The gospel on global warming 11 March 05

But I don’t believe Kyoto is the way to acheive it.

In my lifetime it is the richest nations that have done the most to clean up their evironments.

I have lived and worked in Dallas, London, Jakarta and Wellington. Three first world cities and one third world city.

I have also visited many other cities in both first and third world. It is the third world cities that are the most polluted! There is no comparison. It is the wealth of the first world that gives them the luxury to clean themselves up.

All Kyoto will achieve is the diversion of capital from the first world to the third reducing the available capital in the first world for environmental improvement while the third world recipients will use it(what is left over after corrupt officials take their cut) to develop new industries without regard to environmental concerns.

Yep—a fundamentalist house divided against itself cannot stand. But the ones building their house on the rocks will not fall, either!

Just thought I’d use the words of the One they all claim to serve to make this point! Isn’t this just like a breath of fresh air? (We could use more of THAT, too, folks! LOL)

I`m not at all comfortable with christians (or any other religions) getting involved. They are by nature partisan and divisive, Christians can`t even agree amoungst themselves about the bible!

This is a global issue: if it gets hijacked by one religion, it could deter other religions followers from subscribing to GW action, seeing it as something “christian”.

I do agree that the issue should progress from the science (which is now all but indispuitable), to questions of our responsibilities to future generations, and our rights to drive other species (who have inhabited our planet longer than us) to extinction.

When this kind of debate comes about, the GW debate should become more constructive than it is presently.

Based on your logic, it seems it better to protect the environment without reducing prosperity. But then maybe we have to define or redefine what prosperity really means or should be.

Would it not be better to promote 3rd world nations to be more prosperous so they can be more rich and healthy?

Does your argument mean that in order for your kids to live in a richer and healthier society that it must exclude others from developing the same or something better?

Would it not be richer and healthier to want your children to care about those who have less and to want them to obtain a richer and healthier society as well?

Would it be better for your children to develop the intellect capable of finding solutions whereby everyone can win?

In my value system, I would want to be rich of the heart and have a keen intellect that would offer a way to help others win without me loosing anything of real value!

If you cannot find a solution to avoid climate change and Kyoto will not work for you and you want your children to live in a richer and healthier society, then I think you have failed your mission if climate change makes your children’s world less rich and less healthy.

If all your affluence and travels is a testimony to your vast experience and intellect, then why am I not impressed with your post as well?

Later, Dan

I see your wit is still among us!

Just saying Hi and hope all is going well. Ever find a local group to join to share your thoughts?

Dan

My theory was that the real Christians had long since died out, killed out by those who don’t turn the other cheek. And those claiming to be Christians in the present era were just a bunch of fakes parading around as Christians so they could secretly get some pleasure at pointing their finger at everyone else’s sins.

As a Catholic I am really glad to see this article about concerned Christians, and see that a U.S. Catholic bishop in Detroit has signed the personal Kyoto Protocol. Those might just be the thin threads that keep me from being a back pew, totally cynical Christian.

1) They obviously don’t believe in the Christian virtue of prudence (we don’t need 99% certainty of a problem that may be killing massive numbers of people now & in the future to lift our little gluttonous finger to address that problem).

2) They obviously have not tried to abate any environmental harm, because then they would have realized that we stand to save a lot of money, not fall down into poverty (which seems to be their real fear).

3) Yeah, sure, let’s kill off all the plants & animals, since we bonafide Christians live off manna and angel-food. Then only the unbelievers will die, then we can tell who’s who.

Dan, if you were faced with feeding your hungry children and you saw a rare bird or animal that was on the verge of extinction would you kill it to feed your kids?

Would the survival of your children take precidence over conservation issues?

This is not an hypothetical question for millions of people in the world today.

Believe it or not the United States saw its forests EXPAND by 10,000,000 acres during the 1990’s. The source for this information comes from The UN Global Forest Resources Assessment update 2001 of which I have a hard copy.

I believe you can check it out here http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=101&sitetreeId=1191&langId=1&geoId=0

My point is it is the wealth and technology of the US that has reduced the need for agricultural land and allowed this to occur.

