SOCIAL: A little environmental help please

Thu Jul 23 19:36:01 PDT 2009

Actually, I think Lomberg is interesting.  As I understand it, his  
take is that global warming is real, but that the money spent on  
preventing it could be better spent on other causes.  I think that's  
a reasonable debate, but the trouble is that then you have to  
estimate how much it will cost to prevent / mitigate (could be a lot,  
could be not so much if some big discoveries make things easy) and  
how much it will cost if we ignore it (could be a lot if the worst  
case scenarios hold up; could be less if not).  I'm a fan of the  
precautionary principle in this case given that the worst case  
scenarios are pretty seriously bad.  (Then again, I haven't read a  
lot of Lomberg, so this is mostly second hand)

On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Kristina Pappas wrote:

> My blood pressure is rising just thinking about your experience in  
> the lunchroom! I've seen a lot of research in the last few months  
> that skepticism among Republicans far outweighs that among  
> Democrats and Independents, and in fact the better educated someone  
> is, the more likely he or she is to believe (D's / I's) or not  
> (R's) that climate change is real and caused by human activity.  
> Also, Republican disbelief actually fell last fall (when McCain,  
> who believes that climate change is real, was running) and started  
> rising again after Obama was elected.
>
> Grist has an excellent series on its website called "How to talk to  
> a Climate Skeptic" available here: http://www.grist.org/article/ 
> series/skeptics/
>
> While they have a great series of links to dispel the most common  
> arguments, unfortunately there is no link to something like "Al  
> Gore/Inconvenient Truth is wrong"!
>
> By the way, if it turns out that they are basing their arguments on  
> a skeptic named Lomberg who published (unfortunately well- 
> publicized) drivel last year in the form of a book called "Cool  
> It", I've got ammo for that too. But no need to waste your time on  
> him and his arguments if not necessary.
>
> Kristina
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Mike Kosim <mike.kosim at mac.com>  
> wrote:
> I'd also look at the political bent of the website itself.
>
> They market themselves as "Free Market Environmentalists" and  
> "Common Sense Environmentalists".  While they say they are not  
> politically aligned, I think it is fair to say they are Regulation  
> Opposed.  That's just a short list.  This site is pretty biased.   
> My $.02.
>
>
> Mike
>
>
> Here are some excerpts from their site page: http:// 
> www.heartland.org/suites/environment/index.html
>
>
> >>They Say:
>
> What is Common-Sense Environmentalism?
>
> Common-sense environmentalism recognizes that almost everyone today  
> is an environmentalist. We all want a healthy, green environment  
> for ourselves and our families.
>
> >>My comment:  This isn't really true.  While it would be *MORE*  
> true if people acted entirely in their backyards, I don't think the  
> CEOs of coal companies are living on the mountain tops they are  
> removing!  That is, while people may want the best environment for  
> themselves, this doesn't mean they are willing to sacrifice their  
> yearly performance bonus in order to preserve the environment for  
> strangers.
>
>
>
> >>They Say:
>
> The key insight that environmental advocates, and the media that  
> gives them sympathetic coverage, overlook is the First Law of  
> Toxicology: The dose makes the poison. Many “toxic” chemicals are  
> not dangerous if the level of exposure is below a threshold where  
> physical affects can be observed, while many “harmless” chemicals  
> can be deadly if we are exposed to too much of them.
>
> >>My comment: The old addage "The solution to pollution is  
> dilution" was something anti-regulation advocates liked to say  
> about environmental disasters.  While it would be true in a static  
> sense, that is, yes, if I diluted that drop of DDT in billions of  
> gallons of water, it would be relatively harmless, this largely  
> ignores the fact that there are many biological and physical  
> systems that create high concentrations of toxins in our food  
> supply. (witness tuna, a major source of mercury in the American diet)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 23, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Geoff Davis wrote:
>
>> A more neutral version:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
>>
>> The movie can be show in schools, but there needs to be a disclaimer.
>>
>> It sounds like the gist of the issue is this:
>>
>> Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is leading to all sorts of changes  
>> in the climate, but it is extremely difficult to say that any  
>> particular event is a direct result of increased CO2 emissions.     
>> Gore was trying to tell a story, so he showed specific events  
>> (e.g. Katrina) and suggested that global climate change may have  
>> been responsible.  It's hair splitting.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Jennifer Seuferer  
>> <jenniferseuferer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So today I walked in on a conversation in my office lunch room  
>> between two men known for their conservative & republican  
>> political views. They were talking about the environment and  
>> global warming. I won't go into everything they were saying  
>> because it makes me so mad I want to throw something but one thing  
>> they said was that Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" could not be  
>> shown in British schools because of all the inaccuracies in the  
>> film. I googled this and found this article and was wondering if  
>> anyone on Social could speak to some of the points in this. What  
>> concerns me is the men I overheard discussing this were using this  
>> to basically write off global warming or the things people do to  
>> try to help as ridiculous and uneducated. If you have time please  
>> read this and let me know what you think. Its not a very long  
>> article.
>>
>> http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22160/ 
>> British_Court_Rules_Inconvenient_Truth_Represents_Partisan_Political_ 
>> Views.html
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Social mailing list
>> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
>> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Social mailing list
>> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
>> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Social mailing list
> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Kristina Pappas
> MBA, Sustainable Management - 2008
> 415.812.3128
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/kristinapappas
> _______________________________________________
> Social mailing list
> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deeptrouble.com/pipermail/social-deeptrouble.com/attachments/20090723/117b0b68/attachment-0002.htm>