Prof West comments on carbon offsets - "I can't see exactly how my money
actually does something other than line someone's pockets; and it feels a
whole lot like spitting on a forest fire. There must be a better way to
spend my funds."
Quite a few years ago i calculated my ecological footprint. Even with all
the cool stuff* :-) i was doing, there was still significant impact. And a
good part of that was flying occasionally. I had also heard that offsets
were sketchy, and that some folks said they would just encourage people to
use more fossil fuels.
After digging into it for a while I found a couple organizations where the
projects are third party certified. The one i use is TerraPass. It costs me
about $15 a month to offset more carbon than i consume. And it goes to good
projects. Perfect? No. Continuously improving? Yes. What would happen if a
few million concerned about climate change signed up? Wow.
One reason I do as much as i can: kids, nieces, nephews, and the nature
that i love so much. And i agree that waiting for government to act is
futile.
I still do a lot of cool stuff and actually manage some land with climate
in mind (which seems like the next step up).
And i continually look for ways (like Project Drawdown) to be more
effective.
Curt
* year round biking, very low auto use; high efficiency home insulation;
setback thermostat; no ac; purchase wind energy; eat local food (mostly
plants); educate those who are interested.
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 4:09 PM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Nick,
>
> The last sentence simply stated that human activities contribute, almost
> certainly critically, to the problem. And the only causal factors that we
> might be able to change are those same human activities.
>
> What is being stipulated is that humans, individually and collectively,
> must be the change agents. Other contributory causes like solar cycles,
> natural climate cycles, etc. cannot change or be changed.
>
> Sorry if the terseness of the original expression led to ambiguity.
>
> As to trust - yes, I am arrogant enough to believe I can follow an
> argument and understand the premises / assumptions / and conclusions of the
> models and reports produced by the experts. No, I do not understand the
> math or the specialized science. But, if the experts cannot express
> themselves clearly enough to meet me half-way then they are no better than
> witch doctors explaining how voudun works.
>
> The other dimension of trust mentioned involves avoiding being manipulated
> (politicians, rent-seekers, ecological cultists - and they do exist) or
> defrauded.
>
> Two examples, I am very leery of purchasing carbon offsets for the only
> way I have to go home once in a while - jet travel. A couple of reasons: I
> can't see exactly how my money actually does something other than line
> someone's pockets; and it feels a whole lot like spitting on a forest
> fire. There must be a better way to spend my funds.
>
> I don't see the point in supporting politicians like Ocasio-Cortez or even
> Warren and trying to convince people to give up their cars or quit eating
> meat in order to reduce the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere,
> simply because I have zero belief that it will happen. I do see a greater
> likelihood that money contributed to research on carbon scrubbers will
> result in something that will help and will be actually put into play.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:44 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Please see larding below.
>
>
>
> My larder is still broken, but it should work well enough.
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:19 PM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
>
>
> convict of what?
>
> premeditated Gaia murder?
>
> voluntary climate slaughter?
>
> involuntary climate slaughter?
>
> reckless endangerment?
>
> conspiracy to commit climate change?
>
> accessory after the fact?
>
> *[NST===>] All of the above. *
>
>
>
> Not trying to be either specious or difficult. I would be ready to vote in
> favor of human activity contributing the "tipping point factor" but not the
> cause.
>
> *[NST===>] As a philosophy camp-follower, I am curious about the
> distinction, but right now we have a planet to save.*
>
>
>
>
>
> The following is stipulated:
>
>
>
> - Dr. Kwok, et. al. are correctly reporting phenomena and consequences.
>
> *[NST===>] Is the whole jury prepared to “convict” on these counts? I am
> sorry, I should probably stop punning on “convict”, here. I guess the
> real question is, are these proposition upon which we are all prepared to
> act?*
>
> - The planet is getting warmer.
>
> - Human activities are a critical component of the cause, and the only
> factors that might be altered to partially ameliorate the situation.
>
> *[NST===>] Sorry, but the last part of the above was unclear to me. Is
> there a missing word?*
>
>
>
> But,
>
> How to I analyze the models (I am unwilling to just take 'The Experts"
> word on the matter) and evaluate the importance of the various factors such
> that I can start to plan a course, mostly personal, of action.
>
>
>
> What options are available to remediate the problem. What options might I
> adopt as an individual? What options must I try to convince the masses to
> adopt?
>
>
>
>
>
> How to I avoid being exploited - by politicians seeking power, by
> opportunists seeking an income, from fraud like green washing?
