I'd say 2 reasons - one is that global warming is something that ecologists
can study. Such as Lucas' study of the impact of global warming on pika and
marmot. I'm not sure how you'd study peak oil in the same way, except maybe
some theoretical models. Second -- An Inconvenient Truth catapulted the
topic to national prominence and acceptance even among skeptics. I don't
know of a similar effort on peak oil. In fact I know basically what it means
but I don't know much more than that. Probably a lot of us are the same.
W.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. Wildlife Ecology
Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian
http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com
http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com
* 6-wk Online Writing Course Starts Nov 24! *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joseph gathman
>Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:37 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic
>
>Speaking of denial, why does Global Warming always
>generate so much response on this list, while Peak Oil
>doesn't? To my mind, they are both profoundly
>important, both are "ecological" in some way (PO may
>be more so), and both are happening now.
>
>Maybe ecologists just don't know about PO, or haven't
>considered what it really means (it's likely to be a
>paradigm shift in human history with not-yet-explored
>ramifications for the planet in general). Certainly
>there has been MUCH more buzz (and funding) about GW,
>while PO is under the radar. Is ecology really so
>trend-driven that we can't see a huge issue in front
>of our noses?
>
>Joe
>
>
>> (While this is no place to elaborate, I have to at
>> least note that, with=
>> a >90% fossil-fueled economy, and ceteris paribus,
>> economic growth simp=
>> ly =3D global warming. And also that, with economic
>> growth - increasing=
>> production and consumption of goods and services in
>> the aggregate - pri=
>> oritized in the domestic policy arena, dealing with
>> climate change means=
>> not conservation and frugality but rather wholesale
>> onlining of nuclear=
>> , tar sands, mountaintop removing, etc., because, as
>> Woolsey pointed out=
>> , renewables such as solar and wind won=92t come
>> anywhere near the level=
>> s our currently fossil-fueled economy needs.)
>> =
>>
>> So perhaps we could view "denial science" as lying
>> on a spectrum, where =
>> endpoints might be defined either in terms of
>> hardness/softness of scien=
>> ce (e.g., physics hard, climate change science
>> medium, ecological econom=
>> ics softish), or else in terms of political economy
>> (e.g., from little t=
>> o big money at stake). Denial would tend to be
>> motivated pursuant to pr=
>> incipals of political economy, and gotten away with
>> in proportion to the=
>> softness (or alternatively, complexity) of the
>> science.
>> =
>>
>> =
>>
>> Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor =
>>
>> Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
>> Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
>> National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center
>> 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411
>> Falls Church, VA 22043 =
>>
>> =
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
