Daniel asks…
Is climate change a threat to humanity as the UN alleges ?
A United Nations study has concluded that a failure to address major environmental problems facing the planet could threaten the very survival of humanity.
The problems include global warming, the extinction of species and unsustainable development.
The study says persistent issues are not being dealt with.
But, the executive director of the UN Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, says the study does not want to paint a picture of doom:
“What we want citizens is not to become frustrated and despondant but rather to become to some extent upset at the inability or unwillingness of decision makers be it political or economic, to respond to what the big picture is now showing us, which is essentially 20 years after 15 years after the earth summit in Rio, all major indicators of sustainability is still pointing downwards,” he said.
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=86723
The Expert answers:
Climate change combined with unsustainable development, species extinctions, unprecedented mass migrations, deforestation/desertification/tree-burning to grow bio-fuels, depletion of fisheries, ground and water pollution, etc., combine unpredictably, possibly catastrophically. And, that is only the physical aspects. The concomitant economic fallout can/will be be devastating as well. It isn’t merely one thing, it is the combined negative synergistic effect on human life that is overwhelmingly threatening. Humanity, all humanity, has never faced anything on such scale. Factor in nuclear devastation in several places simultaneously, and the effect is unimaginable.
Paul asks…
Why don’t we demand other nations meet or exceed our labor and environmental laws?
To bring back jobs we simply need to demand that all imports be made on par with our labor and environmental laws. This isn’t a tariff or another other unfair trade policy. It’s a matter of common sense because either we lift others up to our standards or we’ll be forced to go down to theirs in order to globally compete. And we all know which way the GOP would have us go.
To illustrate, in the early days of NAFTA, Mexican truckers were trying to come into the US in their unsafe tramp steamers. Because of the obvious safety issues they were made to bring their trucks on par with our safety laws. Mexican trucking companies were not given tariffs for any other stifling regulations. They simply had to come up to our standards.
The same should be true with our international trade on all imports. We are the biggest consumers in the world. Either do it our way or we’ll make that particular product here in America by Americans.
Come on people wake up. Either we fight to bring the world up to our standards or we’ll by default be forced down to their.
@Magick: Oh yes we can tell others just like we did with the Mexican truckers.
@ Rockit: Most already refuse our imports anyway. So what’s the difference. You do know that we are a big enough country that we don’t need to import anything. We can survive just fine.
@Lady: We’ll make it here or do without. We’ll survive just fine.
A habitual: No you do not care about environmental laws. Here in California toxic companies are moving to Texas in droves because they’re not allowed to pollute here. California is inadvertently poisoning Texas with Governor Perry’s blessing.
Btw, if we had strong unions we wouldn’t be having this discussion today would we?
The Expert answers:
Agreed… And include our minimum wage, and child labor laws.
But then, the precise reason that we don’t do this, is so that monopoly transnationals can simply layoff middle class workers and offshore labor to other impoverished country’s without all of these standards, and vastly increase the profits for the leeches at the top.
By not demanding American business’s to adhere to these standards, we are simply creating a race to the bottom for all but the few very wealthy execs/oligarchs who now sit on top of each and, just about every, industry in America these days.
Lizzie asks…
Cap & Trade – Is Obama fooling us all?
Before you decide – you should really read this! Here is an excerpt:
Apparently the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is at the center of the world carbon trading markets – all currently voluntary. Here’s some history on CCX from its website:
Welcome to CCX: We are a financial institution whose objectives are to apply financial innovation and incentives to advance social, environmental and economic goals through the following platforms.
Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.
Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE) is a landmark derivatives exchange that currently offers standardized and cleared futures and options contracts on emission allowances and other environmental products. CCFE is a wholly owned subsidiary of CCX.
And from its “History” page
The institution that is today the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) began with a grant in 2000 from the Joyce Foundation, a leading philanthropy based in Chicago known for its innovative approach to public policy issues, which supported the inception, creation, feasibility and design of CCX. The support was provided as part of a series of special Millennium grants made by the Foundation to catalyze, support and reinforce ideas, concepts or institutions of lasting intergenerational significance.
An initial grant of $347,000 was made to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University to provide technical support to Dr. Richard Sandor and colleagues to examine whether a cap-and-trade market was feasible in the U.S. to facilitate significant greenhouse gas reductions, using a voluntary regional Midwest model from which national and international lessons might be drawn.
So CCX was established through a grant from the Joyce Foundation to explore the feasibility of market-based trading of carbon credits and since then, several other trading markets have bloomed from this core. Now, here’s where it begins to get interesting. Guess who was on the board of the Joyce Foundation when this grant was awarded? Do you need three guesses or should I just come right out and say it?
