OT: Climate Change - Viewed From a Different Angle

[Guest guest]

Hi y'all,

 

I am the father of a young child and as such, I am as concerned about the

future of Earth as anyone on this list .. I believe. I am not a devoted

Greenie and certainly not an activist or Eco-Terrorist .. but I am doing my

best to be as environmentally conscious as I can .. and I am even now

training my young son to do likewise. Because there is a great difference

between my age and that of my wife and son .. I am also doing all I can to

make them believe that it is likely that after I am gone there will come a

time where perhaps as much as 50% of the food they consume must be produced

by them on our own plot of land .. we will go overboard on freezing, canning

and drying this coming harvest year. I am fortunate in that my son is

young enough that he can be taught what I see as the correct way without

having to unlearn bad habits .. and my wife, being a Russian, needs little

convincing because the average Russian family even now produces and stores a

great part of the food they consume.

 

Note that below I am avoiding the use of the term " Global Warming " .. I

think it is too political in nature .. its a rallying point for dissent

among too many factions. I prefer to use the term Climate Change because I

believe that it should be accepted as a Reality by all folks who have not

stuck their heads in the sand.

 

I am absolutely certain that the Evolutionary Path upon which Earth

continuously treads has brought all living creatures into another zone of

Climate Change. I believe (though I am not certain) that man made CO2

emissions are to some degree hastening the eventual devastating effects of

this Climate Change. There are many other causes for Climate Change .. and

the list of impacts that might be reasonably expected to occur during a

major period of Climate Change is almost endless ..

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm .. but after reading this list you

might conclude that the list is the result of a desire to collect volume

rather than inform .. as would be a list that told us each and every change

the human body will experience when one dies. What we are talking

about with a major Climate Change boils down to a great reduction, if not

extinction, of many forms of life .. to include mankind .. and great changes

in what is now considered to be the normal lifestyle for those who are able

to survive the change.

 

There are more scientists in disagreement on the causes of Climate Change

than we really hear about. Some list ongoing changes and attribute them to

man's actions .. they say that if man acts now he can reverse terrible

consequences in the future .. there are other scientists who say there is

little man can do to halt the progression of Climate Change .. they say that

its a normal phase of the Evolution of living species on Earth. There might

a good bit of truth in arguments from both sides .. but apparently there

is not enough firm scientific evidence to bring the two sides together ..

that is not a norm in the world of scientific research.

 

Scientists on one side claim that describing an outcome does not give

credibility to an hypothesis that determines cause .. and claim that the

scientists on the other side are activists only for the purpose of gaining

funds for research. Scientists on the other side say that the " defeatist "

attitudes of the non-believers proves their lack of credibility. Again,

there is probably some truth to the opinions on both sides and it is likely

that some scientists don't really feel as strongly about their

position as they claim .. and they have various personal/financial/political

reasons for taking their stand.

 

Politicians .. as is with many " accurate but unspoken " positions in science,

its not always Politically Correct to tell it like one thinks it really

is. It is as normal for science to be at odds with Political Correctness

as it is for Politicians to be at odds with Truth .. so we are left

to continue to slug along in a misinformed state of mind .. or make

grandiose plans to counter conditions that might be far too great to deal

with.

 

Some say that Mankind is the Caretaker of our Planet .. and I agree with

this .. to a point. Mankind is but a grain of sand on the

Evolutionary Beach and Mama Nature is not going to allow Mankind to

interfere very much in Her plans for the Natural Order .. and in the Big

Circle of Life, Mankind is as much at odds with itself as are some other

species .. its just that the actions of man have a more powerful impact on

the environment and on Evolution than do the actions of other species. Like

the dinosaurs once were, we are at the top of the food chain. And just as

the world continued onward after the extinction of the dinosaurs, it will

continue onward if mankind is greatly reduced in numbers .. or even becomes

extinct.

