. I’m not trying to be unfriendly. I am just staking out my philosophical ground.

Beavers damn rivers.

To know about the addition of public lands in the last fifty years (my lifetime), read up. It’s not my job to do your homework for you.

  1. About the public lands, no need to do my homework for me. I’ve litigated RARE I and RARE II and public land issues in state and federal court for ten years. You are wrong. There has been a net loss of public lands. End of story.

  2. Your logic fails on one simple ground: Two valued orientation. It’s as if, since war has brought us so many advances in technology and other good things, we must keep doing it to glean even more. Quite simply, we don’t have to go back to the pliestocene, or continue trashing the planet. We can “grow” in a healthy direction instead of arguing that “Gee, acting like morons got us this far (as if this is a good place to be), so lets keep it up.” It’s like the guy who is in the air: he thinks he’s flying. Rest on your laurals at your peril. In fact, I don’t care if you do, but internalize all your costs.

  3. It’s amazing how we are part of nature when it’s convenient to cop-out, do the easy thing, and pursue our own comfort. Yet, when costs are externalized onto our backs, all of a sudden we must rise above nature and steward her toward our ends.

  4. Your conclusion about “it’s all about you” is correct though, and it confirms my initial point about the easy way. It’s Justice Scalia’s concentric circles of care. The problem with myopia is this: you don’t see when your interests are greater served by defending something further out on the circle than that which is closer in.

Well, I don’t know what state you live in. Where I live, there is more.

In fact, we do need to keep on making war, as every other great nation has had to. But my point was not that we should do anything. My point is that there is more than one value. There is value to being green. There is value to pursuing civilisation. Again, you are presenting only one side. Which is fine - just as fine as my presenting another. But all logic is two-valued - you must know this - you are a lawyer.

In the end, if everything you disagree with is moronic, I cannot fathom how you can see another side, so there is probably little point to any conversation with you.

Stewarding nature towards our ends is what every species that can, does, to the extent it can. You have not adressed my points, so this is not, in fact, a converstion - it’s a chance for you to propagandise. I can believe that you are a lawyer.

You call concentric circles of care “myopia” - but you don’t say why it is. This is rhetoric, and not argumentation. Concentric morality is more complex than this - it doesn’t necessitate ignoring the outer rings - it’s merely hierarchical. You are perverting Scalia’s thesis. More rhetoric.

What state do you live in? While “public lands” is a legal term of art (i.e. not reserved federal lands, like military or Indian reservations, etc) I am pretty sure that even if we include state and local lands open to the public, there has been a net loss.

I agree about there being different values, but being green and pursuing civilization are not two of them. They are one in the same. The different values are in the definition of civilization. Some think that is continuing to do what we are doing, including war, as if that were civilized. Others think war is natural and uncivilized.

And logic is not two valued. In fact, the two valued orientation is a logical fallacy. Logic recognizes mutliple values (i.e. shades of grey between the two values of black and white, not to mention colors, and all kinds of diversity like that found in the natural world. But when you have man as the measure of all things, things do seem two valued, as illogical as that may be).

Some things I disagree with are moronic whether I disagree with them or not.

Regarding species and stewarding nature, that, again, is what I was talking about in the convenience of saying we are part of nature when we act out of selfishness, and then trying to separate ourselves from it when someone hurts us by doing so.

I am not perverting Scalia’s thesis. He thinks it is the natural state to defend that which is closer in on the circle and, to an extent, I agree. However, myopia comes into play when one places certain things closer in on the circle which are actually inimical to interest and placing things further out which are beneficial. That is the short term, easy (i.e. not hard/correct) thing to do.

Self, familiy, friends, community, nation, species, planet, etc. But what do you do when clean air, clean water, clean food, healthy ecosystems (i.e. planet) are being trumped by self, family, friends, community, nation, species? At some point, you have to reassess your priorities. From your posts, it seems you think things are hunky dory.

Again, it’s cool to call upon the concentric circles as us being part of nature and not above or beyond it, but when it’s time to reassess, all of a sudden, we need to separate ourselves, use our hearts and minds and rise above the animals.

Now, since all is cool with YOU, let the Chinese starve, or do what we did to get where we are at, who cares? Right?

