During my trip to the Philippines, I was surprised to hear various locals voice opinions on world issues, particularly global warming. But the general tone of the Filipino people tended to be either cautious ignorance (”I don’t know, but I guess it’s bad”) or grave concern (”Our country is going to suffer if the world powers don’t do something”). I obviously didn’t get a full sense of the Filipino public, but to me it seemed that they were more level-headed about it, free of the misplaced angst of the American public. And, regretfully, it is the American public, with its carbon clown feet, that needs to do the most about the issue.
In the heat of our anger, are we Americans simply less energy efficient in how we approach our environmental risks? Would calming the rage and depoliticizing the issue help our race with the Doomsday Clock?
Here are a couple examples of energy inefficiencies that inconveniently mar our ability to increase efficiency and reduce greenhouse emissions:
Anti-SUV activists have generated various aggressive campaigns, donning slogans like “SUV=WMD” and slapping strangers’ vehicles with bumper stickers that read “I’m changing global climate, Ask me How!” Berkeley residents spray paint their own STOP signs around town to read “STOP DRIVING.” I wonder, to what extent have CO2 emissions been reduced by condescension? How many people have rationally reflected on their own inefficient behaviors because someone vandalized their camping truck?
When asked about global warming (er, “climate change”), many people who hate Al Gore will immediately start talking about how big an idiot Gore is. It seems as if the best way to avoid discussing Bush’s weak policies on greenhouse emissions is to pick on the guy who got fewer electoral votes than Bush back in 2000. When I did an NLP project about blog topics that would incite emotion, Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” was an archetypal polarizing issue that made bloggers’ blood boil. Would ridding of the world of Al Gore (and his relatively large carbon footprint) do anything about the melting ice caps?
And here are some inconvenient truths that are lost to the glib partisan blabbering:
Air travel contributes far more to an individual’s carbon footprint than regular driving: I calculated my own carbon footprint (thanks, British Petrol), and my handful of plane flights easily trumped the fact that I regularly drive an
inefficient clunker. Many will vilify SUV-driving as a haughty act of conspicuous consumption, and a frivolous waste of resources by the privileged who can afford to burn more fuel. Yet the jet-setters who hop around the world, seeking to be “cultured,” appear to be more guilty of the same crimes. While most leftists hold the environment in high regard, are they willing to save the planet by curbing their fetishization of being “well-traveled” and worldly?
Hydroelectricity is not clean: The huge amount of plant life that sinks into a dam will release its CO2 as it rots. Is it worth it to revisit the nuclear (noo kee lar) option? No, not warheads. Not filibuster. But nuclear power, Homer.
And cow flatulence may be worse for the environment than anything already mentioned (and I don’t just mean olfactory environment). Molecule for molecule, methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Can I stop eating that In-N-Out burger to stave off the methane madness?
One specialist that doesn’t attribute global warming to human efforts is Jack Hollander, a professor emeritus of Energy and Resources at UC Berkeley. See: http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Hollander/RushingJudgment.pdf
I don’t know if I concur, but it’s an interesting read.
You wouldn’t have thought so much about Global Warming if you had not been to Philippines in the first place. Travel helped you, didn’t it? ( Remember the recent press coverage on Blair’s views of air travel ? http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1991302,00.html ) I sometimes wonder if genes have an unintended self-destructing recipe in them, when the species is extremely successful in terms of population and exploiting resources around them. Success is again so relatively defined, but never the less, I hope I have made my point.
I’m not sure I fully buy the whole ‘dams are producing lots of CO2 / CH4′ argument, mostly because I’ve heard this argument quite a bit recently, and I think it’s all relative. Nearly any energy production or conversion process produces some negative impact on the environment. Technically, we do as well when we process food and water into energy and exhale CO2 (and methane). Building solar collectors would most likely have some unforeseen negative impacts on the environment as well, either in the chemicals needed for producing the cells, or in battery production. Dams do cause a lot of environmental problems with migrating fish populations, eventual build up of silt behind the dam (rendering them useless), and diversion of water from downstream resources into one big reservoir. No doubt there is also CO2/CH4 production from degrading plant matter, but the real question should be ‘What is the impact relative to say, burning thousands of tons of coal or oil to produce the same amount of energy?’ The New Scientist study cites one damn in Brazil that has 3x the production of greenhouse gases than an equivalent oil burning facility. OH MY GOD! 3x the greenhouse gases!! Remember though, this is for ONE dam. What about the average dam? And what are the solutions available to decrease the amount of degrading plant matter behind a dam? Are they cheaper and more ‘environmental’ than cleaning up pollution from the burning of fossil fuels?
Personally I don’t support dams simply because of their detrimental impact on the water resources they consume, not because one dam in Brazil supposedly produces lots of greenhouse gases. I would rather have a dam then a coal burning plant. Call me a skeptic…
Regarding hydroelectricity, dams are pretty evil outside of a climate change context as well. More than just flooding the surrounding landscape, dams have profound effects on the downstream watershed, eliminating wetlands and, esp. in California, blocking access to breeding areas of fish like salmon. Cows are also pretty evil, esp. in areas clearly unable to support them without heavy modification, like semi-arid and desert areas. They eat and destroy the habitat of native plants, and generally just draw on local resources.
Sadly, I really don’t know enough about global warming. When I was home in December, walking along the beach with my mom in the unseasonable warmth, she asked if this was global warming, and I just had no idea. In the end, my knowledge of it is largely based on faith in scientific journals and the admittedly liberal news media I trust/consume. Which is just as bad as the other side. Where’s the evidence?
even if man’s activities a) don’t significantly contribute to global warming and b) don’t end up wreaking havoc, how can we take that chance?
i have heard this analogy:
so you won’t end up knowing if smoking will contribute to your death. perhaps cigarettes a) don’t, with your unique physiology, cause any ill effect, or b) ends up not being the cause of your death.
do you still want to take that chance?