Tyler wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
But Tyler isn't talking about what an individual should concentrate on.
He's saying that the science is bunk and our government shouldn't push the issue.
You misunderstand.
When discussing religion, people are comfortable with the concept of agnosticism. Once can be openly unsure about the existence or non-existence of a deity or claim, especially when it is impossible to provide tangible evidence one way or another directly measurable to the five senses. However, that does not make him without morals, and agnostics are fine people who can appreciate the societal benefits of religion.
For whatever reason, when discussing climate people can't handle that. You're either a true believer or a knuckle-dragging denier of the one true God of catastrophic man-made global warming. Anyone who doesn't stake out a claim on either extreme is just a lazy dope, a selfish capitalist, or hasn't been properly educated yet.
Well I'm a global warming agnostic. I certainly don't deny that climate change exists or that humanity plays some role in it. But I also don't believe that we're on the precipice of imminent doom and must all repent from our sinful carbon-emitting ways because judgment is at hand. However, I agree with many individual environmental causes held by warming believers, and appreciate the societal benefits of conservation and efficiency.
If warming evangelists could be more like Pope Francis than a militant Imam or greedy televangelist when it comes to outreach, I think they'd get a lot more traction with people like me.
I'm pretty much where Tyler and Pointedstick are on the environmental front (I think). Here is how I summarize my views on the matter:
I am for practical energy reduction where I am in control, i.e. I can maximize overall value according to my needs and desires (for example, I drive carefully, I turn off lights and water when not in use, I do not water my yard, I have even tried CFL and LED bulbs but those I have used seem to have a quite high failure rate and a couple of CFLs have overheated and scorched - I have safety concerns that are higher in priority than my energy conservation concerns).
I am for electrical energy sourced on economical generation, for now that is nuclear and hydro supplemented by gas, oil or coal. From everything I've read and studied, solar and wind techonolgy is just not there. If our dear leader would endorse developing nuclear, for example, so it would become cheaper than coal or gas, people would naturally not object and move away from fossil fuels on their own. The issue, to me, is having something crammed down our throats by someone or some entity that thinks they know what is better for me than I do. To me, that raises my hackles severely and really, really pisses me off (but my home state motto is "mountaineers are always free" - maybe it is inborn in me to resist totalitarian, elitist appearing, authority).
I am for free markets to determine what is the next best step in energy technology. I am for life cycle analysis of energy production so that ALL costs are taken into consideration (which they almost always automatically are in a free market economy).
I "emotionally" care about the rain forrests being destroyed, but my overriding concern tells me we in the USA have no business telling other entities what we think is right for them. Thus, until the locals figure out there is a more economical way for them to survive and prosper things may not look good to us ivory tower types.
I "emotionally" care for people who have chosen to live in flood prone areas. However, they also have the choice to move and it is not up to me to make them spend their life earnings to build a flood wall. If sea levels are rising, as Pointedstick says, they can adapt or drown. If the folks in New Orleans chose to move back into the flood prone areas after Katrina, fine. Just don't ask me to foot the bill (for what I personally view as a dumb choice but I don't understand all the values in play so I just keep my mouth shut and don't dictate to them).
So, in a nut shell, my environmental values are based on practical economical solutions and voluntary compliance; people must be involved in decisions that impact them if lasting results are desired. And before you say I do not know what I'm talking about and am just another wingnut, please know that I worked for many years in the environmental area for a fortune 50 company and was responsible for getting people to not only comply with federal laws but to desire to be number one in the environmental leadership area. Force rarely achieved lasting results although it did let some less mature managers "feel good" for a few moments; then, while the cat was away the people would play. Eventually, everyone from the CEO through high management and supervisors to the floor level workers got on board when they understood the benefits, risks, and alternatives and bought in to what the goals were.
... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
) is that people who have purchased poorly-insulated 3,000 square foot McMansions in very cold climates 50 miles from their jobs and enjoy snowmobiling and boating require massive amounts of fossil fuels to sustain their standards of living, and will demand that the government keep their supply of oil secure irrespective of the geopolitical or environmental consequences. The 70s gave us an idea of what happens in this circumstance--just imagine how it would have ended if the government had been unable to get the oil flowing again. Perhaps we would have built 500 nuclear plants and developed electric cars. But in the meantime, hundreds of millions of people would have suffered terribly, and it's not unreasonable to imagine a lot of them dying.