I totally agree with you that we need to bring third world countries up to the levels of First world nations. This would have a major positive impact on rectifying environmental issues as well as improving the lot of millions of people. Where we might differ is in the mechanisms used to acheive this. It really is a fallacy to think that the wealth of the first world has been acheived by exploiting the third world! Try doing business there. See how much money is leaking away in bribes and corruption! See how much these people care about the environment or even then own countrymen. Therein lies the problem. Not American greed.

I see your points that our prosperity was not based on pure greed. But still, I have many questions unanswered and why I pose them when I still continually see problems in need of solutions.

I agree with you that if Kyoto mechanisms went to spur bad development plus bribes and corruption then it may not be serving its intended purpose. But, what would be a better mechanism?

I am not focused on Kyoto as the only way especially if it cannot be implemented in the spirit of its purpose. Can it be refined or reinvented to insure its intended success to reduce carbon emissions?

The question is how do we increase prosperity and enable others to do the same and reduce carbon emissions plus change our entire reliance on fossil fuels.

I think planting trees is a great idea and they are carbon sinks. Kyoto addressed carbon sinks. Concerning agriculture, I wonder how much reduction of our land was dependent on oil reflecting on a recent dialogue we all had regarding Mark’s post on our dependency of oil for our food supply.

If we only focus on carbon sources, then I cannot see how the 3rd World countries will be able to have prosperity and if we are on an unsustainable path due to GW/CC or even a reduced fossil-fuel supply, then I wonder if we are doing what we really need to do.

I still think that the rich countries have an extra burden on this task since they are still the largest greenhouse gas emitters based on a per capita basis and we may have to redefine what prosperity really is for the sake of our children’s future in the end.

In that light, we may have to sacrifice something and would it be wrong to do that if it was actually required and to teach our children to do the same?

I do not have children currently and until I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, I may have to sacrifice any desire for them until I know that they would have a future.

I am not yet convinced they will. With that said, I still have many friends who are parents and I can have a vision for their children so my quest would still be for them and your children as well.

What would you teach your children about GW/CC? For me, if I did have children, I would want to see them to become problem-solvers and instill an attitude that the whole world was a better place for them being alive then to merely enjoy the benefits of modern society.

I would hope my life would set an example for them to follow and currently, I believe I am not doing enough from my strong technical background yet.

Do you have any more remedial ideas we would benefit from? With prosperity comes responsibility and without that, we will be left with greed and a change in economic status for everyone when what was unsustainable comes into full fruition.

Best Regards, Dan

Your total bias against religion may be premature.

Science offers us the scientific method which is a valid method and it seems a great way to obtain objectivity in finding the truth! The only flaw in the application of the scientific method is quite often it can lead to “if it cannot be proven, then it does not exist”.

However, many things exist without any way to prove them and some things can appear actually impossible but we know they are real. I can provide a most basic example.

If you are well versed in mathematics as well as science then you would know that when we move our hand through space we must go through an infinite amount of points since according to basic geometry, there are an infinite amount of points between any two points we may define.

How can we move through an infinite amount of points through a finite amount of time since we do perceive time as having a beginning and an ending and motion is real to us and yet we move through an infinite amount of positions of space!

How can infinity be present in the finite? Real motion is not a movie clip based on a finite number of positions. This is only the illusion of real motion. If we could not have motion then everything would be stationary and motionless and time would not exist and just stand still and yet our perception of time does exist in our world.

We have many things intangible as humans and faith is a state of mind whereby we proceed along a certain course of action without having any proof that we will achieve our objective other than our belief that we will. That belief along with desire can often manifest the path necessary to achieve our objective from our own passions.

In that regard with our current state of affairs, those that have faith we will succeed to prevent climate change would be classified as the optimists and those who do not believe this will be classified as the pessimists.

Regardless of scientific analysis, the greatest breakthroughs in science still occur through the intangible property of our own creative imaginations. Self-confidence is an intangible human quality required for someone to see that objective through to completion.

I do not know how to prove that our capacity for creative imagination is infinite. But, I do believe this to be true and offer no proof or any way to prove it but this belief helps me have faith in the ultimate positive outcome for our future.

