Painted_Turtle wrote:
But is that the reason we need to act responsibly toward the environment?  Because there is a problem?  I disagree.  I think we ought to be responsible stewards because it is the right thing to do.
 
For example, let's say that I could litter with no repercussions.  I would not get caught, there would be no negative consequences to myself or to anyone else.  It would still be wrong.  I'd like to see the global discussion move away from problems and solutions.  If everyone listened to me, we would frame the discussion in terms of respect, responsibility, and doing what is right not because doing otherwise would have negative consequences but simply because it is the right thing to do.

 Beaker wrote: 

I'm the only one T.

 Coaxial wrote: 
Doubtful.

 Monkeysdad wrote: 
A couple of points. Per capita efficiency of an airliner doesn't mean anything about it's overall impact. It's the full system we have created and it's impact on the environment that we need to look at.

Quasi-substantiated? Science is never absolute. If it is, it is not science. A significant majority of legitimate peer reviewed science (the method we use to give merit to such things) says we are having an impact. It will always be open to challenge, but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate point that we should operate from. We elect leaders w/ less than a 1% majority, and we rally behind them as a country (or at least we agree not to riot over the inauguration). We should be able to rally around a 75%+ majority of scientific opinion.

Knee-jerk?  Nothing of this scale will ever be knee-jerk. It may be wrong, but it's hardly knee-jerk. That is just a label you are applying because you disagree with it.

Legacy. I have no children. But I do care what this place will look like in 100+ years. Even if the majority opinion is wrong on the cause, don't you think it's wise to address the problem? Or should we just wait and hope that some one will start to proclaim another ice age to worry about?  I'd be happy if we could just stop peeing upstream on the river.

 Beaker wrote: 

If it doesn't will you STFU?

 Monkeysdad wrote:

 

cooling or warming regardless...they were saying back in '73 that the burning of fossil fuels was a bad idea for a clean/healthy planet. 

and re., " 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies" - that some great advancement.

 Beaker wrote: 
I predict that larger and larger storms will mess with your health and electrical connections.

 Beaker wrote: 
Same as it ever was. Which tempts people to do silly things like whatever's most convenient (ignore all science, keep on keepin' on) and hope they're going to be okay. Or pray they're going to be okay.

 Monkeysdad wrote: 

Just picking up on this point when I was studying for my geography degree in the late 1980s there were papers out there that had identified the problem of sea level rise so there is at least twenty years provenance for development of the science.

 edieraye wrote:

 
I think it matters to the people living on low lying islands or in coastal regions.  There could be a massive loss of life in those areas if all of the polar water melts & they lose their place to live.

There is also the problem of the glaciers melting all over the earth.  What will happen to all the people in Europe who depend on them to keep their rivers flowing and provide drinking water?

I agree that we need to become better stewards of our earth.  Polluting the oceans, rivers & land hasn't been working out very well for us or all of earth's animals.  Excellent point.

  I know that some Christians have been actively working on behalf of a more sustainable environment.  Its a wonderful example of diverse idealogical groups joining hands for the common good of all.

 steeler wrote: 
That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations.
I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.

 islander wrote: 
Can I visit with my friend Wilson?

 edieraye wrote: 

If only...

 steeler wrote:
 


I hope my mountain/island has a cave.... just in case.

 edieraye wrote:  

I suspect that the conceptual problem would be the same.  Those saying there is no problem could also state that as, We are being good stewards; nothing needs to be changed.  

Using your parlance to frame the issue:  Are we being good stewards of the earth and its environment?  If not, what do we need to do differently? 

Personally, I do think the degree of the "problem" matters in terms of the urgency in finding a solution. This is true in almost all aspects of our lives.  We priortize based upon which fire needs to be put out first. So, defining a problem also entails estimating the degree of the threat if the problem remains unresolved.    
  

 islander wrote: 

Agreed.

 steeler wrote: 

Does it matter if there is a problem or not?  Okay, so I'm approaching this from my admittedly Christian POV.  God created the Earth.  He gave it to humanity and told us to take care of it.  It is called stewardship.  You don't have to agree with that - somedays I have my doubts - but it leads me to the following position:

We are to handle with respect and care and gratitude all of the people, resources, and opportunities that we encounter.  That means no squandoring, no taking for granted, no abusing.  We are to do the best we are able environmentally, regardless of whether there is a problem or not.  We are to leave the world a better place than we found it.

Personally, I don't care if there isn't a problem - I still think we need to take steps to be better stewards.

 oldviolin wrote: 
Too good OV!  That should be one of the prizes for the

Winner of the Fossil of the Day Award!

12/07/09 opening day of the talks

THIRD PLACE: CANADA

"Canada earns its first Fossil of the COP for environment minister Jim Prentice's proclaiming that his nation "won't be swayed" by Copenhagen "hype"...

And yet, if there's a country on the face of this planet that so desperately needs to be swayed, it is Canada.

 Since announcing its plan in 2006 for reducing emissions by 3% below 1990 levels, the Harper government has consistently refused to adopt any actual regulatory framework to start reducing emissions—from, for example, the rapidly growing tar sands sector.

 Prentice said the target wouldn't change.

 So not only does Canada have perhaps the worst record of all industrialised countries, they're now vowing to stick to it.

 The world is gathering in Copenhagen to negotiate; Canada says its plan is to not negotiate. Adding insult to injury, South Africa now has a more ambitious target than Alberta, one of the richest places on earth... and home of some of the world's highest per capita emissions."

Maybe some RPeeps are upset that they might loose some of their beloved Oil Sand Tars Dollars, so it becomes easier to simply deny that the climate is warming or that sea levels are rising.  Makes me wonder if its not politics, but simply allegiance to Corporate money earnings.

...don't get me wrong, not all corporations or businesses are against environmentally cleaner policy.  Many are concerned about it and are looking for ways to run their businesses in an environmentally sustainable manner that won't destroy life on the planet as we know it.  Hopefully those are the ones that will survive.

1st Place for the Fossil Award goees to:

1st: All industrialised countries, that means the USA is in that Award category

 Beaker wrote: 
Beaker 101, lather, rinse, repeat. 26 posts to go. I'm waiting for the graphs and 4 part harmony.

 steeler wrote: 
Thank you. Exactly.