The good, the bad and the ugly 04 November 05

“(staff are reportedly banned from even charging their mobile phones at work, to save electricity bills)”, sounds like an unfounded rumor that is specially designed to incite ire amongst the readers. Do you have any confirmation for this? The technique is the staple of the grocery store tabloids. Even second-rate journalists usually seek confirmation before publishing this kind of thing.

Your description of a Parisian gang “letting the air out of the tyres and smearing mud on the doors,” (of SUVs) sounds like you are promoting vandalism as a means of supporting your radical agenda. Did you also endorse the beating with bats of an officer of Huntington Life Sciences by the thugs of the Animal Liberation Front? Where do you draw the line between childish pranks and criminal destruction of property?

The Ryan Air mobile phone thing has been widely reported, including at this link on the BBC, where Ryan Air management confirm the ban: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4467877.stm

Also, there is a world of difference between causing minor inconvenience to an SUV driver and physically harming someone…

I agree that there is a world of difference between cars and humans. I see the two actions as representative of the extremes.

My intent was to note that Mark apparently endorses criminal behavior in support of his radical agenda and asked him where he would draw a line between acceptable criminal behavior and unacceptable criminal behavior.

Norb,

On the 6th of July 2005. I went to Scotland to protest at the G8 summit. The police banned the march. But we went ahead anyway. Is that ok, officialy we were breaking the law.

Physically harming some one is totaly unacceptable. Letting down the tires of someones dirty SUV sounds like fun. I might even try it.

Green peace are quite happy to assist folk in trying to shut down esso garages. Which some day I hope to do myself.

This is protest. You are not hurting people your making a point. I think that is a really important thing to do these days. In the UK our government tried to pass a law that they could hold folk for 90 days without charging them. they lost thank God. We owe it to ourselves and our children to challenge these things.

Best Ian.

Ian, you engaged in the highest stage of morality by participating in the peaceful protest. That is, doing what is right (to save, not harm others), even if against the law, and be willing to go to jail for it. That shows a highly developed conscience.

Vandalism against SUVs, on the other hand, is not only criminal, but may not be effective. A better tact may have been to stash a flyer on their windshields explaining how harmful SUVs are, not only to the city & planet, but also dangerous for their families (acc to safety ratings, Honda Civics (incl hybrid) comes out much more safe). The flyer should be written in a way that expresses love, concern, and a desire for the recipient to be included in efforts to HOPE (help our planet earth).

During the 60s there was a photo of a hippie girl in Berkeley putting a flower in the riffle of a National Guardsman. To make our “save the world” movement effective, we need to become more like Gandhi, MLK, Nelson Mandela, and Jesus. That’s the effective and moral way to accomplish long-term ends. Notice we don’t hear much about the “zealots” (menionted in the Bible) anymore.

I think renewables investment is increasing b/c of good business sense and in spite of those who disrespect others property and choices.

I feel comforted knowing that if I sensed danger to myself or my family in the US we still have GUN LAWS which can take care of the matter…

I don’t think the parisian antics would fly in a large US city as the perpetrators may end up regretting it… people take vandalizing their cars very seriously… Paris authorities can’t even figure out how to stop the muslim riots going on for a week now, so I wouldn’t think they’d manage to do anything about damaging a person’s property.

The eco-jerks in California burning down the new complexs are just costing the community more money in the long run. The California builders now have armed guards patrolling…

The message being sent by vandalization is only creating hostility and is the wrong one.

Hi all,

Sorry dont have time to find you the URL. However, page 18 of the Telegraph reports that an amendment tabled by Democrat senators to respect the status of the Arctic National Wildlife Resurve was defeated by 51 votes to 48.

So those 10 billion barrel’s will be be coming out the ground fairly soon.

NICE. no I mean it. NICE.

Best Ian.

Remember remember the 3rd of December.

Jimbo,

I am really glad you have gun laws too. Here in the UK we laugh about that a lot. I mean it. We really do laugh a lot.

Love, Ian.

Lynn,

Your just too lovely. But dont you think it would be fun, even just once letting down the tires of an SUV. I know it would make me smile for hours.

Sure its a really pain in the bum for the owner. But they are a real pain in the backside for the rest of us. An eye for an eye and all that. I think it is a fairly harmles prank that gets a very valid point across. Fair play to them. They are getting media attention to a good cause. Maybe, just maybe a few potential SUV owners are thinking. It’s just not worth the hasstle of owning one of these things.

Best Ian.

Good on ya, Ian.

Best,

D

Yes the senate passed the bill to allow drilling. I don’t think it will be any worse than what is already in Alaska. I know the residents of that state WANT the drilling. (more royalties for them)

Well done Mark for highlighting how truly awful Michael O’Leary is. If I do ever get on an aircraft again you can bet it won’t be one of his. It just beggars belief how he thinks he can treat other human beings the way he does and get away with it.

As for tackling SUVs (and other gas guzzlers) I am more than happy with sticky (very sticky!) stickers with a well worded message. Letting down tyres is probably OK as long as it doesn’t lead to the tyre needing replaced. Plastering mud on the car might be OK if it doesn’t damage the paintwork.

These concerns are purely practical. Buying new tyres and visits to the bodyshop for paint repairs have significant energy and CO2 consequences and are therefore counterproductive.

On the moral, legal, ethical issue it is worth reminding ourselves that laws are man (and woman) made. At the risk of sounding like a sociologist they are social constructs. One day an activity is legal, the next, following the introduction of a new law, it can be illegal.

