Global Warming

[metis]

This thread is directed not as much towards the scientific evidence for global warming or what political moves should or should not be taken, but more in regards to whether the issue is at all something that Christians and Jews should be concerned about?  IOW, is it a theological issue, iyo?

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern

I wouldn't say it's a theological issue, but rather an ethical issue.  If there is good reason to believe that man's efforts to forward the progress of capitalism is indeed causing global warming -- and global warming is a symptom of a greater threat to humankind, then it becomes an ethical issue.  In other words, we ought not to exacerbate the problem.

-Acumen

[metis]

Vern

I wouldn't say it's a theological issue, but rather an ethical issue.  If there is good reason to believe that man's efforts to forward the progress of capitalism is indeed causing global warming -- and global warming is a symptom of a greater threat to humankind, then it becomes an ethical issue.  In other words, we ought not to exacerbate the problem.

-Acumen

But isn't an "ethical issue" also a "theological issue" even if it's through an indirect connection?  The rest of what you posted I fully agree with btw.

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Ahh . . . I suppose.  When someone says "theological" I tend to think in terms of biblical doctrine.  If you use it in the sense I think you're using it, then anything can be theological.

[metis]

Ahh . . . I suppose.  When someone says "theological" I tend to think in terms of biblical doctrine.  If you use it in the sense I think you're using it, then anything can be theological.

Well, there's a teaching that says all knowledge is ultimately related.  Or, as Gandhi put it, anyone who thinks that politics and religion can be completely separated, doesn't really understand religion.  I'll add that they also probably really don't understand politics either.

Shalom,
Vern

[julrich]

Maybe armageddon will be our battle with the forces that can destroy our existence as a living species.  And maybe global warming is just practice for us.

shalom
big julie

[gluadys]

Maybe armageddon will be our battle with the forces that can destroy our existence as a living species.  And maybe global warming is just practice for us.

shalom
big julie

Perhaps, in light of the recent conference in Bali, it is time to revive this thread.

Al Gore apparently made a plea to the delegates to accept the US intransigence for now, in the hope that the next election will generate a change in US policy.  What do you see as the prospects along this line?

We Canadians also need a change of government to get a change in policy, but the hopes are fairly slim that we will get one in the short term.

I am wondering what Harper will do if the US does get a pro-Kyoto president. 

With both the Canadian and American people apparently well ahead of their governments on this issue, why is it so difficult to get policy the people are already asking for?

How do we get policies shaped by ethics? 

And what of the additional ethical problems that loom on the horizon?

Where have people even begun to talk about the ethical treatment of ecological refugees, for example? 

[metis]

As Churchill once said, democracy is a lousy form of government, although it's still preferable over all the other options.  One problem with democracy is that it often takes time to get the ball rolling.  The U.S. is like a big bull elephant-- short sighted, somewhat dim-witted but, once it gets its act together, it's usually powerful enough to kick its way out of catastrophe. 

There's a couple of problems here: relating the magnitude of the problem to the masses and then dealing with those who have a bad case of ideological constipation.  As far as the first point is concerned, I do see some significant movement here as you mentioned in that the majority of Americans, according to recent polls, realize there's a problem and state they are willing to do something about it.  However, the devil in such a belief is always in the details.  Often it boils down to "you make the sacrifice, I've suffered enough already".

As far as the 2nd point is concerned, we have the neo-con agenda, well enunciated by Fox "News" (that's a joke, btw), that has largely denied global warming and, instead, demand that we use "sound science" (translation: their p.c., pseudo-scientific agenda). 

Here, I tend to feel that next year's election will largely determine which way the States goes on this issue, and many other issues to boot.  But sometimes democracy can be soooooooooo frustrating. 

Shalom,
Vern 

[Acumen]

OUCH!!!

[Thorolf]

Neither the US nor Canada should, and I don't think will approve of Kyoto.

Kyoto is nothing more than an attempt by the "rest of the world" to have North America shoulder the load of "global warming" - and even the economic playing field in the process.

