Some Environmentalists Are Unbelievably Fantastic

[Nalano]

I think any personal actions we can take save a laughable amount when compared to the emissions* that are produced by flying our food halfway around the globe because it's cheaper that way. This is more of a "oh, we are doing something for the environment, we are so good" initiative, which might be kind of nice, but ultimately useless.

I dunno. I have a particularly small carbon footprint by living in a dense, major city rather than a distant suburb: It takes less energy to heat my (tiny ass) apartment, it takes less energy to ferry me to work (and the city's about to shut down the subways at 7pm, consequently, for Frankenstorm), and it takes less energy to ship shit to me. All that infrastructure is explicitly in the name of efficiency!

I mean, I agree that personal actions don't matter in the sense that the sorts of things you do to be more energy-efficient in a 2000 sq ft home that's 400 meters from established pipe and power networks (and reachable solely by automobile) are dwarfed by your choice to live in that home, but I think economics will eventually render that mode of existence untenable anyway.

[SirDavies]

I agree that global warming is a really important issue, but some activist organizations got their marketing 100% wrong.

[Nalano]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...yt-webcam.html

Apropos of nothing

[NathanH]

It snowed here last week. Snow here in October is rather unusual.

[Sparkasaurusmex]

I actually think its happening the weather has been really screwy for a number of years and food has had a devastating effect. It might not be going on but the fact i the good side effects of defeating global warming ie getting away from oil, fixing the weather for food, not taking down trees outweigh the "Its a con" right now.

This.
I don't care what caused it, but the solutions are good to me.

[Grizzly]

It snowed here last week. Snow here in October is rather unusual.

I hate to go all climate scientist on you, but: Having snow in October is weather, an inherently chaotic system (in which the law of truly large numbers applies), and not climate, which is the average global state of temperature and how the wind blows and all that sort of stuff. If it snows in october five times in a row and it looks like it is going to do that much more frequently - THEN we are talking about climate change.

I agree that global warming is a really important issue, but some activist organizations got their marketing 100% wrong.

I dislike how all the stuff on deforestation is all about "Save the tiger!", and not, say, "Save important medicine and the paprika!". Although saving the tiger requires saving the plants that are responsible for many of our medical breaktroughs of the last decades and all other stuff as well, somehow I think a lot more people would be interested in protecting those ecosystems if they knew how exactly they have been exploited for the past decades.

[Labbes]

I dislike how all the stuff on deforestation is all about "Save the tiger!", and not, say, "Save important medicine and the paprika!". Although saving the tiger requires saving the plants that are responsible for many of our medical breaktroughs of the last decades and all other stuff as well, somehow I think a lot more people would be interested in protecting those ecosystems if they knew how exactly they have been exploited for the past decades.

You might or might not know this, but people are more likely to spend money for saving animals they like, and activists know and use this. In German, it's called "umbrella species". Basically, the money for instance WWF collects with "Save the tiger" campaigns is not at all used to save tigers, but other species that are integral to the ecosystem. This concept is used by eco activists all over the world, although I'm not sure they also spend money trying to save plants (although I'd guess this is the case).

[soldant]

Apropos of nothing

On that subject though we've had lots of people here in Queensland blatantly ignore weather warnings assuming that storms won't be dangerous or that they'll be far less intense than forecasted. Usually they're right - we usually get a few severe storms every summer season (particularly up north) and one or two cyclones, and they tend to be less dangerous than expected. But then people criticise the Bureau for putting out warnings (which are a lot more sedate than some of the stuff we've heard coming from the US, talk about drama!) which seems absurd when the potential for a severe storm was very much possible.

Then we had the case of the floods in 2010-2011 where there was some warning (though not much) of a flood that had the potential to be very dangerous, which ended up killing a bunch of people. Similar warnings went out to other towns and cities (including Brisbane) and a bunch of people continued to ignore them or presumed they were not that bad. Civil defence warnings are worst-case scenarios not for the fun of putting people through a panic, but because the worst case scenario is the best to prepare for. Far better that than to understate the threat and end up with a major disaster.

