Liberal Hypocrisy?

[PerryChase]

I’m not giving Al Gore a free pass.

I believe in looking at things in context.

Al Gore’s house at 10,000sf does not use a lot of energy considering the number of people and staff/security who are in residence. As a residence of a former vice-president and now Hollywood celebrity the house hosts many guests for dinners, meetings etc… His house is not just a residence but an office and conference center.

As someone who has cut his energy use by 40% I know that it’s not easy. I insulated my house, replaced all the appliances with energy efficient ones, and changed the light bulbs to compact fluorescent where possible. You can also replace the windows but if you live in a historic old house, it’s not possible to do that without damaging the aesthetics. As a case in point, the brand new Icon building Downtown SD preserved the Carnation building facade. So the lofts units keep the old inefficient windows.

Replacing appliances and switching over to compact fluorescent lights are the two best things you can do to save energy. However, compact fluorescents are not as aesthetically pleasing as halogen lights. To save energy I use compact fluorescents under lamp shades. I only use my halogen spots lights when I have guests. Now I know that if had guests nearly every day, I wouldn’t save any energy — I’d most likely use a lot more energy.

Aside from cutting energy use, you can install solar panels to generate your own electricity. But installing solar panels requires a lot of space. The example that ucodegen put forward shows the homeowners living on acres of land near Santa Cruz. The system has a 2800sf array located 600ft from the main house. As you can see the from picture, the house is surrounded by unused land.

The reality is that a single homeowner can do only very little to affect the environment. We need to collaboration of business and community interests to develop green energy sources that are readily available to all.

[img_assist|nid=2748|title=space requirement for solar|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=303]
——–

I don’t believe you need to be deprive yourself of caviar to speak up against hunger, or live in the ghetto to speak for the poor. Actually I admire rich families such as the Kennedys who dedicate their time to the working class.

Likewise, it’s not hypocritical for America to encourage poor countries to conserve their natural resources, given that we provide them with the appropriate incentives. Just because we cut down our own trees to create farms the size of Rhodes Island doesn’t make our environmental message less relevant.

It’s also not hypocritical for America to encourage fair labor practices around the world. Our message of human rights is not any less relevant because we used slave labor and child labor to develop our own economy.

It’s also not hypocritical for my dad to advise my nieces never to smoke although he sometimes smokes himself. He grew up in different times and developed different habits. At least, he recognizes his own errors and cares for the well-being of his grand-children.

[PD]

Perry, you are turning yourself inside out trying to make excuses for Gore. We have a new one – he is a Hollywood celebrity.
With money, just about anything is possible, including new windows that look original. Solar isn’t the only way to be green.
At the very least, he should be looking into ways to cut down his own consumption. If he was actually trying to be environmentaly friendly himself, we would have heard about it in his Gore commercial…er, film.
Clearly, you are a Gore fan and refuse to see even the smallest hypocrisy. You appear to drinking the koolaid…er, eating the caviar.

[FutureSDguy]

Perry’s 40% energy savings story confirms my belief about people who believe in AGW. (And by the way, the effort in itself is laudable, I just disagree on the underlying reason for doing it.)

On the topic of environmental hypocracy, and not so much on global warming itself, let me say that some of the vitriol surrounding AGW stems from two things (which do overlap a bit, but they are distinct enough to separate out):

1. The need to validate ones own choices. After spending money and making a big hoo-ha about solar energy, it’s hard to have to have other people devalue that effort. In the software industry, one might work hard for 6 months coding something to have it invalidated because it’s not needed or something better comes along. But the software developer will fervently defend his work, because he’s not about to let his devotion be invalidated by others.

2. The need to reduce CO2 as a pollutant just because it’s good for the environment*. For some it’s purely symbolic… they’ll just go along just to be on the “better side” of society (which is why there are always two major political parties). For others it’s “hard science” and they’re the ones who will whip out pages and pages of realclimate.org articles to validate their believes. But I suspect there is segment of self-proclaimed AGWists that, inside, really don’t believe that the extra CO2 is causing the recent warming (you know, the lack of a strong 20th century correlation, and the actual percentage of the atmosphere, sunspot correlation, etc.), but continue to argue for it anyway because it’s “good for the environment”
and/or want to continue their association with their side.

(Why is abortion such a hot issue? Well, just like global warming, it’s an issue that is merely a proxy for how you identify yourself: you either side with the conservatives or you’re with the liberals.)

I like recycling my tin cans, glass bottles, milk jugs etc. I drive my wife crazy by digging through the garbage for egg cartons and other recyclable tidbits. But there are reasons to believe that I’m really not helping the environment by doing this (Penn and Teller has a funny documentary about this), but I do it anyway because it makes me feel good, and anyone who would challenge me about the illogic of it, I’ll simply say “yep you’re probably right, but I just don’t like the idea of not giving these materials a chance at reincarnation.” Software developers tend to be compulsive organizers…

* Funny how “green” people want less CO2 considering that CO2 is plant food. (Before you start spitting in my direction, I’m being somewhat–but not completely–facetitious here.)

