The Idaho Group Blog
Weekend Essay: The Global Warming Debate
By Pete Pearson, 10-31-09
The radio news squawk lately has been about Global Warming, the latest in an endless supply of silly partisan battles. As I hear one team arguing that a new Senate bill will create jobs and save the planet, I hear the other team telling us that same Senate bill will increase our taxes and crush the economy. Since we all side with the home team, it’s no wonder polls asking us – Global Warming, True or False? – are becoming red and blue in color. And just like NFL football, I’m tired of the commercials…let’s get to the game!
We’re arguing a pointless debate.
Both sides are wrong because the very premise of the debate is flawed.
It’s not about “if” global warming is real or “who” is to blame. How can anyone “know” that our planet is warming, let alone “know” humans are the cause of the warming? To think that we understand how this living system we call earth operates is nothing but over-inflated human ego. The fact is we don’t know what’s going to happen. Every time we think we know what’s going on in nature, we get proven wrong. Let’s stop the debate and get to the real problems.
This is my breakdown for all the proud-to-guzzle-gas-rednecks and all the entitled-Prius-latte-drinking-hippies….we’re going to have too many people on the planet soon and too few resources to keep our current economic system moving.
This YouTube video does a great job summarizing our predicament.
Anyone with a sober brain can see humans are changing the earth. (I want to find a reader who would challenge that statement.) If we all agree humans are changing the earth, then let’s start by looking at just two changes of which we should be aware.
Deforestation
In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond found that the collapse of almost every society in history has one common denominator that led to its downfall; unsustainable de-forestation. Guess what - we’re wiping out our forests. It’s a pretty simple equation: if you cut down trees faster than they can grow them back, it’s big trouble. Big.
The difference today is that Rome and Constantinople fell, in part, because of regional-scale resource shortages because they didn’t have the technology to reach further. Our generation is dealing with shortages on a global scale, and we can’t reach anywhere else once it’s gone since we only have one planet.
And we use trees to wipe our arses…go figure!
How about using other materials instead of trees? You vote for change by changing how you shop. As McDonough and Braungart explain in their book Cradle to Cradle; “The use of alternative material expresses our intention to evolve away from the use of wood fibers for paper as we seek more effective solutions. It represents one step toward a radically different approach to designing and producing the objects we use and enjoy, an emerging movement we see as the next industrial revolution.”
Water Usage and Pollution
Due to population increases and drought in many places across the globe, we’re running out of water and polluting what we have left like a drunk pissing in his own beer. Water is essential to something we all need: food. According to the Earth Policy Institute, agricultural irrigation accounts for 70 percent of the world’s fresh water consumption. An increasing percentage of U.S. farmland has to be irrigated by water that is pumped out of the ground. In addition, approximately 20 percent of our freshwater use exceeds the long-term sustainability and between 15 and 35 percent of the withdrawal of water for crop irrigation is unsustainable, raising concerns about agricultural yields and costs. It’s simple math; we are taking more than can be recovered through natural processes. It doesn’t take much IQ to figure out we’d better do something to fix our water problems.
The Global Warming debate going on right now in Washington D.C. wastes time and resources, and staying caught up in semantics is probably the biggest reason progress is so slow. Even more worrisome, we can’t seem to block the influence of “old industries” that want to keep making money with status quo.
I think it all comes down to what you name the Senate bill, and I have a suggestion. “Let’s get a clue America and find a way to achieve sustainability with the natural world that supports our lives and the economy before our addictions become unrecoverable. “Or, if you’re into the whole brevity thing, how about this “Senate Bill Give More, Take Less.”
That’s something we all need to practice.
Pete Pearson lives in Boise, Idaho and has an MBA in sustainable busines from Green Mountain College in Vermont. He researches sustainable urban food distribution.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
We've learned a lot about what's going on in nature, and for the most part we treat unknowns and uncertainties as questions for science rather deities that we have to pray to.
Our expanding sphere of knowledge has a larger-than-ever frontier of ignorance, but that's just part of progress. It gives folks something to bay at, if that's what they like to do.
"We'd better do something" is true enough as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far toward making meaningful decisions about what.
MODERN societies are not really deforesting. Germany, the Scandahoovians, et cetera, have plenty of wood. Customers aren't about to buy "blood wood" if they can avoid it. I'm a timber beast nonpareil, and I'm not interested in rape wood.
