There is a lot to critique and comment on, so I will pick just a few things to discuss. I really would like to see the comments actually of what people in this community think about these efforts and what they believe we should do.
One of the interesting assumptions that the city makes here is that the existing houses will last until at least 2050. In fact, we do not attempt to get to carbon neutrality until that point. Depending who we talk to about the state of the climate, that may be too late. But we need to leave that issue aside. If there is an aspect of this that I most strongly supportive of it is the idea of new energy efficiency in home design. This plan almost cedes that issue. I am sure we can retrofit homes with photovoltaic cells, but frankly that is the beginning of energy efficiency, not the end. There are whole host of passive features for homes that can make us more efficient. Start with good insulation to keep the heat in during winter months and the heat out during summer months. Making use of the position of the sun to gain maximum sun exposure during the winter and minimizing direct sunlight during peak heat hours in the summer can help. Orienting cross-ventilation can enable people to utilize nature’s cooling device–the delta breeze during evening hours in the summer to reduce air conditioning usage. But if we are conceding that these changes will not be implemented for 42 years, where are we?
The next issue is both a local land use issue and a global issue–transportation. We can have the best designed houses in the world, but if you have to drive to work, it helps us none. Last night on the Vanguard Radio show, representatives of Lewis Planned Communities talked about the prospect of people biking to Amtrak and taking the Capitol Corridor train to work. That would certainly be a start. But unless we are going to get serious about a transportation system at the regional level, those people are going to be exceptions, not the rule. The prospect of smart urban design is to put housing where the jobs are. There is little doubt that is a smart principle, but it involves us figuring out what our true internal needs are and then determining a way to provide housing for those needs. There are pitfalls to that strategy as well, as you end up attracting people more to places like Davis with new residential growth which contributes to the problem of commuting. Until we change that mindset, transportation is going to remain a problem. We seem to be as a society sitting back, waiting for new technology to save us here. But will it be too late?
The third prong to this is obviously going to be business development. I hate to keep coming back to Target, but it is a glaring contradiction. If we are serious about global warming and reducing our carbon footprint, then we cannot continue to practice unsustainable consumer practices. I will be frank–as a society, we do not want to sacrifice. We want to innovate our way out of this problem as we have innovated our way out of many problems in the past. I am unsure we can do that. I think to some extent we are going to have to change the way we live. Housing and transportation are only part of that equation. The other part is our wasteful consumer habits. Target is the perfect model for what is wrong with that approach. The great irony is that we have put Target in the LEED-certified building. We might as well put a HUMMER car lot in a LEED-certified building for all the good this does us.
There are so many problems with the Target model, but let’s go over a few. Cheap disposable goods that end up taking large amount of energy to produce and they end up in the landfill. Production is off-sight. The goods are transported from a long way from here to centralized locations where they are then transported here. There are harmful economic impacts as well, but in terms of an environmental model, it is the worst possible model. Where are most of the product manufactured? Oversees in factories that are environmental hazards on a large number of levels. The products themselves are generally not environmentally friendly. You have wasteful packaging that ends up in landfills unless they are recycled. The products themselves are inexpensive, which means they have a limited life, and one needs to purchase more. In short, it is not a sustainable business model for an environment such as ours.
And yet, with all of our time and energy and planning that has gone into the CAT and mitigating global warming, I have seen no consideration of the impact of Target and places like Target on global warming. Unless we are willing to change the way we live and consume products, it is going to be difficult to combat global warming. I see us willing to have bells and whistles and to pay for those bells and whistles, but I do not see us willing to sacrifice.
It is on this point, that I illustrate a further problem. For new development involving housing, the city is moving toward developing greenhouse gas reduction guidelines. Sounds reasonable.
However, now you have at the meeting on Tuesday, a developer who happens to be a member of CAT warning of the danger of putting too many restrictions on developers. To be honest at one level I can understand his concern–this is the person’s livelihood, who can blame him for being concerned. But on another level, it is yet another example of the unwillingness to sacrifice. Moreover, I have seen the efforts of a few of the more recent proposed developments who have put almost of this into their proposals already. Why? Because, they have to sell their projects to the community and this is what most people in the community want. So I think largely these fears are unfounded.
The developer suggested that we were the verge of actually shutting down new residential development in this community and that the city will not be able to achieve any of its goals related to housing. I do not buy it. Has anyone seen any indication that the pressure to develop will stop? There is too much money to be made. Developers are more likely to do this voluntarily in order to get their projects approved.
The bottom line here is that this illustrates the peril of such goals. We need to start coming into the mindset at some point that we need to sacrifice. I think there are new technologies and that green technologies and innovations are a driving economic force in the future. There are other jurisdictions with some pretty innovative plans already on the books. But at the core and in the final hour, we need to acknowledge that we are going to have to give some things up. Maybe for the developers it is a bit of the profit margin. Maybe for the city it is a bit of our plans. Maybe the consumers it is some of our cheap and convenient consumer goals. Perhaps it is the luxury of huge gas-guzzling SUVs. Perhaps in Alaska, it is the acknowledgment that drill-baby-drill is in fact incompatible with global warming reductions rather than its cure. I don’t know, but it seems to me that we have a lot of tough choices ahead if we want to try to head off the potential fall-out from global warming.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You touched on one of my pet peeves as a home owner, and a market failure that we need to correct. That is the lack of true incentives for the builder/developer to invest in passive and active energy saving housing features. From an economic standpoint many features are clear winners for the homeowner because of the lowered cost of operation and maintenance, but the buyer is distanced from these building decisions. The builder/developer sees a relatively fixed price for housing based on the market, and sees little return for adding features that may not be standard in the marketplace. I believe the homeowner would often pursue more environmentally and economically sound practices if informed and given clear choices.
You touched on one of my pet peeves as a home owner, and a market failure that we need to correct. That is the lack of true incentives for the builder/developer to invest in passive and active energy saving housing features. From an economic standpoint many features are clear winners for the homeowner because of the lowered cost of operation and maintenance, but the buyer is distanced from these building decisions. The builder/developer sees a relatively fixed price for housing based on the market, and sees little return for adding features that may not be standard in the marketplace. I believe the homeowner would often pursue more environmentally and economically sound practices if informed and given clear choices.
You touched on one of my pet peeves as a home owner, and a market failure that we need to correct. That is the lack of true incentives for the builder/developer to invest in passive and active energy saving housing features. From an economic standpoint many features are clear winners for the homeowner because of the lowered cost of operation and maintenance, but the buyer is distanced from these building decisions. The builder/developer sees a relatively fixed price for housing based on the market, and sees little return for adding features that may not be standard in the marketplace. I believe the homeowner would often pursue more environmentally and economically sound practices if informed and given clear choices.
You touched on one of my pet peeves as a home owner, and a market failure that we need to correct. That is the lack of true incentives for the builder/developer to invest in passive and active energy saving housing features. From an economic standpoint many features are clear winners for the homeowner because of the lowered cost of operation and maintenance, but the buyer is distanced from these building decisions. The builder/developer sees a relatively fixed price for housing based on the market, and sees little return for adding features that may not be standard in the marketplace. I believe the homeowner would often pursue more environmentally and economically sound practices if informed and given clear choices.
“tripping over dollars to pick up dimes” is my take…it WILL greatly EXPAND government AND taxes and fees and increase the price of virtually everything. Taken to extreme, like some want, it will leave CA to the super-rich and the super-subsidized. ALL we attempt to do means ZILCH if China and India do nothing and we continue burning COAL to make electricity.
“tripping over dollars to pick up dimes” is my take…it WILL greatly EXPAND government AND taxes and fees and increase the price of virtually everything. Taken to extreme, like some want, it will leave CA to the super-rich and the super-subsidized. ALL we attempt to do means ZILCH if China and India do nothing and we continue burning COAL to make electricity.
“tripping over dollars to pick up dimes” is my take…it WILL greatly EXPAND government AND taxes and fees and increase the price of virtually everything. Taken to extreme, like some want, it will leave CA to the super-rich and the super-subsidized. ALL we attempt to do means ZILCH if China and India do nothing and we continue burning COAL to make electricity.
“tripping over dollars to pick up dimes” is my take…it WILL greatly EXPAND government AND taxes and fees and increase the price of virtually everything. Taken to extreme, like some want, it will leave CA to the super-rich and the super-subsidized. ALL we attempt to do means ZILCH if China and India do nothing and we continue burning COAL to make electricity.
“One of the interesting assumptions that the city makes here is that the existing houses will last until at least 2050. In fact, we do not attempt to get to carbon neutrality until that point. Depending who we talk to about the state of the climate, that may be too late.”
Too late to do what?
I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.
oops.
“One of the interesting assumptions that the city makes here is that the existing houses will last until at least 2050. In fact, we do not attempt to get to carbon neutrality until that point. Depending who we talk to about the state of the climate, that may be too late.”
Too late to do what?
I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.
oops.
“One of the interesting assumptions that the city makes here is that the existing houses will last until at least 2050. In fact, we do not attempt to get to carbon neutrality until that point. Depending who we talk to about the state of the climate, that may be too late.”
Too late to do what?
I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.
oops.
“One of the interesting assumptions that the city makes here is that the existing houses will last until at least 2050. In fact, we do not attempt to get to carbon neutrality until that point. Depending who we talk to about the state of the climate, that may be too late.”
Too late to do what?
I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.
oops.
“I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.”
Fascinating. But I’m skeptical.
By how much did the temperatures go down during that period?
How does that compare with how much temperatures have been rising since then?
Are you saying that fossil fuel combustion has nothing to do with climate change trends that we are seeing?
If so, then what is causing the climate change trends that we are seeing?
“I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.”
Fascinating. But I’m skeptical.
By how much did the temperatures go down during that period?
How does that compare with how much temperatures have been rising since then?
Are you saying that fossil fuel combustion has nothing to do with climate change trends that we are seeing?
If so, then what is causing the climate change trends that we are seeing?
“I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.”
Fascinating. But I’m skeptical.
By how much did the temperatures go down during that period?
How does that compare with how much temperatures have been rising since then?
Are you saying that fossil fuel combustion has nothing to do with climate change trends that we are seeing?
If so, then what is causing the climate change trends that we are seeing?
“I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.”
Fascinating. But I’m skeptical.
By how much did the temperatures go down during that period?
How does that compare with how much temperatures have been rising since then?
Are you saying that fossil fuel combustion has nothing to do with climate change trends that we are seeing?
If so, then what is causing the climate change trends that we are seeing?
“you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.”
Ok. Let’s say for the sake of argument that we don’t know whether global warming is happening or not.
Choice #1: Do nothing; continue as we have been.
— If global warming is NOT happening, no problem.
— If global warming IS happening, major, serious disasters may occur.
Choice #2: Cut our carbon emissions.
— If global warming is NOT happening, some expenditures may occur for things that ultimately prove unnecessary, like electric cars or solar panels.
— If global warming IS happening, this could prevent catastrophic changes.
I don’t really see a significant down side to acting on the safe side to cut our emissions. If the scientists are correct, we have huge potential positives, while if they are incorrect, there really are no serious negative repercussions.
“you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.”
Ok. Let’s say for the sake of argument that we don’t know whether global warming is happening or not.
Choice #1: Do nothing; continue as we have been.
— If global warming is NOT happening, no problem.
— If global warming IS happening, major, serious disasters may occur.
Choice #2: Cut our carbon emissions.
— If global warming is NOT happening, some expenditures may occur for things that ultimately prove unnecessary, like electric cars or solar panels.
— If global warming IS happening, this could prevent catastrophic changes.
I don’t really see a significant down side to acting on the safe side to cut our emissions. If the scientists are correct, we have huge potential positives, while if they are incorrect, there really are no serious negative repercussions.
“you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.”
Ok. Let’s say for the sake of argument that we don’t know whether global warming is happening or not.
Choice #1: Do nothing; continue as we have been.
— If global warming is NOT happening, no problem.
— If global warming IS happening, major, serious disasters may occur.
Choice #2: Cut our carbon emissions.
— If global warming is NOT happening, some expenditures may occur for things that ultimately prove unnecessary, like electric cars or solar panels.
— If global warming IS happening, this could prevent catastrophic changes.
I don’t really see a significant down side to acting on the safe side to cut our emissions. If the scientists are correct, we have huge potential positives, while if they are incorrect, there really are no serious negative repercussions.
“you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.”
Ok. Let’s say for the sake of argument that we don’t know whether global warming is happening or not.
Choice #1: Do nothing; continue as we have been.
— If global warming is NOT happening, no problem.
— If global warming IS happening, major, serious disasters may occur.
Choice #2: Cut our carbon emissions.
— If global warming is NOT happening, some expenditures may occur for things that ultimately prove unnecessary, like electric cars or solar panels.
— If global warming IS happening, this could prevent catastrophic changes.
I don’t really see a significant down side to acting on the safe side to cut our emissions. If the scientists are correct, we have huge potential positives, while if they are incorrect, there really are no serious negative repercussions.
say it says:
oops.
Do you think it would be prudent to wait another 50 years to see if any other evidence indicates that Greenhouse warming is happening or not?
say it says:
oops.
