| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/06/2007 07:17:30 PM · #301 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Shall I start a list? |
Please do. Are you going to suggest that the best place to hold climate change conferences is in western countries, far from the tropical forests that are being so enormously effected? Far from the poor people (the truly poor people) who are going to be vastly, disproportionately affected by climate change (despite the fact that they are not the ones causing it)?
One of my very best friends is at this conference; she sent me a picture today where she was talking to some Balinese traditional dancers who were protesting climate change. Would they have a voice in New York? Hell no.
The flights of scientists are not the problem, they are a drop in the bucket. The problem is systemic. You say you want them to practice what they preach (which, in fact they do - CARBON OFFSETS WORK AND ARE REAL) but really what you want is another reason to gripe.
These are my friends and colleagues you're talking about. I know them. They care about these issues more than most people care about anything, they take it incredibly seriously, and they shouldn't have to fight against a bunch of people with petty BS gripes as well as trying to work out the real issues, which are more complex than you can imagine.
It pisses me off. You want to make a change? Do something. Don't just stand around bitching about how people who dedicate their lives to saving your ass, and your children's, aren't doing enough. Go meet these people, talk to them, and I guarantee you won't be able to reconcile your stereotypes with the reality.
//www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=259890
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 07:46:46 PM · #302 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
CARBON OFFSETS WORK AND ARE REAL |
Speaking of which, what if this is all we focused on? Would that be enough? For example, say we introduced a tax on everyone who produces a greenhouse gas and that money goes towards carbon offsets. Problem fixed?
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 09:07:48 PM · #303 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Shall I start a list? |
Please do. Are you going to suggest that the best place to hold climate change conferences is in western countries, far from the tropical forests that are being so enormously effected? Far from the poor people (the truly poor people) who are going to be vastly, disproportionately affected by climate change (despite the fact that they are not the ones causing it)?
One of my very best friends is at this conference; she sent me a picture today where she was talking to some Balinese traditional dancers who were protesting climate change. Would they have a voice in New York? Hell no.
The flights of scientists are not the problem, they are a drop in the bucket. The problem is systemic. You say you want them to practice what they preach (which, in fact they do - CARBON OFFSETS WORK AND ARE REAL) but really what you want is another reason to gripe.
These are my friends and colleagues you're talking about. I know them. They care about these issues more than most people care about anything, they take it incredibly seriously, and they shouldn't have to fight against a bunch of people with petty BS gripes as well as trying to work out the real issues, which are more complex than you can imagine.
It pisses me off. You want to make a change? Do something. Don't just stand around bitching about how people who dedicate their lives to saving your ass, and your children's, aren't doing enough. Go meet these people, talk to them, and I guarantee you won't be able to reconcile your stereotypes with the reality.
//www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=259890 |
Actually my first choice would be multiple locations linked via technology to reduce travel, allow more people to get involved, and make it truly a global event. I'd "do something" by showing we can get a lot of people together and talk about our issues and set a great example of using technology to eliminate excess travel.
My second choice would have been France, or another place in Europe so most of the people going would not have to travel as far, great public transportation from what I hear, major international airports where commercial flights are easy to get, and you don't have to burn a lot energy on AC.
Either way I could have easily planned this event's location(s) with half the carbon footprint and more attendees. But that makes you mad for some reason?
Are you offended that I think the "experts" could do a little better job of practicing what they preach? That's all I'm saying. I guess a party on the beach that many of the attendees get to attend via their research dollars or pay for it themselves with a fat tax deduction is much more fun!
If I were a climate change activist I'd be offended at the planning of this event. Your blind defending of them only tells me you feel they could do no wrong. Come on, you have to admit this was a horrible location for this event.