Make no mistake - when it comes to international politics, precious few "humanitarian" measures are truly humanitarian. Every single vote, signature, position, and even statement made in the realm of the UN and other international venues are carefully measured to ensure that their country will benefit - economically... preferably at the expense of the "developed" states.

What looks like humanitarianism if all too often just one hand washing the other. Sure, sometimes the ends justifies the means... but as Americans we really fail to realize that much of the world sees us as the target - the big, rich, strong one on the block who they simultaneously want little more than to bring down a notch while trying to gain financial and political advantage from us in the process.

We aren't ahead of our government(s). We're light years behind - because we're naive enough to think that everyone else in the world just wants cleaner air.

Wrong.

That dog will run, but it just don't come home. It sells... feels good... satisfies our worldview in which we presume that people are generally good, and therefore their governments and rulers are as well. But it simply doesn't play out that way.

As a general rule, they want to do whatever they feel like while getting "wealthier" neighbors to pay for it - preferably the USA.

[julrich]

well the 400 scientists don't agree that global warming is a farce.  there is no clear tabulation of the various issues upon which they agree in the report, and many of them do see global warming as real, and some as a potential problem, but they have a variety of opinions about time frames, degrees of certainty, and most of all, the proportion of natural to human causation involved.  Some say human effect is minor, some say it is unknown.  What they are most in agreement on is the exaggeration of global warming consensus by many advocates of political action against greenhouse gases.  Since they were selected by a minority Senate committee of Republicans as opponents to the global-warming consensus theory you would expect them to agree on that point.  As I read their documented statements, I don't actually find a lot of data but I do read a lot of their general conclusions.
        400 scientists is still a minority of the number of scientists who have worked on the kyoto protocol, and a small ratio to the number of EPA scientists expressing alarm, who number in the thousands.  Anyone aware of the diversity of contexts in which scientists work around the globe shouldn't be surprised that republican activists could find 400 of them to attack the most exaggerated claims of the most alarmist activists.  Scientists are free by nature to disagree and also to sell their services to vested interests.  The fact that scientists can disagree in itself proves nothing about global warming.

shalom
big julie

[metis]

There's absolutely no doubt that global warming is taking place since it's measurable, and those who specialize in this area of science no longer have a doubt that much of it is being caused by us humans mostly through CO2 emissions accompanied by deforestation.  What is more controversial is will this increase eventually balance out and, if so, how much damage may be done in the meantime. 

To not do anything would be, by all indications, disastrous, and sitting around making excuses and blaming everyone else is a non-starter.  We have to remember that we gradually got ourselves into this mess, so we need to just realize that we need to gradually get ourselves out of it.  But notice the word "gradually". 

There's many things we can do that are not revolutionary and I believe most of you are aware of some of the steps that have already been decided.  The sooner we start on a sensible program, the less we may have to rush in the future.  And don't fall for the "sky is falling" routine that some have in regards to our economy being affected by some changes.  Changes will occur, but changes will also create new opportunities.

Shalom,
Vern

[Thorolf]

There's absolutely no doubt that global warming is taking place since it's measurable, and those who specialize in this area of science no longer have a doubt that much of it is being caused by us humans mostly through CO2 emissions accompanied by deforestation.  What is more controversial is will this increase eventually balance out and, if so, how much damage may be done in the meantime.

Yes, the Earth does appear to be getting warmer. However, there is some significant doubt among those who specialize in this area of science that humans are as responsible as presumed, or that there is any reason to accept the catastrophic conclusions that have been accepted into the mainstream. I think that was sort of the point of the earlier posts that recognize the fact that a significant (minority, sure... but not just a couple of radical fringe types).

As a matter of fact, the models being used to promote political agendas such as Kyoto are NOT in line with observation. Researchers have claimed that the discrepancies can be explained by errors in the OBSERVATION (not in the models), but recent research (such as Douglass, et al.) suggest that the models are actually flawed, and "should be viewed with much caution." (Douglass, et al. International Journal of Climatology. Oct, 2007)

To not do anything would be, by all indications, disastrous, and sitting around making excuses and blaming everyone else is a non-starter.  We have to remember that we gradually got ourselves into this mess, so we need to just realize that we need to gradually get ourselves out of it.  But notice the word "gradually". 

