Comments 1 - 11 of 11 Search these comments
curious2
2014 Jan 7, 7:07am
Dan, you're one of my favorite authors of all time, and I appreciate your reminding everyone that cancer kills more people than terrorism.
I have to quibble though about two related and significant points. Preventing premature deaths is a big deal, but lives aren't really "saved," they are merely extended somewhat, and usually at a price. The term "saved" is commonly a religious term, and it applies to global warming because the self-styled (not really) "liberal" position on that topic is to restrict CO2 emissions. While there is evidence that human activity affects climate and is currently increasing temperatures, there is no evidence that we can control the climate by reducing our emissions of CO2. To the contrary, controlling the climate would require a technology called geo-engineering, which many self-styled (not really) liberals oppose. Earth's climate has always changed, and climate change has tended to exterminate the dominant species, e.g. the dinosaurs. Even if humans never existed, earth's climate would change. If we want to "save" lives, or prevent premature deaths, we need to develop geo-engineering. Alas we don't hear that from NPR.
Tenpoundbass
2014 Jan 7, 7:19am
Geo-engineering?
What on earth could man possible construct that would still be around, intact, and working 10K-100K-Mil years?
Who would still be around to operate the damn thing, or what do you do with the old one, when you need to make a new one. I'm thinking a geo-engineered project wouldn't be something you just implode on a cool morning with a few well placed sticks of dynamite?
What about in 2,000 years when those Scientist think they know better, than the Scientists 2,000 years ago will decide those archaic people were idiots to build such a hulking wasteful machine/device/structure. Then abandon it, to the horror of the current Scientific Pope of the Secular Pope of the Scientific church.
It will be blasphemy, I tell ya. Those Scientific clerics wont take that laying down, no! They will protest, by going to a Soylet-Fil-A to show solidarity.
curious2
2014 Jan 7, 7:23am
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geoengineering-and-climate-change
What on earth could man possible construct that would still be around, intact, and working 10K-100K-Mil years?
That isn't the goal.
Human activity can increase or decrease temperatures, depending on what is needed at a particular time. In the 1970s, environmentalists warned of global cooling, because pollution was causing more cloud formation that was reflecting more sunlight back into space. Better controls on emissions of those pollutants has reduced that effect, so now the prevailing concern is global warming. There are good reasons to reduce pollution, but climate change isn't among them; addressing climate change requires a different approach.
New Renter
2014 Jan 7, 7:27am
True earths climate changes but within what kind of a time frame? Short of an asteroid or massive volcanic cataclysm such change usually takes a bit longer than a couple of hundred years.
As for geoengineering the idea of spraying the upper atmosphere with sulfuric acid to later rain down upon the earth has a bit of an image problem, lot the least of which would be the destruction of anything made of marble or limestone.
Goodbye Acropolypse, no more Rome, see ya Sphynx.
curious2
2014 Jan 7, 7:33am
spraying the upper atmosphere with sulfuric acid
Someone did actually propose that, and at first I thought it was a false flag attack to discredit geo-engineering, but apparently it was sincere (though misguided). Clouds are mostly water vapor, with the water condensing around a variety of particles, so I don't see why anyone would need to spray sulfuric acid or other toxins.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 7, 9:06am
I have to quibble though about two related and significant points. Preventing premature deaths is a big deal, but lives aren't really "saved," they are merely extended somewhat, and usually at a price.
Absolutely true. The NPR broadcast had a person who gave the number of person-years saved by the anti-smoking efforts. It was a really high number, but I don't remember what it was. So I had to fall back on just giving the number of premature deaths prevented, a statistic I actually had in written form.
While there is evidence that human activity affects climate and is currently increasing temperatures, there is no evidence that we can control the climate by reducing our emissions of CO2.
I agree that we cannot control the climate with today's technology, but we can improve our lot by curtailing or eliminating pollution. There are negative feedback mechanisms in the global ecosystem that keep things very pleasant for humans, but any negative feedback mechanism can be overloaded and broken. For example, you can stretch a spring so far that it will no longer coil back to its original size.
