The Ambivalent Environmentalist

Tell your grandchildren you were being responsible and not jumping to knee-jerk, chicken little conclusions. Scientists gave us the alar scare, if I recall, which economically hurt a lot of apple farmers. While there is some data to show that the earth's climate has recently been in a warming trend, all of the evidence is not in.
While we don't know for certain the cause of global warming (the temperature of mars has also increased, suggesting solar activity) we do know that some of the policies put forth to stave off global warming will be detrimental to private industry. California's governor has proposed emissions standards that will literally put hundreds of people out of work in this state. Many of those jobs will go to Nevada. The policy may make someone in the city feel good about themself, but it puts someone in a rural area out of work and harms their family.

I would compare global warming to a large meteor on a collision course with earth. Let's say that meteor is 100 years away but we can see it right now with telescopes. Most of the harm from global warming is also about 100 years away, when our planet's temperature may actually rise by 1 degree. So we see both disasters coming.
Now let's say that presently we have the ability to destroy the meteor, and with today's technology it will cost trillions of dollars and the world will have to fight over who will pay that bill. In the end, the U.S. will be expected to pay the bill as we pay for everything else on this planet.
But let's say that other scientists come forward and predict that, in just 30 years, we will have the technology to destroy the meteor at a cost of only billions. And in 50 years, our technology will be so advanced that taking out meteors will be no more troublesome than taking out the trash.

The question then becomes, do we force a policy on people now, knowing that the real dangers are still many years off, and also knowing that with today's limited technology the costs will be hugely detrimental? Would it not be more reasonable to continue to improve our technology rather than taxing everyone into the poorhouse in hopes that throwing money at our problems will solve it?

I would argue that, even in just the last 20 years, our technology has grown leaps and bounds. We are now a far cleaner society than we were 20 years ago, and we are far cleaner than most other countries I have ever visited. Based on this, I would tell my grandchildren that we did what was right and reasonable for our time. That we helped improve the situation without creating new ones through drastic, reactionary policies.

Ahh...how well you prove my point of, "I wish it to be, therefore it is." In 1970 I was assisting in the data collection on the decline of seabirds and raptors. In the late 60's pelican colonies were experiencing total reproductive failure as were bald eagle, peregrine falcons and many other species. The cause was linked to DDT in the ecosystem. The pro-DDT people came up with the same arguments you just did: "You can't prove without a doubt it's DDT"; "DDT isn't poisonous," and some of their "scientists" ate it to prove so; "Without DDT the agricultural business will collapse and there'll be world-wide starvation"; "Thousands of farm workers will lose their jobs"; etc. Well, guess what? They banned DDT. The bird populations began to come back. There's still a thriving Ag business in California and elsewhere; there was no known loss of jobs or productivity; and...the guys who were eating it are probably all dead now. So...been there, done that. Just keep stroking that rabbit's foot and watch the water rise.

Dean,

It seems you didn't read my email, at least not past the first paragraph. I did not state there is no current warming trend of earth's temperature, therefore I did not prove any point of yours about "wishing something to be." What I did do was present some other facts and ideas that you are choosing to ignore.

Your example of DDT can be used two ways. The banning of DDT in the U.S. might have made some sense as we are an advanced country with the ability to find new methods of pest control. However the banning of DDT internationally has caused millions of deaths in places like Africa due to the increase of malaria from mosquitoes, which DDT kills. You may be willing to trade the lives of humans for birds, but you should at least admit to the collateral damage of extreme environmental policies.

With global warming, it's true that the earth's temperature will be going up by a degree in the next 100 years and this could cause some climate problems. What is not proven is how any actions or policies we take will prevent that temperature increase. What is known is that the policies espoused by some on the extreme environmental left will absolutely wipe out jobs and hurt real people economically. Most of the damage will be to the working class. Now you might decide that the harm is worth the benefit, but you should at least admit to the collateral damage.
I have noticed that there are many environmetalists out there willing to donate their money to fight against the timber industry, but how many of those same people will donate money to help feed the families of the loggers who are out of jobs. My guess would be none.

Where we go from here depends on your goal. If you want to be an environmental puritan and belittle people like myself for our ignorance, I guess you can do that and we can fight you in the polls and nothing will ever get accomplished. But if you want to actually work for a cleaner earth I suggest you start listening to some of us who do not wish to be taxed into the poorhouse or regulated into prison for simply trying to make a living. Come up with reasonable policies and reasonable people will listen to you.

Dane,

Let me first apologize for my initial response. It’s true, I did not address each of the points you made but instead, reacted to the general theme of your comments. I know better, but occasionally when in a hurry I hastily react. I did read the entire response in both e-maiils and now will comment individually on each.

E-Mail, March 27
“While we don't know for certain the cause of globa… we do know that some of the policies put forth to stave off global warming will be detrimental to private industry.” While it’s true that all the data is not in (it never will be as scientific data collection is endless as it should be) the overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to significant increases in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (See Hansen, J., M. Sato, and R. Ruedy 1997. Radiative forcing and climate response. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 6831-6864)

Yes, curtailing of greenhouse gas emissions will severely effect some elements of private industry just as development of the internal combustion engine as a power source for automobiles put thousands of wheelwrights and buggy manufacturers out of business.

“I would compare global warming to a large meteor on a collision course with earth.” A good analogy except that what you are suggesting is to bet that it will miss us and then, when it gets close enough to blot out the sun, call a meeting to determine if there’s any technology available to destroy it. What kind of technology will it take to re-freeze the Arctic and Antarctic?

“The question then becomes, do we force a policy on people now, knowing that the real dangers are still many years off, and also knowing that with today's limited technology the costs will be hugely detrimental?” I don’t know. Do you get a flu shot before the onset of flu season just in case you might come in contact with the virus; or that this year’s virus may be super-deadly? A lot of people do…some call it smart planning, some call it insurance.

“We are now a far cleaner society than we were 20 years ago, and we are far cleaner than most other countries I have ever visited.” Though accounting for only 5 percent of the world's population, Americans consume 26 percent of the world's energy. (American Almanac). Yes, many of our systems are cleaner than other countries but the sheer volume overwhelms that.

E-mail, March 28
“What I did do was present some other facts and ideas that you are choosing to ignore.” I saw no “facts” in your earlier e-mail, only opinions and speculation. Webster defines “Facts” as: “A piece of information presented as having objective reality.” I find you comments to be highly subjective.

“(T)he banning of DDT internationally has caused millions of deaths in places like Africa due to the increase of malaria from mosquitoes, which DDT kills.” There is really no empirical data on the deaths from malaria due to reductions in DDT use (most African and South American countries have continues to use it on the QT) but I would agree that it’s very likely there was an increase, at least temporarily until alternative methods were put into place. Living for a period in southern Mexico, I recall weekly governmental spraying of the insides of the houses with DDT and the smell permeating the area for days. However, Insecticide-treated bednets have reduced mortality and severe morbidity from malaria among children on the Kenyan coast (See Nevill et al. 1996) and the use of pyrethrins has also been effective.

Since there is no real solid data on the seriousness of DDT effects on humans, it has been reported that high-level exposure to selected organochlorines appear to cause abnormalities of liver function, skin (chloracne), and the nervous system. Nevertheless, DDT is very highly toxic to many aquatic invertebrate species and to fish species as well (Extension Toxicology Network, Cornell Univ.). So, if in eliminating malarial mosquitoes we also destroy the aquatic ecosystem on which these societies depend on, have we really done them any big favors?
"With global warming, it's true that the earth's temperature will be going up by a degree in the next 100 years and this could cause some climate problems.” I am curious as to the source of this figure (one degree increase in 100 years). In its 2007 assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the first time was able to provide best estimates and likely ranges for global average warming under each of its emissions scenarios with a “with a best estimate of 3.2 to 7.2°F (1.8-4.0°C)” by the end of the 21st century.
“If you want to be an environmental puritan and belittle people like myself for our ignorance…we can fight you in the polls…” Your final statement befuddles me. First, I’ve never considered myself as an “environmental purist” but as an informed scientist who seeks objective answers to environmental issues. Secondly, by providing researched, published and accepted scientific data, how have I belittled you? Intimidated…maybe, but not belittled. And thirdly, no matter how much you want it to be, you can’t “vote” to stop the effects of global warming anymore than you can vote to stop the moon from rising tonight.
Thanks for your interest in my blog and this subject. But, I must refrain from continuing this dialogue in deference to other readers and issues.