For all humans regardless of their beliefs, we all have what we call a value system and every human operates on their own unique system. You have one and you have a special relationship to it and it is very personal and private. What does it look like? We have a person who posts on Mark’s site often who is devoutly religious and who has demonstrated many attributes that if all of us acquired them, then we may not have a climate problem any longer. Her name is Lynn and I always value what she writes. I believe she would call herself a Christian.

I differ in your view of religion in that I do not focus on what I think is wrong but on what I think is right and religious principles are still at the heart of western society and eastern society. I find many examples in religion that inspire me greatly and I will share with you an ancient Buddhist proverb that I especially like:

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

Religion is very important to climate change in our views of altruism, prosperity, creativity, responsibility, and many other intangible human character traits which good religion would try to influence.

Our values and belief systems are important in preventing climate change. If they were refined more, then we would not create war and we would have all the investment capital needed to do what we need to do to save ourselves. Maybe my statement here provides a new meaning to the idea of what salvation really means which is to save ourselves by changing our beliefs and attitudes toward each other and how we define our world.

If our values were better, then we would be saved! With regard to Mark’s assertion on mass extinction, my example shows how to integrate ideas from two value systems of thought! I did that just now with my own creative process using the word “salvation” and “save” even when these words create their own meaning with how they are applied.

I applied them in a different sense in that salvation means saving us by saving the planet. Who could argue with that no matter what the core value system is. It is a way to form a consensus to unite people behind a purpose which if achieved will save the climate for everyone no matter if they believe in aliens or that the earth is flat. It will not matter as long as we have a climate.

Again, use your imagination and think outside the box! Do you know what that box really looks like? Socrates says to us all:

“Know thyself”

Brevity is not my style but if you read Vicki’s witty post, I think she may have said it better than I in regard to Mark’s post with:

“—a fundamentalist house divided against itself cannot stand. But the ones building their house on the rocks will not fall, …”

For me, Vicki is also saying with her wit is that good religious thought and good scientific thought do not always have to be in conflict. The word “Rocks” can be synonymous with “good” in this case. Again, in good science, how does science define good?

Religious values and progress toward preventing climate change are not always mutually exclusive and I think that may be the flaw in your theory or rather your value system!

“A Pessimist is someone who may see the possible as being impossible. An Optimist is a person who can see what is possible in what may only appear to be impossible. What the pessimist will see is an illusion while the optimist may see a greater truth. Only the optimist will make the discovery because the pessimist will stop searching for the answer and will ask no more questions. To become a realist and remain an optimist, know that anything is possible as long as it does not violate the laws of physics.” Dan Kellogg

Like that? I did. It is part of my value system and beliefs.

This bit of prose in the form of a quote is one example how the state of our human thoughts can lead to motivation through inspiration. Is it scientific or mathematical? Would it even matter as long as it is helpful?

I think what I wrote to be both correct and helpful. Does the word inspiration imply God? Again if it does, then who cares as long as it is helpful to others, and who cares how we label it! Call it Dan since I wrote it and I am not God! I am only a blood and guts human being just like you.

I understand your comfort zone, but sometimes we need to get out of that zone to make progress. I hope you understand that enough to open your mind to include more diverse thinking and focus on what you are for rather than what you are against.

I can do that with ease. I am not against cost-effective nuclear energy. I am against only nuclear contamination and if we can have one without the other, then I have no objection. With that, I remain unbiased to discovery of a nuclear solution but yet would oppose a costly nuclear solution that included nuclear contamination. If another way could be found instead that is better than I say go do that!

I believe that you are not really against religion but more against how some people apply their religious faith when it is irrational. People who do not believe in God can be just as irrational in their thinking process. I think this is more correct.

Most people feel they have to take sides but polarization is a human creation as well. Actually, my previous statement should be correct for any person seeking an energy source that produces no greenhouse gases no matter if they are for or against nuclear power plants.

Polarized thinking is often biased and inefficient in solving problems objectively and we make better progress when we have unity of purpose and it may expand our minds to greater discoveries and better solutions.

