Make issues simple, not tedious. For example, we can all agree that
the planet can change its climate without humans. We should be able
to agree that, whether or not it is too late to have any effect at
all, most of the changes that we could make would be for the better
no matter how you slice it. The extreme earth parasites will not be
easy to convince, perhaps, but after all, they are hastily trying to
learn how to make "green" from "green." Ecologists could start by
not applying for grants that help create this Giant Sucking
Sound. If you went into ecology as "The Next Big Thing," perhaps you
should have gotten an MBA instead. A helluva lot easier course than
ecology--if you take it seriously, eh?
WT
At 01:41 PM 10/25/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Maiken Winter addresses the common argument that "we cannot afford to do=
> anything" about climate change. I agree wholeheartedly with her. If a=
>nything, we cannot afford to not do anything. The Stern report is of so=
>me value in pointing that out. =
>
>However, in no way does the Stern report suggest that there is no confli=
>ct between economic growth and environmental protection. Nor does the f=
>act that, as Maiken says, it is supposed to take only about 1% of GDP, a=
>nnually, "to develop and set up the technologies we already have." For =
>what happens when those technologies are developed and set up? We then =
>have, as David Ehrenfeld would put it, "friendlier fire" or, as I've put=
> it elsewhere, a bigger gun to continue shooting ourselves in the feet w=
>ith. Except for the matter of climate change - just one among a long lo=
>ng list of environmental problems - it doesn't really matter how clean t=
>he energy form gets: its the sectors and infratructure powered by that e=
>nergy that expand at the competitive exlusion of nonhuman species in the=
> aggregate and at the expense of numerous other facets of ecological int=
>egrity. Not to be self-promoting, but it's handy to cite two of my own =
>articles on this topic that go straight to the issue:
>Czech, B., P. R. Krausman, and P. K. Devers. 2000. Economic associatio=
>ns among causes of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscienc=
>e 50(7):593-601.
>Czech, B. 2005. A chronological frame of reference for ecological inte=
>grity and natural conditions. Natural Resources Journal 44(4):1113-1136=
>.
>
>It is hard to argue with Maiken's argument because it is hopeful and is =
>a step in a better direction than most. It reminds me a lot of Al Gore=92=
>s language on this topic. However, when we stick to the standard and po=
>licy-relevant definition of economic growth - the definition that means =
>something to the public and policy makers - there really is no credible =
>disputing the fundamental conflict between economic growth and environme=
>ntal protection. ("Fundamental" meaning based in core principles of eco=
>logy and physics.)
>As for Al Gore, while in the White House he got pressured into the liter=
>ally incredible rhetoric that "there is no conflict between growing the =
>economy and protecting the environment" (which brought a pall over a hug=
>e audience at his 2000 Earth Day talk in Washington, DC!). But now that=
> he's out of the White House there is no such talk in An Inconvenient Tr=
>uth. Unfortunately we can=92t expect him to talk explicitly about a con=
>flict between economic growth and environmental protection, either, not =
>after the political expedience he went on record with in the =9190s. Ye=
>t Earth in the Balance reveals that Gore knew about the conflict all alo=
>ng. =
>
>In any event, for more on the trade-off between economic growth and envi=
>ronmental protection, I'd refer Maiken and others to the technical revie=
>w on economic growth published by The Wildlife Society, and to the vario=
>us positions on economic growth taken by the likes of The Wildlife Socie=
>ty, the Society for Conservation Biology - North America Section, the Am=
>erican Society of Mammalogists, the U.S. Society for Ecological Economic=
>s, and smaller orgs like the British Columbia Field Ornithologists. The=
>se and other orgs are taking positions to refute the politically expedie=
>nt but exceedingly dangerous rhetoric that there is no such trade-off.
> <?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:o=
>ffice" />
> =
>
>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 =
>
>
>Brian Czech, Ph.D., President
>Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
>SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at: www.steadystate.org/PositiononE=
>G.html .
>EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS? Use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>-- Maiken Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There are all kinds of types of deniers.
>There are those who don't believe cc exists, some believe it is not
>human-caused, some believe the main cause is population growth, some tha=
>t
>it is too expensive, some that they don't have time to do something, som=
>e
>are scared of loosing scientific credibility,...anybody who denies that =
>we
>have a serious problem that each one of us has to help solve immediately=
>
>or we are going to face dramatic consequences is - to me - a denier in
>various stages.
>A short comment about the common argument that we cannot afford to do
>something:
>Check out the Stern report for the effects on the effect of climate chan=
>ge
>on the world's economy.
>(http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economic=
>s_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm)
>Basically, it would take about 1% of the gross domestic product of our
>planet per year to develop and set up the technologies we already have.
>That is a very small amount of money compared to the expenses for war on=
>
>the entire planet. This is a matter of priorities and will of politician=
>s
>and the citizens of the earth, not a matter of ability. That is one reas=
>on
>why I think it is so essential to speak up.
>Also, combating climate change will not put an end on economic growth, i=
>t
>could very likely increase it through development of new technologies.
>Look at which car companies are making profit - not the American gas
>guzzlers. And about renewable energies. It IS possible to have 100%
>renewable energies in Germany, if every house had solar panels. Why
>shouldn't every house have a solar panels? With government subsidies thi=
>s
>is absolutely in the realm of true possibilities. We just often lack the=
>
>imagination and energy to push for those things that are needed and
>achievable.
>Maiken
>
>PS: Please check out these webpages to find a description, and how to de=
>al
>with them:
>http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
>http://www.skepticalscience.com/
>http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
>http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-cl=
>aims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
>http://denial.nodvin.net/