Do you think it would be prudent to wait another 50 years to see if any other evidence indicates that Greenhouse warming is happening or not?
say it says:
oops.
Do you think it would be prudent to wait another 50 years to see if any other evidence indicates that Greenhouse warming is happening or not?
say it says:
oops.
Do you think it would be prudent to wait another 50 years to see if any other evidence indicates that Greenhouse warming is happening or not?
I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.
The main wikipedia article on global warming has this to say about the temperature anomaly that you mention:
Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[66] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another, so that warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.[67]
End notes cite peer reviewed scientific sources.
I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.
The main wikipedia article on global warming has this to say about the temperature anomaly that you mention:
Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[66] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another, so that warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.[67]
End notes cite peer reviewed scientific sources.
I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.
The main wikipedia article on global warming has this to say about the temperature anomaly that you mention:
Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[66] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another, so that warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.[67]
End notes cite peer reviewed scientific sources.
I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.
The main wikipedia article on global warming has this to say about the temperature anomaly that you mention:
Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[66] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another, so that warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.[67]
End notes cite peer reviewed scientific sources.
Thanks, guys! Good insight I’ll address each of your concerns.
Fascinating. But I’m skeptical.
By how much did the temperatures go down during that period?
“a small amount. but based on a sound theory, that shouldn’t have happened in the first place.”
Are you saying that fossil fuel combustion has nothing to do with climate change trends that we are seeing?
If so, then what is causing the climate change trends that we are seeing?
You are thinking. What causes climate change other than fossil fuels?
Choice #2: Cut our carbon emissions.
— If global warming is NOT happening, some expenditures may occur for things that ultimately prove unnecessary, like electric cars or solar panels.
You say that like it is no big deal to force American citizens to change their entire lifestyle and spend up the wazoo based on a theory that has a huge hole in it.
The main wikipedia article on global warming has this to say about the temperature anomaly that you mention:
Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[66] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another, so that warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.[67]
End notes cite peer reviewed scientific sources.
Thank you! You just ripped apart the global warming theory without even knowing it. You didn’t even make me do the work either because you just did it yourself. And you noted scientific sources I won’t have to cite either.
You just said there are other factors that paid a key role in climate change that had nothing to do with Automobiles and its exhaust.
You also said that the temperature change during that period “may also be due in part to natural variability.” In other words, natural variability cannot be ignored in this equation.
“so that warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.[67]”
Gee, and I thought my SUV caused it all! I had no idea!! Does that mean I can keep my Hummer?
thank you for making my point for me. Arguing was never this easy.
Thanks, guys! Good insight I’ll address each of your concerns.
Fascinating. But I’m skeptical.
By how much did the temperatures go down during that period?
“a small amount. but based on a sound theory, that shouldn’t have happened in the first place.”
Are you saying that fossil fuel combustion has nothing to do with climate change trends that we are seeing?
If so, then what is causing the climate change trends that we are seeing?
You are thinking. What causes climate change other than fossil fuels?
Choice #2: Cut our carbon emissions.
— If global warming is NOT happening, some expenditures may occur for things that ultimately prove unnecessary, like electric cars or solar panels.
You say that like it is no big deal to force American citizens to change their entire lifestyle and spend up the wazoo based on a theory that has a huge hole in it.
The main wikipedia article on global warming has this to say about the temperature anomaly that you mention:
Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[66] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another, so that warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.[67]
End notes cite peer reviewed scientific sources.
Thank you! You just ripped apart the global warming theory without even knowing it. You didn’t even make me do the work either because you just did it yourself. And you noted scientific sources I won’t have to cite either.
You just said there are other factors that paid a key role in climate change that had nothing to do with Automobiles and its exhaust.
You also said that the temperature change during that period “may also be due in part to natural variability.” In other words, natural variability cannot be ignored in this equation.
“so that warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.[67]”
Gee, and I thought my SUV caused it all! I had no idea!! Does that mean I can keep my Hummer?
thank you for making my point for me. Arguing was never this easy.
Thanks, guys! Good insight I’ll address each of your concerns.
Fascinating. But I’m skeptical.
By how much did the temperatures go down during that period?
“a small amount. but based on a sound theory, that shouldn’t have happened in the first place.”
Are you saying that fossil fuel combustion has nothing to do with climate change trends that we are seeing?
If so, then what is causing the climate change trends that we are seeing?
You are thinking. What causes climate change other than fossil fuels?
Choice #2: Cut our carbon emissions.
— If global warming is NOT happening, some expenditures may occur for things that ultimately prove unnecessary, like electric cars or solar panels.
You say that like it is no big deal to force American citizens to change their entire lifestyle and spend up the wazoo based on a theory that has a huge hole in it.
The main wikipedia article on global warming has this to say about the temperature anomaly that you mention:
Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[66] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another, so that warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.[67]
End notes cite peer reviewed scientific sources.
Thank you! You just ripped apart the global warming theory without even knowing it. You didn’t even make me do the work either because you just did it yourself. And you noted scientific sources I won’t have to cite either.
You just said there are other factors that paid a key role in climate change that had nothing to do with Automobiles and its exhaust.
You also said that the temperature change during that period “may also be due in part to natural variability.” In other words, natural variability cannot be ignored in this equation.
“so that warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.[67]”
Gee, and I thought my SUV caused it all! I had no idea!! Does that mean I can keep my Hummer?
thank you for making my point for me. Arguing was never this easy.
Thanks, guys! Good insight I’ll address each of your concerns.
Fascinating. But I’m skeptical.
By how much did the temperatures go down during that period?
“a small amount. but based on a sound theory, that shouldn’t have happened in the first place.”
Are you saying that fossil fuel combustion has nothing to do with climate change trends that we are seeing?
If so, then what is causing the climate change trends that we are seeing?
You are thinking. What causes climate change other than fossil fuels?
Choice #2: Cut our carbon emissions.
— If global warming is NOT happening, some expenditures may occur for things that ultimately prove unnecessary, like electric cars or solar panels.
You say that like it is no big deal to force American citizens to change their entire lifestyle and spend up the wazoo based on a theory that has a huge hole in it.
The main wikipedia article on global warming has this to say about the temperature anomaly that you mention:
Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[66] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another, so that warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.[67]
End notes cite peer reviewed scientific sources.
Thank you! You just ripped apart the global warming theory without even knowing it. You didn’t even make me do the work either because you just did it yourself. And you noted scientific sources I won’t have to cite either.
You just said there are other factors that paid a key role in climate change that had nothing to do with Automobiles and its exhaust.
You also said that the temperature change during that period “may also be due in part to natural variability.” In other words, natural variability cannot be ignored in this equation.
“so that warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.[67]”
Gee, and I thought my SUV caused it all! I had no idea!! Does that mean I can keep my Hummer?
thank you for making my point for me. Arguing was never this easy.
you are all bitching about. The largest polluter in the world is not the US, its China, and their people don’t own SUV’s.
In fact, their air was so bad the athletes at the Olympic games had to wear respirators.
Also, I believe India is the third largest polluter, and their country is about the size of Texas.
So lets just put this theory of global warming and climate change into some perspective shall we.
And let’s start criticizing those who should be criticized. Thanks.
you are all bitching about. The largest polluter in the world is not the US, its China, and their people don’t own SUV’s.
In fact, their air was so bad the athletes at the Olympic games had to wear respirators.
Also, I believe India is the third largest polluter, and their country is about the size of Texas.
So lets just put this theory of global warming and climate change into some perspective shall we.
And let’s start criticizing those who should be criticized. Thanks.
you are all bitching about. The largest polluter in the world is not the US, its China, and their people don’t own SUV’s.
In fact, their air was so bad the athletes at the Olympic games had to wear respirators.
Also, I believe India is the third largest polluter, and their country is about the size of Texas.
So lets just put this theory of global warming and climate change into some perspective shall we.
And let’s start criticizing those who should be criticized. Thanks.
you are all bitching about. The largest polluter in the world is not the US, its China, and their people don’t own SUV’s.
In fact, their air was so bad the athletes at the Olympic games had to wear respirators.
Also, I believe India is the third largest polluter, and their country is about the size of Texas.
So lets just put this theory of global warming and climate change into some perspective shall we.
And let’s start criticizing those who should be criticized. Thanks.
We need to start coming into the mindset at some point that we need to sacrifice.
Great idea! When can I have the keys to your car?
We need to start coming into the mindset at some point that we need to sacrifice.
Great idea! When can I have the keys to your car?
We need to start coming into the mindset at some point that we need to sacrifice.
Great idea! When can I have the keys to your car?
We need to start coming into the mindset at some point that we need to sacrifice.
Great idea! When can I have the keys to your car?
Because China and India are emitting more pollutants, therefore we should do nothing?
The US emits more CO2 than any other country according to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_countries_by_carbon_
dioxide_emissions
1. US: 22.2% of world emissions
2. China/Taiwan: 18.4%
3. Russia: 5.6%
4. India: 4.9%
5. Japan: 4.6%
Because China and India are emitting more pollutants, therefore we should do nothing?
The US emits more CO2 than any other country according to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_countries_by_carbon_
dioxide_emissions
1. US: 22.2% of world emissions
2. China/Taiwan: 18.4%
3. Russia: 5.6%
4. India: 4.9%
5. Japan: 4.6%
Because China and India are emitting more pollutants, therefore we should do nothing?
The US emits more CO2 than any other country according to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_countries_by_carbon_
dioxide_emissions
1. US: 22.2% of world emissions
2. China/Taiwan: 18.4%
3. Russia: 5.6%
4. India: 4.9%
5. Japan: 4.6%
Because China and India are emitting more pollutants, therefore we should do nothing?
The US emits more CO2 than any other country according to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_countries_by_carbon_
dioxide_emissions
1. US: 22.2% of world emissions
2. China/Taiwan: 18.4%
3. Russia: 5.6%
4. India: 4.9%
5. Japan: 4.6%
But at the core and in the final hour, we need to acknowledge that we are going to have to give some things up.
Wow, you gonna give away your cars and stove 2?
X-mas came early.
But at the core and in the final hour, we need to acknowledge that we are going to have to give some things up.
Wow, you gonna give away your cars and stove 2?
X-mas came early.
But at the core and in the final hour, we need to acknowledge that we are going to have to give some things up.
Wow, you gonna give away your cars and stove 2?
X-mas came early.
But at the core and in the final hour, we need to acknowledge that we are going to have to give some things up.
Wow, you gonna give away your cars and stove 2?
X-mas came early.
http://www.impactlab.com/2006/06/12/the-worlds-top-20-most-polluted-cities/
nice try.
A total of 16 out of the top 20 most polluted cities are in China. #1 on the list is Linfen City in Shanxi Province, China. “The whole city smells and is covered in smoke.”
http://www.impactlab.com/2006/06/12/the-worlds-top-20-most-polluted-cities/
nice try.
A total of 16 out of the top 20 most polluted cities are in China. #1 on the list is Linfen City in Shanxi Province, China. “The whole city smells and is covered in smoke.”
http://www.impactlab.com/2006/06/12/the-worlds-top-20-most-polluted-cities/
nice try.
A total of 16 out of the top 20 most polluted cities are in China. #1 on the list is Linfen City in Shanxi Province, China. “The whole city smells and is covered in smoke.”
http://www.impactlab.com/2006/06/12/the-worlds-top-20-most-polluted-cities/
nice try.
A total of 16 out of the top 20 most polluted cities are in China. #1 on the list is Linfen City in Shanxi Province, China. “The whole city smells and is covered in smoke.”
another one: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htm
“Pollution wafting into the USA accounts for 30% of the nation’s ozone, an important component of smog, says researcher David Parrish of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the year 2020, Harvard University’s Daniel Jacob says, imported pollution will be the primary factor degrading visibility in our national parks.”
another one: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htm
“Pollution wafting into the USA accounts for 30% of the nation’s ozone, an important component of smog, says researcher David Parrish of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the year 2020, Harvard University’s Daniel Jacob says, imported pollution will be the primary factor degrading visibility in our national parks.”
another one: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htm
“Pollution wafting into the USA accounts for 30% of the nation’s ozone, an important component of smog, says researcher David Parrish of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the year 2020, Harvard University’s Daniel Jacob says, imported pollution will be the primary factor degrading visibility in our national parks.”
another one: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htm
“Pollution wafting into the USA accounts for 30% of the nation’s ozone, an important component of smog, says researcher David Parrish of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the year 2020, Harvard University’s Daniel Jacob says, imported pollution will be the primary factor degrading visibility in our national parks.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
Deal with Mao.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
Deal with Mao.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
Deal with Mao.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
Deal with Mao.
“You just said there are other factors that paid a key role in climate change that had nothing to do with Automobiles and its exhaust.”
Any chance you have a science background? or not? Because you’re weaseling around on rhetorical whimsey rather than considering all the possibilities.
It said that (in one scientists view) it (recent global warming) was caused by non-CO2 Greenhouse gases.
In order, Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gases (after CO2) are:
methane
nitrous oxide
ozone
CFCs
Do any of those happen to come out of your tail pipe? I bet the first two do, and your tailpipe pollutants contribute to secondary ozone formation.
CO2 is the most abundant greenhouse gas produced by fossil fuel combustion. It is usually measured because it is abundant enough to measure easily.
