EnviroWave by Robert Green

If you haven't seen this presentation, and you claim to be concerned about the environment, then go see it. You can find it online at www.climatecrisis.org, or at your favorite video store.

This presentation provided me one of the most profound awakenings in my adult life. This issue Global Warming crosses all party lines and affects us at the biological level, not the political level.

Perhaps, the messenger should not have been Al Gore, who gives a phenomenal presentation, because of his previous political involvement; members of his opposition party may be turned off by his mere presence.

I find it very interesting, that despite global warming as having a political perception, many governments around the world, along with scientific communities have contributed to the data collection, analysis and reporting that lends credibility to the theory of global warming.

It is no longer a liberal idea that global warming is a growing problem. The mechanical measurements over the past 180 years have set the benchmark from which the current measurements are compared, and the results are leading towards a rapid change in our environment.

As improvements in the measurement technologies have come about, and the sheer volume of data now being collected around the world, it has become an overwhelming fact, that radical and rapid environmental change is afoot.

The Earth's normal cycles, according to ice records, tar analysis, and the fossil record, shows a fairly consistent periodicity of 100,000 years for a major heating and cooling. One of the constants among human history has been a relatively low population density until the past approximate 200 years. Since the human population boom and the industrial demand we have placed on the environment, we have helped to accelerate the heating and cooling cycle to a period of only a few hundred years (if that).

In a recent study of carbon dioxide emissions, Dr Raupach of the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Organization (http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/ps2im.html) says “Recent emissions seem to be near the high end of the fossil fuel use scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On our current path, it will be difficult to rein-in carbon emissions enough to stabilize the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 450 ppm.”

It has been reported by several news organizations, that significant numbers of species of animals will go extinct due to loss of habitat, changes in water salinity and temperature, significant changes in the temperature bounds that were previously "normal", or from interrupting the cycle of insect hatchings.

As Al Gore states, the damage we are seeing today is from what we have already done. The question now is what can we do to change the rate of this instability, or can we correct the problem.

It is possible that we have there may be so much damage, that the environment may have become so dysfunctional and out of balance, that we may not find a solution quick enough to stop our climate crisis.

Hopefully our collective efforts will be enough.

Robert

In "The Global Warming Hoax" Bud Simmons posts the article "The real climate change catastrophe" by Paul Driessen which leads with the statement 'Asserting "the science is settled" ignores the debate that still rages. Proclaiming that "climate change is real" ignores Earth's constant, natural warming and cooling.' And concludes with the argument that real catastrophe is not some climate cataclysm, but is a handy argument for repressing the lives of impoverished nations.

The first statement moved me to research this a little further. I have another argument against the latter.

It seems that most scientists who have studied the heating and cooling patterns of the Earth, agree that patterns are evident in the historical data. However, the significant changes to our environment are marked by a fact that is not present in this article, and is not present in many articles that claim to debunk the myth of global warming. The ignored fact is that during the cycles of heating and cooling identified in the distant and relatively near past (of 200 years and greater) are consistent with a stable population of humans of about 500 million. At 1804, the global population reached one billion. In 1927, the world population reached 2 billion. In 1987, the world population reached five billion, and in 2005, the world population reached 6 billion people.

Over most recent 200 years of history, there have been a number of things that have allowed the human population to boom to its current state. The use of soaps, antiseptics and other medical miracles have improved the quality of life and reduced the impact of diseases decreasing the mortality rate, and increasing the birth rate. Advances to the way we produce and harvest animals and foods has also evolved to become more voluminous and efficient.

Now that we have over 6 billion people on earth, each breathing and working in more industrial modes and with greater efficiencies, it seems reasonable that humans are having an impact on the environment. The increased resource demands on animals, food, water and oxygen, are having an "unnatural" affect and it’s showing up in scientific data that is rejected by the global warming hoax community.

We have already seen examples in smaller communities, such as the Florida deer population, which have yielded smaller and fewer animals each year due to overeating of its available resources. An additional example is Algae blooms in the ocean that bust (die out) because of their ravenous demand for oxygen and nutrients that cannot be found in the water immediately surrounding their colony as they grow.

I think the Earth may be reaching its carrying capacity very soon. This brings me to my arguments for Mr. Driessen's conclusion, that it’s unethical to not allow impoverished nations to flourish with hydroelectric or nuclear power, or modern technologies and conveniences, or insecticides that will help reduce mosquito born disease to improve their quality of life.

To me, the real problem exists when we have artificially grown the population to a point that the earth can no longer sustain its population. A sustainable population is possible, considering two things: First, the birth and mortality rate must balance each other. Second, we must consider that life in impoverished nations may not be sustainable with local resources. It may be necessary to either relocate the inhabitants to locales where resources exist, or discover or provide the means to sustain and improve the lives of those in impoverished nations where they are.

People's quality of life is extremely poor when they cannot cultivate land or get the electricity to power the homes and tools of every day life. Life has no quality at all when plants, animals or people cannot survive the environmental revolt caused by a deteriorating atmosphere from direct, or even indirect, human involvement.