We need laws and legal systems but they are never perfect and often work in favour of some interests and against others. Ask yourselves this. Why is it legal to indulge in activities which seriously jeopardise the health of the planet and those who live on it?

Douglas Coker

I do not believe that vandalism helps educate the people to change behaviors as much as it alienates them against environmental causes.

The main reason for people purchasing these vehicles I think has to do with the belief that the extra mass makes them safer for themselves and their children. The laws of physics support this as momentum is on the side of the heavier vehicle. The problem lies in that mass inequity on the roadways prevents lighter vehicles to be safer for the driver and its occupants.

The technical solution is to cap vehicle weight, increase fuel efficiency standards, and lower speed limits in urban settings. This takes the safety argument out of it.

Also, it depends on vehicle usage. We have a gas-guzzling vehicle and I cannot afford a better one but it seldom gets used at all since I walk, use public transportation, and ride the bicycle and avoid traffic congestion when using my car. My petrol expenses are many times less than a relative with a hybrid who uses it more often.

I disagree with destructive protests. Lynn is correct. Peaceful constructive protests are better. The destructive measures for me insure that those who favor change get a bad reputation and everyone becomes less credulous because of these acts. I think in fact that they can do more harm than good.

BTW, I have appreciated the latest blog comments by everyone and it helps keep me informed. In particular, I appreciate comments on Contraction and Convergence by Douglas Coker, and comments about the peat forest fires and deforestation by Almuth Ernsting. Both elevated my awareness and were well written and well organized.

As to the vandalism on the SUVs, let me provide an alternative approach. Instead of wasting that time making people angry, just have people stationed near them to talk to them before they drive away and instead of being aggressive, provide them information and educate them instead. Even give them a small gift to listen to what you have to say. Make them feel good and not threatened.

Most important is to listen first to those most angry at your intrusion and engage them in conservation listening to all their key points empathetically. Once this is done, then make your counter points and again offer advice on how to reduce car miles and reduce emissions. Provide solutions and quit throwing stones.

All of us affect the environment and even posting on this blog is using the highly energy-intensive Internet. Internet companies in California created the extra load causing brown-outs because of the enormous use of electricity. What if someone smeared mud on your computer! Would you listen to them after that?

Education comes in many forms and we are all still students. Maybe, we should post only our best comments to save our time and computer energy.

Prudence is in order to change another’s behavior. In free societies, this is always difficult. Sometimes, it is a challenge merely to change our own bad habits.

Best Wishes,

Dan

I believe that a significant difference exists between breaking a law that would prevent a peaceful assembly in order to protest a government activity and breaking a law that causes even just inconvenience to a fellow citizen. (I’ll only mention possible actual harm in the event that your victim needs his vehicle for an emergency trip.)

The former is a time-honored practice in democracies. I attended college during the Viet Nam protests in this country and participated in a few. I believe that a protest of a government proposal that it be able to hold citizens for 90 days without charge is an excellent reason for civil disobedience and protests.

The latter, random acts of property damage against fellow citizens should be off limits. Suppose I decide that red cars are reminiscent of the flag of the Soviet Union and that they offend me. Should I let the air out of the tires of all of the red cars in my neighborhood? Civil society would soon become impossible.

You claim that you dislike SUVs because they emit so much carbon dioxide. Yet, according to the US DOT, only 9.3% of vehicle miles driven are SUV miles. Further, gasoline consumption is less than 30% of fuel combustion in the US, meaning that SUVs consume about 3% of all of the gasoline combusted in this country. Conversion of all of the SUVs in the world to hybrid vehicles would have a minuscule effect on worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide. Are you sure that you just don’t like them because they are large and ostentatious. I think that my dislike of red cars is just as valid a reason to deflate tires. I think that personal taste is a poor reason to cause any other person inconvenience.

Are you going to respond to my question about your apparent support of criminal vandalism?

or saving the earth by halting GW. If it’s the latter, then the way I figure it, we need to get beyond the “us v. them” mentality, which has brought us over 2 million years of grief and our current GW crisis.

We are all “us,” including Norb and the SUV owners (even if they & the tire-slashers don’t quite realize it). We are all in spaceship earth, which “we” are making inviable, and “we” need to reverse that harm. As Dan & the Apollo 13 commander said, “Failure is not an option.”

We should do nothing to contribute to polarization, making people hate environmentalists all the more & digging their trenches deeper. Rather, we should invite them to the fun earth-saving party, and if they spurn us, we should even go to the extent of non-resistence & turning the other cheek. It doesn’t seem to work at first, but in the long run it’s the only effective way to bring all on board this most noble of causes in all of history. No more time left for being a regular, happy-go-lucky joe. We need to be saints & pronto.

Besides, if people have to buy new tires, then that’s more GHGs in the air from the resource extraction, manufacture, selling, shopping, disposal of wastes, and all that paper work. Then there’s the police report – more paper work, more driving around. And for what – to create a more strongly confirmed anti-environmentalists, plotting revenge.

but what he really wanted was schools for his people, and other facilities. That’s what he wanted. We could have given him those things, without the drilling. I would have contributed through NGOs &, say, $2 in higher taxes to fulfull the simply needs of his people—maybe even cut back my driving a bit more to pay for them. Afterall, we took the land from the natives, and we are destroying their subsistence base. It’s the least we can do. Even my grandmother, born in 1887 & a very staunch Republican, said the Indians got a very raw deal; she contributed throughout her life to Indian charities.

I do believe that we must place environmental problems in proper perspective. I believe that the pendulum has swung too far; that we have handicapped ourselves with excessive regulation.

