That is a reasoned response, IMHO. However! I see no evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and "global warming" is destructive. A lot of anecdotal hyperbole more directed at pseudoscientific social engineering than scientific inquiry. Where I live Hurricane Katrina did a lot of damage. We had no power for over a week. I hear people passionately insisting that Katrina was caused by global warming; there is no evidence of this, of course. Increased CO2 in the air, along with the resultant increased temperature and water vapor has to increase primary productivity, as we all know from basic principles that precipitation and temperature are the prime regulators of primary productivity. I see increasdPPP as a good thing overall. The catastophic predictions, the Al Gore sorts of things, are embarassing to me as an ecologist, as the public does see me as a person supporting such nonsense. The type of lifestyle we live, especially in urban modern centers, requires massive imports of energy, and the price is always paid by people in rural areas. People in urban centers need cheap food, so farmers must farm large tracts of land for low per unit return. We then charge farmers outrageous prices for things like education, for example. Same thing holds for energy. We want cheap energy from Louisiana and Kentucky. We then charge outrageous prices for things like banking and "asset management". The most outrageously priced urban resource, entertainment, be it sports or movies or television is absolutely inconsequential when compared to rural resources such as food, energy, building materials and minerals, all which are taken at minimal cost. So it seems we want to drive the socio-economic status of the people of Appalachia, for example, down lower because "we" don't "like" coal, and want to enact policies to discourage and possibly eliminate the use of coal because "we" don't like CO2 in the air; lacking any solid scientific evidence that the CO2 does any damage, but go on taking the resource we want as cheaply as possible from people like those in Appalachia as suits our needs and prejudices. To my minds eye, it's just a furtherance of attacking the weak to sooth our guilt on these issues. We need a 20 dollar loaf of bread and 2 dollar DVDs more than we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Even the urban poor, who where I live seem to have no problem buying 20 dollar DVDs, would be better to transfer the wealth to farmers than movie producers...that's JMHO of course, and we'd be better off to use coal, but pay more for it, at the expense of lower costs to banking services and football tickets..again, JMHO. Higher cost translates to lower energy use. That's what we need. Anyone wants to put up windmills is also doing a good thing, IMHO. If my homeowners association allowed it, I'd have one in my yard, they aren't all that expensive. Rob Hamilton
>>> Gene Hannon <[email protected]> 3/3/2009 5:55 PM >>> Rob, I think we all agree with the importance of habitat preservation (species conservation, preserving ecosystem functions, etc). And I think we all are on the same page about the disproportionate tax on the environment that urban areas have compared to rural areas (or for that matter: developed countries vs less developed countries). Furthermore, I think we can all agree that there is a lot of hype related to most issues *including global climate change. But I feel it worth saying that it might be unproductive and imprudent (in my humble opinion) to make this problem into one of a false dichotomy: into either human habitat destruction or human climate warming. They are both worrisome. And they are both symptomatic of the same problem *a non sustainable life style (economy, or what have you); by me, you, us, them. Furthermore, while there are lots of anthropogenic (as well as non-anthropogenic) processes that result DIRECTLY in habitat destruction NOW, why not be concerned about those effects that will indirectly (and or directly) result in habitat destruction later? Such as our carbon foot print. But perhaps this is all circular. I guess I see this as a spin off of the chicken and the egg argument. If we truly did stop habitat destruction it probably means we are living sustainably, which might then cause carbon in the atmosphere to drop to or below 350 ppm (or some ideal value: see 350.org). Or we could save habitat, not live sustainably, and have weather patterns change ecological patterns and processes in a way that will result in those saved habitats being for a collection of species that are different than originally intended. Or we could destroy habitat, to make carbon neutral bioenergy, to live sustainably so that carbon in the atmosphere goes back down to 350 ppm, but species diversity and ecosystem processes still go to pot because we have destroyed habitat (i.e. the means does not justify the end in this scenario). ETC. So really, it is not so much what the impending or most dire problem is per se, but whether our actions result in a sustainable and equitable society for us as well as a viable habitat for the rest of the planet *. But I suppose I am preaching to the choir. -Gene On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Robert Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one > up. > > No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my > opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, > especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way > or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown > to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a > in classic "boy who cried wolf" type loss of credibility for informed > scientists. > > With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 > negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real > issue, not just the "carbon footprint". There is no activity we engage > in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, > especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed > to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly > discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling > out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the > major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of > people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's > obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the weak. > > There is an issue with global warming, but it is relatively minor, as > far as we know at this point in time, and it appears to be just another > way of deflecting the real issue, habitat conversion. Allowing people in > large modern cities to feel good about themselves re environmental > issues while continuing on with the most destructive of lifestyles. > > I recall reading many months ago about Leonardo DeCaprio wanting to buy > a tropical island and build an eco friendly resort being presented as > evidence of some sort of environmentally responsible act. Ridiculous, of > course, but one of the best examples of the sort or poor thinking that > drives a lot of the pop culture based environmental movement. > > Rob Hamilton > > > > "So easy it seemed once found, which yet > unfound most would have thought impossible" > > John Milton > ________________________________________ > > Robert G. Hamilton > Department of Biological Sciences > Mississippi College > P.O. Box 4045 > 200 South Capitol Street > Clinton, MS 39058 > Phone: (601) 925-3872 > FAX (601) 925-3978 >