[PerryChase]

It’s clear that CO2 is causing global warming. The question is whether that warming is harmful and if our human kind can get through such warming. Perhaps warming is good. We don’t know.

I do it not because I fervently believe in the science. I do it because it doesn’t cost me a whole lot; and, yes, because it makes me feel good.

I’m not a software developer but, true, I’m a compulsive organizer and I want my house to always be spic-and-span clean. I have a dog and I bathe him twice a week and I change his bedding every day.

I think that if we can avoid building a new power plant, landfill, refinery or gas station thanks to conservation, then we’re all the better off. If anything, we have a more beautiful environment to enjoy. What’s the harm in putting a little bit of effort into it?

Maybe I’m judgmental, but when I go to someone’s house that’s messy, I think to myself “if only they’d clean up after themselves.” Pollution is like clutter/trash. We need to pick it up after we’re done with it.

[PD]

Perry, I sooooo don’t believe that you have a girlfriend – unless she was born with guy equipment. 🙂
What straight guy would change his dog’s bedding every day? I got a nice chuckle out of that one. It is also just a little funny that you would run all those extra loads of clothes when you are trying to conserve energy.

[Anonymous]

1. The need to validate ones own choices. After spending money and making a big hoo-ha about solar energy, it’s hard to have to have other people devalue that effort.

Indeed. Especially if they’re wrong.

In the software industry, one might work hard for 6 months coding something to have it invalidated because it’s not needed or something better comes along. But the software developer will fervently defend his work, because he’s not about to let his devotion be invalidated by others.

Funny, I see tendentious rationalization and self-justification for selfishness as an eternal habit of the right-wing pollution & greed lobby.

That isn’t validating their own choices? And a powerful well-funded one?

But I suspect there is segment of self-proclaimed AGWists that, inside, really don’t believe that the extra CO2 is causing the recent warming (you know, the lack of a strong 20th century correlation, and the actual percentage of the atmosphere, sunspot correlation, etc.), but continue to argue for it anyway because it’s “good for the environment”
and/or want to continue their association with their side.

I bet there aren’t, but many people do argue, correctly in my opinion, that the steps to reduce carbon intensity are indeed good for the environment and human health even ignoring any effect on greenhouse warming.

The industry responsible for the worst greenhouse offenses (coal) is correlated with the worst environmental impact, and the worst health impact to producers and consumers—already, today.

The industry responsible with the second worst greenhouse offenses (oil) is correlated with the worst oppression impact and the worst military entanglement and belligerence impact—already, today.

[Anonymous]

* Funny how “green” people want less CO2 considering that CO2 is plant food. (Before you start spitting in my direction, I’m being somewhat–but not completely–facetitious here.)

yes, it’s true—more CO2 boosts plant growth ceteris paribus—but in real reality, plants and crops are limited by H20 and N not CO2.

Climate change will likely hurt H2O, and peak oil & gas will hurt N availability from chemical fertilzers.

[greekfire]

PD – I never had wine come so close to coming out of my nose until I read your comment about Perry’s girlfriend having “guy equipment”. LMFAO.

One thing that does not get mentioned enough in the whole global warming argument is the phenomenon of negative feedback loops. This basically centers around the world’s oceans and how they are a huge, natural buffer to drastic climatic changes.

It basically works like this: The temperature rises, evaporates more water, which then forms more clouds. The increase in cloud cover blocks the sun’s radiation from hitting the earth, thus cooling it (negative feedback).

The next logical step in the discussion goes to the topic of incoming solar radiation (short wave) vs. exiting radiation from the earth (long wave). The earth emits long wave radiation that gets trapped by clouds. That’s why cloudy evenings are typically warmer than non-cloudy ones, and why it can get so cold in the desert at night…there are no clouds to trap the long wave radiation.

So does a blockage of incoming short wave radiation offset a blockage of outgoing long wave radiation? I’ll let the scientists figure this one out.

I think I fall somewhere in the middle of the global warming debate. I believe that mankind DOES have the ability to affect global climatic changes (contrary to Rush Limbaugh). However, I don’t feel those changes are as extreme as some would have us believe (contrary to Al Gore). Do not be fooled. Just as those on the right might have an agenda to disregard the global warming argument (oil production, development, etc.); those on the left also have an agenda to propagate the very same argument (research, funding, etc.).

My advice: read with a jaundiced eye.

PS: The effects of melting glaciers and it’s effects on fresh and salt water oceanic currents also plays a role in this debate. Perhaps we can save this for another thread. 🙂

Sincerely,

Piggington’s ENVIRO-Almanac for the Blankety Blank (fill in the blanks)

-sort of has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?

[Anonymous]

One thing that does not get mentioned enough in the whole global warming argument is the phenomenon of negative feedback loops. This basically centers around the world’s oceans and how they are a huge, natural buffer to drastic climatic changes.