I was in graduate school studying environmental engineering on the first Earth Day. A majority of the work that I did over the course of my career was contract work for the US EPA. I participated in the development of several major regulations. I assisted EPA by developing background information, and acquiring data in support of several others. I did this stuff for over 40 years.

I have participated and watched while EPA husbanded clean up of the air and water in this country. The rivers are clean. The lakes are clean. The air is clean (The air is clean where it can be; Los Angeles will always have problems so long as they permit the overpopulation that exists there.).

In my opinion, EPA has embarked on programs that provide little if any improvement in the environment or in our health. In fact, much of what they are doing now is counter productive. For example, EPA has managed to convince many Americans that the pesticides that protect us from insect-borne diseases are dangerous. They are not. (I use EPA as a stand in for environmental regulatory agencies; EPA is not in this alone.)

The excessive environmental protection that we subject ourselves to drains resources from activities that would be far more beneficial. Many of our citizens want for adequate health care; resources wasted by frivolous environmental regulations could fill the void.

We cannot afford everything. We need to stop responding to scare tactics and apply our limited resources to those problems that cause us the most pain.

The reason why we don’t hear much about zealots is that they have been edited out of the Bible (too incovenient!). Check the apocrypha, especially the book of the Maccabees. I do agree however that, however appealing, mere inconvenience of the owners of gas-guzzlers ain’t the best use of energy. Get out there and agitate instead!

At the risk of pointing out the obvious – I think there is a critical difference between disliking a vehicle for its colour and disliking a vehicle for the pollution it produces.

The colour of a car doesn’t ultimately threaten the future of the planet or the safety of other people.

I agree that educating people further and explaining why SUV’s are not a good choice is important but I would be stunned if someone today who bought an SUV wasn’t aware of the vehicle’s detrimental impact. For anyone unaware of the facts, please share these:

Compared to smaller cars, large four-wheel-drive sport utility vehicles are two and a half times more likely to kill pedestrians they hit; use more than twice as much fuel; emit up to four times more carbon dioxide and take up more road space, including obscuring the vision of other road users.

Research in the US showed 11.5% of pedestrians hit by four-wheel-drive vehicles are killed, compared with 4.5% of those hit by smaller cars. The bull bars fitted to four-wheel-drive vehicles increase the likelihood of injuring pedestrians even further.

Hi Lynn,

They are not slashing the tyres. That really is vandalism. They are just letting the tyre / tyres down at the valve.

Take on board the point about emergencies. However my experience of SUV drivers, is they normally have two or more cars.

And they tend to cause a lot of emergencies themselves. Bull bars have allready been mentioned.

I dont drive, a walk and cycle or catch public transport all the time. The last time I was in a car was on the way to Scotland on the 5th July. It was the only effective way for us to get there. 4 people in a 850 cc Fiat Panda.

As a cyclist I get a lot of close calls with SUV’s.

Best Ian.

While reactive measures (EPA regs to clean up) may be costly, I’ve found that many proactive measures can be done in such a way as to either save money or not cost much – that is, preventing the problem in the first place. No time to get in it now. But for instance, by becoming energy/resource efficient & conservative we can save a lot of money, AND prevent pollution that would have occurred due to inefficiency & waste.

I think we should be doing all we can in that direction, then we won’t have to be cleaning up as much after ourselves.

Some people are already proposing that we not do anything to abate GW, but instead adapt to it & I’m thinking, yeah a 20 foot levee around America. As if that’s the only way to go, so that behind the levee we can keep sending up GHGs from our extremely inefficient machines, etc.

So, how about it, want to join the proactive environmentalists? You might even save money.

Greenpeace UK have got some good materials, including yellow and black notices saying “PUBLIC AWARE – This gas guzzling 4×4 is causing climate change. Please replace with a less polluting car. Visit www.choosecleanenergy.com for further information. Greenpeace”.

If you visit the above website, you can sign up to the Greenpeace climate change campaign and order your own notices.

They are eye-catching – and perfectly legal.

Almuth

Letting air out isn’t nearly as harmful as slashing, though I think it still may not be as effective as other more positive means. Short term fear works (like spanking the kid), long term it doesn’t.

We have a group here in the U.S., The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) that burns SUVs & homes built in what they think should remain wilderness areas (though I haven’t read much about them in the news since 9/11). Unfortunately those actions have only fed into anti-environmentalist rhetoric over here, and made people all the more think of environmentalists as luny & dangerous extremists, rather than moms wanting safe water & air & a future for their kids – which is what the environmental movement used to be in the U.S. up until the 1990s. Now even moms are backing away from environmentalism. It’s almost as if they’d rather sacrifice their kids, than be associated with extremists.

Acc to crash & rollover tests, SUVs are more dangerous to people in them than, say, Honda Civics (incl. hybrids). See: www.safercars.gov

I read a study some 10 years ago that found that small cars were safer than large cars – not only re crash/rollover tests, but also they’re more manuverable in dangerous situations. Maybe it goes against people’s common sense, so they continue to buy unsafe cars, or there’s some secret death wish. And when you add less harm to others on the road, we would end up with a much safer society if more people would buy small (& fuel efficient), rather than large cars. And we’d be reducing environmental harm & death through that. For instance, air pollution from vehicles causes abortions & birth defects, among all the other harms.

But this all fits with the American “culture of death” I keep hearing from the pulpits.

I’m all for that. I wish all people concerned with life on earth (& those wishing to make it to heaven) would all get out and march on the world & tell the people of the world to stop destroying it.