Also (and unrelated) even the media over here is providing 24 hour coverage of that system. I doubt you heard more than 20 seconds of the floods when they were on though. Global media, hey? Get pictures!

You might or might not know this, but people are more likely to spend money for saving animals they like, and activists know and use this.

But the point still stands - even a bunch of self-proclaimed activists are still largely ignorant of the significance of their actions and what needs to be protected, even while they stare down their noses at anyone who they decide isn't "doing enough". It reminds me a bit of KONY 2012 where an army of slacktivists got involved in a campaign that they had very little understanding of and that never achieved anything remotely like what they thought they would.

Of course every little bit helps and I can't blame the various conservation funds for targeting their advertising to get people to part with their cash (in a similar but far more honest way to the KONY 2012 video) but still it illustrates how superficial some of these things are in their presentation.

[Nalano]

On that subject though we've had lots of people here in Queensland blatantly ignore weather warnings assuming that storms won't be dangerous or that they'll be far less intense than forecasted. Usually they're right - we usually get a few severe storms every summer season (particularly up north) and one or two cyclones, and they tend to be less dangerous than expected. But then people criticise the Bureau for putting out warnings (which are a lot more sedate than some of the stuff we've heard coming from the US, talk about drama!) which seems absurd when the potential for a severe storm was very much possible.

Then we had the case of the floods in 2010-2011 where there was some warning (though not much) of a flood that had the potential to be very dangerous, which ended up killing a bunch of people. Similar warnings went out to other towns and cities (including Brisbane) and a bunch of people continued to ignore them or presumed they were not that bad. Civil defence warnings are worst-case scenarios not for the fun of putting people through a panic, but because the worst case scenario is the best to prepare for. Far better that than to understate the threat and end up with a major disaster.

Our mayor's been pretty on the ball with natural disasters ever since he got caught with his pants down in the blizzard of 2010. He took Hurricane Irene pretty seriously and battened down the hatches while it basically missed us, and while Hurricane Sandy's a bitch and a half, New York isn't taking it sitting down. About half a million have been evacuated, all of the bridges and tunnels but one have been blocked off, and the subways and commuter rail have been shut down way ahead of time. Likewise New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore and DC.

It's just as well, too, because they were expecting 10 foot storm surges in New York harbor and got 14 foot storm surges. The subways are flooded, the river broke through 23rd St, New Jersey pretty much got knocked out, Brooklyn's half on and half off, and there's no power in downtown Manhattan.

We had a hurricane hit a Canadian cold front and become a Frankenstorm nor'easter at high tide. It's the biggest storm in two centuries. But we're taking it seriously: No FEMA disasters a la New Orleans, no pandemonium in the streets, and a small army of civil servants waiting for the wind to die down so they can start clearing out the shit.

[Shane]

Is this one of a bigger magnitude than the hurricanes that besiege the southern states on a regular basis?

[Jesus_Phish]

I'm not entirely convinced by the "we're causing global warming and ruining the world with it" argument. Having said that and before anyone jumps on me, I do believe that renewable and clean energy sources are better than fossil fuels, I just don't think fossil fuels are as damaging as people suggest.

For all the science we have on the matter, how much data is that in terms of the age of our planet? Suppose we've records for the last 100 years, that's still a tiny percentage of time to try and suggest that flying aeroplanes and driving cars is destroying the planet.

I personally believe the earth just goes through these periods where the seasons get a bit "whacky" and we end up with hurricanes in New York, it's just that the "seasons" of these periods is a lot longer than we're used to experiencing.

[soldant]

I'm not entirely convinced by the "we're causing global warming and ruining the world with it" argument. Having said that and before anyone jumps on me, I do believe that renewable and clean energy sources are better than fossil fuels, I just don't think fossil fuels are as damaging as people suggest.