Assuming that there is a mess that we either a) are in, or b) have the ability to "get out of." If the greenhouse models are, indeed, wrong, then it must be considered that any observed warming may simply be a function of the cyclical temperature patterns of the Earth, and as such possibly could not - and SHOULD not - be altered by us. I'm not suggesting that we continue as we have been... and I don't know of too many people who would. It's good stewardship to take care of our planet, regardless what environmentalists may want us to believe about our impending doom. We should curtail our dependence on fossil fuels. We should be careful about deforestation, excessive burning, etc... but it's irresponsible to do so in a spirit of panic and fear, and punish ourselves (all of humanity) as a result.

There's many things we can do that are not revolutionary and I believe most of you are aware of some of the steps that have already been decided.  The sooner we start on a sensible program, the less we may have to rush in the future.  And don't fall for the "sky is falling" routine that some have in regards to our economy being affected by some changes.  Changes will occur, but changes will also create new opportunities.

If we adopted all, or even a majority of the changes that have been proposed, our economy would, indeed, be dramatically impacted in a negative way - especially if undertaken in the time frame proposed. Taking the "who moved my cheese" approach is a bit banal and naive.

Especially when there is an increasingly substantial body of evidence that suggests the environmental models on which these proposed changes are based should be viewed with caution.

[gluadys]

Neither the US nor Canada should, and I don't think will approve of Kyoto.

Canada has already approved Kyoto, but the current government is reneging on Canadian commitments.  Canada, unlike the US, is  a member of the Kyoto Protocol and of Kyoto+.

Kyoto is nothing more than an attempt by the "rest of the world" to have North America shoulder the load of "global warming" - and even the economic playing field in the process.

Nothing wrong with that since we produce the lion's share of greenhouse gases while the rest of the world gets to shoulder the lion's share of the effects.   What is fair about imposing most of the deleterious effects of global warming on South Pacific islands, indigenous peoples of the north and the bulk of Asian and Latin American populations, while we in mid-temperate to sub-artic zones get longer, more productive growing seasons?   We also have the technological capacity to protect ourselves from many of the effects of climate change.  In Holland they are researching floating cities.  It is technologically feasible.  But will that technology be offered to Bangladesh where nearly 30% of the land will be under water if ocean levels rise by just 1 metre--displacing over 2/3 of the population?   

Make no mistake - when it comes to international politics, precious few "humanitarian" measures are truly humanitarian.

I have no problem with that.  International politics, is after all, politics.  We can't expect it to be free of human failings.  We can expect it to be democratic and we can and should expect the deomocratic consensus to be followed.  Picking up your marbles and withdrawing from the game like a spoiled child is not a strategy to be encouraged, but it is the strategy of the current US administration. 

Every single vote, signature, position, and even statement made in the realm of the UN and other international venues are carefully measured to ensure that their country will benefit - economically... preferably at the expense of the "developed" states.

And how does this differ in any meaningful way from a Congressional representative carefully measuring legislation to ensure that his/her district will benefit economically--preferably at the expense of "better-off" districts? 

This sort of talk makes it  look like  Americans only support democracy in the US, never internationally.  As soon as democracy rears its head outside US borders, the instinct of a US government seems to be to crush it. 

but as Americans we really fail to realize that much of the world sees us as the target -

And Americans should be asking themselves whether the policies they have supported internationally don't make that a reasonable position. 

[gluadys]

Assuming that there is a mess that we either a) are in, or b) have the ability to "get out of." If the greenhouse models are, indeed, wrong, then it must be considered that any observed warming may simply be a function of the cyclical temperature patterns of the Earth, and as such possibly could not - and SHOULD not - be altered by us. I'm not suggesting that we continue as we have been...