But CO2 is a weaker gases in terms of absorbing heat energy in the atmosphere. Methane, for instance, is more effective at absorbing heat than is CO2, but methane is present at lower concentrations than CO2.
This is an issue of personal responsibility. What’s the matter with you? Don’t you believe in personal responsibility?
You create waste, you clean up after yourself. Whenever you hear about a spare the air day in the central valley, do you pretend that you had absolutely nothing to do with that?
You’re like my teenage son who looks for excuses to not do anything. [Maybe you are my teenage son!] 😉
“You just said there are other factors that paid a key role in climate change that had nothing to do with Automobiles and its exhaust.”
Any chance you have a science background? or not? Because you’re weaseling around on rhetorical whimsey rather than considering all the possibilities.
It said that (in one scientists view) it (recent global warming) was caused by non-CO2 Greenhouse gases.
In order, Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gases (after CO2) are:
methane
nitrous oxide
ozone
CFCs
Do any of those happen to come out of your tail pipe? I bet the first two do, and your tailpipe pollutants contribute to secondary ozone formation.
CO2 is the most abundant greenhouse gas produced by fossil fuel combustion. It is usually measured because it is abundant enough to measure easily.
But CO2 is a weaker gases in terms of absorbing heat energy in the atmosphere. Methane, for instance, is more effective at absorbing heat than is CO2, but methane is present at lower concentrations than CO2.
This is an issue of personal responsibility. What’s the matter with you? Don’t you believe in personal responsibility?
You create waste, you clean up after yourself. Whenever you hear about a spare the air day in the central valley, do you pretend that you had absolutely nothing to do with that?
You’re like my teenage son who looks for excuses to not do anything. [Maybe you are my teenage son!] 😉
“You just said there are other factors that paid a key role in climate change that had nothing to do with Automobiles and its exhaust.”
Any chance you have a science background? or not? Because you’re weaseling around on rhetorical whimsey rather than considering all the possibilities.
It said that (in one scientists view) it (recent global warming) was caused by non-CO2 Greenhouse gases.
In order, Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gases (after CO2) are:
methane
nitrous oxide
ozone
CFCs
Do any of those happen to come out of your tail pipe? I bet the first two do, and your tailpipe pollutants contribute to secondary ozone formation.
CO2 is the most abundant greenhouse gas produced by fossil fuel combustion. It is usually measured because it is abundant enough to measure easily.
But CO2 is a weaker gases in terms of absorbing heat energy in the atmosphere. Methane, for instance, is more effective at absorbing heat than is CO2, but methane is present at lower concentrations than CO2.
This is an issue of personal responsibility. What’s the matter with you? Don’t you believe in personal responsibility?
You create waste, you clean up after yourself. Whenever you hear about a spare the air day in the central valley, do you pretend that you had absolutely nothing to do with that?
You’re like my teenage son who looks for excuses to not do anything. [Maybe you are my teenage son!] 😉
“You just said there are other factors that paid a key role in climate change that had nothing to do with Automobiles and its exhaust.”
Any chance you have a science background? or not? Because you’re weaseling around on rhetorical whimsey rather than considering all the possibilities.
It said that (in one scientists view) it (recent global warming) was caused by non-CO2 Greenhouse gases.
In order, Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gases (after CO2) are:
methane
nitrous oxide
ozone
CFCs
Do any of those happen to come out of your tail pipe? I bet the first two do, and your tailpipe pollutants contribute to secondary ozone formation.
CO2 is the most abundant greenhouse gas produced by fossil fuel combustion. It is usually measured because it is abundant enough to measure easily.
But CO2 is a weaker gases in terms of absorbing heat energy in the atmosphere. Methane, for instance, is more effective at absorbing heat than is CO2, but methane is present at lower concentrations than CO2.
This is an issue of personal responsibility. What’s the matter with you? Don’t you believe in personal responsibility?
You create waste, you clean up after yourself. Whenever you hear about a spare the air day in the central valley, do you pretend that you had absolutely nothing to do with that?
You’re like my teenage son who looks for excuses to not do anything. [Maybe you are my teenage son!] 😉
“another one: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htm
“Pollution wafting into the USA accounts for 30% of the nation’s ozone, an important component of smog, says researcher David Parrish of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the year 2020, Harvard University’s Daniel Jacob says, imported pollution will be the primary factor degrading visibility in our national parks.””
Hey, dude, thanks for giving us an excuse to avoid this issue so directly and personally! I was, like, feeling really guilty and responsible, but here you’re telling me to chill and go blame China. You’re awesome!
“another one: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htm
“Pollution wafting into the USA accounts for 30% of the nation’s ozone, an important component of smog, says researcher David Parrish of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the year 2020, Harvard University’s Daniel Jacob says, imported pollution will be the primary factor degrading visibility in our national parks.””
Hey, dude, thanks for giving us an excuse to avoid this issue so directly and personally! I was, like, feeling really guilty and responsible, but here you’re telling me to chill and go blame China. You’re awesome!
“another one: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htm
“Pollution wafting into the USA accounts for 30% of the nation’s ozone, an important component of smog, says researcher David Parrish of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the year 2020, Harvard University’s Daniel Jacob says, imported pollution will be the primary factor degrading visibility in our national parks.””
Hey, dude, thanks for giving us an excuse to avoid this issue so directly and personally! I was, like, feeling really guilty and responsible, but here you’re telling me to chill and go blame China. You’re awesome!
“another one: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-pollution-_x.htm
“Pollution wafting into the USA accounts for 30% of the nation’s ozone, an important component of smog, says researcher David Parrish of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the year 2020, Harvard University’s Daniel Jacob says, imported pollution will be the primary factor degrading visibility in our national parks.””
Hey, dude, thanks for giving us an excuse to avoid this issue so directly and personally! I was, like, feeling really guilty and responsible, but here you’re telling me to chill and go blame China. You’re awesome!
Hey, dude, thanks for giving us an excuse to avoid this issue so directly and personally! I was, like, feeling really guilty and responsible, but here you’re telling me to chill and go blame China. You’re awesome!
You never drive a car Chuck/son? Excuse me, but I’m never impressed by liberals who drive cars and feel guilty about it afterwards and continue to drive them anyway.
You think you are doing your part on the environment to drive your car around and feel guilty about it afterwards? You are not doing more about the environment by driving around and feeling guilty, then chastise someone who drives around and doesn’t. If you feel so guilty, then flush the your car keys down a toilet.
Then feel better.
Hey, dude, thanks for giving us an excuse to avoid this issue so directly and personally! I was, like, feeling really guilty and responsible, but here you’re telling me to chill and go blame China. You’re awesome!
You never drive a car Chuck/son? Excuse me, but I’m never impressed by liberals who drive cars and feel guilty about it afterwards and continue to drive them anyway.
You think you are doing your part on the environment to drive your car around and feel guilty about it afterwards? You are not doing more about the environment by driving around and feeling guilty, then chastise someone who drives around and doesn’t. If you feel so guilty, then flush the your car keys down a toilet.
Then feel better.
Hey, dude, thanks for giving us an excuse to avoid this issue so directly and personally! I was, like, feeling really guilty and responsible, but here you’re telling me to chill and go blame China. You’re awesome!
You never drive a car Chuck/son? Excuse me, but I’m never impressed by liberals who drive cars and feel guilty about it afterwards and continue to drive them anyway.
You think you are doing your part on the environment to drive your car around and feel guilty about it afterwards? You are not doing more about the environment by driving around and feeling guilty, then chastise someone who drives around and doesn’t. If you feel so guilty, then flush the your car keys down a toilet.
Then feel better.
Hey, dude, thanks for giving us an excuse to avoid this issue so directly and personally! I was, like, feeling really guilty and responsible, but here you’re telling me to chill and go blame China. You’re awesome!
You never drive a car Chuck/son? Excuse me, but I’m never impressed by liberals who drive cars and feel guilty about it afterwards and continue to drive them anyway.
You think you are doing your part on the environment to drive your car around and feel guilty about it afterwards? You are not doing more about the environment by driving around and feeling guilty, then chastise someone who drives around and doesn’t. If you feel so guilty, then flush the your car keys down a toilet.
Then feel better.
The most productive thing we could do in this country to save the planet is to junk 90% of our environmental laws.
Before you spit-up your tofu, think about it…
We chase businesses out of business with environmental regulations- this is an absolute fact. We take businesses which are 95% “clean” and demand that they go to 99% when it costs millions (sometimes impossible). So they say forget it, outsource the nasty stuff to the folks over in China and India who don’t appear to actually need oxygen to breathe.
I have been to China, I have worked with their steel and energy companies. What they do is as soon as they get American equipment with its nice 95% pollution control equipment is tear it all off to increase productivity. The pollution then blows across the ocean and we breathe the results.
Environmentalists are THE worst thing we have to deal with in this country about the environment. No reasonable company in this country is going to intentionally pollute- its not the 70’s anymore- the public is aware and the pressure is very real.
We have one planet, cleaning up our little piece of it, and dumping it in Asia is insane.
The most productive thing we could do in this country to save the planet is to junk 90% of our environmental laws.
Before you spit-up your tofu, think about it…
We chase businesses out of business with environmental regulations- this is an absolute fact. We take businesses which are 95% “clean” and demand that they go to 99% when it costs millions (sometimes impossible). So they say forget it, outsource the nasty stuff to the folks over in China and India who don’t appear to actually need oxygen to breathe.
I have been to China, I have worked with their steel and energy companies. What they do is as soon as they get American equipment with its nice 95% pollution control equipment is tear it all off to increase productivity. The pollution then blows across the ocean and we breathe the results.
Environmentalists are THE worst thing we have to deal with in this country about the environment. No reasonable company in this country is going to intentionally pollute- its not the 70’s anymore- the public is aware and the pressure is very real.
We have one planet, cleaning up our little piece of it, and dumping it in Asia is insane.
The most productive thing we could do in this country to save the planet is to junk 90% of our environmental laws.
Before you spit-up your tofu, think about it…
We chase businesses out of business with environmental regulations- this is an absolute fact. We take businesses which are 95% “clean” and demand that they go to 99% when it costs millions (sometimes impossible). So they say forget it, outsource the nasty stuff to the folks over in China and India who don’t appear to actually need oxygen to breathe.
I have been to China, I have worked with their steel and energy companies. What they do is as soon as they get American equipment with its nice 95% pollution control equipment is tear it all off to increase productivity. The pollution then blows across the ocean and we breathe the results.
Environmentalists are THE worst thing we have to deal with in this country about the environment. No reasonable company in this country is going to intentionally pollute- its not the 70’s anymore- the public is aware and the pressure is very real.
We have one planet, cleaning up our little piece of it, and dumping it in Asia is insane.
The most productive thing we could do in this country to save the planet is to junk 90% of our environmental laws.
Before you spit-up your tofu, think about it…
We chase businesses out of business with environmental regulations- this is an absolute fact. We take businesses which are 95% “clean” and demand that they go to 99% when it costs millions (sometimes impossible). So they say forget it, outsource the nasty stuff to the folks over in China and India who don’t appear to actually need oxygen to breathe.
I have been to China, I have worked with their steel and energy companies. What they do is as soon as they get American equipment with its nice 95% pollution control equipment is tear it all off to increase productivity. The pollution then blows across the ocean and we breathe the results.
Environmentalists are THE worst thing we have to deal with in this country about the environment. No reasonable company in this country is going to intentionally pollute- its not the 70’s anymore- the public is aware and the pressure is very real.
We have one planet, cleaning up our little piece of it, and dumping it in Asia is insane.
China does not care about being green. They are the biggest problem. I have problems with America ruining the economy so that we get to the 99% clean instead of 95% clean, as Mike Hart says. I personally think America is doing really well on this. Japan probably has the strictest carbon emissions regulations, then I would say the U.S. is on the next tier below that. We need to put pressure on China to change a lot of things – lower carbon emissions, stop jailing dissidents, stop treating animals inhumanely, improve hygiene so we don’t get new fatal strains of bird flu all the time, improve oversight on food manufacturing so that poisons don’t get into pet food and human food, the list goes on. Yeah, I don’t like China very much.
On the topic of green things to do in Davis, I will be first in line to get a Prius when it is available at a reasonable price. I am not going to pay more to be green.
China does not care about being green. They are the biggest problem. I have problems with America ruining the economy so that we get to the 99% clean instead of 95% clean, as Mike Hart says. I personally think America is doing really well on this. Japan probably has the strictest carbon emissions regulations, then I would say the U.S. is on the next tier below that. We need to put pressure on China to change a lot of things – lower carbon emissions, stop jailing dissidents, stop treating animals inhumanely, improve hygiene so we don’t get new fatal strains of bird flu all the time, improve oversight on food manufacturing so that poisons don’t get into pet food and human food, the list goes on. Yeah, I don’t like China very much.
On the topic of green things to do in Davis, I will be first in line to get a Prius when it is available at a reasonable price. I am not going to pay more to be green.