If we further clarified what our thoughts really represented then it would simply be having electrical energy without creating climate change with the least impact to the natural environment. Who cares what that form is as long as we are successful? I think success is the most important objective with regard to GW/CC issues. If failure means mass extinction, then who would argue with preventing that! Not me!

I am against nuclear bomb factories because I see no value in that product. However, I like electricity. I am for that! I think that those who believe in nuclear arsenals to influence security may need to try and come up with a better idea instead. I just think it may be possible that we could do that.

Maybe good religion can help us create the values required not to feel the need to further protect us from each other because no one wishes ill will to anyone anymore. Maybe we need to focus on another idea as opposed to every nation on earth seeking weapons to protect themselves from each other.

Idealistic, but it does not violate any laws of physics I know and there are people who can achieve a state of peaceful coexistence with others. Why cannot we all achieve this? What law says this is impossible for humans to achieve?

I once posted the results of a PEW study which indicated that the USA could meet half of its Kyoto requirements by spending 7.5 billion dollars planting trees which is a mere fraction of our Iraq War costs. We have money for war but not enough money for planting trees to help save the climate?

What is wrong with this picture? It makes no sense to me! How do we spend trillions of dollars on things we should never want to use with the premise that this makes us more secure and yet we cannot think of ways to become more sustainable because it costs too much? And there are people who exist who do not understand what that means and think an unsustainable course of action will secure their future. I call that insanity no matter what their core religious beliefs may be!

Best Regards,

Dan

Faith is a personal thing, and it should not be a cause for concern or resentment if any faith group supports the concensus views of climate scientists and environmental protection groups.

The issues we all discuss relate directly to social justice, care and consideration for others, alleviation of poverty, and the numerous acknowledgements on this blog and many others that at the root of all the environmental evils we are witnessing, is the love of money.

It would be a matter of far greater concern if a group of scientists trying to deliver the message of global warming suddenly claimed that God was on our side: we’d best leave that kind of sophistry to the politicians!

I would call myself a Christian (non-conformist, far from a fine example but practising) and see neither any contradicition, or special mystical significance in the relationship between my personal spiritual beliefs and the issues of trying to raise awareness, debate and a greater sense of responsibility for the protection of our only home.

If one has a purely scientific/evolutionary perspective, then it is the anthropogenic impact on the immensely complex interrelationships within the biosphere; a model forged of such myriad chance developments and complex and extensive evolution as to be unique, that is the focus of one’s action.

If one ’s view is monotheistic/creationist, then it is a case of man’s arrogant assumption as an errant sentient, created being, that his/her puny intelligence can, without guidance, adequately deal with even simple choices relating to the world. A world set within a universe whose physical laws are so subtle, well-ordered and all-embracing, that we can only ever hope to comprehend a tiny fraction of its immensity and no hope at all of manipulating its functions whilst seeing all the likely outcomes.

Surely these are two sides to the same coin? I do not suggest that to be an environmentalist one has to have faith, but personally, I cannot reconcile my understanding of Bible teaching with a failure to act responsibly and with humility towards our environment.

I find two quotations by the Irish philosopher Edmund Burke (1729-1797) of great relevance to this debate:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

and:

“No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”

with best wishes to all

Colin

I would take issue with this. While it is true that richer people do tend to care more about the environment, they are still repsponsible for more CO2 emissions. Luxemburg is one of the richest countries in the world, and it has the highest per capita emissions. Of course, development of the 3rd world is necessary for other reasons, but not at the cost of the conditions tht are prerequesit for life. With the US and forrests, I lived in the Forests in the US for 4 and a half months last year (on the appalachian trail). While forests are expanding (or were during the 1990)m the quality of forrest was falling. I have photos of the smokey moutains forrsts, where every third tree is dead or dying due to acid rain and climate change. During the 1990, the US Forestry service expanded their road network to be the largest road network on the planet.