To say global warming is a hoax may or may not be true, but to deny the impact of human involvement on our environment is simply not reasonable, and is the ignored fact in the existing environmental problem.

Robert

"No to carbon trading: Make the polluters pay" response to GreenLeft.org.au's article on carbon trading. http://www.GreenLeft.org.au/2006/691/35896

The proposition that carbon trading schemes/prjects do not make the polluters pay is incorrect. The fact is, that polluters are required to pay, via the purchase of "Certified Emission Reduction" (CER) credits, whereas those who do reduce their emissions, may profit from the sale of CER credits in the carbon market.

The carbon market has been around for some time and is growing substantially despite the volatility of the price of a CER, as a result of both the environmental need and business opportunities presented in reducing pollution. The net effect is an expedient market pressure for businesses to reduce the offensive production behaviors, and for consumers (on all scales) to influence production behaviors through their purchasing and consumption practices.

I see the debate as not being a matter of whether carbon pollution is being controlled, but at what rate is it being controlled. The rate at which pollution control is occurring is still slow, but it does happen. I seriously doubt, however, that market pressure is enough to control carbon emissions alone.

I agree with Tim Stewart and Pip Hinman, that the best place for coal is in the ground, and we should wean ourselves of our dependency on it. However, coal is deeply ingrained in power production around the world, and a large-scale replacement fuel might be enough of a challenge to not be feasible.

Decentralization of power production, coupled with the decentralization of the production of goods or crops as a solution, to follow the Cuban model, will require a new market balance. The shift in centralized production to decentralized production will require a significant market force to initiate that movement, which is not yet in place, and may not outweigh the benefits of the current global production.

One of the promising technologies to help reduce our demand on coal and other fossil fuels are the petrochemicals derived from sustainable crops such as soybean, corn and algae. One of the companies I am interested in seeing develop is PetroAlgae, LLC , which is commercializing a proprietary, environmentally-friendly algae that generates over two hundred times more oil per acre than traditional biofuel crops like soybeans.

The algae can be harvested daily and fifty percent of its mass is expressible oil, and has many environmental benefits as well, including absorption of greenhouse gases, and water purification.
There is no single silver bullet for eliminating our pollution woes, so we must take consideration and action on all promising technologies, policies and philosophies that can help reduce our carbon signature, both individually and as members of our global environment.

Robert

I re-read Roderick Nash’s book The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics (History of American Thought and Culture) this weekend. This is a fantastic chronicle of the history of environmental ethics that all students of environmental ethics would benefit from reading. Nash’s historical perspective at the time of his writing, coupled with the importance of the topics of today, make this book as relevant today as it was 20 years ago.

For those who have not read this book, Nash’s central theme is the widening sense of identification that humans have developed regarding the environment and other forms of life throughout human history. It is more of a history of “Deep Ecology” as it has matured greatly philosophically from mere conservationism.

It seems to me today, that the trend in philosophical thinking towards Deep Ecology is still moving forward. This movement has instilled in us individual requirements to do something for not only our environment, but more selfishly, for ourselves, even though the benefit is global. I’ve read countless articles concerning the dire state of our ocean fishes being fished to extinction, global warming, and our deteriorating air quality. I’m talking about Green Policies, things like greenhouse gas reduction, carbon reduction mechanisms, efficient and renewable energy sources, and sustainable growth policies, at the governmental, trans-governmental, and economic or commercial levels that can influence a change in [slow] at least the rate of environmental breakdown.

With regards to the Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, I think we at least have a model from which to take on industrial-sized carbon emissions reduction projects. This model may require adjustment, as well as more countries to ratify it to make it more relevant and influential. Various cities and states around the world are also implementing their own methods and markets for carbon reduction projects, which in turn increases the demand for the carbon market.

Individuals have the ability to also practice these conservationist actions with a global impact. These things would be to reduce, reuse, and recycle as well as purchase offsets of your emission-causing activities via operations like Driving Green, TerraPass, Green My Flight, and Cool Driver for vehicle, fleet, airplane and residential emissions.

The fact that we debate these topics, the fact that we have political policies on these subjects, and the fact that we are doing something both individually and collectively to resolve these issues, are all indicative that the momentum of the environmental ethics movement has proliferated from a 1960’s university activity to a global ecological awareness and call to action.

Robert

My first posting on this site is geared towards my readers, friends, colleagues and co-workers in the field of environmental ethics and environmental solutions to the growing problems indicated in our environment.

I'm sure some of you may be interested in my background. First, my education has been both wide in terms of subject areas, and deep in terms of concentrations. I completed by BA in Philosophy from the University of West Florida where my efforts concentrated on environmental ethics. I have also completed studies at Tulane University to bolster my career in the IT field. After several years of IT work, I have been given the opportunity to contribute my IT skills and environmental ethics background to a green company - AgCert International and have a vested interest in this subject, as should all other members of the biotic community.

I look forward to receiving your feedback and will report my take on the importance of being environmentally responsible through thought provoking dialog and ethical challenges.

Robert