China does not care about being green. They are the biggest problem. I have problems with America ruining the economy so that we get to the 99% clean instead of 95% clean, as Mike Hart says. I personally think America is doing really well on this. Japan probably has the strictest carbon emissions regulations, then I would say the U.S. is on the next tier below that. We need to put pressure on China to change a lot of things – lower carbon emissions, stop jailing dissidents, stop treating animals inhumanely, improve hygiene so we don’t get new fatal strains of bird flu all the time, improve oversight on food manufacturing so that poisons don’t get into pet food and human food, the list goes on. Yeah, I don’t like China very much.
On the topic of green things to do in Davis, I will be first in line to get a Prius when it is available at a reasonable price. I am not going to pay more to be green.
China does not care about being green. They are the biggest problem. I have problems with America ruining the economy so that we get to the 99% clean instead of 95% clean, as Mike Hart says. I personally think America is doing really well on this. Japan probably has the strictest carbon emissions regulations, then I would say the U.S. is on the next tier below that. We need to put pressure on China to change a lot of things – lower carbon emissions, stop jailing dissidents, stop treating animals inhumanely, improve hygiene so we don’t get new fatal strains of bird flu all the time, improve oversight on food manufacturing so that poisons don’t get into pet food and human food, the list goes on. Yeah, I don’t like China very much.
On the topic of green things to do in Davis, I will be first in line to get a Prius when it is available at a reasonable price. I am not going to pay more to be green.
DMG: “There are so many problems with the Target model, but let’s go over a few. Cheap disposable goods that end up taking large amount of energy to produce and they end up in the landfill.”
There is nothing the City of Davis can do to raise or lower internal or regional demand for products you deem “cheap disposable goods.”
If these “terrible” things are not sold in Davis, they will be sold to Davis people outside of town. Or, as is often the case, they will be sold for a slightly higher price by other corporations in Davis.
I recently bought a 20-pack of file-hangars at a Target in Sacramento — I was in Sac on other business — which I needed in my home office. They cost $3.99. I had checked for the same product at Longs (1/2 mile from my house), but at $13.95 I figured I could wait.
Was I destroying our planet by buying them at Target instead of Longs? I don’t think so.
“Production is off-sight. The goods are transported from a long way from here to centralized locations where they are then transported here.”
Keep in mind that a market mechanism is at play in distribution chains. As long as fuel is cheap, the efficiencies in this global system make sense. The very definition of efficiency is delivering the most possible value to the consumer.
If prices for petroleum and other fuels return to the levels they were 6 months ago, it might be inefficient to distribute consumer goods globally.
You might argue that — because of effluents or global warming or other environmental impacts — the full price of burning fossil fuels in shipping, trucking and railroading is not internalized. And therefore, we should place a stiff tax on the consumption or production of fossil fuels, which then would change the economics of global distribution chains.
To that, I say: fine. I am all for it. However, that has to be done at the national or international level. Whether we have a Target in Davis — or we drive to Woodland, Vacaville or Sacramento to get the best possible prices — has no effect on fuel taxes. (Of course, when gas was $4.50 a gallon, it made much less sense to drive out of town to shop.)
“There are harmful economic impacts as well, but in terms of an environmental model, it is the worst possible model.”
Again, if you are going to make this argument, then go the next step and call for a large — $50 per barrel? — tax on oil, in order to make transportation far more expensive, so that proximate production makes economic sense, and of course makes people poorer.
And see if the poor countries of the world go along with your plan.
“Where are most of the products manufactured? Overseas in factories that are environmental hazards on a large number of levels.”
Poor, developing countries — including our own when we were a poor developing country — always have terrible environmental laws. It’s a trade-off: sacrifice the health and well-being of present generations for the advantages of accumulated wealth later generations will enjoy. Our lives today are far easier, far nicer, far wealthier, because many of our grandparents and greatgrandparents worked in filthy factories and mines and on farms with sickening chemicals. Same thing happened in Germany, France, England, Japan, etc.
Yet as societies grow wealthier, they no longer want to make that sacrifice. They start to demand clean air, clean water, better working conditions and so on. I don’t know if there is a single exception to this rule. China today has the most god-awful environmental policies and working conditions. China is still poor, but it is developing. In 20 years or less, China will change. The Chinese people will be sick of being sick.
This happened in Taiwan, which when I was a kid in the 1970s was ground-zero for environmental degradation. The Taiwanese are not so different from the Chinese. Getting rich made them environmentalists and eventually democrats.
“The products themselves are generally not environmentally friendly. You have wasteful packaging that ends up in landfills unless they are recycled.”
The only packaging for the box of file hangars I bought at Target — same as Longs had — was a cardpaper box. I put it in my DWR paper recycler. (Note: I don’t know if it really makes environmental sense to recycle paper products. I just do it because it’s convenient and “I’m supposed to”.) I’ve bought dress shoes in the past at Target, which had no more packaging than shoes which cost 10 times as much at Nordstrom.
“The products themselves are inexpensive, which means they have a limited life, and one needs to purchase more.”
A limited life compared with what? Would file hangars last longer if I bought them at Costco or Longs or at Carousel?
Of course inferior goods won’t last as long. But we all cannot drive a Mercedes. When you have limited resources, you buy some crap because you can only afford crap. That’s life.
DMG: “There are so many problems with the Target model, but let’s go over a few. Cheap disposable goods that end up taking large amount of energy to produce and they end up in the landfill.”
There is nothing the City of Davis can do to raise or lower internal or regional demand for products you deem “cheap disposable goods.”
If these “terrible” things are not sold in Davis, they will be sold to Davis people outside of town. Or, as is often the case, they will be sold for a slightly higher price by other corporations in Davis.
I recently bought a 20-pack of file-hangars at a Target in Sacramento — I was in Sac on other business — which I needed in my home office. They cost $3.99. I had checked for the same product at Longs (1/2 mile from my house), but at $13.95 I figured I could wait.
Was I destroying our planet by buying them at Target instead of Longs? I don’t think so.
“Production is off-sight. The goods are transported from a long way from here to centralized locations where they are then transported here.”
Keep in mind that a market mechanism is at play in distribution chains. As long as fuel is cheap, the efficiencies in this global system make sense. The very definition of efficiency is delivering the most possible value to the consumer.
If prices for petroleum and other fuels return to the levels they were 6 months ago, it might be inefficient to distribute consumer goods globally.
You might argue that — because of effluents or global warming or other environmental impacts — the full price of burning fossil fuels in shipping, trucking and railroading is not internalized. And therefore, we should place a stiff tax on the consumption or production of fossil fuels, which then would change the economics of global distribution chains.
To that, I say: fine. I am all for it. However, that has to be done at the national or international level. Whether we have a Target in Davis — or we drive to Woodland, Vacaville or Sacramento to get the best possible prices — has no effect on fuel taxes. (Of course, when gas was $4.50 a gallon, it made much less sense to drive out of town to shop.)
“There are harmful economic impacts as well, but in terms of an environmental model, it is the worst possible model.”
Again, if you are going to make this argument, then go the next step and call for a large — $50 per barrel? — tax on oil, in order to make transportation far more expensive, so that proximate production makes economic sense, and of course makes people poorer.
And see if the poor countries of the world go along with your plan.
“Where are most of the products manufactured? Overseas in factories that are environmental hazards on a large number of levels.”
Poor, developing countries — including our own when we were a poor developing country — always have terrible environmental laws. It’s a trade-off: sacrifice the health and well-being of present generations for the advantages of accumulated wealth later generations will enjoy. Our lives today are far easier, far nicer, far wealthier, because many of our grandparents and greatgrandparents worked in filthy factories and mines and on farms with sickening chemicals. Same thing happened in Germany, France, England, Japan, etc.
Yet as societies grow wealthier, they no longer want to make that sacrifice. They start to demand clean air, clean water, better working conditions and so on. I don’t know if there is a single exception to this rule. China today has the most god-awful environmental policies and working conditions. China is still poor, but it is developing. In 20 years or less, China will change. The Chinese people will be sick of being sick.
This happened in Taiwan, which when I was a kid in the 1970s was ground-zero for environmental degradation. The Taiwanese are not so different from the Chinese. Getting rich made them environmentalists and eventually democrats.
“The products themselves are generally not environmentally friendly. You have wasteful packaging that ends up in landfills unless they are recycled.”
The only packaging for the box of file hangars I bought at Target — same as Longs had — was a cardpaper box. I put it in my DWR paper recycler. (Note: I don’t know if it really makes environmental sense to recycle paper products. I just do it because it’s convenient and “I’m supposed to”.) I’ve bought dress shoes in the past at Target, which had no more packaging than shoes which cost 10 times as much at Nordstrom.
“The products themselves are inexpensive, which means they have a limited life, and one needs to purchase more.”
A limited life compared with what? Would file hangars last longer if I bought them at Costco or Longs or at Carousel?
Of course inferior goods won’t last as long. But we all cannot drive a Mercedes. When you have limited resources, you buy some crap because you can only afford crap. That’s life.
DMG: “There are so many problems with the Target model, but let’s go over a few. Cheap disposable goods that end up taking large amount of energy to produce and they end up in the landfill.”
There is nothing the City of Davis can do to raise or lower internal or regional demand for products you deem “cheap disposable goods.”
If these “terrible” things are not sold in Davis, they will be sold to Davis people outside of town. Or, as is often the case, they will be sold for a slightly higher price by other corporations in Davis.
I recently bought a 20-pack of file-hangars at a Target in Sacramento — I was in Sac on other business — which I needed in my home office. They cost $3.99. I had checked for the same product at Longs (1/2 mile from my house), but at $13.95 I figured I could wait.
Was I destroying our planet by buying them at Target instead of Longs? I don’t think so.
“Production is off-sight. The goods are transported from a long way from here to centralized locations where they are then transported here.”
Keep in mind that a market mechanism is at play in distribution chains. As long as fuel is cheap, the efficiencies in this global system make sense. The very definition of efficiency is delivering the most possible value to the consumer.
If prices for petroleum and other fuels return to the levels they were 6 months ago, it might be inefficient to distribute consumer goods globally.
You might argue that — because of effluents or global warming or other environmental impacts — the full price of burning fossil fuels in shipping, trucking and railroading is not internalized. And therefore, we should place a stiff tax on the consumption or production of fossil fuels, which then would change the economics of global distribution chains.
To that, I say: fine. I am all for it. However, that has to be done at the national or international level. Whether we have a Target in Davis — or we drive to Woodland, Vacaville or Sacramento to get the best possible prices — has no effect on fuel taxes. (Of course, when gas was $4.50 a gallon, it made much less sense to drive out of town to shop.)
“There are harmful economic impacts as well, but in terms of an environmental model, it is the worst possible model.”
Again, if you are going to make this argument, then go the next step and call for a large — $50 per barrel? — tax on oil, in order to make transportation far more expensive, so that proximate production makes economic sense, and of course makes people poorer.
And see if the poor countries of the world go along with your plan.
“Where are most of the products manufactured? Overseas in factories that are environmental hazards on a large number of levels.”
Poor, developing countries — including our own when we were a poor developing country — always have terrible environmental laws. It’s a trade-off: sacrifice the health and well-being of present generations for the advantages of accumulated wealth later generations will enjoy. Our lives today are far easier, far nicer, far wealthier, because many of our grandparents and greatgrandparents worked in filthy factories and mines and on farms with sickening chemicals. Same thing happened in Germany, France, England, Japan, etc.
Yet as societies grow wealthier, they no longer want to make that sacrifice. They start to demand clean air, clean water, better working conditions and so on. I don’t know if there is a single exception to this rule. China today has the most god-awful environmental policies and working conditions. China is still poor, but it is developing. In 20 years or less, China will change. The Chinese people will be sick of being sick.
This happened in Taiwan, which when I was a kid in the 1970s was ground-zero for environmental degradation. The Taiwanese are not so different from the Chinese. Getting rich made them environmentalists and eventually democrats.
“The products themselves are generally not environmentally friendly. You have wasteful packaging that ends up in landfills unless they are recycled.”
The only packaging for the box of file hangars I bought at Target — same as Longs had — was a cardpaper box. I put it in my DWR paper recycler. (Note: I don’t know if it really makes environmental sense to recycle paper products. I just do it because it’s convenient and “I’m supposed to”.) I’ve bought dress shoes in the past at Target, which had no more packaging than shoes which cost 10 times as much at Nordstrom.
“The products themselves are inexpensive, which means they have a limited life, and one needs to purchase more.”
A limited life compared with what? Would file hangars last longer if I bought them at Costco or Longs or at Carousel?
Of course inferior goods won’t last as long. But we all cannot drive a Mercedes. When you have limited resources, you buy some crap because you can only afford crap. That’s life.
DMG: “There are so many problems with the Target model, but let’s go over a few. Cheap disposable goods that end up taking large amount of energy to produce and they end up in the landfill.”
There is nothing the City of Davis can do to raise or lower internal or regional demand for products you deem “cheap disposable goods.”
If these “terrible” things are not sold in Davis, they will be sold to Davis people outside of town. Or, as is often the case, they will be sold for a slightly higher price by other corporations in Davis.
I recently bought a 20-pack of file-hangars at a Target in Sacramento — I was in Sac on other business — which I needed in my home office. They cost $3.99. I had checked for the same product at Longs (1/2 mile from my house), but at $13.95 I figured I could wait.