Originally posted by eamurdock:
The flights of scientists are not the problem, they are a drop in the bucket. |
Would me taking a 8mpg hummer to work daily be a drop in the bucket too as long as I told people to conserve or was researching GW? if everyone thought like this, how would we make any positive change? I'm all for conservation (even though I'm a skeptic) and I think every drop in the bucket eventually will fill it. I changed my bulbs, recycle, and set my thermostat at 66 because I think my drop matters. I'm a skeptic and I'd never say anyone's excessive output was just a drop in the bucket.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 10:54:03 PM · #304 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I changed my bulbs, recycle, and set my thermostat at 66 because I think my drop matters. |
Well, I commend you for doing those things. I'm adult enough to say "thanks," separate from our disagreements about climate change.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:17:12 AM · #305 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by eamurdock:
CARBON OFFSETS WORK AND ARE REAL |
Speaking of which, what if this is all we focused on? Would that be enough? For example, say we introduced a tax on everyone who produces a greenhouse gas and that money goes towards carbon offsets. Problem fixed? |
Good question. Unfortunately, no - an offset represents a reduction or sequestration somewhere else (since CO2 is a global and fungible pollutant sequestering a ton in say Brazil would offset a ton released in say, China). That means they are a limited resource - there's only so much sequestration we can do. So offsets represent the low-hanging fruit, generally, providing funding to fix carbon in those places where it's easy (or prevent the release in places where it's easy) but in the long term we need to find ways to reduce our total global carbon output.
Essentially offsets work like cap-and-trade systems - we cap total emissions and then create a market where you can buy or sell the right to emit. The trade part only works if you have the cap part. Basically the offset market right now is completely dominated by people who are voluntarily taking the financial hit, but we can't just buy our way out.
Your tax idea is certainly on the table, with the idea that it would provide an incentive to reduce emissions (essentially returning externalized costs back to the polluter), and certainly the idea of rolling those funds back into carbon reduction has merit, but just offsets won't work unless the net release is decreased as well. Offsets are a way of acknowledging that the carbon needs of different people are going to be different, and sharing those by need rather than just assigning a hard allotment.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:39:15 AM · #306 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Actually my first choice would be multiple locations linked via technology to reduce travel, allow more people to get involved, and make it truly a global event. I'd "do something" by showing we can get a lot of people together and talk about our issues and set a great example of using technology to eliminate excess travel.
My second choice would have been France, or another place in Europe so most of the people going would not have to travel as far, great public transportation from what I hear, major international airports where commercial flights are easy to get, and you don't have to burn a lot energy on AC.
Either way I could have easily planned this event's location(s) with half the carbon footprint and more attendees. But that makes you mad for some reason?
Are you offended that I think the "experts" could do a little better job of practicing what they preach? That's all I'm saying. I guess a party on the beach that many of the attendees get to attend via their research dollars or pay for it themselves with a fat tax deduction is much more fun!
If I were a climate change activist I'd be offended at the planning of this event. Your blind defending of them only tells me you feel they could do no wrong. Come on, you have to admit this was a horrible location for this event.
Would me taking a 8mpg hummer to work daily be a drop in the bucket too as long as I told people to conserve or was researching GW? if everyone thought like this, how would we make any positive change? I'm all for conservation (even though I'm a skeptic) and I think every drop in the bucket eventually will fill it. I changed my bulbs, recycle, and set my thermostat at 66 because I think my drop matters. I'm a skeptic and I'd never say anyone's excessive output was just a drop in the bucket.
|
You can't do this stuff by telecommuting. Anyone who knows anything about how social networking works knows that there is a place for technology communication, but face-to-face communication cannot be replaced. This is why we have conventions.
You haven't answered my question about the Balinese dancers. They would not have a voice in France, either, nor would they get access to the technology to communicate. And, to be fair, all the people flying from Papua New Guinea, and Madagascar, and China, and India, would have far larger carbon costs flying to France (not to mention monitary costs, which would prevent many from attending). Finally, try to establish international legitimacy (which is, frankly, more important than legitimacy with western climate change deniers) by holding meetings in only western states. There is a real problem with a developed west/rest of the world divide, both real and perceived, that plays a huge role in this issue.
Your Hummer analogy is a strawman - they're not equivalent. I suggest Hummers are unnecessary, therefore wasteful (though I have said over and over that the problem is systemic and should not come down to attacking individuals lifestyle choices). Example - tractor trailers are necessary to haul freight, despite their terrible mileage. But with SYSTEMIC improvements (structuring transportation networks to use rail efficiently, stopping subsidies that encourage the shipping of food over thousands of miles, etc) we can minimize their use. That's efficiency. Note that I don't call for banning them.
