What the DR Can/Should Do Regarding Global Climate Change

[bob saunders]

Well, Keith we can adapt where we live, and how we decide to adapt our lifestyle to adapt to a climate change if we know that it is really happening. If it's is getting hotter and more arid we can ensure we have abundant water supply...etc, if it's getting colder then our adaptations will be different. The problem is that 5 years from now we'll be told by the same scientists that the earth is getting wetter, or dryer, or colder...or....? It is pretty hard to adapt to the unknown or the guesses.

[Chris]

The Stern Review
Hang in there ... it is big and I predict that it will be read in its entirety by very few

Capturing the Energy Opportunity
I guess very few will read this one completely as well.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

The Stern Review
Hang in there ... it is big and I predict that it will be read in its entirety by very few

I have seen that before.

So the country that commissioned what became the IPCC in the first place then commissions another gubmint branch to do a "study" to lessen the economic blow of the IPCC mandates? And we're 'sposed to believe that, too?

Did YOU actually read what he stated in the Executive Summary? His postulates and basis? Girl, it's BASED on the faulty science the IPCC promotes!!!!!!!!!!!

Did YOU even read it? It says the "rich" countries must decrease their carbon emissions by 60-80% by 2050, and the Third World-this includes China and India-don't have to do squat. I'd cut and paste a TON from it, but it's in read-only .pdf and cannot be done.

Okey Dokey

Originally Posted by Chris

www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/pdf/energy_chapter.pdf"]Capturing the Energy Opportunity[/url]
I guess very few will read this one completely as well.

I'm reading this part of your post and trying to figure out if you are serious or not.

I have read this one too, loooong before you posted it.

You DO understand, no doubt, that the CAP was founded in 2003 as "the official Hillary Clinton think tank" (per the UPI). Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff, John Podesta, was hand-picked to run it. Even the socialist publication The Nation called it a "shadow government, kind of a Clinton White House in exile". Heck, even Hillary bragged about kicking it off. Additionally, CAP birthed the Hillary media watchdog group, Media Matters, who also gets funding from George Soros groups.

Please explain to me how I'm supposed to take an obvious political organization's study, designed to get ONE Presidential candidate elected Prez of the US, seriously. Political organizations exist for one purpose: to serve themselves and their agenda, first and foremost.

[Keith R]

I suspect that man's activities, and particularly GHG emissions and deforestation, at the very least exacerbate global climate change. Just how much, what are the precise mechanisms for doing so, and how best to reduce that impact, will probably change over time as our study of earth sciences improves. But given the possible (note that I did not say "probable") stakes and timeline involved, it is prudent that we act now to reduce that impact based on the best assessments we can make at this time.

Lack of complete scientific certainty shouldn't be an excuse for inaction. Given how often meterologists make mistakes in weather forecasts (daily?), one cannot argue that meterology is an exact science. Yet when they tell you a Force 4 hurricane is headed directly for you, the prudent thing to do is to prepare for it, even if it ends out vering away at the last minute or hits with less wind velocity and precipitation than predicted. I think the same principle applies to global climate change. As to what steps mankind can take beyond adaptation strategies, I think at the very least we can act in areas that make sense in other ways (including economic) -- greatly increasing energy and fuel efficiency, switching as much as we can to renewable fuel sources that have lesser adverse environmental impacts, etc.

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

(well, the Cat 4 thing is over the top, but I'll allow you literary license .

Actually, it's not a question of literary license; it's a metaphor chosen from my own life experience. I lived in Santo Domingo during the time Hurricane Georges, a Cat 4, hit. There were some in the DR (including some in the govt) who did not think it would hit the DR head-on, and if it hit at all, it would just graze the NE coast, certainly not Santo Domingo. Many of these people did not prepare properly. I, on the other hand, decided it was prudent to prepare my household as if it would, since it was within the realm of the quite possible. I was later glad I did so, since we were without water and power and perishable food for some time.

[Chip]

Chris

what does all of this talking among laypeople really going to do anyway - rather focus on the changes one can make in one's personal life - use public transportation and educate others to conserve energy in whatever form and to protect the environment. I think it would be a great idea if people her simply made a point of organizing people to pick up trash in visible areas so the locals become "aware" of the problem and therefore be less likley to throw trash on the ground. One could also set up a small business of recycling oil from auto shops and having it reprocessed instead of being dumped, untreated with all of it's contaminents into the local watershed where it inevitably will make it's way to the water treatment plants that process the water we drink.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Chip

Furthermore, what does all of this talking among laypeople really going to do anyway - rather focus on the changes one can make in one's personal life - use public transportation and educate others to conserve energy in whatever form and to protect the environment. I think it would be a great idea if people her simply made a point of organizing people to pick up trash in visible areas so the locals become "aware" of the problem and therefore be less likley to throw trash on the ground. One could also set up a small business of recycling oil from auto shops and having it reprocessed instead of being dumped, untreated with all of it's contaminents into the local watershed where it inevitably will make it's way to the water treatment plants that process the water we drink.

Thanks Chip. This was my very first question. What is to do?

[bob saunders]

You are right about one thing Chris. It is all about what are you doing in your life that is harming the earth, and what are you doing about it. Whether you belive in Global warming or not, makes no difference. Talk is cheap, actions are what counts.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by bob saunders

You are right about one thing Chris. It is all about what are you doing in your life that is harming the earth, and what are you doing about it. Whether you belive in Global warming or not, makes no difference. Talk is cheap, actions are what counts.

Exactly.

A sovereign man needs to act responsibly for himself, and therefore his community.

Nobody like bad air or water, nobody WANTS forests denuded, nobody wants species extinction (well, I can thing of a few...especially with 6+ legs), nobody wants to see people suffer.

Be responsible for yourself. Teach your children well. Lead by example. Be informed, but don't be a chump. Vote. Speak kindly with your mother-in-law . And stay out of your neighbor's business.

As a former Boy Scout and lifetime outdoorsman, I have always followed one simple, but effective, rule: leave the campsite better than how you found it. This includes our carbon-based orb. We'd all be better off if we just followed that one simple policy.

I do know one thing: all governments have a long history of failure, and really screwing up everything they control. For the love of mankind, why would we EVER want them to be in control of the planet?

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by bob saunders

Repeated scientific verification supports the theories of relativity, the double-helix structure of DNA and even the theory of natural climate change, providing indisputable proof that these theories are in fact the truth.

Actually, a physicist recently said to me that that there are parts of the theory of relativity still under debate and parts we suspect are true but cannot fully verify. Also, my father, a retired MD, frequently tells me that many of the things he learned in science & medicine as "absolute, verified truths" several decades ago have since been found wrong.

But just because full consensus on the science in any field is elusive if not impossible, does that mean you cannot or should not act on the best state of knowledge available to you at the time?

And given the projected lead times necessary to make any notable impact on climate change, doesn't continued delay simply make it more impossible to influence the outcome?