Was I destroying our planet by buying them at Target instead of Longs? I don’t think so.
“Production is off-sight. The goods are transported from a long way from here to centralized locations where they are then transported here.”
Keep in mind that a market mechanism is at play in distribution chains. As long as fuel is cheap, the efficiencies in this global system make sense. The very definition of efficiency is delivering the most possible value to the consumer.
If prices for petroleum and other fuels return to the levels they were 6 months ago, it might be inefficient to distribute consumer goods globally.
You might argue that — because of effluents or global warming or other environmental impacts — the full price of burning fossil fuels in shipping, trucking and railroading is not internalized. And therefore, we should place a stiff tax on the consumption or production of fossil fuels, which then would change the economics of global distribution chains.
To that, I say: fine. I am all for it. However, that has to be done at the national or international level. Whether we have a Target in Davis — or we drive to Woodland, Vacaville or Sacramento to get the best possible prices — has no effect on fuel taxes. (Of course, when gas was $4.50 a gallon, it made much less sense to drive out of town to shop.)
“There are harmful economic impacts as well, but in terms of an environmental model, it is the worst possible model.”
Again, if you are going to make this argument, then go the next step and call for a large — $50 per barrel? — tax on oil, in order to make transportation far more expensive, so that proximate production makes economic sense, and of course makes people poorer.
And see if the poor countries of the world go along with your plan.
“Where are most of the products manufactured? Overseas in factories that are environmental hazards on a large number of levels.”
Poor, developing countries — including our own when we were a poor developing country — always have terrible environmental laws. It’s a trade-off: sacrifice the health and well-being of present generations for the advantages of accumulated wealth later generations will enjoy. Our lives today are far easier, far nicer, far wealthier, because many of our grandparents and greatgrandparents worked in filthy factories and mines and on farms with sickening chemicals. Same thing happened in Germany, France, England, Japan, etc.
Yet as societies grow wealthier, they no longer want to make that sacrifice. They start to demand clean air, clean water, better working conditions and so on. I don’t know if there is a single exception to this rule. China today has the most god-awful environmental policies and working conditions. China is still poor, but it is developing. In 20 years or less, China will change. The Chinese people will be sick of being sick.
This happened in Taiwan, which when I was a kid in the 1970s was ground-zero for environmental degradation. The Taiwanese are not so different from the Chinese. Getting rich made them environmentalists and eventually democrats.
“The products themselves are generally not environmentally friendly. You have wasteful packaging that ends up in landfills unless they are recycled.”
The only packaging for the box of file hangars I bought at Target — same as Longs had — was a cardpaper box. I put it in my DWR paper recycler. (Note: I don’t know if it really makes environmental sense to recycle paper products. I just do it because it’s convenient and “I’m supposed to”.) I’ve bought dress shoes in the past at Target, which had no more packaging than shoes which cost 10 times as much at Nordstrom.
“The products themselves are inexpensive, which means they have a limited life, and one needs to purchase more.”
A limited life compared with what? Would file hangars last longer if I bought them at Costco or Longs or at Carousel?
Of course inferior goods won’t last as long. But we all cannot drive a Mercedes. When you have limited resources, you buy some crap because you can only afford crap. That’s life.
“You think you are doing your part on the environment to drive your car around and feel guilty about it afterwards? You are not doing more about the environment by driving around and feeling guilty, then chastise someone who drives around and doesn’t. If you feel so guilty, then flush the your car keys down a toilet.”
Darn! How do you know so much about me?
That’s childish arguing.
“You think you are doing your part on the environment to drive your car around and feel guilty about it afterwards? You are not doing more about the environment by driving around and feeling guilty, then chastise someone who drives around and doesn’t. If you feel so guilty, then flush the your car keys down a toilet.”
Darn! How do you know so much about me?
That’s childish arguing.
“You think you are doing your part on the environment to drive your car around and feel guilty about it afterwards? You are not doing more about the environment by driving around and feeling guilty, then chastise someone who drives around and doesn’t. If you feel so guilty, then flush the your car keys down a toilet.”
Darn! How do you know so much about me?
That’s childish arguing.
“You think you are doing your part on the environment to drive your car around and feel guilty about it afterwards? You are not doing more about the environment by driving around and feeling guilty, then chastise someone who drives around and doesn’t. If you feel so guilty, then flush the your car keys down a toilet.”
Darn! How do you know so much about me?
That’s childish arguing.
“Again, if you are going to make this argument, then go the next step and call for a large — $50 per barrel? — tax on oil, in order to make transportation far more expensive, so that proximate production makes economic sense, and of course makes people poorer.”
In 1980, John Anderson — independent third-party candidate for president — proposed a 50-cent per gallon tax on gasoline. He got 7% of the vote.
“Again, if you are going to make this argument, then go the next step and call for a large — $50 per barrel? — tax on oil, in order to make transportation far more expensive, so that proximate production makes economic sense, and of course makes people poorer.”
In 1980, John Anderson — independent third-party candidate for president — proposed a 50-cent per gallon tax on gasoline. He got 7% of the vote.
“Again, if you are going to make this argument, then go the next step and call for a large — $50 per barrel? — tax on oil, in order to make transportation far more expensive, so that proximate production makes economic sense, and of course makes people poorer.”
In 1980, John Anderson — independent third-party candidate for president — proposed a 50-cent per gallon tax on gasoline. He got 7% of the vote.
“Again, if you are going to make this argument, then go the next step and call for a large — $50 per barrel? — tax on oil, in order to make transportation far more expensive, so that proximate production makes economic sense, and of course makes people poorer.”
In 1980, John Anderson — independent third-party candidate for president — proposed a 50-cent per gallon tax on gasoline. He got 7% of the vote.
On something completely unrelated…. Don Shor, I have a question.
I bought (at our farmer’s market, though not sure where it was grown) an acorn squash last week. I scooped out and air-dried the seeds and yesterday planted them in the sunniest place in my now tomato-free backyard garden. My guess is that it is probably too late in the year to plant these seeds and expect any kind of crop. Is that right?
By the way… for anyone who has never had acorn squash — because you are the type who doesn’t like summer squash — it is excellent. You’ll like it. You can bake it with salt, butter, cinnamon, sugar and nutmeg and it will taste like a very good, yet nutritious dessert. More conventionally, you can go with brown sugar and butter and get a different flavor.
On something completely unrelated…. Don Shor, I have a question.
I bought (at our farmer’s market, though not sure where it was grown) an acorn squash last week. I scooped out and air-dried the seeds and yesterday planted them in the sunniest place in my now tomato-free backyard garden. My guess is that it is probably too late in the year to plant these seeds and expect any kind of crop. Is that right?
By the way… for anyone who has never had acorn squash — because you are the type who doesn’t like summer squash — it is excellent. You’ll like it. You can bake it with salt, butter, cinnamon, sugar and nutmeg and it will taste like a very good, yet nutritious dessert. More conventionally, you can go with brown sugar and butter and get a different flavor.
On something completely unrelated…. Don Shor, I have a question.
I bought (at our farmer’s market, though not sure where it was grown) an acorn squash last week. I scooped out and air-dried the seeds and yesterday planted them in the sunniest place in my now tomato-free backyard garden. My guess is that it is probably too late in the year to plant these seeds and expect any kind of crop. Is that right?
By the way… for anyone who has never had acorn squash — because you are the type who doesn’t like summer squash — it is excellent. You’ll like it. You can bake it with salt, butter, cinnamon, sugar and nutmeg and it will taste like a very good, yet nutritious dessert. More conventionally, you can go with brown sugar and butter and get a different flavor.
On something completely unrelated…. Don Shor, I have a question.
I bought (at our farmer’s market, though not sure where it was grown) an acorn squash last week. I scooped out and air-dried the seeds and yesterday planted them in the sunniest place in my now tomato-free backyard garden. My guess is that it is probably too late in the year to plant these seeds and expect any kind of crop. Is that right?
By the way… for anyone who has never had acorn squash — because you are the type who doesn’t like summer squash — it is excellent. You’ll like it. You can bake it with salt, butter, cinnamon, sugar and nutmeg and it will taste like a very good, yet nutritious dessert. More conventionally, you can go with brown sugar and butter and get a different flavor.
It is too late to plant them for this season; we plant acorn squash and other “winter” squash April – July. But more than likely some of the seed will just lie there in the soil and sprout in April when the ground warms up. People who toss pumpkins and squash into their compost pile often get seedlings the next year, if the seed doesn’t rot over the winter. The seedlings might come true, or be a hybrid, depending on what other squash were growing nearby.
And, to keep this on topic, as Michael Pollan points out:
“Growing food, we forget, comprises the original solar technology: calories produced by means of photosynthesis.”
He goes on to extol the philosophical and practical virtues of vegetable gardening: “Yet the sun still shines down on your yard, and photosynthesis still works so abundantly that in a thoughtfully organized vegetable … you can grow the proverbial free lunch …. This is the most-local food you can possibly eat (not to mention the freshest, tastiest and most nutritious) …What else? Well, you will probably notice that you’re getting a pretty good workout there in your garden, burning calories without having to get into the car to drive to the gym….Also, by engaging both body and mind, time spent in the garden is time (and energy) subtracted from electronic forms of entertainment.”
It is too late to plant them for this season; we plant acorn squash and other “winter” squash April – July. But more than likely some of the seed will just lie there in the soil and sprout in April when the ground warms up. People who toss pumpkins and squash into their compost pile often get seedlings the next year, if the seed doesn’t rot over the winter. The seedlings might come true, or be a hybrid, depending on what other squash were growing nearby.
And, to keep this on topic, as Michael Pollan points out:
“Growing food, we forget, comprises the original solar technology: calories produced by means of photosynthesis.”
He goes on to extol the philosophical and practical virtues of vegetable gardening: “Yet the sun still shines down on your yard, and photosynthesis still works so abundantly that in a thoughtfully organized vegetable … you can grow the proverbial free lunch …. This is the most-local food you can possibly eat (not to mention the freshest, tastiest and most nutritious) …What else? Well, you will probably notice that you’re getting a pretty good workout there in your garden, burning calories without having to get into the car to drive to the gym….Also, by engaging both body and mind, time spent in the garden is time (and energy) subtracted from electronic forms of entertainment.”
It is too late to plant them for this season; we plant acorn squash and other “winter” squash April – July. But more than likely some of the seed will just lie there in the soil and sprout in April when the ground warms up. People who toss pumpkins and squash into their compost pile often get seedlings the next year, if the seed doesn’t rot over the winter. The seedlings might come true, or be a hybrid, depending on what other squash were growing nearby.
And, to keep this on topic, as Michael Pollan points out:
“Growing food, we forget, comprises the original solar technology: calories produced by means of photosynthesis.”
He goes on to extol the philosophical and practical virtues of vegetable gardening: “Yet the sun still shines down on your yard, and photosynthesis still works so abundantly that in a thoughtfully organized vegetable … you can grow the proverbial free lunch …. This is the most-local food you can possibly eat (not to mention the freshest, tastiest and most nutritious) …What else? Well, you will probably notice that you’re getting a pretty good workout there in your garden, burning calories without having to get into the car to drive to the gym….Also, by engaging both body and mind, time spent in the garden is time (and energy) subtracted from electronic forms of entertainment.”
It is too late to plant them for this season; we plant acorn squash and other “winter” squash April – July. But more than likely some of the seed will just lie there in the soil and sprout in April when the ground warms up. People who toss pumpkins and squash into their compost pile often get seedlings the next year, if the seed doesn’t rot over the winter. The seedlings might come true, or be a hybrid, depending on what other squash were growing nearby.
And, to keep this on topic, as Michael Pollan points out:
“Growing food, we forget, comprises the original solar technology: calories produced by means of photosynthesis.”
He goes on to extol the philosophical and practical virtues of vegetable gardening: “Yet the sun still shines down on your yard, and photosynthesis still works so abundantly that in a thoughtfully organized vegetable … you can grow the proverbial free lunch …. This is the most-local food you can possibly eat (not to mention the freshest, tastiest and most nutritious) …What else? Well, you will probably notice that you’re getting a pretty good workout there in your garden, burning calories without having to get into the car to drive to the gym….Also, by engaging both body and mind, time spent in the garden is time (and energy) subtracted from electronic forms of entertainment.”
Thanks, Don.
Thanks, Don.
Thanks, Don.
Thanks, Don.
Rich:
My comcast has been out all day and so I couldn’t respond until now. Just wanted to hit on one point:
“Was I destroying our planet by buying them at Target instead of Longs?”
This gets at the problem of collective action and free riding. The simple answer is: no, you personally were not. Your individual contribution to most pollution and waste is negligible. But the real question is whether a series of independent decisions, individually in the rational self-interest of the individual decision-maker, collectively produces a less-than-desirable outcome. There the answer is yes. But the economic free market is not set up well to handle collective action problems and so you need government direction and enforcement to bring about those type of changes.
Rich:
My comcast has been out all day and so I couldn’t respond until now. Just wanted to hit on one point:
“Was I destroying our planet by buying them at Target instead of Longs?”