See my post under previous topic about Dec 3rd events around America. You can create your own events.

but yes, I think that the air and water in the US after WWII needed improvement. The time was right; we had the natural resources, the will and wealth needed to modify our industrial practices to improve our environment.

Although upon re-reading what I wrote I could see the implication, I do not mean that I think that we should cease and desist with the environmental regulation. I realize that some work remains, albeit not nearly as much as the activists would have us believe.

It was not so much a changing of my mind and it certainly was not an epiphany, it was more of a slow revelation that much of what passes for environmental science is largely urban legend, hysteria, and demagoguery. It began in the mid 1980s when a friend, who worked at EPA, compromised his career by maintaining that there was no real evidence that environmental exposures to chlorinated dioxins caused cancer. He cited enormous interspecies response differences and the absence of low-dose effects among all species. EPA, of course manipulated the dioxin scare to enhance its power and to create the superfund and hazardous waste combustion fiefdoms. Even now, we have no evidence that environmental or occupational exposures to chlorinated dioxins are carcinogenic (or hormonally active). (If you are interested in an alternate hypothesis about the biological effects of low dose exposures, you might visit the BELLE website at http://www.belleonline.com/)

In 1990, Bruce N. Ames published his twin paper manifesto “Too many rodent carcinogens”, in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, in which he strongly criticized the process by which we needlessly condemn many synthetic compounds because of high-dose rodent exposures. Parenthetically, Dr. Ames, in those papers, said that his study indicates that 2,3,7,8-tetrachlordibenzodioxin (the compound that EPA claimed was the most toxic carcinogen on earth) should be prophylactic against cancer. (The Ames papers are at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/87/19/7772, and http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/87/19/7777.)

I then began reviewing the EPA risk assessment documents (online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html, read a few for yourself) and found that I agree with Dr. Ames, EPA condemns compounds with extrapolations of rodent data over up to 6 orders of magnitude even when their own data imply that low-dose rodent exposures are harmless.

I then looked at the DDT data and found that there are no data that demonstrate that environmental or occupational exposures to DDT have ever harmed anything other than insects. There were no deleterious effects in humans or animals or birds even during the age of profligate spraying. Apparently, Ruckelshaus made a political decision to use the hysteria that Carson’s book generated to jump start the “environmental protection” movement in spite of the evidence that his own hearing examiner compiled showing that there was no need to ban DDT. The ban contributes to the malaria plague in Africa, hundreds of millions contract the disease every year and millions die of it. Now, that is real harm.

All of this has led me to investigate claims of impending doom carefully. I find that once you strip away the speculative conclusions such as “these results could indicate”, or “this may imply that”, the actual data and firm conclusions that remain do not support the speculative conclusions. The speculative conclusions usually precede words to the effect, “additional research is needed”. I also find that additional research finds most of the speculative conclusions to be wrong, but that you never see the follow up in the popular media.

However, vehicle replacement may not be the only option one has!

For example, I have a gas guzzler and I made the decision not to replace it for both environmental and economical reasons.

First, it is a viable vehicle which has useful life and if I sold it, then it would be used more by the next owner than me admitting even more greenhouse gases.

Second, the cost and emissions from the manufacture and transport of a super-hybrid vehicle may be greater than my current and projected energy use of the gas-guzzling vehicle I own and use on occasion.

Third, I cannot afford the cost of switching to a better vehicle because I do not have unlimited funds available and the funds I do have are going into increasing the energy efficiency of the house I live in.

Fourth, there are other ways to save transport energy by walking, cycling, and simple reducing unnecessary trips. If I cut my distance traveled by over 75 percent (which I did), then I would have to invest in a vehicle which obtains greater fuel efficiency at a factor greater than 4.

The solution to replace an inefficient vehicle is not always the best solution. Many people who own hybrids relax and simply drive them farther spending more energy because they can afford more fuel. They use their economic dividend from fuel savings on traveling more often and they emit even more greenhouse gases while holding the high moral ground as they brag about their new car. This scenario is not always true with all hybrid owners but it does happen. Just owning a more fuel-efficient vehicle is helpful but is not enough by itself.

The Greenpeace way is helpful and a better approach but the solution offered is still limited and short-sighted in that more options should be provided. The idea has merit and can be improved in that light.

With regard to influence, I still think that it is best done verbally and directly after one assesses the particular circumstances of the individual.

The comments made by others on this blog concerning safety issues have merit with SUVs. I mentioned mass inequity in a recent post. The SUV owner may want a heavy vehicle for greater protection but this attitude reflects an indifference to the harm caused to others in a crash. The truth is that with air bags and safety belts, a well designed vehicle of moderate weight provides sufficient protection.

I will admit that as we get to lighter vehicles and ultra-light vehicles, the momentum of the heavier vehicle will make the lighter vehicles much less safe to drive. The only solution other than reducing heavy vehicles on our roadways is to lower the speed limit. Less mass will always increase fuel efficiency. If a light-weight SUV can be designed, then this may help.

In order to fully know the effectiveness of directly influencing others, we may have to discover first why a person bought an SUV to begin with. It has been mentioned that many times people own vehicles intended for other purposes. A truck is used to haul heavy items. A person using a van in conduction of their business to make a living is acceptable. But, why would someone own a truck if they never use it for what a truck is designed for?

If I was approaching someone on this issue, I would first ask why they bought that particular vehicle when others are available which consume less fuel, are easier to park, and less dangerous to others.

One reason for engaging in dialogue with SUV owners is that we may learn what motivates them and with that our efforts to influence them may be improved. Maybe they have to keep their vehicle based on personal circumstances and simply need to know how to use it less and more efficiently. Maybe they can buy another economy car or can employ other options.