Never mind that it is precisely the sort of "sustainable, organic" agriculture, inherently low-tech, that is driving deforestation in the third and second worlds.
I'll agree grudgingly that water is an issue. The Ganges at Vishnu or wherever the ghats are is a classic example. But the kind of water infrastructure needed is a technological problem. What would our American water problem be like without dams and reservoirs? Good lord, I can't imagine.
The hard fact is, a "sustainable" society, supposedly run on resources grown rather than mined, will be far more primitive than what exists today. And the harder fact is, the day of reckoning is coming...but I am not interested in having my "betters" impose that day upon my life ahead of time. Nor will the Third and Second World. It's not like we are going to get to pat them on the head and say, give up your hopes and be happy with what you have, we've got ours. So Peter, until you can give a better option to the have-not-yets...best wishes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opinion/31niman.html
I've got mine, screw the rest of you.
Europe has been using bidets for ages. Have you tried? It's far better than using TP. As a good friend once said to me "if you got poop on your hand or hair would you just wipe it with a paper towel? Hell no, you'd wash it" and I've never looked back.
There are lots of alternatives, just ones American's can't see past status quo, stereotypes or perceived threats on one's routine and way of life.
Quite the reactionary country we are.
-T
A couple of definitions of a Plague are: "a disastrous affliction" or "a destructive numerous influx". Is this the real "Inconvenient Truth"?.
It's not true as stated without qualification, so why don't you do a little more homework and give a qualified version that could be true, Mickey.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
If readers are actually interested in some of the numerous mitigating factors to the fertilizing effect of CO2, they might more usefully start with this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html
If that's too much to handle, a simpler discussion of C3 and C4 plants may help:
http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/05/co2-plant-growth.html
That doesn't talk about the inhibition due to increased temperature, which is the biggest fly in the ointment: increasing atmospheric CO2 fertilizes C3 plants, but it raises the temperature, which eventually inhibits plant growth directly, as well as decreasing available water.
I gave you a chance Mickey, but you didn't take it. Your contribution is FAIL.
The count of citations is not quite so important as the actual facts cited. It is not, sorry, true that "all plant communities including forests grow better and faster the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere."
You started with an oversimplified statement about plant metabolism (that is true for some, but not all plants), and you expanded that to a broad generalization which is incorrect.
I spent some years studying botany and other sciences, and I have proven skills at problem solving and engineering. I'm not a "pseudo" intellectual, I'm the real deal. If you want to casually dismiss factual information I have to offer, fine, whatever. But by doing so, you are waving the white flag of surrender for having any credibility in a debate about scientific matters.
That you're prepared to extrapolate from a single fact to a (literally) global inference that "more CO2 is good for plants, and so all life" speaks volumes about your capacity for intelligent discussion on this topic.
Thank you for agreeing to desist citation of irrelevant works by others. You may also rest assured that my mind is open to new information, much more so than yours is, from what you've shown us here.
Let me put this in terms I think you can understand, Mickey. I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you.
global climate change is reality
The major problem we are facing during this fearsome increase in climatic temperatures compared to the past such increases is our multitudinous presence in coastal areas around the globe.
People who choose to believe God will provide for them are far more likely to preside over a disaster than people who take measures to prevent the inundation of the coastlines.
Your style certainly fits your intellect,.
Perhaps in some rogue 3rd world country that exports cheap fiber to the US (thank you 9th circuit for making this economically possible) but not here and not on a global level…..not even close my friend.
Average annual sawlog mortality on Montana’s private timberlands is 119,368 MBF, average annual growth is 792,870 MBF, harvest 436,232 (back in 2004 when timber prices were high).
Average annual sawtimber mortality on National Forest lands in Montana between 2003-2007: 1,531,572 MBF
Average annual sawtimber growth on National Forest land in Montana between 2003-2007: 1,724,894 MBF
Total sawtimber harvest on National Forests in Montana in 2007…..a six decade low of 87,000 MMBF
Current harvest levels are a fraction of these figures. Annual growth doesn't take a break durring a recession.
http://www.bber.umt.edu/pubs/forest/fidacs/MT2004.pdf
You are in danger of tromping on the sacred economy by talking like that. Any suggestion that our society of consumption is endangering the notion of capitalism is getting close to sedition--or even--immorality.
Mick and his acolytes are losing patience with people like you.
<a >buy an essay</a>