This gets at the problem of collective action and free riding. The simple answer is: no, you personally were not. Your individual contribution to most pollution and waste is negligible. But the real question is whether a series of independent decisions, individually in the rational self-interest of the individual decision-maker, collectively produces a less-than-desirable outcome. There the answer is yes. But the economic free market is not set up well to handle collective action problems and so you need government direction and enforcement to bring about those type of changes.
Rich:
My comcast has been out all day and so I couldn’t respond until now. Just wanted to hit on one point:
“Was I destroying our planet by buying them at Target instead of Longs?”
This gets at the problem of collective action and free riding. The simple answer is: no, you personally were not. Your individual contribution to most pollution and waste is negligible. But the real question is whether a series of independent decisions, individually in the rational self-interest of the individual decision-maker, collectively produces a less-than-desirable outcome. There the answer is yes. But the economic free market is not set up well to handle collective action problems and so you need government direction and enforcement to bring about those type of changes.
Rich:
My comcast has been out all day and so I couldn’t respond until now. Just wanted to hit on one point:
“Was I destroying our planet by buying them at Target instead of Longs?”
This gets at the problem of collective action and free riding. The simple answer is: no, you personally were not. Your individual contribution to most pollution and waste is negligible. But the real question is whether a series of independent decisions, individually in the rational self-interest of the individual decision-maker, collectively produces a less-than-desirable outcome. There the answer is yes. But the economic free market is not set up well to handle collective action problems and so you need government direction and enforcement to bring about those type of changes.
To the person who asked if I would give up my car:
I would love to give up my car. When I lived in DC, I didn’t own a car. I took the metro everywhere. If we had a system like that, I would do the same here. As it is, I often do not drive. Also, I don’t think you’d want my car.
To the person who asked if I would give up my car:
I would love to give up my car. When I lived in DC, I didn’t own a car. I took the metro everywhere. If we had a system like that, I would do the same here. As it is, I often do not drive. Also, I don’t think you’d want my car.
To the person who asked if I would give up my car:
I would love to give up my car. When I lived in DC, I didn’t own a car. I took the metro everywhere. If we had a system like that, I would do the same here. As it is, I often do not drive. Also, I don’t think you’d want my car.
To the person who asked if I would give up my car:
I would love to give up my car. When I lived in DC, I didn’t own a car. I took the metro everywhere. If we had a system like that, I would do the same here. As it is, I often do not drive. Also, I don’t think you’d want my car.
One final point:
“The largest polluter in the world is not the US, its China”
There seems to be a conflating of polluter and greenhouse producer. When we speak of global warming, we are speaking of the latter not the former.
Regardless, I think the answer is the same. First, the US needs to get their house in order. Second, the US needs to get the green technology down. And only then can the US work on India and China from the moral standpoint of setting the example before dictating and from the practicality standpoint of being able to offer solutions.
One final point:
“The largest polluter in the world is not the US, its China”
There seems to be a conflating of polluter and greenhouse producer. When we speak of global warming, we are speaking of the latter not the former.
Regardless, I think the answer is the same. First, the US needs to get their house in order. Second, the US needs to get the green technology down. And only then can the US work on India and China from the moral standpoint of setting the example before dictating and from the practicality standpoint of being able to offer solutions.
One final point:
“The largest polluter in the world is not the US, its China”
There seems to be a conflating of polluter and greenhouse producer. When we speak of global warming, we are speaking of the latter not the former.
Regardless, I think the answer is the same. First, the US needs to get their house in order. Second, the US needs to get the green technology down. And only then can the US work on India and China from the moral standpoint of setting the example before dictating and from the practicality standpoint of being able to offer solutions.
One final point:
“The largest polluter in the world is not the US, its China”
There seems to be a conflating of polluter and greenhouse producer. When we speak of global warming, we are speaking of the latter not the former.
Regardless, I think the answer is the same. First, the US needs to get their house in order. Second, the US needs to get the green technology down. And only then can the US work on India and China from the moral standpoint of setting the example before dictating and from the practicality standpoint of being able to offer solutions.
Gee, and I thought my SUV caused it all! I had no idea!! Does that mean I can keep my Hummer?
If you’ve got the money to survive the next spike in oil prices, then my hat’s off to you.
Personally, I’m looking around for a higher mileage car than what I have.
Gee, and I thought my SUV caused it all! I had no idea!! Does that mean I can keep my Hummer?
If you’ve got the money to survive the next spike in oil prices, then my hat’s off to you.
Personally, I’m looking around for a higher mileage car than what I have.
Gee, and I thought my SUV caused it all! I had no idea!! Does that mean I can keep my Hummer?
If you’ve got the money to survive the next spike in oil prices, then my hat’s off to you.
Personally, I’m looking around for a higher mileage car than what I have.
Gee, and I thought my SUV caused it all! I had no idea!! Does that mean I can keep my Hummer?
If you’ve got the money to survive the next spike in oil prices, then my hat’s off to you.
Personally, I’m looking around for a higher mileage car than what I have.
“But the economic free market is not set up well to handle collective action problems and so you need government direction and enforcement to bring about those type of changes.”
I don’t think you answered Rich’s points. How does it solve anything to ban Target in Davis? The same “collective action” problem will exist, maybe it will be worse, in this region if Target is located in Vacaville or Woodland.
You appear to be prejudiced against Target, so don’t shop there. I like that store. My husband and kids like that store. We will save driving hundreds of miles a year having it so close. With all the money we save, we can afford to put solar on our roof, buy a prius and plant an organic vegetable garden. Thank you, Target.
“But the economic free market is not set up well to handle collective action problems and so you need government direction and enforcement to bring about those type of changes.”
I don’t think you answered Rich’s points. How does it solve anything to ban Target in Davis? The same “collective action” problem will exist, maybe it will be worse, in this region if Target is located in Vacaville or Woodland.
You appear to be prejudiced against Target, so don’t shop there. I like that store. My husband and kids like that store. We will save driving hundreds of miles a year having it so close. With all the money we save, we can afford to put solar on our roof, buy a prius and plant an organic vegetable garden. Thank you, Target.
“But the economic free market is not set up well to handle collective action problems and so you need government direction and enforcement to bring about those type of changes.”
I don’t think you answered Rich’s points. How does it solve anything to ban Target in Davis? The same “collective action” problem will exist, maybe it will be worse, in this region if Target is located in Vacaville or Woodland.
You appear to be prejudiced against Target, so don’t shop there. I like that store. My husband and kids like that store. We will save driving hundreds of miles a year having it so close. With all the money we save, we can afford to put solar on our roof, buy a prius and plant an organic vegetable garden. Thank you, Target.
“But the economic free market is not set up well to handle collective action problems and so you need government direction and enforcement to bring about those type of changes.”
I don’t think you answered Rich’s points. How does it solve anything to ban Target in Davis? The same “collective action” problem will exist, maybe it will be worse, in this region if Target is located in Vacaville or Woodland.
You appear to be prejudiced against Target, so don’t shop there. I like that store. My husband and kids like that store. We will save driving hundreds of miles a year having it so close. With all the money we save, we can afford to put solar on our roof, buy a prius and plant an organic vegetable garden. Thank you, Target.
It’s the same basic concept. Davis alone banning Target and stores like Target does nothing. The individual decision does not make an impact. Rather it is the collection of all individually rational decisions (in this case communities allow Target since they provide cheap goods and local taxes) that produces a collectively undesirable outcome (the proliferation of unsustainable business practices for a global environment).
It’s the same basic concept. Davis alone banning Target and stores like Target does nothing. The individual decision does not make an impact. Rather it is the collection of all individually rational decisions (in this case communities allow Target since they provide cheap goods and local taxes) that produces a collectively undesirable outcome (the proliferation of unsustainable business practices for a global environment).
It’s the same basic concept. Davis alone banning Target and stores like Target does nothing. The individual decision does not make an impact. Rather it is the collection of all individually rational decisions (in this case communities allow Target since they provide cheap goods and local taxes) that produces a collectively undesirable outcome (the proliferation of unsustainable business practices for a global environment).
It’s the same basic concept. Davis alone banning Target and stores like Target does nothing. The individual decision does not make an impact. Rather it is the collection of all individually rational decisions (in this case communities allow Target since they provide cheap goods and local taxes) that produces a collectively undesirable outcome (the proliferation of unsustainable business practices for a global environment).
“There seems to be a conflating of polluter and greenhouse producer. When we speak of global warming, we are speaking of the latter not the former.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/20/business/emit.php
yes, and the latter is worse in China, and they don’t own SUV’s
“There seems to be a conflating of polluter and greenhouse producer. When we speak of global warming, we are speaking of the latter not the former.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/20/business/emit.php
yes, and the latter is worse in China, and they don’t own SUV’s
“There seems to be a conflating of polluter and greenhouse producer. When we speak of global warming, we are speaking of the latter not the former.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/20/business/emit.php
yes, and the latter is worse in China, and they don’t own SUV’s
“There seems to be a conflating of polluter and greenhouse producer. When we speak of global warming, we are speaking of the latter not the former.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/20/business/emit.php
yes, and the latter is worse in China, and they don’t own SUV’s
So is your point that China should bear the entire burden and we should do nothing?
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is going to take work all around the world. That includes China, India and the EU, but also includes the United States.
DPD makes a good point that we will have a hard time convincing others to act when we won’t act ourselves.
So is your point that China should bear the entire burden and we should do nothing?
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is going to take work all around the world. That includes China, India and the EU, but also includes the United States.
DPD makes a good point that we will have a hard time convincing others to act when we won’t act ourselves.
So is your point that China should bear the entire burden and we should do nothing?
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is going to take work all around the world. That includes China, India and the EU, but also includes the United States.
DPD makes a good point that we will have a hard time convincing others to act when we won’t act ourselves.
So is your point that China should bear the entire burden and we should do nothing?
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is going to take work all around the world. That includes China, India and the EU, but also includes the United States.
DPD makes a good point that we will have a hard time convincing others to act when we won’t act ourselves.
DPD
carbon neutrality is a human rights issue. the environment is a human rights issue. just cause china is the largest polluter doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have to change our ways.
we must change our ways. we must be carbon neutral. we must pave the way for other communities to follow
DPD
carbon neutrality is a human rights issue. the environment is a human rights issue. just cause china is the largest polluter doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have to change our ways.
we must change our ways. we must be carbon neutral. we must pave the way for other communities to follow
DPD
carbon neutrality is a human rights issue. the environment is a human rights issue. just cause china is the largest polluter doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have to change our ways.
we must change our ways. we must be carbon neutral. we must pave the way for other communities to follow
DPD
carbon neutrality is a human rights issue. the environment is a human rights issue. just cause china is the largest polluter doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have to change our ways.
we must change our ways. we must be carbon neutral. we must pave the way for other communities to follow
“carbon neutrality is a human rights issue.”
Define human rights.
“carbon neutrality is a human rights issue.”
Define human rights.
“carbon neutrality is a human rights issue.”
Define human rights.
“carbon neutrality is a human rights issue.”
Define human rights.
“yes, and the latter is worse in China, and they don’t own SUV’s”
You’re not adjusting for population differences. On a per capita basis, it’s worse in the US. China has a billion more people than the US, over four times the population. So yes, in absolute terms, China has passed the US. But each person in the US has a far bigger impact on global warming than each person in China. So yes, it does matter that they don’t have SUVs.
However, the larger point still stands. If we want to convince the Chinese to cut back on carbon emissions, we have to lead the way. And on a person-by-person basis we are still the biggest culprits.
“yes, and the latter is worse in China, and they don’t own SUV’s”
You’re not adjusting for population differences. On a per capita basis, it’s worse in the US. China has a billion more people than the US, over four times the population. So yes, in absolute terms, China has passed the US. But each person in the US has a far bigger impact on global warming than each person in China. So yes, it does matter that they don’t have SUVs.
However, the larger point still stands. If we want to convince the Chinese to cut back on carbon emissions, we have to lead the way. And on a person-by-person basis we are still the biggest culprits.
“yes, and the latter is worse in China, and they don’t own SUV’s”
You’re not adjusting for population differences. On a per capita basis, it’s worse in the US. China has a billion more people than the US, over four times the population. So yes, in absolute terms, China has passed the US. But each person in the US has a far bigger impact on global warming than each person in China. So yes, it does matter that they don’t have SUVs.
However, the larger point still stands. If we want to convince the Chinese to cut back on carbon emissions, we have to lead the way. And on a person-by-person basis we are still the biggest culprits.
“yes, and the latter is worse in China, and they don’t own SUV’s”
You’re not adjusting for population differences. On a per capita basis, it’s worse in the US. China has a billion more people than the US, over four times the population. So yes, in absolute terms, China has passed the US. But each person in the US has a far bigger impact on global warming than each person in China. So yes, it does matter that they don’t have SUVs.
However, the larger point still stands. If we want to convince the Chinese to cut back on carbon emissions, we have to lead the way. And on a person-by-person basis we are still the biggest culprits.
Just in case you are not following me here and do not see why the per capita use is so important, here’s an analogy.
Let’s say I have a two person household and you have an eight person household. Despite the large number of people in your household, you only use a small amount more energy per month than I do.
You are using a large amount of energy because you are large, I’m using it because I’m being wasteful and inefficient.
So if we had to cutback on usage, I’d have a much easier time than you would.