While it is partly true that habitat destruction is liked with poverty, energy use, and so GHG emissions, are almost certainly linked with wealth

In response to your question on a better idea than Kyoto, the answer is surely contraction and convergence policy – I know that Mark agrees with me on this. Check out the Global Commons Institute. I think their web sight is somehing like www. gci.org.uk, but you might have to google it,

all the best,

Adam

I have to disagree. I think that this is fantastic news. In a blog a few weeks ago, I think I mentioned this. The deep south of the USA has the mobilising power to get things changed. As an Aetheist, I think that we have to work with evryone. In the North USA, people don´t like govt intervention – they are true liberals. In the South they are more willing to accept society imposing laws – such as abortion banning etc. They have a more traditional view of society, and this is what is needed to combat CC now.

I don´t think it is possible for this to become a “christian” issue. It is already seen as an environmental issue. I think this is also a problem, as it should be just as much an issue for development NGO´s, Insurance companies, and, well, er, every lobby group. I don´t think the debate needed is about duty to future generations. as a 19 year old, for me, this is a debate about whether you have the right to steal my future. I think tha answer is clear. Much more interesting debated are about how we are going to reduce emissions before it is to late,

All the best

Adam

I do agree totally in that we should always come back to an applied focus on solving the problem. That would always be my intention.

Since I agree with Albert Einstein in that imagination is more important that knowledge, I see the benefit of the discussions here in opening our minds to greater and better thoughts. I think we are achieving this.

Building and extrapolating on thoughts generated on Mark’s site, is very motivating to me. Our posts, in my mind, do not necessarily prove another person’s thoughts wrong but add clarity and insight. I tend to think of them that way.

With regard to reducing emissions, we do have a challenge there. Also, there are ideas which seldom we discuss because they are “far out” with regard to additional approaches to reflect solar energy back into space since it is the extra heat influx which is the problem.

Increasing albedo from a position in outer space through mirrors or from the ground seems intriguing. I hope we do not have to go there. I did post a thought about doing this with land surrounding glaciers as to reduce the temperature of the local environment during the summer months. Maybe it is a bad idea. Maybe not!

The most important thing is that we have a vision of success and that no stone is unturned that would insure your future and ours.

Altruism is an important concept and one which religions often tackle. I have done calculations to support this on a per capita emission basis as well as on an individual level.

I have noticed that when a person spends large sums of money to make themselves energy independent and have zero emissions, they may have the idea that they did a great thing by taking themselves off the grid.

However, if the process was economically inefficient, then they would have been better to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs with the same money and sell them or give them away and achieve a greater net result in emission reduction.

A better idea on that would be to give them away, calculate the energy savings per month and have the customer pay back on a portion of the savings until the original investment was paid back.

This could be a total win-win and a basis for better energy-economics. In this thought, we have the basis for future development whereby everyone can win by helping others achieve their goals.

What if other countries where able to comply with Kyoto carbon reductions by investing in the USA to reduce our emissions instead? We have plenty of emissions we need to reduce and this represents 25 percent of the world emissions.

Could other countries do this and increase their prosperity as well and have the capital later to do it more for themsleves?

If the UK invested in developing the USA more to reduce emissions, then on an emission standpoint, they may achieve more than if the UK reduced further.

I base that on the fact if the USA came down to current British per capita emissions, it would be equivalent to the UK reducing all their emissions to zero by a factor of 4.

In the end, it does not matter where the emissions are reduced as long as they are reduced since climate change affects everyone. By helping another reduce has the same net effect. In this way, altruistic thoughts have merit.

Keep learning. Keep posting. We are all students at this stage as we learn from each other.

I hope my thoughts have added more curiosity to your quest for the answers you seek. As always, are we asking enough of the right questions?

Best Regards, Dan

Hi Adam

I agree entirely with you. Focus the debate on how to reduce GHg emissions; I was refering to the endless scientific debate over GWs validity, I have seen it groan on for 15 years and some; I always believed that as we are the ones enjoying the lifestyle that is causing GW, which may reduce (severely) the quality of future generations lifestyles, we should look closely at our obligations to the as yet unborn.

In light of the inconclusive science such as it is, we should do whatever we can to reduce GHgs, more out of precaution- than because we know for sure what the effects of GW will be, chiefly because we do not have the right to deny future generations a viable environment.

When confronted with important politicians like G Bush (senior) who said that the american lifestyle is not up for negotiation, this debate is real and very important to setting new political priorities to deal with GW. The measures which are devised to mitigate GW will be chosen based on what our societal priorities are. If future generations are overlooked, and present lifestyles predominate, then GW policies may be weaker & less effective.

By the way, I did not say dont work with christians, the more the merrier!

Finally I dont believe that GW is seen purely as an environmental issue anymore. It goes right to the heart of sustainability, science, economics, social justice. GW is now reverberating through stock markets (carbon trading), insurance markets, politcal fora, policy think tanks, the list goes on. I just dont see how religion can contribute directly to the issue, religion is personal, and to try to organise people through it could be divisive.

regards Brendon

I think they are saying thet people are the most important thing. I gathered this from their last sentence in the statement, “Any issue that seems to put plants and animals above humans is one that we cannot support.”

Also, I think that you are assuming that the global warming THEORY is accepted by all. You miss that even the scientific community does not agree on the CAUSES. It may be from GHG or it may be a natural cycle in the earth’s life.

Here was an interesting source I came across;

This is a articulate article on priority vs. futility

On Wednesday, the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change enters force, marking a milestone for environmentalism. But making climate change “a central moral test of our time” was wrong, writes Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg points to existing climate models that predict that even universal acceptance of the Kyoto rules would postpone warming by a mere six years in 2100, while costing at least US$150 billion a year. “If we have a moral obligation,” Lomborg writes, “it is to spend each dollar doing the most good that we possibly can.” UN estimates suggest that US$75 billion, or half the cost of Kyoto, could buy clean water, sanitation, basic health care, and education for every person in the world. – YaleGlobal

link http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5280

Read the article. A lot of good points are made and better than I can say here….

I found nothing in your response that I disagree with and I am glad you wrote it for greater clarity. So, it seems apparent to me that we must be mostly in agreement.

Sometimes I write for the person and others reading what I write to serve a dual purpose and may fail to clearly distinguish the two. I used my example of pessimism and optimism more to illustrate an example of my own value system in ways I think to motivate myself.

I did not intend to imply that you are a pessimist and that was not in my mind at all. I am sorry if you felt that from me.

Your response indicates that you are an optimist and care deeply about many things and that includes all species so your response back added more insight into the basis for your comments on religion which were based on the greatest intentions and concern for all life.

I acknowledge that and I support your quest to find the answers that will solve the problems we face that threaten our survival.

In my development as an engineer, I have come to respect the laws of physics since they are very basic to how everything operates in the universe and tend to be stable.

Things like perpetual motion machines whereby you obtain energy from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics and will not work.

When I look at a problem that others may see as intractable, I ask if it violates the laws of physics and if it does not then it still may be possible implying that maybe all we have to do is think of a way it can be done.

The pessimistic attitude shuts down the search for answers and the search for questions. Having an optimistic attitude would encourage more searching and more questions being asked.

Non-polarized thinking for me means that we share insight and our intent is not to make the other person’s statements appear wrong but to share another perspective which illustrates a concept from a different angle not necessarily negating anything that person said.

When I posted a response to you, I was not in my mind at least, disagreeing with you so much as I was merely adding insight to develop it more because it seemed necessary.

I appreciate what you had to say about your values which include looking at humans from the species level and making no distinction as to our value with respect to other species. However, Andrei may disagree at least at the survival level when she wrote in a response back to me:

“Dan, if you were faced with feeding your hungry children and you saw a rare bird or animal that was on the verge of extinction would you kill it to feed your kids?”

I think your thoughts have positively added to the discussion.

As we explain in greater detail how we think, I believe it increases our individual awareness of our own thinking process as well as how others think.

We also gain insight as to how others interpret what we say and write. In that light, I believe we all gain in our ability to better communicate with one another.

Best Regards, Dan

Some good news from the EST. Today published a challenge to the UK govt. to mover to a low-carbon economy

Recent update at www.est.org.uk

More info at

http://www.est.org.uk/uploads/documents/Energy_Briefing_Issue_1_Feb_05.pdf

regards

Colin