Given the unpredictable nature of complex systems including our global ecosystem, it is wise risk management to minimize our chaotic impact on the world ecosystem.
Even if humans never existed, earth's climate would change.
The problem with climate change isn't the change, but the speed. It's happening very fast in geological terms. Species don't have time to adapt. And rising sea levels could put all of Britain, a nuclear power, under water. I doubt the British will passively accept becoming refugees and giving up their nation-state. I think it's more likely they'll use their military to take over land and move their population there, and that could mean a major war among real military powers, not between a superpower and some third world country.
Plus, I have a personal interest in Florida not going underwater after I finally buy a house. [Sometimes I think that the fact that I'm renting is the only thing keeping Florida afloat.]
Dan8267
2014 Jan 7, 9:16am
APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
Everyone knows that.
I was expecting someone more along the lines of
If corporations don't have the right to pay for their golden toilets and yacht orgies by poisoning their customers with a cheap crop harvested by brown peasants, then freedom has no meaning.
curious2
2014 Jan 7, 9:41am
Smoking requires fire, which creates heat, thus accelerating global warming. Also, smoking pollutes the air and emits CO2. Smokers who claim to care about the environment, and/or climate change, should quit smoking.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 7, 11:27pm
The NPR broadcast had a person who gave the number of person-years saved by the anti-smoking efforts. It was a really high number, but I don't remember what it was.
This morning the figure was mentioned again on NPR. It's 157 million person-years of life saved by anti-smoking efforts. That comes out to an average of 19.625 years per person in the 8 million estimate.
New Renter
2014 Jan 8, 1:04am
spraying the upper atmosphere with sulfuric acid
Someone did actually propose that, and at first I thought it was a false flag attack to discredit geo-engineering, but apparently it was sincere (though misguided). Clouds are mostly water vapor, with the water condensing around a variety of particles, so I don't see why anyone would need to spray sulfuric acid or other toxins.
Apparently sulfuric acid is on the table because it stays aloft longer than other aerosols.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html
Id does sound like a bad movie plot where the cat stroking "villain" in the hollowed out volcano with plans to destroy the world by initiating global eruptions actually turns out to be the one who saves the world.
Maybe its time to take another look at Lex Luthor's drop-California-into-the-sea plan.
Fifty years ago U.S. Surgeon General Luther Terry released an emphatic and authoritative report that said smoking causes illness and death. NPR South Florida just had a great discussion about this event and how the tobacco industry responded. The parallels between the tobacco industry and the various industries polluting our Earth and causing climate change are astonishing.
Big Tobacco hired anyone with a science degree to lie about tobacco causing cancer.
Big Polluter hires anyone with a science degree to lie about man-made climate change.
Big Tobacco ran numerous marketing campaigns to convince the public that there was not scientific consensus about tobacco killing people, when in fact, there had been for many years.
Big Polluter runs numerous marketing campaigns to convince the public that there was not scientific consensus about climate change, when in fact, there had been for many years.
Big Tobacco argued that a scientific theory is a "guess" -- which it is not -- and there was no proof of this theory, when in fact, the theory had been proven.
Big Polluter argues that a scientific theory is a "guess" -- which it is not -- and there is no proof of this theory, when in fact, the theory had been proven.
Big Tobacco bribed, er lobbied, conservative politicians to allow Big Tobacco to continue to poison people.
Big Polluter bribes, er lobbies, conservative politicians to allow Big Polluter to continue to poison people.
Big Tobacco's entire strategy was to delay understanding in the public's mind for as long as possible so that they could continue to reap profits while people died from their business.
Big Polluter's entire strategy was to delay understanding in the public's mind for as long as possible so that they could continue to reap profits while people died from their business.
Approximate, 8 million American lives have been saved by defeating Big Tobacco's lies about smoking and cancer. That's 2,000 9/11's averted over the past fifty years. That's 40 9/11's averted each year for the past half century. That's almost like averting a 9/11 every fucking week for the past two generations.
Defeating Big Tobacco has saved more lives than preventing terrorism ever could, and all without infringing upon anyone's rights. Image how many lives would be saved by defeating Big Polluter's lies about climate change and the environment.
#environment