I am glad you put in the last sentence.  Because, even if we should not tamper with a natural warming cycle, there is still no excuse for not preparing for it.  Nor is there any excuse for preparing only to preserve America and not Asia. 

Whatever the cause and whatever the degree of change, this is a global problem that calls for concerted global action and countries refusing to co-operate in agreed-to measures do no one--least of all their own citizens---any favour. 

[Thorolf]

Neither the US nor Canada should, and I don't think will approve of Kyoto.

Canada has already approved Kyoto, but the current government is reneging on Canadian commitments.  Canada, unlike the US, is  a member of the Kyoto Protocol and of Kyoto+.

Approving a UN agreement under a previous government is only valid if the current government accepts it. We can discuss the impotence of the UN and its agreements in another thread if you like.   Regardless, I was speaking primarily of the US.

Kyoto is nothing more than an attempt by the "rest of the world" to have North America shoulder the load of "global warming" - and even the economic playing field in the process.

Nothing wrong with that since we produce the lion's share of greenhouse gases while the rest of the world gets to shoulder the lion's share of the effects.   What is fair about imposing most of the deleterious effects of global warming on South Pacific islands, indigenous peoples of the north and the bulk of Asian and Latin American populations, while we in mid-temperate to sub-artic zones get longer, more productive growing seasons?   We also have the technological capacity to protect ourselves from many of the effects of climate change.  In Holland they are researching floating cities.  It is technologically feasible.  But will that technology be offered to Bangladesh where nearly 30% of the land will be under water if ocean levels rise by just 1 metre--displacing over 2/3 of the population?

You misunderstand what I said. First of all, we MAY produce more than other countries, but we do NOT produce the "lion's share" of all greenhouse gases. But regardless, my point was that other countries couldn't care less what anyone else produces - they see environmentalism as a way of taking down the US a notch.

It's politics as usual. Environmentalism is seen by many states as an ends to a means, and they have absolutely no intention of heeding the accords. Which, incidentally, is a big part of why there are exceptions written into the accords for the developing states. They lose absolutely nothing by signing on, making it look like a stronger accord, while possibly getting financial benefit from the United States.

Incidentally, the claims of catastrophic climate change are simply specious.

Make no mistake - when it comes to international politics, precious few "humanitarian" measures are truly humanitarian.

I have no problem with that.  International politics, is after all, politics.  We can't expect it to be free of human failings.  We can expect it to be democratic and we can and should expect the deomocratic consensus to be followed.  Picking up your marbles and withdrawing from the game like a spoiled child is not a strategy to be encouraged, but it is the strategy of the current US administration. 

Well, no... we can't expect either for it to be democratic, or that the consensus would be followed. While it may look like it, the UN is actually neither of those things, has never been either of those things, and never will be either of those things. States enter into accords they have absolutely no intention of heeding because they hope to benefit by someone heeding it. States heed the accords for the purpose of gaining something. Rarely will anything be accepted solely because it's the "right thing to do."

Your allegation of "picking up your marbles" is nonsense. You may not like the current US administration, and frankly I couldn't care less whether you do or do not, but refusing to sign an accord is hardly unique to this administration, or even the US in general. It's done by EVERY state. Japan refuses to sign on to accords that call for an end to whaling. There are a significant number of states that do not accept the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. We could go on and on... if it's not expedient to the politics, economy, sensibilities, or even just whim of the country in question, they simply won't sign on. I certainly hope you don't actually believe that this is something unique to this administration...

Every single vote, signature, position, and even statement made in the realm of the UN and other international venues are carefully measured to ensure that their country will benefit - economically... preferably at the expense of the "developed" states.

And how does this differ in any meaningful way from a Congressional representative carefully measuring legislation to ensure that his/her district will benefit economically--preferably at the expense of "better-off" districts? 

It doesn't. That's the point... it's not necessarily about right and wrong as much as what is expedient. Other countries love Kyoto because it asks little or nothing of them, while giving them a number of benefits... with the US, it's the opposite. The biggest difference here, though, is that other states will sign and have signed on for the PURPOSE of costing the US a significant hit to its economy. You don't get so much of that in Congress...