The science suggest that human activities (not just fossil fuels) have contributed at least in part. Nobody disputes that climate variation can be part of a natural process (which we'll be forced to adapt to, we can't mitigate natural change unless someone happens to be a supervillian with a giant laser or something) but it seems that human activity has had an effect on prompting this change.

Remember it's not just fossil fuels but a host of human activities, like deforestation, manufacturing of particular products, and irresponsible land use for farming etc which contributes. Also developing nations are becoming more and more industrialised, belching out more emissions. As the years go on it'll only get worse. We've actually come a very long way in only 200 years, and it shows.

[squirrel]

I am sorry to learn about the devastation over the East Coast of North America.

Hong Kongers have a strange theory. They believe that densely located skyscrapers will lead any strong wind to dissipation. That's why typhoon rarely leads to real disasters to that city. I guess that only works for Hong Kong though.

But be fair, every coastal city in tropical or temperate zone has equal share of opportunities to be hit by typhoon. Only regions within 5 degree North and South are free from the threat of this climatic phenomenon. While living a simple life style voluntarily is good for individuals, being forced upon is another matter.

[Skalpadda]

I think any personal actions we can take save a laughable amount when compared to the emissions* that are produced by flying our food halfway around the globe because it's cheaper that way. This is more of a "oh, we are doing something for the environment, we are so good" initiative, which might be kind of nice, but ultimately useless.

So I take it you don't vote either then, because surely that's just as meaningless in the grand scheme of things? Most of the things you can do as an individual are fairly easy, straightforward and are good for other reasons than purely cutting carbon emissions, so there's not really much reason not to do them.

For all the science we have on the matter, how much data is that in terms of the age of our planet? Suppose we've records for the last 100 years, that's still a tiny percentage of time to try and suggest that flying aeroplanes and driving cars is destroying the planet.

I personally believe the earth just goes through these periods where the seasons get a bit "whacky" and we end up with hurricanes in New York, it's just that the "seasons" of these periods is a lot longer than we're used to experiencing.

There is only detailed direct measurement data for the last century or so, sure, but reading a thermometer isn't the only way to spot changes in climate over time. Ice core drilling gives data on snowfall and temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years, sediment deposits and fossils can go back millions, studying tree growth can go back many hundreds or even thousands of years, traces left behind from glaciation (ice ages) can give you information over hundreds of millions of years and so on. None of these things are proof in and of themselves but they all seem to point in the same direction and that's what has people worried.

You're absolutely right that the planet's climate will quite merrily change over time of it's own accord, but this isn't just a case of comparing temperatures now to what they were 100 years ago and seeing a change; it's that pretty much all the research done indicates that the rate of change is unprecedented.

[Labbes]

So I take it you don't vote either then, because surely that's just as meaningless in the grand scheme of things? Most of the things you can do as an individual are fairly easy, straightforward and are good for other reasons than purely cutting carbon emissions, so there's not really much reason not to do them.

The difference is that voters are responsible for 100% of the votes, while "easy, straightforward and good" actions make up less than ten percent of emissions*. I do things that might be considered good for the environment, but not because of the goodness of my heart; See Nalano's post on top of this page, the same applies to me.
What I mean is this: I have no clue where the stuff I eat, for instance, come from. I can know where my meat is from (e.g. a local farmer), but I cannot possibly control whether or not he gets his feed from, say Egypt, because it's still cheaper to import it than buying it locally. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that just because I take the train instead of the car, I'm doing something for the environment.

*Edit: The numbers I had in mind were a bit off; in fact, share of private households seems to be between 10-15% according to IPCC and other sources, which is about as much as transportation, too. Although I didn't find a figure that would divide into private transportation (people jetting to their holidays, people driving to work) and commercial transportation (for goods, be it by ship, plane or truck).

