Red, Green and Blue: The Hairshirt Response to Global Warming
Editor's note: We're proud to revive Red, Green and Blue, our weekly political feature. We've made some changes: first, our new writer Shirley Siluk Gregory will represent the progressive side; Jimmy Hogan will continue to take the conservative position in these debates. Second, we're trying out a new format — Shirley and Jimmy will each give "opening statements," and then debate each other in the comments of the post. You're welcome (and encouraged) to join the fray!
Topic: Major sacrifice by American citizens is necessary to meet the challenges posed by climate change and other environmental problems.
Shirley: Imagine, for a minute, that your doctor has called to deliver a "bad news, good news" diagnosis.
The bad news? Over the next 20 years, you're very likely to develop a serious, chronic disease with painful, debilitating and life-altering effects.
The good news? If you radically alter your habits now, you can save yourself from the worst, long-term symptoms of your disease. It won't be easy, but it can be done.
So the question is, would you do it? Would you sacrifice some of life's pleasures and make the hard choices necessary today to gain yourself a healthier, happier future in years to come?
By now, I'm sure, you've seen the analogy to global warming: a little pain now puts off a lot of pain later, according to the best of what science is telling us today. Unfortunately, even many green-minded types aren't yet talking about the real and drastic changes we would need to start making today to keep the impact of global warming from becoming catastrophic in years to come. Compact fluorescent lightbulbs, Toyota Priuses and carbon offsets alone won't cut it.
Jimmy: As much as we feel it is important to sacrifice for those things in which we truly believe, I'm convinced that sacrifice may have the unintended consequence of doing more harm than good; especially when that sacrifice is imposed on society at large. History teaches that common sense incentives combined with innovation and technology will solve the world's environmental problems faster and less painfully than any manner of sacrifice imposed or otherwise. America's market economy is the best friend the environment has and is the best hope of dealing with a growing world population and increasing world environmental concerns.
Let the fun begin!
Tags: Climate Change, climate+change, global+warming, politics, Red, Green and Blue
- Uncategorized
April 20th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
You keep jumping from Science to speculation, Shirley. That’s the main problem I have with the global warming movement. They’ve blurred the lines to the extent the average person doesn’t know what to think.
The facts are that the earth has warmed about .6 degrees over the past 150 years with a substantial portion of this rise represented by the last 30 years and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen.
All of the rest of the Malthusian prophesies could have as easily been written by science fiction authors.
Global warming is just our most recent of a long string of epic boogey monster stories intended to scare our pants off (and wallets open). The reoccurring theme seems to seek mass conformity to primordial environmental dogma.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Here, I guess, is where we get to the crux of this week's discussion (sacrifice to avert global warming): either you accept that there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to human-influenced and growing global warming … or you don't. If you don't accept the initial premise, it stands to reason you won't accept any need for sacrifice.
But let's look at these:
And as far as blurring science and speculation, there's a difference between informed projection based on existing facts and wild, unsupported predictions. (In fact, that's the whole basis for the insurance industry, which itself has also begun taking the threat of climate change very seriously.)
For example, if the local newspaper's astologer warns that a volcano will suddenly appear and wreak havoc on Florida in the coming year, I'm not making any plans to relocate. But if NOAA and the Weather Channel show satellite images of a 600-mile-wide cyclone moving on a northerly track through the Gulf of Mexico, I'm breaking out the plywood, stocking up on batteries and checking for vacancies at a Days Inn in Birmingham.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Days Inn? Yikes! I think I’d weather the storm.
Ooops… Sorry David… there goes another potential advertiser.
I guess I have to respect the fact that the environmental science community believes with at least 90% certainty that AGW is caused by an increased concentration in Greenhouse gasses.
I won’t go into a list of the objections to this because it always just devolves into a tit-for-tat debate.
I do think particulate reduction accounts for a substantial amount of the warming; especially over the last 30 years. If the Weekend Effect can give us measurable temperature swings based on the weekly traffic cycles then I’d say billions of dollars worth of pollution controls in the form of catalytic converters on our vehicles and scrubbers in power plants could help explain the recent spike.
And what does that do the trend-lines of the warming models. Since we are reaching a point of diminishing returns on particulate reduction I’d say warming due to this will not be able to proceed. Therefore the warming trend of the last 30 years upon which the models are based is unsustainable.
I usually like having accepted ‘science’ on my side in cases like this but to me in this case History seems to be the better indicator. GW will pass… but fear not… another equally horrifying pending environmental disaster will quickly take its place.