India and China, combined have over one-third of the earth’s population. The US has about 4.5% in comparison. And yet, the US produces over half the amount of greenhouse gas of those two countries combined.
So in one sense, yes, any commitment to reduce greenhouse gases has to look toward India and China, but in another sense, we’re really a far bigger culprit as are other advanced industrial countries.
Just in case you are not following me here and do not see why the per capita use is so important, here’s an analogy.
Let’s say I have a two person household and you have an eight person household. Despite the large number of people in your household, you only use a small amount more energy per month than I do.
You are using a large amount of energy because you are large, I’m using it because I’m being wasteful and inefficient.
So if we had to cutback on usage, I’d have a much easier time than you would.
India and China, combined have over one-third of the earth’s population. The US has about 4.5% in comparison. And yet, the US produces over half the amount of greenhouse gas of those two countries combined.
So in one sense, yes, any commitment to reduce greenhouse gases has to look toward India and China, but in another sense, we’re really a far bigger culprit as are other advanced industrial countries.
Just in case you are not following me here and do not see why the per capita use is so important, here’s an analogy.
Let’s say I have a two person household and you have an eight person household. Despite the large number of people in your household, you only use a small amount more energy per month than I do.
You are using a large amount of energy because you are large, I’m using it because I’m being wasteful and inefficient.
So if we had to cutback on usage, I’d have a much easier time than you would.
India and China, combined have over one-third of the earth’s population. The US has about 4.5% in comparison. And yet, the US produces over half the amount of greenhouse gas of those two countries combined.
So in one sense, yes, any commitment to reduce greenhouse gases has to look toward India and China, but in another sense, we’re really a far bigger culprit as are other advanced industrial countries.
Just in case you are not following me here and do not see why the per capita use is so important, here’s an analogy.
Let’s say I have a two person household and you have an eight person household. Despite the large number of people in your household, you only use a small amount more energy per month than I do.
You are using a large amount of energy because you are large, I’m using it because I’m being wasteful and inefficient.
So if we had to cutback on usage, I’d have a much easier time than you would.
India and China, combined have over one-third of the earth’s population. The US has about 4.5% in comparison. And yet, the US produces over half the amount of greenhouse gas of those two countries combined.
So in one sense, yes, any commitment to reduce greenhouse gases has to look toward India and China, but in another sense, we’re really a far bigger culprit as are other advanced industrial countries.
“We will save driving hundreds of miles a year having it so close.”
The Woodland Target is 10 – 12 miles away from most parts of Davis. The Davis Target will be 5 miles away from anything west of 113. How many times a year do you go to Target?
“How does it solve anything to ban Target in Davis?”
A Target store that was within the Davis store size limits (30,000 sq. ft.), located in one of the existing shopping centers, would have little impact on shopping patterns, on the vitality of downtown and the neighborhood shopping centers, or on gas usage. A “big box” Target located on the edge of town will adversely affect all of those.
Retailers can expect a loss of business of 30% or more when Target opens. Some will go out of business. That includes locally owned as well as existing chain stores.
Let’s assume, hypothetically, that Longs and RiteAid each closes one of their stores, that Radio Shack closes, and that downtown bookstores or toy stores close. The local residents who prefer to shop there will now have to drive further to buy goods. They’ll have to drive to the edge of town, rather than downtown or to the local neighborhood center.
It is normal for small retailers to come and go. What happens when the big box store opens is that it curtails future competition in many categories. The hardware store may hang on for a few years when a Home Depot opens, but when it finally closes nobody is ever going to open another one.
As each store closes, the downtown or the neighborhood center gets less traffic. In a tough retail environment, you end up with retail vacancies and all the adjoining merchants suffer. The result is blight.
Retail vacancies along the Hwy 50 corridor were at 15% a couple of months ago. Shopping centers in Vacaville have high vacancy rates. The Woodland Mall is struggling as a direct result of big box planning decisions. Davis already has two seriously struggling neighborhood centers.
2009 looks like a “perfect storm” for retailers in Davis. Target will open just as the economy is in full recession, the housing market has crashed, and the major local employer (state) is facing cutbacks.
“We will save driving hundreds of miles a year having it so close.”
The Woodland Target is 10 – 12 miles away from most parts of Davis. The Davis Target will be 5 miles away from anything west of 113. How many times a year do you go to Target?
“How does it solve anything to ban Target in Davis?”
A Target store that was within the Davis store size limits (30,000 sq. ft.), located in one of the existing shopping centers, would have little impact on shopping patterns, on the vitality of downtown and the neighborhood shopping centers, or on gas usage. A “big box” Target located on the edge of town will adversely affect all of those.
Retailers can expect a loss of business of 30% or more when Target opens. Some will go out of business. That includes locally owned as well as existing chain stores.
Let’s assume, hypothetically, that Longs and RiteAid each closes one of their stores, that Radio Shack closes, and that downtown bookstores or toy stores close. The local residents who prefer to shop there will now have to drive further to buy goods. They’ll have to drive to the edge of town, rather than downtown or to the local neighborhood center.
It is normal for small retailers to come and go. What happens when the big box store opens is that it curtails future competition in many categories. The hardware store may hang on for a few years when a Home Depot opens, but when it finally closes nobody is ever going to open another one.
As each store closes, the downtown or the neighborhood center gets less traffic. In a tough retail environment, you end up with retail vacancies and all the adjoining merchants suffer. The result is blight.
Retail vacancies along the Hwy 50 corridor were at 15% a couple of months ago. Shopping centers in Vacaville have high vacancy rates. The Woodland Mall is struggling as a direct result of big box planning decisions. Davis already has two seriously struggling neighborhood centers.
2009 looks like a “perfect storm” for retailers in Davis. Target will open just as the economy is in full recession, the housing market has crashed, and the major local employer (state) is facing cutbacks.
“We will save driving hundreds of miles a year having it so close.”
The Woodland Target is 10 – 12 miles away from most parts of Davis. The Davis Target will be 5 miles away from anything west of 113. How many times a year do you go to Target?
“How does it solve anything to ban Target in Davis?”
A Target store that was within the Davis store size limits (30,000 sq. ft.), located in one of the existing shopping centers, would have little impact on shopping patterns, on the vitality of downtown and the neighborhood shopping centers, or on gas usage. A “big box” Target located on the edge of town will adversely affect all of those.
Retailers can expect a loss of business of 30% or more when Target opens. Some will go out of business. That includes locally owned as well as existing chain stores.
Let’s assume, hypothetically, that Longs and RiteAid each closes one of their stores, that Radio Shack closes, and that downtown bookstores or toy stores close. The local residents who prefer to shop there will now have to drive further to buy goods. They’ll have to drive to the edge of town, rather than downtown or to the local neighborhood center.
It is normal for small retailers to come and go. What happens when the big box store opens is that it curtails future competition in many categories. The hardware store may hang on for a few years when a Home Depot opens, but when it finally closes nobody is ever going to open another one.
As each store closes, the downtown or the neighborhood center gets less traffic. In a tough retail environment, you end up with retail vacancies and all the adjoining merchants suffer. The result is blight.
Retail vacancies along the Hwy 50 corridor were at 15% a couple of months ago. Shopping centers in Vacaville have high vacancy rates. The Woodland Mall is struggling as a direct result of big box planning decisions. Davis already has two seriously struggling neighborhood centers.
2009 looks like a “perfect storm” for retailers in Davis. Target will open just as the economy is in full recession, the housing market has crashed, and the major local employer (state) is facing cutbacks.
“We will save driving hundreds of miles a year having it so close.”
The Woodland Target is 10 – 12 miles away from most parts of Davis. The Davis Target will be 5 miles away from anything west of 113. How many times a year do you go to Target?
“How does it solve anything to ban Target in Davis?”
A Target store that was within the Davis store size limits (30,000 sq. ft.), located in one of the existing shopping centers, would have little impact on shopping patterns, on the vitality of downtown and the neighborhood shopping centers, or on gas usage. A “big box” Target located on the edge of town will adversely affect all of those.
Retailers can expect a loss of business of 30% or more when Target opens. Some will go out of business. That includes locally owned as well as existing chain stores.
Let’s assume, hypothetically, that Longs and RiteAid each closes one of their stores, that Radio Shack closes, and that downtown bookstores or toy stores close. The local residents who prefer to shop there will now have to drive further to buy goods. They’ll have to drive to the edge of town, rather than downtown or to the local neighborhood center.
It is normal for small retailers to come and go. What happens when the big box store opens is that it curtails future competition in many categories. The hardware store may hang on for a few years when a Home Depot opens, but when it finally closes nobody is ever going to open another one.
As each store closes, the downtown or the neighborhood center gets less traffic. In a tough retail environment, you end up with retail vacancies and all the adjoining merchants suffer. The result is blight.
Retail vacancies along the Hwy 50 corridor were at 15% a couple of months ago. Shopping centers in Vacaville have high vacancy rates. The Woodland Mall is struggling as a direct result of big box planning decisions. Davis already has two seriously struggling neighborhood centers.
2009 looks like a “perfect storm” for retailers in Davis. Target will open just as the economy is in full recession, the housing market has crashed, and the major local employer (state) is facing cutbacks.
The Woodland Target is 10 – 12 miles away from most parts of Davis. The Davis Target will be 5 miles away from anything west of 113. How many times a year do you go to Target?
Quite frankly don, I will make sure to go to it as often as I can to make sure they feel supported in this town. I want to make it clear to you people that you are not going to force me to have my life revolve around a downtown that few people shop at.
The Woodland Target is 10 – 12 miles away from most parts of Davis. The Davis Target will be 5 miles away from anything west of 113. How many times a year do you go to Target?
Quite frankly don, I will make sure to go to it as often as I can to make sure they feel supported in this town. I want to make it clear to you people that you are not going to force me to have my life revolve around a downtown that few people shop at.
The Woodland Target is 10 – 12 miles away from most parts of Davis. The Davis Target will be 5 miles away from anything west of 113. How many times a year do you go to Target?
Quite frankly don, I will make sure to go to it as often as I can to make sure they feel supported in this town. I want to make it clear to you people that you are not going to force me to have my life revolve around a downtown that few people shop at.
The Woodland Target is 10 – 12 miles away from most parts of Davis. The Davis Target will be 5 miles away from anything west of 113. How many times a year do you go to Target?
Quite frankly don, I will make sure to go to it as often as I can to make sure they feel supported in this town. I want to make it clear to you people that you are not going to force me to have my life revolve around a downtown that few people shop at.
“I want to make it clear to you people that you are not going to force me to have my life revolve around a downtown that few people shop at. “
By the same token, the world does not revolve around your shopping. You’re going to have to change your lifestyle if you want your children and grandchildren to continue to enjoy prosperity.
“I want to make it clear to you people that you are not going to force me to have my life revolve around a downtown that few people shop at. “
By the same token, the world does not revolve around your shopping. You’re going to have to change your lifestyle if you want your children and grandchildren to continue to enjoy prosperity.
“I want to make it clear to you people that you are not going to force me to have my life revolve around a downtown that few people shop at. “
By the same token, the world does not revolve around your shopping. You’re going to have to change your lifestyle if you want your children and grandchildren to continue to enjoy prosperity.
“I want to make it clear to you people that you are not going to force me to have my life revolve around a downtown that few people shop at. “
By the same token, the world does not revolve around your shopping. You’re going to have to change your lifestyle if you want your children and grandchildren to continue to enjoy prosperity.
then again the earth doesn’t exactly revolve around second street crossing or woodland either
then again the earth doesn’t exactly revolve around second street crossing or woodland either
then again the earth doesn’t exactly revolve around second street crossing or woodland either
then again the earth doesn’t exactly revolve around second street crossing or woodland either
I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.
And those 30 “cool” years were warmer than just about every year before 1935. A high point of 1878 may have peaked above ~1946 low point, but that’s it. When you look at the whole data set, from 1860 to the present, it’s a warming trend.
A good book to explain the IPCC report in lay terms is Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming. For a recent full color paperback book, it’s a good deal.
I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.
And those 30 “cool” years were warmer than just about every year before 1935. A high point of 1878 may have peaked above ~1946 low point, but that’s it. When you look at the whole data set, from 1860 to the present, it’s a warming trend.
A good book to explain the IPCC report in lay terms is Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming. For a recent full color paperback book, it’s a good deal.
I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.
And those 30 “cool” years were warmer than just about every year before 1935. A high point of 1878 may have peaked above ~1946 low point, but that’s it. When you look at the whole data set, from 1860 to the present, it’s a warming trend.
A good book to explain the IPCC report in lay terms is Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming. For a recent full color paperback book, it’s a good deal.
I will say this again. There was a period of 30 years from about 1940-1970 where the earths temp went down. If you are trying to say fossil fuels causes earth temps. to rise, then given the length of time fossil fuels have been around vs. a 30 year margin of error, you are looking at a margin of error of about 30 percentage points or more in the global warming theory.
And those 30 “cool” years were warmer than just about every year before 1935. A high point of 1878 may have peaked above ~1946 low point, but that’s it. When you look at the whole data set, from 1860 to the present, it’s a warming trend.
A good book to explain the IPCC report in lay terms is Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming. For a recent full color paperback book, it’s a good deal.