I totally agree we should be efficient with our travel. But to suggest that world scientists shouldn't get together for a meeting is absurd. And again, they have offset their carbon - the professors I know that are going there are living carbon neutral lives, paid for out of their own pockets. This is the norm, whether you believe it or not.
I don't blindly defend them. I KNOW them. Blindly implies I'm speaking from a place of ignorance. I'm not. You are. I've been consistently patient and polite in this thread, but when you don't know what you're talking about, show no interest in learning from someone who clearly does, and impugn my integrity, and the integrity of some people I respect deeply, I'm done being polite.
Changing bulbs is well and good, but is not going to get it done. Change will require a lot of smart people getting together and hashing out some incredibly complex issues. I'd rather have them spend a little carbon trying to do that then to shrug and walk away. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 05:48:51 AM · #307 |
These arguments just keep reminding me of quotes from Full Metal Jacket.
"You talk the talk...but do you walk the walk."
Do as I say and not as I do.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 09:20:24 AM · #308 |
I telecommute daily and deal with issues as important and technical. No problems.
Originally posted by eamurdock:
You haven't answered my question about the Balinese dancers. They would not have a voice in France, either, nor would they get access to the technology to communicate. |
No one can listen to the dancers on the remote islands of Alaska or Siberea, places also effected by the changing planet. No beaches there either though...
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Your Hummer analogy is a strawman - they're not equivalent. I suggest Hummers are unnecessary, therefore wasteful |
I suggest charter flights and unnessesary travel are wasteful. I'm not a expert so who cares what I think though...
Originally posted by eamurdock:
I'm not. You are. I've been consistently patient and polite in this thread, but when you don't know what you're talking about, show no interest in learning from someone who clearly does, and impugn my integrity, and the integrity of some people I respect deeply, I'm done being polite. |
Now we see the true attitude, thanks. Note that if you read back in this thread you are clearly wrong about me. I've asked questions respectfully, I've thanked you for your answers respectfully, I've listened and learned from you (and others) and I've tried to understand your (and others) point. I point out thisd pretty clear hypocrisy amongst the experts and I've come to a different conclusion then you (and others), so now you feel that you are smarter then me, I'm "clearly" not interested in learning, and you no longer have patence to deal with me? is this what you do to other experts that disagree with you? I clearly see why there is a "concensus" now. You are right and I am wrong.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 10:24:12.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 09:23:29 AM · #309 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I telecommute daily and deal with issues as important and technical. No problems.. |
You regularly try to communicate to people from 180+ countries at the same time via the web ? That's cool. I regularly try to co-ordinate technical meetings with 5 countries at a time and it is a farce. Someone somewhere always has to be up at 4am or doesn't understand the various languages in use. We can't do them on Thursdays because people are on vacation on the Friday, the video conference drops half way through, someone's phone isn't working and buzzing, the powerpoint link doesn't share properly because the Australians are at a different screen resolution, someone in Russia has to leave for some cultural reason, Everyone in the UK wants to stop for tea and the other Europeans are legally required not to work late then the Americans want to talk about sport for 20 minutes at the start of the call. The Israelis aren't happy with something the Chinese have done and then they all refuse to communicate in the same language for a while and the 30 people in one conference room just end up talking to themselves so nobody else can hear.
But bravo if you regularly manage it with that many countries - you should go work for the UN - think of the money you could save them!
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 09:32:02. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 09:40:11 AM · #310 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I telecommute daily and deal with issues as important and technical. No problems.. |
You regularly try to communicate to people from 180+ countries at the same time via the web ? |
I'd suggest a handful of locations to minimize travel, not 180+. Very Do-able. Thanks for assuming I meant the extreme though.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 09:44:26 AM · #311 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I changed my bulbs, recycle, and set my thermostat at 66 because I think my drop matters. |
Well, I commend you for doing those things. I'm adult enough to say "thanks," separate from our disagreements about climate change. |
You're welcome. I think our goals are the same (less need for oil, less pollution...) we just have different reasons for having those goals.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:53:37 AM · #312 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I telecommute daily and deal with issues as important and technical. No problems.. |
You regularly try to communicate to people from 180+ countries at the same time via the web ? |
I'd suggest a handful of locations to minimize travel, not 180+. Very Do-able. Thanks for assuming I meant the extreme though. |
I assumed you meant similar to the current conference that you suggested should happen via telecommuting.