The answer? President Barack Obama.
Sandor launched the climate exchange in 2003 after getting two research grants from the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation. The money went to the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, in Evanston, Illinois, for Sandor’s pilot program to trade carbon credits.
Now, lest you say that a board appointment does not a strong connection make, Chairman Sandor made a point to mention in that article that:
“Obama was on the foundation that gave us the grant,” Sandor said. “We know him well.”
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/cap-and-trade-the-answer-to-global-warming-or-another-wall-street-payday/
The Expert answers:
No , The jig is up! The dance is over , now it’s time for a bow ! Will fear of cat calling & rotten tomatoes being tossed bother anyone! Very poor shows get that sometimes.
Lisa asks…
Does the current climate change issue follow the pattern of past environmental predictions?
I just read an older yet (in my opinion) still current essay on the robustness of past environmental predictions. Actually, it’s public testimony before the US House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources in 2004. The arguments in this testimony appear to be fairly convincing.
Here are two interesting passages:
“What are the lessons to be learned from this record of badly exaggerated predictions of environmental disaster? First, scientists, even well meaning ones, don’t know as much as they think they do. They generally go wrong because they ignore or misunderstand how human beings interact with the natural world and with other people, that is, they are largely ignorant of economics. ”
“Science can tell us what may be problems, but it can’t tell us what to do about them. Solutions depend on a deep understanding of human values, politics, and economics. Scientists are no more qualified to pronounce on those topics than their non-scientific confreres and fellow citizens.”
Could this apply to climate scientists of today? Do you think in 10 or 20 years, the current climate crisis will be regarded in this same manner?
http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/04/science-and-public-policy
(Note: And for those of you who are unfamiliar with the author and will no doubt be looking to declare him a kook, I’ll save you the time and point you to Exxon Secrets: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=11
So now that you know he is with the CATO institute, perhaps you could spend more time focusing on what he is saying rather than who he is. Thanks.)
David b, I certainly agree about your comments on the media. The translation done from science to Joe Public terms can certainly be fumbled by the messenger (ie. the media). And the more complex the science, the greater the potential for fumbling. Joe Public who takes the MSM at face value must feel like a rag doll in a tornado.
The Expert answers:
If I were Ehrlich, I would be profoundly embarrassed to have been so wrong so often and yet he persists and you hear the same mistakes repeated over and over again. Alarmists seem to be particularly susceptible to scare tactics like peak oil, or we are running out of copper or there are too many people to feed and the planet is being choked from all the CO2, etc etc.
There was one paragraph (last sentence) that is extremely important and yet it doesn’t get learned. It said:
<<>>
The reserves remained the same and sometimes even grows over the decades and centuries. I remember Jimmy Carter predicted the end of oil in 10 years (he was following his “science” advisers) and that was over 30 years ago. What is aggravating is those predictions go unabated to this day. We always have 10 years left of something or we are going to run out of this or that or the ocean will die or we won’t have snowpack in the Sierras. After a while you would think people would start to ignore these predictions that almost never come to fruition.
I live in Southern California. I am nearly 100 per cent certain that a very large earthquake is ready to go off any day, year, second. I sometimes feel like I am living next to a gigantic rubber band that has stretched farther than ever and keeps getting stretch further. It will go off. It is simple physics and has to due with strength of rocks, plate movement, and time. It is maddening to hear arguments that AGW is simple physics, that we added CO2, it has warmed, and we must have therefore caused the warming. On the one hand, we have a relatively simple system that results in earthquakes, on the other, we have a very poorly understood system that seems to be behaving according to its normal cycles and tendencies, alarmists shrill denials not withstanding but I digress.
Nancy asks…
question about globalization?
List three benefits of globalization
List three problems that stem from globalization.
What are some environmental issues related to globalization?
The movie’s narrator said, “you can’t run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely.” What does this suggest for the future of globalization?
The narrator also said it is the government’s job to take care of us? Do you agree? Think about some of the serious issues that affect the future of the earth. What role, if any, should government have in finding solutions?
What changes are needed to make sure our economic system supports, rather than destroys, the planet’s biological systems on which we depend?
The Expert answers:
I didn’t watch the movie you are talking about. So I suggest you do your homework based on your own opinions, go back to watch the movie if you can. What I can answer from my own knowledge is:
Three problems that stem from globalization:
1. People lose their culture and become more ‘westernized.’
2. Unfair pay to those living in underdeveloped countries.
3. Mainstream economies compete with smaller ones and the big ones always get the most investments. This forces smaller countries into foreign debt.
Benefits:
1. Exchange of ideas.
2. Social development
3. Corporations expanding bring more jobs to other countries.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers