The Race for Survival

The ''two camps''heretofore described by myself in an earlier post,have been given names by todays REASON Magazine[libertarian]. Based upon scientific wrangling in SCIENCE and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Magazines along with peer-reviewed papers eminating from such places as Harvard Law Policy and Review,Stanford University,and MIT,these fall into two catagories.

''The Wedgist''. - Seeks regulatory solution to greenhouse gases problem. More cons than pros with this position,[adopted by enviros and most liberal Democrats],as it demands increasing cost of energy for Americans under ''cap and trade''but does not address emissions[estimated to be in the area of 65 gigatons worldwide] by non-participating and developing nations that would continue to carry lower carbon emission costs than the US,thus solving nothing in the area of global warming while creating ''political backlash due to higher prices''here at home. The idea is to drag extant power sources off line,to be replaced with the ''new technologies''which these admit,will create an ''unknown''burden [which in fact is known], upon American consumers,demanding that the switch be so rapid,that it will be impossible to bring the prices of energy produced by ''clean''sources down to extant prices paid for energy produced by ''old''fossil-fuel technology today. Critics observe economic instability as a result which would have global implications.[Or,dropping a powerplant generator under an electrical load offline,before starting another generator from a ''cold iron'' position,which will have the result of creating a cascade blackout especially during peak usage,rather than to bring the standby generator fully online,and then simply shifting the load].

''The Breakthroughist'': Reality-based advocates of public and private investment as opposed to regulatory. Seeks continued use of ''old''systems while at the same time,encouraging public and private investment in ''new''technologies and R&D. Stresses capability of the ''new''to first supplant,then replace the ''old''while both work in a tandem environment. The more ''new''brought fully on line,the less impact on energy prices passed along to the consumer,and thus,less strain on the economy,with the additional bonus of creating less greenhouse gases. Among the ''breakthroughists''appearing before a Senate committee yesterday discussing high gas prices is George Soros,who is joined by researchers and scientists now studying this problem,who are neither allied with ''oil companies'' or the purely puritan[ or Goreian] environmental movement.

www.reason.com

www.senate.gov

As stewards of the earth humans have a spiritual obligation to respect and protect every endangered creature great and small, because a benevolent God created them all !

Brien Comerford

AntFarm: You would get an argument from the CBO,which merely supports my concerns over where all of this is going. Already worried congressmen and women see the unintended consequences of Lieberman-Warner in Congress passing this cap and trade bill which will be devastating to this economy,already on shaky feet. Samuelson,like myself, scorns those among the enviro advocates who attempt to paint prettier pictures of an cap and tax economy whose machinery they do not understand. They are playing with fire here and no amount of swapping to green energy will mean anything while we see enhanced economic instability as a result of the one energy source that the world still overwhelmingly relies upon. Changing horses in the middle of the stream is a foolish exercise in itself. Yet with the economy,this is what the enviros demand.[pay no attention to allegedly ''green''glitterati and the richenfamous. These are patent hypocrites in all that they do and say[Ed Begley Jr being a possibly lone exception],and do not warrant even cursory examination],with results that can be catastrophic. Already,the ''deadline''as proferred by NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC,is 4.50$ a gallon nationwide before real economic hardship begins to evidence itself. These cap and tax advocates would push this amount ever higher,even assuming that the price ends there and not 5,7,or even 9 bucks a gallon. Kick the ideologues to the curb,and begin crafting compromise that will keep this ''gap''of which I spoke filled until these technologies can fully come on line. Not before.

When will sewer rats make the list? I'm tired of the smelly little bastards being taken advantage of all the time.

Lee, again I am afraid you are misinformed. You cannot simply read an opinionated editorial (Samuelson's "Cap and Tax") and expect to be well informed on the issue. Samuelson's article refers to the report "What Will it Cost to Protect Ourselves from Global Warming" published by Environmental Defense Fund. Now, don't get me wrong, Environmental Defense Fund is not a scientific organization; they may be considered an advocacy group. However, Environmental Defense Fund employs many real and very reputable scientists. And the economic models they used in their report were not created by them. The economic models were created by The Energy Information Agency (government), Research Triangle Institute (research institute), Harvard (academia), MIT (academia), and the Pacific Northwest National Labs (government). The models are absolutely offered by scientists and experts in the field. In fact, EDF points out that advocates have been known to cherry pick numbers from particular models that best suit their cause. EDF takes the stance of presenting results from multiple models as a way of being open and fair, and they point out specifically that "judiciously using a range of current models, however, can inform the policy debate in useful ways".

I would agree with you that advocates are ruling this debate. But there are advocates on both sides of the fence: both environmental activists and so called "free market" activists, both of which distort facts to suit their own ends. As a scientist, I have shaken my head sadly towards both of them, as no scientist wants to see their research distorted for the personal gains of another. It is the voices of the pundits, editorial writers, activists, and lobbyists that are heard; rarely the voices of those who are truly knowledgable. EDF, though technically an advocacy group, rises above other advocacy groups in terms of scientific research and industrial cooperation and has worked with companies to help them find environmental solutions; for example, EDF worked with DuPont to develop a nanotechnology risk framework (granted, not related to the current debate, but it was rather profound when it came out and somewhat unprecedented). This type of partnership is exactly what the "green debate" needs: people from all sides working together. Such cooperation is much more difficult when one side believes we should move away from fossil fuels and the other side depends solely on the use of fossil fuels: a middle ground is much harder to find. I could get into a technical debate on the viability and risks of various sources of energy (coal, oil, nuclear, etc), but the bigger picture we seem to be discussing here is how to sort through the noise and find some truth behind the advantages and disadvantages that lie in all potential energy solutions.

I know I spoke favorably of EDF, but let me add a note that I do not work for EDF or any environmental advocacy g

Lee Holmes, your lack of understanding of science is both grossly apparent and sadly ironic. As an experienced modeler in the field of chemical engineering, I can assure you that scientific models do, in fact, utilize "hard science". Legitimate scientific models are always accompanied with either the fundamental, peer-reviewed laws of physics they are based on or the empirical evidence they are derived from. Also, models always present their methodology such that they may be evaluated and peer reviewed by the scientific community and are not "subject to partisan whims and ideologies". The sad irony of your argument is that you accuse scientists of making biased predictions when it is actually you, in fact, that makes predictions of an "enhanced global poverty" and wild accusations that environmentalists wish to "shut down progress in energy independance" based upon no evidence whatsoever. Note that evidence does not include the rantings of neo-conservative pundits. I also suggest you understand the difference between an environmental scientist and an individual who aligns themself with an environmental ideology as likeamistery pointed out. Scientists, especially those in academia, have been the only ones working towards energy solutions while the rest of the world stands critical of the only truly independent community seeking truth and solutions. Scientists are often the victims of the biases of politics of the current federal administration and others who supply the funding for such needed research. Propaganda is a tool of government, marketing execs, and activists, but not of the true scientific researchers.

Lee Holmes, your lack of understanding of science is both grossly apparent and sadly ironic. As an experienced modeler in the field of chemical engineering, I can assure you that scientific models are, in fact, utilize "hard science". Legitamite scientific models are always accompanied with either the fundamental, peer-reviewed laws of physics they are based on or the empirical evidence they are derived from. Also, models always present their methodology such that they may be evaluated and peer reviewed by the scientific community and are "subject to partisan whims and ideologies". The sad irony of your argument is that you accuse scientists of making biased predictions when it is actually you, in fact, that makes predictions of an "enhanced global poverty" and wild accusations that environmentalists wish to "shut down progress in energy independance" based upon no evidence whatsoever. Note that evidence does not include the rantings of neo-conservative pundits. I also suggest you understand the difference between an environmental scientist and an individual who aligns themself with an environmental ideology as likeamistery pointed out. Scientists, especially those in academia, have been the only ones working towards energy solutions while the rest of the world stands critical of the only truly independent community seeking truth and solutions. Scientists are often the victims of the biases of politics of the current federal administration and others who supply the funding for such needed research. Propaganda is a tool of government, marketing execs, and activists, but not of the true scientific researchers.

FWIW, Alaska Fish and Game biologists blamed the decline of the Anchorage area beluga whales on native subsistence users so in 1999, they banned all hunting. The population has continued to fall. Oops, guess it wasn't hunting after all.

IF the ice is actually shrinking, it is due to BURNING fossil fuel, not looking for it in Alaska. If you want to save the polar bear and the ice cap, turn off the power plants in the NorthEast US. Let's see how well that flies.

Things may not work out so bad. These crises that we bemoan are sort of the rudder that guides us through the sea of our errors. As they become apparent, we begin to apply the rudder to avoid the hazard ahead. Humanity is still a surviving species. So far.
The ship is quite large and she turns slowly. It's sort of a game of patience. We will do something about it.

Oh, about the polar bear steaks. Not a chance. Especially after seeing that picture of mama bear and baby bears. Not a chance. We did kill deer for food those days long ago, but I have not taken one for "sport".

No problem, justmethinking. What we do now is "play games" with self imposed hardship. No attempt at all to leave any kind of footprint, small or large. We do it merely for old times sake. There are magnificent people in the memory and this brings them back, so to speak. Best of all was all of the conversation without so many distractions.
Actually, the TV is hardly better than the battery operated radio of yore. A little news at noon and 10 PM if we can stay awake that late. A plug in movie once in a while. We are the wasteful generation who made the mess that later generations will have to clean up. But, that's just what our predecessors did and we did our best to clean up theirs. They, in their turn, helped clean up the mess of slavery. My, how time flies.
The internet, though, is maybe worth all of the mess that we made. The most awesome library yet. And I am enjoying the use that you and I are putting it to right now, as well. Love the electricity. We do, though, turn out the lights when not in use. Only practical stuff. Just enjoying the moments. Nothing more. Keep shootin' justmethinking. I don't mind a bit. I'll buy you a cup of coffee if I see you in town next week.

Justme, if not for television, books or the internet, how would one be able to learn about the environment in the first place? Who would care about sustainability without knowledge of the natural world? Moreover, these media can be used to inform the public on issues which they would otherwise be ignorant of. How would I know that the arctic is melting without the media??? Isn't it less polluting and more economically feasible for me to turn on the internet rather than fly a plane to the top of the world? Although they require an energy source, it does not have to be a dirty one. Whos to say that a televison is bad if it is powered by clean energy? As for books, there are plenty of books available today with paper derived from sustainably managed forests as well as the obvious recycled origin. Any of your gadgets at home can be powered by clean energy. You can even power up rechargable batteries from the sun with todays consumer technology! So don't say that all these technologies are bad for the planet because that simply is not true.

Justme, olderwiser and I were having a discussion about seeking and finding happiness in consumerism, not about living austerely in order to combat global warming, so your attack is totally misdirected.

That said, even if having a lower carbon footprint were olderwiser's goal, calling him a hypocrite simply doesn't make sense. You don't decry a Prius owner just because the car still uses gasoline - it's still comparatively much better than a Hummer.

And if you can find the causal evidence that shows polar bears are benefiting from climate change, I would LOVE to see it.

The Endangered Species Act was created to prevent species from going extinct. If polar bears face extinction due to global warming, which I beleve they do, then utilizing the Endangered Species Act as a means to address the threat of global warming is entirely appropriate, justified, and necessary.