It basically works like this: The temperature rises, evaporates more water, which then forms more clouds. The increase in cloud cover blocks the sun’s radiation from hitting the earth, thus cooling it (negative feedback).

Sigh.

Yes, of course there are various feedbacks.

No, scientists have NOT forgotten about oceans and clouds, and the picture is far more complex than you picture, and yes they have been aware of things for a very long time.

Indeed clouds can be negative—but its possible that clouds could be positive as well. There is evidence from geological records that there is some significant positive feedback.

And even if there were a negative feedback in clouds, the weather patterns would still have to change significantly, in a way and to a degree which must be unprecedented over more than a million or so years (as greenhouse gases haven’t been this high in this time).

I am an amateur on this level, but I have just an inkling of the depth of the knowledge and seriousness that these issues have been pursued in the scientific community for many years already. Please, an bright amateur just thinking about some complicating mechanism is not going to be news to climatologists, oceanographers and geophysicists.

When they make forecasts and judgments they already know about problems with clouds. And remember that climate change is much much more than just the globally averaged temperature.

Remember that whatever number you see, you have to increase the effect it will have on YOU because the global average includes the 70% of Earth which is ocean, and we know that land areas will have larger fluctuations still. 5 degrees C was the depth between the Ice Ages (no agriculture, glaciers 2 miles thick in New YorK) and now. There’s a good chance of 5 degrees of Heat Age by 2100.

Just as those on the right might have an agenda to disregard the global warming argument (oil production, development, etc.); those on the left also have an agenda to propagate the very same argument (research, funding, etc.).

Scientists are not all on the ‘left’, despite popular misconception, unless the right continues even more vigorously to enlarge its current bizzare anti-scientific and anti-empirical delusions. (This used to usually be on the left, including anti-evolutionists)

Scientific research funding is enormously less lucrative and much more difficult than being an apologist for oil companies. And the optimal course if they wanted to lie and maximize funding (the first they don’t the second they do) would be to claim that things are still very unclear so give us more projects.

There are many unclear aspects, in fact, but sufficient is now known that they believe policy action, and not just more research, is appropriate.

This policy action will benefit them in absolutely no direct way.

In any case, there is realistcally a near zero-sum game in research funding and climate has to compete against the large numbers of other worthy science and engineering projects (like my own) which are not getting much funding either. If I were as unethical and selfish as those on http://www.junkscience.org, for exmaple, I would decry the focus on climate research and alternate energy because they compete with my own research funding in the end. However, since I attempt to be a scientifically honest and ethical person I support them.

[greekfire]

DrChaos, do not confuse policy action with a lack of an agenda. Just because a group stresses a change in policy does not mean that they don’t have an angle. Everyone has an angle. Not only is there money to be made in research, but also in various other forms of environmental studies such as EIRs, EISs, and the like. Again, I am not saying that these are bad, per se. I am just saying that like engineers who look to benefit from roads being built, there are also environmentalists also looking to ensure that the environment is not adversely affected.

[Anonymous]

Not only is there money to be made in research, but also in various other forms of environmental studies such as EIRs, EISs, and the like.

Climatologists get nothing out of those.

That sort of thing is regulatory bureaucracy and paper pushing—and there the real money is made in justifications and weaseling around restrictions.

Which would you rather own, an oil well or an environmental consulting firm?

[greekfire]

If I had my way, I’d probably hedge my bets and own both. 🙂

Instead of an oil well, though, I’d rather own a company that deals with ethanol production, servicing, etc.

[PerryChase]

PD, ha.ahaha, that’s funny. What? You don’t think that straight guys can be fastidious? Or use such vocabulary? I can rough it pretty well but I’d rather not do it at home.

I do a lot of laundry so that’s why I have a high-efficiency front-load washer. 🙂 Oh, I sort my clothes into 5 baskets as well. And the whites have to be washed in ultra hot water with a dash of bleach so they retain their brilliance. 😉 Do you notice the nasty towels people take with them to the gym?!

I admit I have some help with household tasks, otherwise I’d be running ragged. I feel sorry for the housewives who live in 4000sf houses and have to keep up with a full-time job, and the household chores and the husband. I picture all the clusterf*** mc mansions out there in suburbia.

[Zeitgeist]

Research finds health risks in reusable shopping bags

By: Bill Mah

REUSABLE shopping bags may help save the environment, but new research commissioned and funded by the Environment and Plastics Industry Council suggests they pose a public health risk.

“The main risk is food poisoning,” said Richard Summerbell, director of research at Sporometrics, a Toronto-based environmental microbiology laboratory, who evaluated the study results.

[Zeitgeist]

Research finds health risks in reusable shopping bags

By: Bill Mah

REUSABLE shopping bags may help save the environment, but new research commissioned and funded by the Environment and Plastics Industry Council suggests they pose a public health risk.

“The main risk is food poisoning,” said Richard Summerbell, director of research at Sporometrics, a Toronto-based environmental microbiology laboratory, who evaluated the study results.

[Author]

Posts