Influencing others may be the most important task we have and so we better learn how to do it better. I also believe that we have to set the highest example in ourselves. I think it is more difficult to influence others when we still have problems in our own efforts to reduce. I guess that is the attitude we all must have. We must strive for continued progress. Everyone can make progress and use less energy than they did in the past.

All the best,

Dan

Consider the information at http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r398.html http://eteam.ncpa.org/about/bruce-n-ames http://eteam.ncpa.org/about/christopher-c-horner http://eteam.ncpa.org/about/robert-michaels http://eteam.ncpa.org/about/s-fred-singer

Douglas Coker

... and I take back the part about you hating the environment. I agree that we can go too far in our environmentalism. However, I disagree with many of your conclusions – “The air is clean” for example. I live in a city (Winston-Salem) near a gigantic, coal-powered generating station. It made the air dirty here. I breathed it and the scientists measured it. All the while, Duke Power denied it and was making record profits selling electricity to California a few years ago. They didn’t do anything much to clean it up until the government put pressure on them. That is just one example.

We have an over-population problem here on earth. And we must be wise and courageous to deal with the problems this creates, especially in the cities and industrialized nations.

Meeting Kyoto Protocol targets on greenhouse gas emissions will reduce European economic growth significantly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4415818.stm

Agreement in Europe is not quite there on what to do. None of them want to sacrifice their countries economy… hmm who does that sound like?

“The International Council for Capital Formation is a unique European think tank in its focus on public policies to promote saving and investment in the private sector. Reducing tax, regulatory, anti-trust, and trade barriers will promote business investment, strong job growth and to enhance countries’ competitiveness.” An extract from their website.

Maybe it’s time to reconsider economic growth. Traditional measures of GDP and GNP etc only tell us so much. The latest electronic gizmos, a wardrobe stuffed full of more clothes than we can wear, luxury holidays, do these things actually make us happier?

Consider “wellbeing”. Go to http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/well_being_top.aspx?page=1038&folder=174& for information on the theme from the New Economics Foundation.

Douglas Coker

I read the information on the links that you provided. The bios appeared to have been self-written by the respective persons, so though they probably are accurate, they do not add much to the discussion.

The Rachel Watch material appears to be both inaccurate and based upon a misunderstanding of Dr. Ames’ work. For example, Rachel’s says, “Ames’s basic idea is that most of the poisons we ingest are natural toxins appearing in our food; from this, he concludes that money spent controlling industrial chemicals is largely wasted”. This is a misleading and inaccurate interpretation of Dr. Ames’ view.

Ames’ point is that neither the natural nor the synthetic compounds matter to our health, because our doses are below the thresholds at which those compounds cause disease. He only mentions the natural substances to make the point that we receive larger doses of natural compounds, which are at least as potent as any synthetic compound and have no fear of or reason to fear them. Why then, should we fear a smaller dose of similar synthetic substances? Please read the PNAS documents that I linked, they are old but they describe Dr. Ames’ view far better than Rachel’s did.

The Rachel’s document says, “The National Cancer Institute’s cancer maps reveal cancer clusters near industrial facilities. It is very unlikely that such clusters occur by random chance”. I went to the National Cancer Institute website (http://dceg.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/atlas/ca-type?site=acc) and found their cancer maps. The site also contained a summary of the information (http://dceg.cancer.gov/atlas/text2/full_txt.html#disc-acc). I did a word search for “chem” and another for “indus”. The following is a complete list of all instances where the NCI related cancer to chemical or industrial exposures.

“Bladder cancer among men has tended to cluster in the urban Northeast since the 1950s, particularly in areas with chemical industries. (111) Case-control studies in high-risk areas have revealed excess risks in a variety of occupations, which contribute to about one-quarter of bladder tumors in white males, (112-114) including an increased risk among truck drivers and other workers exposed to motor exhausts.”

“Indeed, a case-control study of lung cancer in northeast Florida during the 1990s found no significant excess risk associated with prior work in shipyards. (82) It is possible that the recent clustering of high lung cancer rates among females in certain areas along the southeast coast may be partly related to asbestos exposures associated with the shipbuilding industry, particularly in view of synergistic effects with smoking.”

“Laryngeal cancer rates were elevated among white men in counties that had shipyard industries during World War II, (66) but a case-control study in Virginia failed to identify an excess risk associated with employment in area shipyards”

“However, elevated mortality from sinonasal cancer was found in a correlation study of counties with furniture industries, (57) prompting case-control studies in high-exposure areas of North Carolina and Virginia. (58-61) Work in the furniture industry was found to be associated with an excess risk of nasal adenocarcinoma, resembling the occupational hazard previously reported in England and other countries. “

NCI says that chemical workers may have excess bladder cancers and that furniture workers may have elevated sinonasal cancers.

NCI further says that asbestos exposures to shipyard workers causes elevated lung and larynx cancers. NCI does not claim that the general population around those facilities suffers excess cancers; NCI only suggests that the workers may.

That is the complete list. Compare the meaning of the NCI text to Rachel’s interpretation of the NCI work. Are you inclined to believe anything else that Rachel’s tells you? I am not.

Rachel’s says the concentrations of synthetic compounds are increasing in the environment. That may be true (we measure them but I am not sure that the concentrations are increasing), but we only know about it because of the miraculous increase in the sensitivity of analytical instrumentation during the past 20 years. The environment contains a lot of inert substances that do not harm us; pesticide residues are now among them. Everything organic biodegrades eventually (even DDT). It is true that many of the synthetic pesticides degrade more slowly than most natural substances, but it is not true that all synthetic substances biodegrade slowly.

