This entry was posted by brianS on Friday, February 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm and is filed under WGOM Headlines. It is one of 438 entries by the author. We are no longer accepting Letters to the Editor on this post. Why?
14 LTEs
Sorry, The WGOM is no longer accepting Letters to the Editor on this article.
Loading ...
Makes sense to me. I felt less of a responsibility to recylce (and less guilty when I don't) after doing thorough research into how it works and what is actually saved and lost. I also feel less worried about viruses and pandemic the more I read about them. When the only source of information one gets is from TV news, all you will see is the sensational stories, and develop a skewed view of proportional danger.
However, there are likely to be just as many things we should be worried about that we aren't, because we're uninformed.
I think the point about news-inspired skewed senses of risk is an interesting and plausible one. However, it DOES run contrary to this survey finding. Remember -- most people don't actually pay much attention to the news at all. So the news consumers -- even the ones watching Fox
-- are the relatively well-informed.
That's frightening.
I paid attention to all this stuff quite a while ago... before I was a teenager. But now I'm 30 and I've taken stats courses and Manhattan was still very much above water last I checked, and I'm starting to think that maybe there's a lot more BS here than I was led to believe as a Tweener.
Also, I've read the first Lomborg book and can definitely see the plausibility of one of his premises: the solution to global warming (if it exists) isn't to completely destroy the global economy to slow the process by 50 years or 100, but to grow our economy and deal with the symptoms.
So yes, I feel very well informed, have little concern and feel little responsibility. I still do turn off the lights whne i leave the room though.
I still do turn off the lights when I leave the room though.
So do I. But it really annoys the people who are still there.
it really annoys the people who are still there.
I'll admit it. I LOL'd out loud.
I LOL'd out loud
That's a bit redundant, isn't it.
I was channeling my inner Adrian Monk. (Last quote on the page)
Lomborg's book was excellent. Compounded growth rates are a huge deal. The difference between America and Britain's economies is around a 0.5% annual growth rate over the past century. I generally assume the worst from politicians and I see a lot of parallels between global warming and terrorism for the left and right. They're both serious problems, but the solutions proposed by each side for their pet crisis goes too far because the bigger they make the problem seem the easier it is to scare voters. Pimping global warming thrust Gore back into relevancy, and he got to split the Nobel with the IPCC even when Gore's predicted rise in sea levels was (and forgive me as I'm working from memory) a factor of ten larger than what the IPCC projected (2' vs. 20')? I agree with the notion that the more people dig into global warming the less they appear concerned about it as compared to folks who only listen to the hysterics of politicians clamoring for votes. But I don't think that makes them unconcerned.
I'm very uneasy about getting behind any politician that is pushing for a strong move away from fossil fuels while at the same time rejecting nuclear power (Obama, I'm looking at you). I think a large danger is if the U.S. isn't the go-to nation for nuclear power and we've got Russians attempting to build Belgian designed reactors all over the developing world. That and nuclear is the only economically feasible option right now if you want to ditch fossil fuels. Even socialist France has this figured out, but American NIMBYists and the secularly religious side of the environmental movement have made nuclear power into a bogyman, unfairly.
The environment is a very interesting issue with the far left. Last century the far left was all about technology and using it to manage and plan society from the top down like never before, scientific socialism and the new socialist man and whatnot. That backfires and a now a portion of the far left has done a complete 180. Instead of advocating the benefits of technology to bring about a better future, they now fight against opening the Pandora's box of carbon emissions, nuclear power, genetically modified crops, etc and want to backdoor their way into a regulatory socialist state. The only similar thing they seem to be in favor of is stem cell research because it works the Christian right into fits.
I agree that some of Lomborg's work is quite interesting. I haven't read his book(s), but have read some shorter pieces (he did a guest piece in the Economist a couple years ago). The way he has been excoriated by many "scientists" provides a sad commentary on the objectivity of policy-relevant scientific research. And on the general inability of many scientists to maintain much scientific objectivity outside of the very narrow confines of their own research.
I wouldn't follow kyle down the nuke path, however. at least not with any enthusiasm. There has long been a great deal of b.s. rhetoric flowing from the pro-nuke side of the fence trivializing the massive environmental and ECONOMIC problems (e.g., liability, plus the costs of long-term waste disposal) we face with respect to nuclear power.
socialist France may have "figured this out" in some respects, but the socialists were not responsible for the commitment to nuke power. Nukes and nuke power were integral parts of the nationalist movement. France made the commitment to nuclear power in or around 1974. The president of France from 1974-1981 was Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. Not a socialist. His prime minister during 1974-76 was Jacques Chirac. NOT a socialist. The Gaulists (Pompidou, Messmer) were in control of the government before d'Estaing's election. NOT socialists. Messmer was PM when the 1974 construction projects began.
France has an active nuclear fuel reprocessing program. It does not yet have a (completed) long-term storage facility for high-level nuclear waste, although they have a major facility in development. Which they need.
One thing I agree with McCain on. His general statements regarding the environment (he believes we are impacting global warming greatly) goes somewhat like this:
Suppose the following two scenarios: One, assume that we are not impacting global warming and continue to do the same things we have always done. We reach a time in the future and find out that science proves our environment is being seriously impacted by us humans. The consequences of this scenario could possibly prove to be irreversible and obviously severely detrimental to future generations.
Two, assume that global warming is a pressing problem and take reasonable steps to lessen our impact on the environment. We reach a time in the future and find out global warming was blown out of proportion. The consequences of this scenario would be that we have left a cleaner, more beautiful environment for future generations.
I do not propose we go to drastically radical lengths to react to the global warming crisis. However, we do need to take strong measures to develop alternative fuel sources. I agree with AMR on nuclear technology. I also think we should be putting money into the development of greener technology for homes, cares, businesses, etc.
The worst case scenario listed above is too risky to just ignore.
There it is again. People are way too rational around here. You can't discuss the environment with facts! You either need to scream "Doom & Gloom!" or say there is nothing wrong. It can't be somewhere in between.
I've always kinda thought along these lines as well. Who really knows what kind of impact we have, but why chance it? Besides whatever atmospheric effects all of the fossil fuel exhaust causes, what about the fact we breath that stuff? I'm for more stringent emission standards for no other reason than I'm worried about my personal health.
icky.
I deal with severe risk aversion every day from my wife. Yet she still leaves the house to drive to work.
the "why chance it?" argument kills me. Look around at all the environmental risk we bear every day. Mercury, lead, cigarette smoke, benzene every friggin' place you look. Reasoning from worst-case-scenarios without at least attempting to assign probabilities to different outcomes and thinking about the opportunity costs of remediation is just a bad way to go.
there are numerous behavioral changes out there that can reduce carbon footprints AND save money (from driving slower and making sure your tires are properly inflated, to replacing incandescent light bulbs with CFLs, to better building insulation to building redesigns). Design policies to encourage these first. And work towards a carbon tax if you are really seriously concerned.