This sort of talk makes it  look like  Americans only support democracy in the US, never internationally.  As soon as democracy rears its head outside US borders, the instinct of a US government seems to be to crush it.

That is simply not the case. The UN is NOT democracy. Let's not get into an anti-US bashfest over a fundamental misunderstanding of the United Nations' structure and purpose.

but as Americans we really fail to realize that much of the world sees us as the target -

And Americans should be asking themselves whether the policies they have supported internationally don't make that a reasonable position.

I'm sure that ranting about the perceptions of US foreign policy makes non-Americans feel a little better about their jealousy and spite, but the fact is that it's not nearly as much about America's policies as it is about America's success.

[Thorolf]

Assuming that there is a mess that we either a) are in, or b) have the ability to "get out of." If the greenhouse models are, indeed, wrong, then it must be considered that any observed warming may simply be a function of the cyclical temperature patterns of the Earth, and as such possibly could not - and SHOULD not - be altered by us. I'm not suggesting that we continue as we have been...

I am glad you put in the last sentence.  Because, even if we should not tamper with a natural warming cycle, there is still no excuse for not preparing for it.  Nor is there any excuse for preparing only to preserve America and not Asia. 

Whatever the cause and whatever the degree of change, this is a global problem that calls for concerted global action and countries refusing to co-operate in agreed-to measures do no one--least of all their own citizens---any favour. 

Interesting. What makes you think that not signing onto Kyoto means that the US is not preparing, and/or not assisting other countries in preparation for or avoidance of the presumed effects of the currently accepted models of global warming?

Kyoto is *FAR* from the only measure on the table here.

[metis]

Yes, the Earth does appear to be getting warmer. However, there is some significant doubt among those who specialize in this area of science that humans are as responsible as presumed, or that there is any reason to accept the catastrophic conclusions that have been accepted into the mainstream.

There is no doubt left amongst the vast majority of scientist who specialize in this area as we've seen at the most recent conference.  Around a year ago, they considered the human causation was 95% likely, but with additional research that's come in just within the last year, they're now saying it's certain.

Assuming that there is a mess that we either a) are in, or b) have the ability to "get out of." If the greenhouse models are, indeed, wrong, then it must be considered that any observed warming may simply be a function of the cyclical temperature patterns of the Earth, and as such possibly could not - and SHOULD not - be altered by us.

When they have studied the known causations of global climate change, the models, excluding the human factor, indicate that we actually should be in a cooling off stage.  Also, we have to remember that it's been well known what increased levels of CO2 will do, and that level has doubled in the last century.

 

If we adopted all, or even a majority of the changes that have been proposed, our economy would, indeed, be dramatically impacted in a negative way - especially if undertaken in the time frame proposed.

New technology leads to new jobs, but with a loss of some other jobs.  We've heard the many Chicken Little claims before, but the reality is that through these transitional phases, opportunities often increase.  The (not-so-) Big Three fought the administration's imposing the 35 m.p.g. average as being too costly, but then they turned around last week and said they could do it.  Yes, car prices may increase, but then, hopefully, we'll see more funding for better and more efficient mass transit and for our railroads.  This will also create more opportunities for our economy, and another positive by-product, hopefully, will be less reliance on foreign oil supplies.



Shalom,
Vern

[Thorolf]

By the way, since Kyoto's development and signing in 1997 and 2004, worldwide emissions increased 18 percent.

Kyoto signatories increased an average of 21.1 percent.

Non-signers increased 10.0 percent.

US emissions increased 6.6 percent.

Why do you suppose that is?

(http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/international_statistics/climate_environment.html)

[metis]

BTW, it's "interesting" to get Steven Hawking's opinion on this.  He believes that most life, including human life, here on Planet Earth is doomed, and that we'll need to consider transporting and sustaining human life on another planet(s) in the future.  He simply believes that the greed-factor that says "you make the sacrifices-- not me" are simply too powerful and that will win out in the long run.

Shalom,
Vern