>
> *[NST===>] Dave, it seems there are two threads here. One concerns
> trust. An expert is just somebody whom we trust to evaluate the data for
> us when we are incompetent to do so. I sense in what you write here an
> assumption that you are going to be able to make your personal decisions
> without having to avail yourself of trust. But surely that’s a dream,
> right? So the question is, “How are we to deploy trust?*
>
>
>
> *The second thread is the relation of personal responsibility to group
> action. Now I think that we can stipulate that group action is the only
> way we are ever going to have a solution to the climate. It’s like what
> your mom told you about those Poor Starving Armenians. If every mom served
> to her kid only the amount of spinach that that kid would eat, and shipped
> all the rest to Armenia, the Armenians would not have starved. But no
> rational connection exists between my eating my spinach, and any Armenian
> child being fed. So, in fact, if we actually cared about Poor Starving
> Armenians, we would have paid to send a boat load of spinach over there,
> and eaten whatever spinach was left over. In fact, perhaps we should have
> Federalized the Guard, confiscated all the spinach, and sent it to Armenia.
> Because even if every kid ate all the spinach on his plate, and every, mom
> served her kid only what he would eat, still, and all, **THAT WOULD NOT
> GET THE SPINACE TO ARMENIA. *
>
>
>
> *Yet the quakers had a point, and Gandhi had a point, and there is a point
> to voting. If no individual takes action, then no action will be taken. *
>
>
>
>
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:55 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Friammers:
>
>
>
> Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”. The jury can
> have a conviction but only if we all agree. Otherwise we remain a hung
> jury.
>
>
>
> So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise,
> disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?
>
>
>
> If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those
> changes?
>
>
>
> I am polling the jury.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
>
>
> From NASA:
>
> https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Frank Wimberly
>
>
>
> My memoir:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
>
>
>
> My scientific publications:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
>
>
>
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point
> and there is nothing we can do about it. I have no references.
>
>
>
> Frank
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Frank Wimberly
>
>
>
> My memoir:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
>
>
>
> My scientific publications:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
>
>
>
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
>
>
> I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
>
> challenge.
>
>
>
> What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if
>
> somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate
> change
>
> and human activity? By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of
>
> engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter. Because,
>
> if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be
> beyond
>
> human reach.
>
>
>
> So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as
>
> stated. They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as
>
> bad as they were predicted to be. Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe
>
> that in fact Things are worse. The only specific data I feel I have been
>
> exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting. But even
>
> there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of
>
> my own. So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I
>
> am talking about. Ugh!
>
>
>
> I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:
> what
>
> we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,
>
> is increases in year-to-year climate variability. You can grow rape seed
> in
>
> Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate
>
> supporting these two crops will move north. But what happens if one year
>
> the climate demands one crop and the next the other? And the switch from
>
> one to the other is entirely unpredictable. Anybody who plants a garden
>
> knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of
>
> your garden: first frost and last frost. The average frost free period in
>
> my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short
> as
>
> 90. And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last
> frost
>
> dates in June and first frost dates in early September. It would take a
>
> very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from
>
> something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50
>
> wasteplot.
>
>
>
> I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is
>
> a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.
>
> I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last
>
> ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent on that
>
> anomalous stability. The neanderthals were not too stupid to do
>
> agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it. The whole
>
> idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less
> the
>
> same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing
> more
>
> or less the same thing. A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation
>
> would obliterate that possibility.
>
>
>
> If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we
>
> are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I
> could
>
> scare the Living Crap out of you.
>
>
>
> The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,
>
> and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could
> be
>
> harvested for the long run.
>
>
>
> Happy New Year!
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
>
> To: friam@redfish.com
>
> Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
>
>
> Questions, that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate
>
> change.
>
>
>
> In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because
>
> of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3
> degrees
>
> Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
>
> Fahrenheit by 2020.
>
>
>
> The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature
>
> increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations
>
> being 3-5 by the year 2020.
>
>
>
> The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.
>
>
>
> The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end
> of
>
> domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.
>
>
>
> The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.
>
>
>
> Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,
>
> argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly
>
> incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models,
> and
>
> over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or
>
> simply "circulation" motives.
>
>
>
> In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone
>
> expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?
>
>
>
> Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the
> proposed
>
> "solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"
>
>
>
> Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon
>
> scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human
>
> socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?
>
>
>
> Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so,
> how
>
> do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our
>
> chances?
>
>
>
> davew
>
>
>
> ============================================================
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
> ============================================================
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