[Skalpadda]

Just as the collective voters are 100% responsible for political votes, the collective consumers are responsible for (almost) all of our impact on the environment. Your example of meat and not knowing where the feed comes from would probably require political regulation (which you can influence with your vote or by otherwise making your wishes clear to politicians) but surely that's not the only food you buy and certainly not the only purchasing decision you make?

What we need in the long term is for the choices that have little impact on the environment to be the obvious ones, but to get there we have to start by making those decisions conciously.

[NecroKnight]

There certainly isn't something right with the climate. Two days before it was cold all day and half the terrain was covered in a thin layer of snow. Yesterday the sun was shinning all day and it was kinda warm at some moments.

Also, I think global warming is a to simple term to describe whats happening with our climate. The weather is messed up, sometimes it gets hotter than usual and sometimes it gets colder than usual in many various regions of the world. The question is that is it possible to bring the climate to its normal state within a reasonable timeframe or have we messed it up for a couple of centuries. Maybe it's like a domino effect and we will see it getting more chaotic and out of hand.

[Jesus_Phish]

In my very short time on this earth (25 years) I've seen global warming be blamed for all the weather.

When I was around six or seven, I saw my last "white christmas" as a child. It wouldn't snow again heavily until around 2010 when I was 23. In both instances global warming was blamed.

"It wont snow any more because of the effects of global warming"
Skip over a decade.
"This heavy snow is being caused by global warming"

[Lukasz]

In my very short time on this earth (25 years) I've seen global warming be blamed for all the weather.

When I was around six or seven, I saw my last "white christmas" as a child. It wouldn't snow again heavily until around 2010 when I was 23. In both instances global warming was blamed.

"It wont snow any more because of the effects of global warming"
Skip over a decade.
"This heavy snow is being caused by global warming"

and that proves what?
25 years ago the science was still being developed. They didn't have as much data, they didn't understand completely. They also did not have proper equipment... My four year old GPU is apparently 8 times faster than a supercomputer from 1993 (4850 reached 1.0TeraFLOPS. Numerical Wind Tunnel peaked at 124 GigaFLOPS)

Furthermore: global warming does not mean there won't be snow. Heck. UK for example supposed to get colder with global temperatures getting higher because the front from Caribbean which warms up the isle will disappear.

Finally: can you really remember what was said 25 years ago correctly? what was the context, how experienced that person was etc?

[Jesus_Phish]

and that proves what?
25 years ago the science was still being developed. They didn't have as much data, they didn't understand completely. They also did not have proper equipment... My four year old GPU is apparently 8 times faster than a supercomputer from 1993 (4850 reached 1.0TeraFLOPS. Numerical Wind Tunnel peaked at 124 GigaFLOPS)

Furthermore: global warming does not mean there won't be snow. Heck. UK for example supposed to get colder with global temperatures getting higher because the front from Caribbean which warms up the isle will disappear.

Finally: can you really remember what was said 25 years ago correctly? what was the context, how experienced that person was etc?

It proves that people will indeed say things about global warming without fully understanding them. I can't remember it word for word and I was like I mentioned 7 at the time, so I was more interested in playing than the news, but the big buzz at the time was global warming was causing the wet and rainy winters as opposed to the snowy ones we had been experiencing. Now the reverse is being said. Give it another 25 years and lets see if they're still saying the same thing.

The science is still being developed on it. My point earlier in the thread was with the sheer age of the world we have an absolutely minuscule amount of data. Suppose we take my 25 years as data, that means we've on record 0.00000005% of data to plot out what's really going on. Now obviously it's not as black and white as that and science can tell us more, but how close are we to even having 1% correct information on what's going on now compared to say 10,000 years ago or 100,000 years etc.

*EDIT*

Edit to mention, I'm not calling the science communities liars. Or everyone who believes global warming is as big a deal as they think, to be fools. I just personally think we need data than we have to draw conclusive facts.

Hopefully this will help me look less like a science hating nut job.