Good point, if you look at the wikipedia page on global warming, you see the graph and that thirty year period you see on the larger scale was an aberration.
Here’s the graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Show me that the period 1940 to 1970 really stands out as supporting a global cooling theory.
Good point, if you look at the wikipedia page on global warming, you see the graph and that thirty year period you see on the larger scale was an aberration.
Here’s the graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Show me that the period 1940 to 1970 really stands out as supporting a global cooling theory.
Good point, if you look at the wikipedia page on global warming, you see the graph and that thirty year period you see on the larger scale was an aberration.
Here’s the graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Show me that the period 1940 to 1970 really stands out as supporting a global cooling theory.
Good point, if you look at the wikipedia page on global warming, you see the graph and that thirty year period you see on the larger scale was an aberration.
Here’s the graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Show me that the period 1940 to 1970 really stands out as supporting a global cooling theory.
Here’s the graph.
Here’s the graph.
Here’s the graph.
Here’s the graph.
“Show me that the period 1940 to 1970 really stands out as supporting a global cooling theory.”
There is just not enough data over a significant period of years to prove anything one way or the other. “Global warming” is nothing but a unproven theory or supposition. Read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear”, which does a lot of good research on the subject.
That said, cutting donw on polution is normally a good thing, as long as it is not a case of “diminishing returns”, where millions or billions of dollars are spent to reduce pollution by a relatively insignificant amount.
Remember, the City Council voted to ban the city selling water in plastic bottles, only to sell it in styrofoam cups. Catch my drift?
“Show me that the period 1940 to 1970 really stands out as supporting a global cooling theory.”
There is just not enough data over a significant period of years to prove anything one way or the other. “Global warming” is nothing but a unproven theory or supposition. Read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear”, which does a lot of good research on the subject.
That said, cutting donw on polution is normally a good thing, as long as it is not a case of “diminishing returns”, where millions or billions of dollars are spent to reduce pollution by a relatively insignificant amount.
Remember, the City Council voted to ban the city selling water in plastic bottles, only to sell it in styrofoam cups. Catch my drift?
“Show me that the period 1940 to 1970 really stands out as supporting a global cooling theory.”
There is just not enough data over a significant period of years to prove anything one way or the other. “Global warming” is nothing but a unproven theory or supposition. Read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear”, which does a lot of good research on the subject.
That said, cutting donw on polution is normally a good thing, as long as it is not a case of “diminishing returns”, where millions or billions of dollars are spent to reduce pollution by a relatively insignificant amount.
Remember, the City Council voted to ban the city selling water in plastic bottles, only to sell it in styrofoam cups. Catch my drift?
“Show me that the period 1940 to 1970 really stands out as supporting a global cooling theory.”
There is just not enough data over a significant period of years to prove anything one way or the other. “Global warming” is nothing but a unproven theory or supposition. Read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear”, which does a lot of good research on the subject.
That said, cutting donw on polution is normally a good thing, as long as it is not a case of “diminishing returns”, where millions or billions of dollars are spent to reduce pollution by a relatively insignificant amount.
Remember, the City Council voted to ban the city selling water in plastic bottles, only to sell it in styrofoam cups. Catch my drift?
“”Global warming” is nothing but a unproven theory or supposition. “
Obviously you are not a person of science. First of all, you misunderstand what the nature of a scientific theory is. Second, proofs are only used in mathematics. You do not prove a theory. Evidence emerges that can support a theory, can lead to it’s modification, or can be evidence to disconfirm the theory. At this point, I would argue there is enough evidence across a variety of sciences to work to mitigate the effects of global warming. If you wait 50 years to be more certain, it would be too late to alter our current trajectory. Given the severity of the impacts, it would be prudent to take action now.
“”Global warming” is nothing but a unproven theory or supposition. “
Obviously you are not a person of science. First of all, you misunderstand what the nature of a scientific theory is. Second, proofs are only used in mathematics. You do not prove a theory. Evidence emerges that can support a theory, can lead to it’s modification, or can be evidence to disconfirm the theory. At this point, I would argue there is enough evidence across a variety of sciences to work to mitigate the effects of global warming. If you wait 50 years to be more certain, it would be too late to alter our current trajectory. Given the severity of the impacts, it would be prudent to take action now.
“”Global warming” is nothing but a unproven theory or supposition. “
Obviously you are not a person of science. First of all, you misunderstand what the nature of a scientific theory is. Second, proofs are only used in mathematics. You do not prove a theory. Evidence emerges that can support a theory, can lead to it’s modification, or can be evidence to disconfirm the theory. At this point, I would argue there is enough evidence across a variety of sciences to work to mitigate the effects of global warming. If you wait 50 years to be more certain, it would be too late to alter our current trajectory. Given the severity of the impacts, it would be prudent to take action now.
“”Global warming” is nothing but a unproven theory or supposition. “
Obviously you are not a person of science. First of all, you misunderstand what the nature of a scientific theory is. Second, proofs are only used in mathematics. You do not prove a theory. Evidence emerges that can support a theory, can lead to it’s modification, or can be evidence to disconfirm the theory. At this point, I would argue there is enough evidence across a variety of sciences to work to mitigate the effects of global warming. If you wait 50 years to be more certain, it would be too late to alter our current trajectory. Given the severity of the impacts, it would be prudent to take action now.
“Read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear”, which does a lot of good research on the subject.”
How are you able to judge the quality of that research?
And second, the book you cite is a work of science fiction. Why should we give heavy credibility to what is acknowledged to be science fiction?
“Read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear”, which does a lot of good research on the subject.”
How are you able to judge the quality of that research?
And second, the book you cite is a work of science fiction. Why should we give heavy credibility to what is acknowledged to be science fiction?
“Read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear”, which does a lot of good research on the subject.”
How are you able to judge the quality of that research?
And second, the book you cite is a work of science fiction. Why should we give heavy credibility to what is acknowledged to be science fiction?
“Read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear”, which does a lot of good research on the subject.”
How are you able to judge the quality of that research?
And second, the book you cite is a work of science fiction. Why should we give heavy credibility to what is acknowledged to be science fiction?
The Union of Concerned Scientists devotes a webpage of commentary/response to Crichton’s “State of Fear”. You might find it interesting reading.
The Union of Concerned Scientists devotes a webpage of commentary/response to Crichton’s “State of Fear”. You might find it interesting reading.
The Union of Concerned Scientists devotes a webpage of commentary/response to Crichton’s “State of Fear”. You might find it interesting reading.
The Union of Concerned Scientists devotes a webpage of commentary/response to Crichton’s “State of Fear”. You might find it interesting reading.
On the other side, here is a webpage devoted to discussion of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
On the other side, here is a webpage devoted to discussion of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
On the other side, here is a webpage devoted to discussion of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
On the other side, here is a webpage devoted to discussion of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
Anon. 1:06 AM:
On the other side, here is a webpage devoted to discussion of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
I started to read through this page. Plenty of the criticisms seem to quibble about minor detail without dismissing the larger argument. For instance:
“The pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 280 parts per million. In 2005, that level, measured high above Mauna Loa, was 381 parts per million.” (p. 37)
Average CO2 concentration in 2005 at Mauna Loa was 379.75 ppm (Tans, 2006).
The ongoing published data shows that late 2008 CO2 concentrations hover around 386 ppm. CO2 concentrations continue on an increasing trend.
If you look at the averaged CO2 values in 2005, then in the middle of the year you reach roughly 379.75 ppm.
If you look at the raw, seasonal measurements that fluctuate off of the average trend, then you find the high for 2005 exceeds 382 ppm.
Within certain strict parameters, both sides are correct — Gore, and the Johnston Archive criticism. Several other criticisms are of a similar nature.
From what I have read, generally agreed upon conclusions are that 1) CO2 (and other related greenhouse gases) continue to build up in the atmosphere; 2) this buildup is due to human activity (mostly burning fossil fuels); 3) average global temperatures have been trending upward for the past ~150 years, even more dramatically in the past 30 years.
Points of reasonable disagreement center mostly on the magnitude of future impact. 1) Will future changes occur quickly or slowly? 2) How much can humans do to change this? Is it already too late for humans to do anything about it? For every model that lowballs the impact, it’s easy to find a study that suggests greater impact. If you take the attitude of “splitting the difference” among these studies, it doesn’t look good.
I don’t see how I’m supposed to be enlightened by this website. Perhaps you can explain?
Anon. 1:06 AM:
On the other side, here is a webpage devoted to discussion of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
I started to read through this page. Plenty of the criticisms seem to quibble about minor detail without dismissing the larger argument. For instance:
“The pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 280 parts per million. In 2005, that level, measured high above Mauna Loa, was 381 parts per million.” (p. 37)
Average CO2 concentration in 2005 at Mauna Loa was 379.75 ppm (Tans, 2006).
The ongoing published data shows that late 2008 CO2 concentrations hover around 386 ppm. CO2 concentrations continue on an increasing trend.
If you look at the averaged CO2 values in 2005, then in the middle of the year you reach roughly 379.75 ppm.
If you look at the raw, seasonal measurements that fluctuate off of the average trend, then you find the high for 2005 exceeds 382 ppm.
Within certain strict parameters, both sides are correct — Gore, and the Johnston Archive criticism. Several other criticisms are of a similar nature.
From what I have read, generally agreed upon conclusions are that 1) CO2 (and other related greenhouse gases) continue to build up in the atmosphere; 2) this buildup is due to human activity (mostly burning fossil fuels); 3) average global temperatures have been trending upward for the past ~150 years, even more dramatically in the past 30 years.
Points of reasonable disagreement center mostly on the magnitude of future impact. 1) Will future changes occur quickly or slowly? 2) How much can humans do to change this? Is it already too late for humans to do anything about it? For every model that lowballs the impact, it’s easy to find a study that suggests greater impact. If you take the attitude of “splitting the difference” among these studies, it doesn’t look good.
I don’t see how I’m supposed to be enlightened by this website. Perhaps you can explain?
Anon. 1:06 AM:
On the other side, here is a webpage devoted to discussion of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
I started to read through this page. Plenty of the criticisms seem to quibble about minor detail without dismissing the larger argument. For instance:
“The pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 280 parts per million. In 2005, that level, measured high above Mauna Loa, was 381 parts per million.” (p. 37)
Average CO2 concentration in 2005 at Mauna Loa was 379.75 ppm (Tans, 2006).
The ongoing published data shows that late 2008 CO2 concentrations hover around 386 ppm. CO2 concentrations continue on an increasing trend.
If you look at the averaged CO2 values in 2005, then in the middle of the year you reach roughly 379.75 ppm.
If you look at the raw, seasonal measurements that fluctuate off of the average trend, then you find the high for 2005 exceeds 382 ppm.
Within certain strict parameters, both sides are correct — Gore, and the Johnston Archive criticism. Several other criticisms are of a similar nature.
From what I have read, generally agreed upon conclusions are that 1) CO2 (and other related greenhouse gases) continue to build up in the atmosphere; 2) this buildup is due to human activity (mostly burning fossil fuels); 3) average global temperatures have been trending upward for the past ~150 years, even more dramatically in the past 30 years.
Points of reasonable disagreement center mostly on the magnitude of future impact. 1) Will future changes occur quickly or slowly? 2) How much can humans do to change this? Is it already too late for humans to do anything about it? For every model that lowballs the impact, it’s easy to find a study that suggests greater impact. If you take the attitude of “splitting the difference” among these studies, it doesn’t look good.
I don’t see how I’m supposed to be enlightened by this website. Perhaps you can explain?
Anon. 1:06 AM:
On the other side, here is a webpage devoted to discussion of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
I started to read through this page. Plenty of the criticisms seem to quibble about minor detail without dismissing the larger argument. For instance:
“The pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 280 parts per million. In 2005, that level, measured high above Mauna Loa, was 381 parts per million.” (p. 37)
Average CO2 concentration in 2005 at Mauna Loa was 379.75 ppm (Tans, 2006).
The ongoing published data shows that late 2008 CO2 concentrations hover around 386 ppm. CO2 concentrations continue on an increasing trend.
If you look at the averaged CO2 values in 2005, then in the middle of the year you reach roughly 379.75 ppm.
If you look at the raw, seasonal measurements that fluctuate off of the average trend, then you find the high for 2005 exceeds 382 ppm.
Within certain strict parameters, both sides are correct — Gore, and the Johnston Archive criticism. Several other criticisms are of a similar nature.
From what I have read, generally agreed upon conclusions are that 1) CO2 (and other related greenhouse gases) continue to build up in the atmosphere; 2) this buildup is due to human activity (mostly burning fossil fuels); 3) average global temperatures have been trending upward for the past ~150 years, even more dramatically in the past 30 years.
Points of reasonable disagreement center mostly on the magnitude of future impact. 1) Will future changes occur quickly or slowly? 2) How much can humans do to change this? Is it already too late for humans to do anything about it? For every model that lowballs the impact, it’s easy to find a study that suggests greater impact. If you take the attitude of “splitting the difference” among these studies, it doesn’t look good.
I don’t see how I’m supposed to be enlightened by this website. Perhaps you can explain?