Rachel’s goes on to claim, “There is compelling evidence that wildlife is being harmed (in some instances, driven to extinction) by this buildup of exotic chemicals throughout the global ecosystem”

There is no evidence that any wildlife has been harmed by the presence of traces of pesticides and certainly no evidence that any pesticide has driven any species to extinction. It just is not true.

Rachel’s claim that Ames opposes government regulation “on principle” appears to be a lie. Ames opposes spending huge quantities of cash on programs that produce no benefit, just as any rational taxpayer would.

Rachel’s claims that information reveals that many synthetic substances cause endocrine effects. The US EPA has had a special program in place for about 15 years. That program has been unable to identify and document any instance of endocrine effects from environmental exposures to synthetic chemicals.

Enough. I find Rachel’s to be short on facts and long on hysteria.

I do not like it when someone uses rhetorical “weapons” to try and fast talk or scare people into going along with their goals. That is what I hear you saying norb.

For example, the Bush administration used this very effectively to gain support and acceptance among the American people to go to war with Iraq. Now we have found that the main rhetorical weapons (ex. “Saddam is developing WMD’s including nukes.”) were not true, and there was much evidence to that effect.

I believe in the truth, and that the truth will prevail, in both the environmental debate and in international relations.

How many visitors to this site do you think can deal with the papers at PNAS? I certainly don’t have the natural science background to read, and understand fully, all the detail. Maybe someone else will undertake this task?

Your posts trouble me because woven in with the references to science are many assertions and interpretations. For instance you refer to Rachel’s as being “long on hysteria”. I really don’t think so and this is after perusing both their older stuff and the more recent postings. Yes, they have a campaigning approach and there are numerous references to the “precautionary principle”, which no doubt you disagree with, but to dismiss them as hysterical is really not on.

You either didn’t get or chose to ignore my references to the E-Team information. This site abounds with doubt sowing posts on global warming and has an attack on Mann and his “hockey stick” work. So, no surprise, it lauds Singer etc as “experts”. Politically it has a completely different feel to Rachel’s.

And politics is something I do know about. Where my (natural science) expertise runs out I use my political “nose” to make judgements. I concede that Ames may be an innocent in this. It may be that E-Team have “co-opted” him for their own political purposes.

As for the big picture on EPA and similar work I’ve just read Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science and Robert F Kennedy Jr’s Crimes Against Nature. These relay a truly frightening picture.

Here’s a taster “In a March 2003 memo to party leadership, Republican pollster Frank Luntz noted: ‘The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general and President Bush in particular are most vulnerable.’ He cautioned that the public is inclined to view Republicans as being ‘in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle maniacally as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit.’ If that view were to take hold, Luntz warned, ‘not only do we risk losing the swing vote, but our suburban female base could abandon us as well.’ In essence, he recommended that Republicans don the sheep’s clothing of environmental rhetoric while continuing to wolf down our environmental laws.” (page 3) On page 5 Kennedy continues “In 2003 the Environmental Protection Agency announced that for the first time since the Clean Water Act was passed 30 years ago, American waterways are getting dirtier.” And so it continues. Exactly which way is the tide turning?

Douglas Coker

If I may, I recommend a revolving schedule of commenters taking the lead at addressing norb’s crapitude. One can only take so much and the next person must step in.

Or everyone can ignore him and he will eventually go away.

Best,

D

The content of the E Team site was not germane to my point. I said that the personnel blurbs appeared to be self-written and I assumed accurate. The subject was Dr. Ames, his bio was important because it provided us with a picture of his accomplishments and credibility.

The PNAS papers are not extremely technical and it does not really matter. The issue was what Dr. Ames has said vs. Rachel’s poor interpretation of his viewpoint. Read the papers not for their scientific merit, but for the underlying point to see if you agree that Rachel’s has distorted Dr. Ames’ words to create an easily destroyable straw man argument.

I am sure that your science acumen is at least as good as that of R.F. Kennedy Jr., who is an excellent politician but is not a reliable source of scientific information. Your description of his and Mooney’s books, “These relay a truly frightening picture” is evincive.

Norb,

Interestingly, your scepticism of the warnings against cancer-causing toxins is actually shared by James Lovelock (I just finished reading one of his books) – and, like him, you say that we should all focus on the bigger and certain problems. Lovelock, however, identifies global warming, deforestation and overpopulation as the bigger and certain problems (as opposed to nuclear radiation and, yes, dioxins).

I know little about the evidence about toxins and cancer. The big difference between this debate and the global warming debate is that one deals with the precautionary principle (avoiding a potential risk when the jury is still out – which I would agree with and you presumably would not), and the other one has now moved well beyond this. Global warming predictions are based on what is now considered basic school book science (ie it is not likely that anybody will now disprove that CO2 works as a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases increase the planet’s radiative forcings and that in turn increases global temperature -and the faster the radiative forcings change, the faster the climate changes). And even if some remarkable negative feedback factor was suddenly discovered, CO2 emissions would still drastically change ocean chemistry.

If you are sceptical about certain environmental debates, please do read the Millennium Report – it tells you what is happening to the planet now, no speculation about cancer etc. And perhaps look out of the window, think about the weather when you were a child, remember how different it is even now and wonder if this is not a sign of something very, very major happening.