 

It seems that the further one is Left of Center the more likely they are to

believe that man is the cause of Climate Change and man must combat

these causes even if our actions might fail. The further one is Right of

Center the more likely they are to associate efforts to combat the causes of

natural Climate Change with those of the Eco-Terrorists .. which in fact,

have done much to harm efforts of the legitimate organizations who have

similar interests. Being one who is Eclectic and who lives on both sides

of the fence .. I agree with much of what both groups claim. But I am

unhappy coming to the conclusion that Climate Change has created a New

Industry .. and many scientists on both sides have subordinated their

objectivity for financial gain .. or political convictions. There are many

who receive funding from the Left and the Right to prove or disprove claims

made on the causes of Climate Change .. though this is unsettling it is not

surprising .. especially to the folks in Alternative-Complementary

Healthcare, who know that BigPharma has compromised the integrity of many

scientists. There are others who are driven by extreme political stands ..

it is not wrong to believe that the majority of professors in American

universities lean to the Left .. and do what they can to indoctrinate their

students. And though it might surprise some folks, there are many (though

probably fewer) scientists who will stand by the Ultra-Right religious

groups .. and the Neocons .. and will take a position directly opposite

those on the Left because of their position. This also bothers me because

years ago I lost faith in politicians and now I am losing faith in

scientists.

 

As a practical man who is not polarized in his political convictions but

feels comfortable on the Right of Center when it comes to the security of

America, the U.S. Armed Forces and the Americans who wear the uniforms of

those services .. I am a bit dismayed that America has long been

characterized as a big, selfish, consumer of energy and a country that has

no concern for the rest of the world True it is that we use more energy

than any other single country .. but we didn't get where we are today by

riding donkeys and harvesting wheat and corn by hand .. or even with horse

drawn machinery. And it upsets me when I hear folks claim that Americans

don't care about the rest of the world. America has always been the

Vanguard for assistance to those who are less fortunate .. not only in

charity but in foreign assistance and physical assistance in the time of war

... matters not which war one agrees or disagrees with .. except for the last

few years other countries have stepped in and begged us to assist them ..

and we did .. with the blood of our children. We would not have been able

to assist if we did not have modern conveniences, energy driven

technological advances, and if we were living an austere peasant type

lifestyle. If we were not where we are today we could not have helped .. we

could not have saved Europe two times and could not have been the driving

force behind destruction of the Berlin Wall .. so to Hell with those who

call us selfish!

 

Do I believe that we are our Brother's Keeper? To some degree I believe

this .. but if we are to provide food assistance to a country like North

Korea (for example) I believe that we must first determine if its in the

best interests of the United States to do so .. we should not always do it

simply because folks are starving due to the inhumane, incorrect and selfish

acts of a corrupt, totalitarian Marxist regime.

 

Do I believe that we should provide humanitarian aid to the millions of

starving people in Africa? I vacillate on this one .. I do and I don't.

Emotionally, I do and I have supported Save The Children for many years ..

I empathize and reach out to the children in Africa and other places. As

the father of five children, the youngest being 21 months old .. I don't

even want to imagine one of my children living in squalor, having a swollen

belly with flies on the face .. and dying before my eyes from a cause that

could be easily remedied by just a few dollars worth of medication. On

the other hand, logically I accept that poverty driven by inhospitable

climatic conditions that are sometimes coupled with backward social behavior

and by corrupt, totalitarian leadership is not going to go away easily .. we

can save a few needy souls today but we are not accomplishing much aside

from that .. and there is a limit to how much and how long we can do this.

Attempts by idealistic do-gooders to reverse poverty with Organic farming

(no chemical fertilizers or pesticides) in areas where the soil is

inadequate to support crops and hoards of locusts eat half of what is grown

... is not the solution to poverty! Pouring in funds that are diverted to

boosting the strength and allowing the continuance of power of the corrupt,

totalitarian leaders of some countries is not going to reverse poverty ..

this merely enriches the coffers of leaders who should be under snakes and

allows them to continue to worsen the conditions we want to remedy.

Combined and joint international actions against such leaders are likely to

be the best solution .. but there are two problems with this .. the first

being that those in great need would suffer in order to make life better for

their future generations .. the second problem is now insurmountable .. that

is gaining a consensus in the DisUnited Nations to take action against

illegitimate dictators who create suffering for the people in their

countries.

 

Do I believe that Radical Environmentalism and Secularization have become

religions unto themselves? Yes! Both are Politically Correct religions

... the ONLY Politically Correct religions. Well .. come to think on

it maybe its just Christianity that is not Politically Correct .. those

who risk criticizing other religions .. even when telling the truth ..

(especially Islam) are likely to be chastised by the same people who

chastise us for promoting Nativity Scenes.