My experience is that 5 countries is almost impractical on a regular or semi-regular basis, no doubt worse for a one off situation. I think getting the 187 countries currently involved would be mostly impossible via telecommuting. I assume you've tried multi-country telecommuting between multiple sites so you understand the issues even once you've taken timezone and language barriers out of the equation.
I can well accept that the 100's of telecomms engineers I've worked with, in 10s of different companies are all clueless about how to use teleconferencing equipment, but if we can't do it effectively on a multi-site basis, I don't hold out much hope for anyone else using it more effectively.
It works averagely well point to point, but as you add more sites and people in it falls apart very quickly, compared to the effectiveness of face to face communication.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 11:58:15.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 02:03:22 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
I totally agree we should be efficient with our travel. But to suggest that world scientists shouldn't get together for a meeting is absurd. |
I never took LoudDog's point to be that there should be no in-person conference - he even offered at least two alternatives both of which included in-person conferences. His suggestion, as I understood it, was that for a majority of the people a conference in Bali required traveling a great distance. Sure, if you had the conference elsewhere, a different set of people would have to travel further, but perhaps a much smaller set. Therefore, less total travel for the group.
If true (and if I were to wager without investigation, I'd lean toward the side of it being true), there is some hypocrisy there. I don't think LoudDog suggested this was a major issue or one that significantly undermines the entire conference - he seemed to simply suggest the planning was awful in view of the purpose of the conference.
For that suggestion, LoudDog has been beaten with a stick. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 02:05:43 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
For that suggestion, LoudDog has been beaten with a stick. |
the suggestion has been poked with a few sticks, certainly. Seems to be a common thread today. Ideas are not the same thing as the person who has the idea.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 02:34:11 PM · #315 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
the suggestion has been poked with a few sticks, certainly. Seems to be a common thread today. Ideas are not the same thing as the person who has the idea. |
Agree in principle, but I intentionally referred to LoudDog as being beaten, and not his suggestion, because of the parts of at least one prior reply that contained all of the "you" type statements directed entirely at LoudDog and not his suggestion of hypocrisy (e.g. "you are speaking from a place of ignorance", "you don't know what you're talking about, show no interest in learning from someone who clearly does", etc). I did not initially quote that portion because it was ugly and unnecessary for the discussion.
I hope it is obvious from this reply that I was not directing my comment at your posts, Gordon - I read all of your replies to be directed to the telecommuting idea and not the person. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 02:55:43 PM · #316 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Originally posted by eamurdock:
I totally agree we should be efficient with our travel. But to suggest that world scientists shouldn't get together for a meeting is absurd. |
I never took LoudDog's point to be that there should be no in-person conference - he even offered at least two alternatives both of which included in-person conferences. His suggestion, as I understood it, was that for a majority of the people a conference in Bali required traveling a great distance. Sure, if you had the conference elsewhere, a different set of people would have to travel further, but perhaps a much smaller set. Therefore, less total travel for the group.
If true (and if I were to wager without investigation, I'd lean toward the side of it being true), there is some hypocrisy there. I don't think LoudDog suggested this was a major issue or one that significantly undermines the entire conference - he seemed to simply suggest the planning was awful in view of the purpose of the conference.
For that suggestion, LoudDog has been beaten with a stick. |
Well, Al Gore is in Norway now accepting his Peace Prize. Another opportunity to show the world how to save carbon has been squandered. I'll bet most of those scientist don't believe global warming is threatening the world, or they would personally act responsibly. They may say they believe it, because it is there meal ticket, but they don't act like they do. I think this nonsence will die down after they squeeze some money out of the US through their carbon offeset tax. |
|
|
|
12/08/2007 07:54:19 AM · #317 |
|
|
|
12/08/2007 07:26:00 PM · #318 |
Ok. I'll admit that I got a little worked up there, and I apologize. And I will also add that while  LoudDog bore the brunt of my frustration it is not him specifically that I am frustrated by, so much as an attitude that I felt he was representing. So to the degree that I took after him personally I'm truly sorry.