That’s fine, until they start making things not so hunky dory for YOU. Then it’s time to either go to war (nature) or sit down and work out an alternative (un-natural) like some other value besides letting them starve or make the same mistakes we did. Again, just because mistakes were made to get us where we are at, does not mean we (or the Chinese) must continue making them. There are alternatives. And it is the “greenies” that are trying to lead the way; just as they lead the way to your things being better than they were fifty years ago (debatable, by the way).

shrugs Most of my labmates from China comment on how no Chinese person ever gets sick in America because the air is so much cleaner here than in China. To say nothing of the catastrophic flooding that has been occurring in Mainland China . . .

So, I’d argue that there has been a huge impact on quality of life due to this issue.

Granted, in the Chinese situation, that is offset by other factors, but I’d argue that it doesn’t bode well.

“Public lands” is a legal term for lawyers - it’s not one for me. Maine and Massachusetts. Maine in particular has added a very large amount of land for public access. Land trusts abound, and they have a lot more land than they did fifty years ago. Also “public reserve land” - I think that is the term in Maine. It is undeveloped - no park benches, no roads, usually. Game preserves, access to private land for public use - with the proviso that it stays undeveloped. Hunting rights, snowmobile rights - it may not fit your picture of Eden. But “public land”, in the broad sense, has grown immensely in fifty years.

My over-riding point is that to characterise human activity as “unnatural” requires an argument. One that hasn’t been made here.

Logic holds two values - “true” and “false”. This is elementary.

What’s “inimical to interest” is also a matter of dispute. You seem to assume that what is in your own interest simply should be in the interest of others. But, for example, I do not care what happens three generations down the road - it can all go to hell. I will be dead then. That might not square with your view, but there is nothing unreasonable about it - it would be moronic, in my view, to make any sacrafices for people who aren’t born yet, and who may never be born.

We are not above the “animals” - we are the animals.

I am not anti-green. I am for myself. And no one else. I have no problem assessing alternatives - I have a problem with with wild-eyed rhetoric that espouses the view of some as if it is merely a matter of common sense to accept their view uncritically.

Xun - you speak to a point that I made - China is still industrialising. We could get all “green” and stop them, I suppose. But they are only doing what the West has already done. We are past that now - the greenies take all the credit, but manufacturing wasn’t going to stay in america in any event.

I’m not sure all these greenies would have the same view if they lived in a developing country and were stopped from developing. Those folks do get sick, and they don’t have the degree of industrialisation to support the health care that you and your lab mates have. I am sure health care can be, in places, adequate in China. But that takes more money than subsistence farming, no matter how “green”, provides.

Bullshit. This is a myth concocted by the folks who stand to continue profiting by the current system, or by ignorant and/or apocalyptic fools who really can’t be bothered to care about climate change since Jesus will bail them out.

Solutions can be a simple or as complex as we like. Here are just two possibilities to consider:

We could inject smoke particles into the upper atmosphere, which would block sunlight and lead to immediate cooling. Or manoeuvrable mirrors can be placed in high orbit and used to reflect sunlight back out. The first is cheap, but less clean and controllable; the latter is expensive, but under human control. Neither would have any negative impact on the world’s finances, and both would create new jobs and thus stimulate the economy.

Or -

Global warming is a myth promulgated by the many people who have billions in government grants at stake for selling us on the idea that the end is near.

If they were just spending their own money, it wouldn’t even be an issue.

We can remove the value judgements, then, and just look at the outcomes. If global temperates rise as high as some projections, 3/4 of the earth’s lifeforms will die out. Mass extinctions have happened before, but this one has a different source; and if we are going to remove our moral agency and claim to be as innocent as a comet impact, I don’t think we have any claim to being special, and should probably die out with the rest.

My father says the same thing about the air quality, and since lead is out of the gasoline (for example) one can see that he’s right. But carbon emissions have gone up, not down, and we’re talking about climate change, not just pollution. This means that, no matter how much nicer it might be in your neck o’ the woods, things as a whole are far worse.

Moron. Do you think the earth is flat, too?

Convincing comeback, Morth. I’m sure you’ll sway many with that.