 

Do I believe that Americans should pay an Energy Use Tax? Hell NO! I am

against many of the ideas that are generated by the Non Democratic Socialist

EU Parliament .. and against almost all of the ideas generated from the

corrupt DisUnited Nations .. an organization that is anti-Western in

practice .. and composed of totalitarian dictators, thieves, despots, war

criminals, Communists and Socialists, and worse .. by design. If the

DisUnited Nations was a viable organization then we could .. as a group ..

do so much to rid the world of poverty and corrupt regimes .. and feed the

children. There is nothing correct about honoring the position of a

dictator .. and there is nothing illegal about taking them down .. they

don't deserve to hide behind the principle of autonomy. But it would be

illegal and immoral if the UN did not then exercise the proper Civil

Military and Civic Action Operations to put the country back on their feet

and guide them toward self rule. This will never happen because a good

many members of the DisUnited Nations are these corrupt people and they (and

their cronies) will protect their regimes at the expense of their own

citizens .. and the entire world.

 

Do I believe that Environmental or Energy Use Taxes smart of Marxism .. or

at best .. of postmodern Socialism? Yes! In many ways the concept of

" Global Warming " is a template for classic Marxism .. its a great equalizer

... and the perfect guilt trip. The more prosperous a country is the more

CO2 that country produces .. to avoid this the producing nations should pay

a tax on their prosperity to those who are not prosperous, producing

nations .. even though their lack of prosperity might be due to

mismanagement and corruption! Put all the money in a big pot and dole it

out to those who are in need of the what for to combat Climate Change ..

even if we are not sure of .. or in agreement on .. the tactical and

strategic plans for these combat operations.

 

After thinking out loud on paper .. and probably boring the crap out of most

of you folks .. where am I really going to? I am not sure that I have gone

anywhere .. but I am convinced that we must question any attempts to extort

funds from our country for the purpose of combating Climate Change. I

am also convinced that there is a need for a credible alternative to the

DisUnited Nations .. this new organization should be an exclusive one ..

founded by Western nations .. and we would include other nations who are

concerned for their citizens and could otherwise pass the smell test of

the founding Western members. If well planned and properly thought out, the

Charter of this organization could as valuable and credible as the

Constitution of the United States .. and the Original thought processes and

reasons that drove the creation of the European Union. Would such an

organization be criticized by some of the Emerging Market and Third World

nations? Of course it would .. but no more so than is the DisUnited

Nations is now criticized. It is totally impossible to do anything

without some criticism .. but many of the Emerging Market and Third World

nations would be incorporated as members .. and those who were not accepted

would then be at the mercy .. or whim .. of those who had more honorable

intentions. If we must have a World Order (and eventually .. we must) then

let it be an order that has honorable intentions. Evolution is not

restricted to the physical aspects of a species .. it is also a factor in

the Social and Political development of nations .. and though to some who

have their idealistic heads in the sand it might seem Politically Incorrect

to say that all nations have not evolved on an equal basis in this regard ..

it is still a proven and well known fact .. so again, to Hell with Political

Correctness.

 

If it were not for criticism by activists on the Right and Left anytime

alternative sources of energy are discussed .. its likely that long ago the

USA (and Europe) would have become less dependent on foreign oil and if our

CO2 emissions are the major cause .. the Eco-Terrorists would have had to

find something and someone else to criticize .. and the Islamic

Fundamentalist Terrorists would have had to find other sources for funding

their war against us.

 

Would creation of the above mentioned exclusive organization be an

exercise of futility .. or an idealistic no starter? Today .. maybe! But

as a serious .. but two bit .. long term student of history, politics and

economics, I am totally convinced that those of you who are young and still

have a good bit of time remaining above snakes will see such an

organization one day. And this does give me warm fuzzies because I have a

son who is but 21 months old.

 

Do we need to do all we can today to try to make the world a better place to

live? Of course we do. Can we count on countries like China and Russia and

many of those in Africa and South America to fall in beside us and help do

this? Decide for yourself! There must come a time when the worst of the

Good Guys exert some control over the worst of the Bad Guys and I believe

that those who will determine what color hat the other guy is wearing will

be an organization such as that I described above .. and organization driven

by a desire to do good with the power to enforce by those who have good

intentions.

 

So off my soap box I am .. and pointing out that if all is considered, it is

not exactly true that the larger producing nations are the only ones who are

guilty of excess creation of CO2 emissions .. true it is that cumulatively

we produce more than the lesser developed nations .. but on an individual

basis .. considering size of population .. we create less than some nations

that produce nothing but children and oil.

 

Y'all keep smiling. :-) Butch

 

 

December 9, 2007

Oil-Rich Nations Use More Energy, Cutting Exports By CLIFFORD

KRAUSS<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/clifford_kra\

uss/index.html?inline=nyt-per>

 

The economies of many big oil-exporting countries are growing so fast that

their need for energy within their borders is crimping how much they can

sell abroad, adding new strains to the global oil market.

 

Experts say the sharp growth, if it continues, means several of the world's

most important suppliers may need to start importing oil within a decade to

power all the new cars, houses and businesses they are buying and creating

with their oil wealth.

 

Indonesia has already made this flip. By some projections, the same thing

could happen within five years to Mexico, the No. 2 source of foreign oil

for the United States, and soon after that to Iran, the world's

fourth-largest exporter. In some cases, the governments of these countries

subsidize gasoline heavily for their citizens, selling it for as little as 7

cents a gallon, a practice that industry experts say fosters wasteful

habits.

 

" It is a very serious threat that a lot of major exporters that we count on

today for international oil supply are no longer going to be net exporters

any more in 5 to 10 years, " said Amy Myers Jaffe, an oil analyst at Rice

University<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/r\

ice_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org>

..

 

Rising internal demand may offset 40 percent of the increase in Saudi oil

production between now and 2010, while more than half the projected decline

in Iranian exports will be caused by internal consumption, said a recent

report by CIBC World Markets.

 

The report said " soaring internal rates of oil consumption " in Russia, in

Mexico and in member states of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting

Countries would reduce crude exports as much as 2.5 million barrels a day by

the end of the decade.

 

That is about 3 percent of global oil demand. It may not sound high, but

experts say demand for oil is so inflexible, and the world has so little

spare production capacity, that even small shortfalls can raise prices. In

2002, when a labor strike in Venezuela took 3 percent of global production

off line, oil prices spiked 26 percent within weeks.

 

The trend, though increasingly important, does not necessarily mean there

will be oil shortages. More likely, experts say, it will mean big market

shifts, with the number of exporting countries shrinking and unconventional

sources like Canadian tar sands becoming more important, especially for the

United States. And there is likely to be more pressure to open areas now

closed to oil production.

 

Greater political stability and increased drilling in some important oil

states, notably Iraq, Iran and Venezuela, could help offset the rising

demand from other oil exporters.

 

" Ten years from now, world capacity to produce oil could be 20 percent

higher than today, " said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy

Research Associates. " But a lot will depend on how the geopolitics work

out. "

 

Growth in demand among oil exporters is one aspect of a larger issue,

breakneck economic growth in parts of the developing world. China and India

are expected to account for much of the increase in global oil demand in the

next 20 years. But Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy

Agency in Paris, rated consumption growth among oil exporters as the

second-biggest threat to meeting the world's oil needs.

 

" It's a big problem, and growing all the time, " Mr. Birol said.

 

Internal oil consumption by the five biggest oil exporters — Saudi Arabia,

Russia, Norway, Iran and the United Arab Emirates — grew 5.9 percent in 2006

over 2005, according to government data. Exports declined more than 3

percent. By contrast, oil demand is essentially flat in the United States.

 

CIBC's demand projections suggest that for many oil countries, including

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Libya, internal oil demand will double in a decade.

 

Factors contributing to the trend include increased industrialization,

higher government spending and increasing personal consumption. According to

a World

Bank<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/world_b\

ank/index.html?inline=nyt-org>report,

economic growth in the Middle East and North Africa has doubled

since the 1990s, and Russia has done even better.

 

Oil money is giving many countries the means to invest in their own economic

development, and robust global growth is creating markets for their goods —

including plastics, chemicals and fuels refined from oil.

 

To be sure, many oil-exporting states have a long way to go before they

achieve Western living standards. The global oil market is still dominated

by traditional consumers, particularly the United States, which uses nearly

a quarter of the world's oil.

 

Perhaps surprisingly, though, some producing countries have surpassed the

United States in oil consumption per person. They include Bahrain, Kuwait,

Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

 

Particularly in oil-producing countries with large populations, like

Indonesia, Russia and Mexico, a rapid rise in car ownership is a big factor

driving consumption increases. Russian farmers are replacing horses and

carts with gas-guzzling four-wheel-drive vehicles, while urban consumers are

snapping up BMWs even before they learn to drive.

 

" Most of the producing countries have young populations entering the driving

age and can more readily afford to buy cars because the price of fuel is

low, " said Charles McPherson, an oil expert at the International Monetary

Fund<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/interna\

tional_monetary_fund/index.html?inline=nyt-org>.

" It's certainly pulling product off the international markets. "

 

Some oil-exporting countries use price controls and subsidies to ensure

cheap fuel for their people. These programs are politically popular, even

though experts say they contribute to wasteful energy use.

 

Kuwaitis, for instance, often leave their air conditioning — powered by

electricity generated from natural gas or oil-derived fuels — running for

weeks while on vacation, said an official at the World Bank. Sportsmen of

the United Arab Emirates ski indoors on manufactured snow and play golf on

lush courses that require desalinated water produced with fuels refined from

oil.

 

Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis pay 30 to 50 cents a gallon for gasoline.

Venezuelans pay 7 cents, and demand is projected to rise as much as 10

percent this year. Auto sales have tripled in four years. " Where cheap oil

is viewed as a national human right, you've virtually got runaway demand, "

said Chris B. Newton, an executive of the Indonesian Petroleum Association

in Jakarta.

 

Indonesia flipped from exporting oil to importing it three years ago because

of sagging production in depleted fields and rising demand. Iran, Algeria

and Malaysia are vulnerable in the next decade. Most oil experts view Mexico

as the next country likely to flip, in as little as five years.

 

Rapidly falling production in Mexico's aging Cantarell oil field is part of

the problem. Also significant, though, is the rising number of cars on

Mexican roads. They have nearly doubled, to almost 16 million, in the last

decade, and gasoline consumption is growing 5 percent a year.

 

In Mexico City the other day, a bricklayer named Jaime Guerrero arrived at a

local Chevrolet dealership. His extended family cried " bravo! " as he signed

the papers for his first car.

 

" To have a new car in my name is a dream transformed into reality, " said Mr.

Guerrero, 26. He and his family piled in and weaved through the chaotic

traffic of the capital, hunting for a priest to douse the car with holy

water.

 

" I don't worry about the climate or shortages of oil in the world, " Mr.

Guerrero said. " I just worry if gasoline prices go up. "

 

Reporting was contributed by Wayne Arnold from Singapore; Nazila Fathi from

Tehran; Jens Erik Gould from Caracas, Venezuela; Andrew E. Kramer from

Moscow; Elisabeth Malkin from Mexico City; and Jad Mouawad from Riyadh,

Saudi Arabia.

Copyright 2007<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html>

The

New York Times Company <http://www.nytco.com/>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Butch,

 

I enjoyed your soap box and read the whole thing.

 

As a sort-of-member of the whole back-to-the

land movement of the early seventies we have

been aiming to grow our own for a long time,

with mixed results.

 

The longer I live, ( we have almost the same

expiry date) the less time I have for IDEOLOGY

of any kind, left or right.

Let's just see what WORKS.

 

I agree that climate change is most likely a mix

of human and natural causes. Having 2 geologists

in the family gives one a healthy respect for the

changes good ol' Gaia can come up with all on her

own, or perhaps with the help of the occasional

asteroid, not to mention solar cycles..

 

But if believing that humanity is responsible for

the whole shebang is the only way to get people

to start cleaning up the mess we've made, let's

leave it at that for now.

 

Meanwhile, cultivating the garden is one of the

most productive and sensible things anyone can do.

To my incredible pride my kale plantation got

a mention in the Vancouver Sun.

 

The friend of a friend who came to our land a few

weeks ago, and sat on my not-quite-pristine kitchen floor

sipping Lapsang Souchong and stripping kale seeds off the stalks,

this person turned out to be a high-class chef and food writer.

And she wrote about her outing in her monthly column in the

Vancouver Sun that was devoted to kale.

 

The kale article is here:

http://tinyurl.com/29k859

" The mother of all kale gardens " that she describes is

mine!

 

Ien in the Kootenays

http://freegreenliving.com (blog)