However, I will say:
I don't think I'm smarter than you. I may be, I may be much dumber. I do think, with reason I believe, that on this issue I am better educated than you, and I think that that does allow me some authority on this matter.
I know and work with the people that are going to this conference. You suggest they should walk the walk. I'm telling you they do. They spend money out of their own pockets to balance out the carbon costs of their living, including air travel for work. The ones that I know that are going there have solar panels on their homes, bike to work, have superinsulated homes; even the building where they work has been retrofitted to increase energy efficiency. But they have to be able to work.
There is a strawman argument out there that implies that unless you're willing to live in a cave you have no credibility. That's BS. The things that are killing us are not flights to scientific conferences.
Group meetings are critical. The success of the program to end the ozone hole project has been attributed to the building of a community of collaborators. They still get together. Social capitol is critically important - that's why corporations fly people for face to face meetings all the time, even though they have telephones. Technology's great for some things, but will never replace human contact, as I suspect you know.
There are a great number of people who dedicate their lives to this problem. I'm telling you, with firsthand knowledge, that they consider these points, they take them seriously, and they deal with them as well as anyone could. When they do their efforts are dismissed as "No worries though, they will plant some trees and buy carbon credits! " Well, yeah. They will. Out of their own pockets. That's walking the walk. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 01:11:28 PM · #319 |
Well, a news item this week related to this topic. Baby tax.
This comes close to the solution I believe will be the long term winner. It comes from a place that doesn't really have to worry about over population just yet. LOL But when you suggest this type of solution it's generally not met with open arms. Only China has tried this and they have been mostly condemned for it. IMHO it's population control or we need to perfect our interplanetary space travel skills.
.
Isn't it funny how this thread just keeps popping up like a bad penny? |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 09:12:37 PM · #320 |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 04:36:38 PM · #321 |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 05:30:09 PM · #322 |
I have to say this article is crazy. He's a good enough writer, but the conclusion, as you put it, that "polar bears are fine" is somewhat ludicrous. Just look at the stuff in his article:
Evidence presented to say the bears are in trouble:
"Researchers have found that their weight has dropped by up to 20 per cent because the melting ice has reduced their feeding time and forced them to swim longer distances hunting for prey."
"According to Polar Bears International, the most prominent and widely respected campaign organisation, the West Hudson Bay bear population has fallen by 22 pc since 1987 and its prospects are bleak."
"Dr Ian Sterling, who has studied the bears since the mid-1970s, says that the ice now breaks up about three weeks earlier and so the bears have a shorter time in which to store up fat.
"There's a direct relationship between the date of the ice breakup and survival.
"The health, or condition, of the bears has declined over the past 30 years."
Evidence presented to say the bears are doing ok:
"But the ones we see look healthy enough."
"They say the numbers are down from 1,200 to around 900, but I think I know as much about polar bears as anyone, and I tell you there are as many bears here now as there were when I was a kid," he says as the tundra buggy rattles back to town across the rutted snowscape. "
"People are deliberately seeking out skinny bears and filming them to show they are dying out. That's not right. "
You don't really buy into his argument do you cloudsme? It's all anecdotal evidence to counter actual research.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 05:46:25 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't really buy into his argument do you cloudsme? It's all anecdotal evidence to counter actual research. |
It's cold here today. Obviously global warming is a sham.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 06:01:19 PM · #324 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't really buy into his argument do you cloudsme? It's all anecdotal evidence to counter actual research. |
It's cold here today. Obviously global warming is a sham. |
No kidding! Plus I heard it rained in Atlanta last week so those people bitching about some "drought" are obviously nutters!!!
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 02:07:12 PM · #325 |
Surprised I haven't seen anything about the summit in Bali. the chairman breaking down in tears. The majority of the world delegates booing the US representative. Papua New Guinea asking the US to step up or get out of the way. The 11th hour reversals, final agreement and removal of any actual targets or quotas.
job well done.
//comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article3255614.ece
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 14:12:07. |
|