Do you really believe that we can change the composition of the atmosphere, vastly increase our own population, chop down vast areas of forests, deplete soil of nitrogen and then create dead zones in the oceans from excess nitrogen (run-offs from the soil) – do all those things AT ONCE and it will NOT have a negative effect on humanity? Really?

Almuth

Dan,

I completely agree that there are lots of different things which we need to do to reduce emissions from road traffic – and that it can be extremely difficult to reach the low carbon footprint we would like to have.

I also agree about the need to understand drivers of SUVs and try and change their attitudes. I have known a lot of very nice local mothers who drive huge SUVs. They all care deeply for their children’s future. I would guess that they drive SUVs because it is part of the culture in certain parts of the country, because it improves their standing with neighbours and makes them fit in. Not because they are nasty bullies. Of course they are in complete denial of climate change, but so are lots of people who don’t drive SUVs. It is all about awareness and education, I believe.

The Greenpeace campaign against SUVs is aimed at Landrover/Ford, and at the government, and not trying to vilify individual drivers – they call for gas guzzlers to be taxed far higher than efficient cars. They calculate that the massive switch to SUVs in the UK is one of the main reasons for the growth in CO2 emissions in the past three years.

However, one of the arguments that you make (I have heard it often) is contrary from what the Greenpeace research says. Greenpeace state that replacing a car for one using less fuel is virtually always a good move for the environment (presuming that it won’t then be driven by others). I have found this report on a US website: http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html It shows that energy used to manufacture a car is about 10% of energy used driving the car over the normal ‘life-span’ of that car (don’t know this website otherwise, but it’s much what the Greenpeace briefing I read says). In the UK this percentage may be considerably less, because an EU directive provides for 85% of every car to be recycled.

So, you can offset the environmental cost and pollution from manufacturing a fuel-efficient car against driving an already existing gas guzzler, and there will almost always be a considerable benefit for buying the new efficient car. Replacing cars with more efficient cars really is worth it for the environment.

Almuth

I do not think that the regulatory agencies predicate their determinations about the toxicity of various compounds on the precautionary principle. They do not say, “We regulate because we cannot demonstrate lack of harm (precautionary principle approach). They say, “Our procedures demonstrate harm”. I believe that epidemiological studies have routinely demonstrated that their procedures are overly conservative and lead to unnecessary restrictions on the use of valuable substances.

I believe that predictions of global climate change also are overly conservative. Not because I deny that carbon dioxide retards heat emissions from the atmosphere but because the GCMs have assumed that most of the warming during the past 150 years is attributable to the increase in carbon dioxide concentration and therefore attribute inaccurately high temperature rises to future carbon dioxide increases. I think that the existing GCMs have underestimated the contributions of other causes of the recent warming, leading to even more error in the predictions of the future warming. (Caveat, the scientists who run the models do not call their results “predictions”.)

I believe that the increased carbon dioxide concentration has contributed, but only a small amount to the warming that has occurred during the past 150 years and that it will contribute some, but not a lot to our future temperature increases.

I also believe that the IPCC projections of future carbon dioxide emissions are not realistic. The projected emissions require unattainable rates of economic growth. Furthermore, we will begin moving away from fossil fuel combustion as those fuels become scarce and expensive, so our future energy supplies will be less carbon intensive.

The United Nations is now saying that the human population will level off at 8 to 9 billion and then decrease slowly from there. It does not look like our population will increase vastly.

Improved techniques, e.g. genetic modification of food crops, will continue to increase the productivity of farmland. The quantity of farmland needed to feed our population has been decreasing and should continue to do so. That will reduce the need to convert forests to food production. Smaller populations and improved food growing techniques will allow ther reforestation of much farmland.

I do not believe that any farmer allows depletion of the nitrogen from his soil. They use fertilizers and legume rotations to ensure that the soil will have sufficient nitrogen to grow crops. Furthermore, nitrogen addition is one of the major cost elements for farmers; they reduce its loss as much as is possible.

I look around at the environment and see that it is better than it has been at any time in recorded human history. We are better fed, freer from disease and living longer than we ever have before. I do not see what is so wrong.

What you wrote and other things that I have read about the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), remind me of the Club of Rome Report and the book by Paul Erhlich, “The Population Bomb”. The only things that bombed were the forecasts. Erhlich, bless his heart, has the temerity to claim credit for having sounded the alarm in time for the rest of us to change our ways.

The way I see it is that humans, being essentially lazy, are always thinking up better and less expensive ways to do things; the profit motive is a powerful force. Therefore, we are always changing the ways that we do things. The weakness of the MEA and other forecasts is that they use an if/then statement such as, “If we continue to do A, then B”. I believe the premise to be false, we do not continue to do A; we find C. Look back to 1970 and find a way to forecast the internet.

It seems to me that large numbers of folks out there are prone to predict disasters. I am not inclined to listen to them because I remember that they have never been correct. We did not blow up the world. We did not loose billions to starvation.

Cures exist for the ills that you listed. Eroding farmland needs modern farming techniques, i.e. GM crops resistant to Roundup® coupled with no-till techniques. Saves energy and soil, but needs effective, non-corrupt government support.

The IPCC report contains projections that are based upon approximately 40 different “storylines” (IPCC’s word). The projections that IPCC claim are most probable are for a temperature increase of about 2 Celsius degrees. Even that one uses a 1% per year rate of increase in carbon dioxide concentration. The historical rate of increase has been about 0.4% per year. I cannot understand how we are going to increase our rate of emission by a factor of over 2 while facing fossil fuel shortages.

It seems that we disagree about a lot of things, but at least we are able to discuss them civilly.

and I’m laughing all the way to the bank. All I can say about those who don’t do so, is too bad you’re missing out on the cash flow, and the good feelings of going something good for humanity.

Now let us take it to the next level of thought!

The lifespan of my current vehicle may already be 90 percent; therefore, if I use the remaining life of 10 percent over many years, then it may be equivalent to replacing it with another fuel efficient vehicle at this time. By NOT replacing it, I can spend limited funds on saving energy in other areas of greater use by myself which is the house I live in.

Furthermore, when I do need to replace my inefficient vehicle, then the vehicles of the near future may be even more fuel efficient and at that time I may be able to afford it plus I may have greater need for private transport than I do now.

The important point in our dialogue is that knowledge is power and every person’s circumstances are different and they can change. Knowing we have to reduce emissions and planning the best means of accomplishing this may require different strategies based on simple math. The Greenpeace focus is correct but it may provide incomplete information.

In the USA especially, the idea that selling an inefficient car to someone who will use it more may not be apparently obvious unless a person is thinking in multiple dimensions and often people do not. We do not have the best energy policy so education of the public here is even more advantageous.

I have a useful analogous comparison concerning light bulbs which may shed more light as to the need for more awareness. I replaced all our incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lighting. This was mostly correct in that these lights are inexpensive and very efficient. I also like them so much, that I could not bear the thought of using any more incandescent bulbs.

However, some outside lights were replaced which are seldom used. In fact, I justified it on emotion more than the facts and because others would notice those bulbs and may inquire about them. But, in reality, some lights are so little used to the point that it was a mistake to replace them. If I use a light less than an half hour a month, then the useful life is so far extended into the future that I may never recoup the energy of manufacture and transport of those bulbs. Transport factors were also discussed on the blog by Ian, Colin, and myself.

Interestingly, technology does improve and in a few years, if light emitting diodes become available as Colin suggested, then it will make some my installed compact fluorescent light bulbs obsolete before their lifespan had a chance to warrant a net benefit to the climate.

Likewise, when I wait for a car replacement while my current usage is negligible, then I may have a better opportunity to buy a vehicle even more fuel efficient than I could today. That delay would produce fewer net emissions.

Another main point in our dialogue is that energy and climate problems are complex and multi-dimensional. Oversimplification may not always enable future success. The more we know, the more I think it appears that our solution focus and strategies can be continually improved. Quantification is very helpful in this process. It is important to do the math.

We cannot know enough and think much about these issues. I am amazed at what I discover every day. I recently measured my pilot light to my natural gas boiler and discovered a significant flow rate equal to 1 cubic foot per hour. I did not think to turn that pilot off at the beginning of the summer. I did it in mid summer when I noticed it was on. It is obvious that this would be helpful but now I have the numbers on it which is even more useful.

In an hour and a half, that pilot light uses as much energy as boiling water for tea. That analogy is also a useful tool to communicate to others if a cubic foot of natural gas sounds too abstract. I also measured the energy used to make tea and that is how I can make that analogy so easily to begin with. I also know my monthly summer bill would have been a noticeable 13 dollars less per month yet it would have only taken 1 minute to shut off that pilot and 2 minutes to turn it back on for the winter. In my personal energy research, I am measuring everything! This was a major discovery for me and one which others may never think about pursuing or see the relevancy. Turning off the pilot does not sound exciting enough compared with other high tech ideas.

However, based on this measurement alone and doing the math, … if 1 million Americans out of 300 million simply shut off their pilot light to their furnace for the summer months (taking only 3 minutes of their total annual time), then we would save 30 billion cubic feet of natural gas energy!

Now, I was excited when I did this simple measurement and calculation because 3 minutes is a small investment and easy to do. Of course electronic ignition is better and replacing the whole thing is better. So is more insulation, etc. However, when I discover any idea which has negligible investment for a great return, then that knowledge becomes even more important and valuable.

Another idea you gave me is the concept of “fitting in”. What we need is to “inspire” others to “be different and bold” and to become leaders and trend setters. If a few “Moms” bought a bicycle and a backpack to go get groceries instead of drive their SUV and smile and feel good about it and then talking about the better fitness from that exercise, then maybe others will take notice of that and it will play in their minds. They may think about why she is doing this! They may ask her out of curiosity. They may laugh at first but inside they may also feel like they are not “fitting in” to her advanced thinking. Those who become leaders and set the example for others will also help. If one SUV owner is converted to this type of person, then the effect may multiply in ways “unseen”! Changing what is considered to be “fitting in” may be the part of a newly discovered puzzle piece required for ultimate success!

It is a pleasure to know you on this blog. I hope your brain is even more energized. I trust you will take what we have collectively built in our dialogue and take it to another level of thought. Eventually, the bits and pieces to this gigantic global puzzle will help create the master plan and the critical time path toward total and complete solution. We are still at an early phase in identifying the many puzzle of the pieces.

Our time and energy spent on the blog serves a higher purpose when we develop better strategies than we had before. I found this discussion to be of great value. As an old Buddhist proverb says:

“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear!”

We are all students and all teachers. Soon, there will be many more students than teachers so the need for the most knowledgeable and wisest teachers will increase. This blog is nothing more than training ground for our future roles. Be ready my friend for the opportunity to use your knowledge. You are destined for great leadership if you realize it or not.

Best Wishes,

Dan

Yes, let’s reconsider economic growth (and prosperity). The dole is the answer.

You start. Give all you earn to the government and then get what ever you can from them (dole). Let me know how this works for you.

I’m sure your retirement income will be a real nestegg…