When the issue of “Climate Change” first really turned my head…

  By Linda G | July 13, 2012 - 23:22 |

 

A few posts back, when I first featured the issue of “climate change” in a post, I was bracing myself for a negative reaction, and, ironically, I made things unnecessarily provocative by dismissing beforehand whatever contentious comments might come up.  And sure enough a few did.  For some inexplicable reason, it seems people don’t like to be dismissed, especially before they’ve gotten a chance to say anything – go figure, ;-).

Personally, I really am interested in getting beyond the debate about whether “climate change” is a real phenomenon we’re facing and about whether mankind has been a significant contributing factor to that issue.  I’ve observed that debate for several years, and I’ve made my call.  But it was wrong of me to be dismissive of those who sincerely object to any of the above, or simply have yet to make that call.  For those who do object or haven’t made that call one way or another, well, maybe we aren’t currently on the same page, but so what?  If I make a post about climate change, and there is hesitancy or out-right contention, then so be it.  I figure that’s fair enough.

Okay, that said, I want to turn to what this particular post is about.

Beginning to post about this issue made me think back to one of the key turning points for myself on the issue of “climate change” and man’s part in it.

It was a few years back when I read the book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe by the  journalist, Elizabeth Kolbert.  Her project began as a series for The New Yorker, which garnered a lot of critical acclaim.  She went on to expand that initial project into a full-length book.  In reading her book, the issue first really came to life for me and has stayed that way ever since.

In looking online to see if I could find a good way to get a feel for the book, which I could share with anyone who might be interested, I found the following audio except, and I thought it fit the bill:

an audio excerpt from FIELD NOTES FROM A CATASTROPHE by Elizabeth Kolbert

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Written by: Linda G on July 13, 2012.
Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Lyle

    …But high up on the mountainWhen the wind is hitting itIf you’re watching very closelyThe rock slips a little bit”

    Harry Chapin – The Rockhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB23m0VxClk

    • lgrinaker

      I hadn’t heard that Harry Chapin song before, Lyle.  Thanks…

      Linda

      • Lyle

        I find it fitting for very much and especially for topics discussed here. And then perhaps the “Dance Band on the Titanic” we are. :)

        The entire politicized global warming extravaganza and endless contrary analysis simply pisses me off. Surely if they bring in the entire history of the planet and the very universe itself, and with enough charts and graphs, they can continue to ignore the sweat running down the cracks of their asses. I tend to agree with a few quickly squelched scientists that suggested it’s all a moot point regardless. Damage is done – too late. If we stopped all carbon emissions NOW – still too late. The train is rolling and it’s a runaway.The only revelant issue for most seems only to be whether we humans can accept any blame. And we all know that’s what REALLY counts. Geeezzz…

        There’s a quote I remembered from my readings in Bartlett’s Quotations in my teens that I remembered and still think is great. I forget who it’s attributed to – sorry.

        “The obvious is better than the obvious avoidance of it.”

        Nuff said…

        • lgrinaker

          Lyle,

          Have you seen movie from last year, Jeff Nichols’ *Take Shelter*?

          http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111005/REVIEWS/111009991

          Here’s the trailer:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B6VleLDh0I

          I think, for me, it’s not so much about attributing blame.  (Even if I think I have some idea of who may be more responsible and who may be less responsible, I really am not sure that the past that has gotten us to where we are now could have played out differently than it did…)

          At this point, whether we can do some things to help ourselves to some extent or not in relation to what (to several “whats”) I think is/are “gathering” so significantly on the horizon, sometimes I just want to be able to talk ”out loud” about it/them, to share more explicitly with others in the experience that it seems the world is, we are, on the verge of experiencing (and has/have begun to experience to some extent).

          Some don’t want to, and that’s not up to me, but I do sometimes, and I hope that at least some others do sometimes as well…

          Linda

          • Lyle

            I’ll definitely check that one out!  Thanks! Gotta run just now. Maybe make another note later tonight or tomorrow morning. Oh yes… you should see the mess the little hurricane of the mid-east made. You likely have a good bit in news reports. 90 mph wind gusts sure makes things ugly for an area not in any way ever expecting such. I just happened to take a peek at accuweather.com about an hour before it hit here. Pure coincidence. When I saw the huge band of red and how large and fast it was coming and the already horrid reports of the damage it already caused in the Columbus areas… well… we started calling our friends – an hour before all hell broke loose.

          • Lyle

            After just now re-reading your comments I would only repeat the same sentiments.”I really am not sure that the past that has gotten us to where we are now could have played out differently than it did…) “For sure – in all and everything perhaps. We look at snapshots of the present. Our brains are programmed that way. We look at current problems and for the majority of people just want someone to blame and some politician or gang of politicians to fix it – and quick. Fix what took decade upon decade if not centuries to develop from all the unfathonable complexities brought by people, societies, and governments down through time.

            Well… it gives us something to help fill our time. :)

            • Lyle

              Climate change. People will ultimately adjust to the extent they can. Of course there will be inconveniences, suffering, and great ‘collateral damage’ so to speak.

              Energy and water issues. “That’s a horse of a different color” and could be very ‘red’ – and requiring all too quick ’adjustments’. Adjustments – HA! Spoken like a true ‘out of touch with feelings’ intellectual. :)

              Re: The movie. Well – I now have first hand experience with the absolute chaos and pandemonium that almost immediately ensues when all grocery stores are closed and lose all their dairy and meat products, no gasoline can be pumped, ER rooms totally buried in people, etc. etc. And this goes on for days. Not good. Not good at all ! And even for many days after the AC came back to the town, the stores and gasoline stations were total mass chaos.

              Of course only now am I seriously considering a generator and some canned foods for back-up. :)

              • lgrinaker

                That was one wild storm you folks – and so many – went through, most definitely. We’re now in the habit of cringing as hurricane season approaches, like never before (I’m in the Gulf Coast region), but to experience what you folks did with no warning… Whew!

                Take good care, Lyle…

                Linda

                • Lyle

                  Was reading weather projections – Nino’s and all just last week. Looks like you guys might once again miss the big bad hurricane experience again this year. Fingers crossed aye.

  • CSArichardo

    We talk alot about economic/financial/bank models on OTP.  Which models do they use in regard to climate change ?  I once listened to a lecture where the input variable “number of people” on the planet was not the critical factor in global warming.  I am still confused by this because I truely beieve everything is driven by the growing population but mayb not ?!

    Anyway it is 35C today as we enter a second or third week wihout rain and very hot temperatures.

    • lgrinaker

      Hi, Richardo.

      You say, “I once listened to a lecture where the input variable “number of people” on the planet was not the critical factor in global warming. I am still confused by this because I truely beieve everything is driven by the growing population but mayb not ?!”

      Well, from my layperson’s perspective, I would say that “number of people” alone is not sufficient as a variable because various populations have various “carbon footprints.”  Of course, the population of the U.S., with its relatively small population, has had a disproportionate impact on global warming – when taking into account its total history through its industrial beginnings through now – vs., say, the population of most of Africa.

      One terrible problem about global warming is the “global” part.  Although the nations that have been industrialized the longest and to the largest extent are the greatest contributors to the human contribution to global warming, some of the nations that don’t have our history are, nevertheless, being critically impacted.   

      Linda

      • CSArichardo

        AS long as I get a bigger allocated footprint I will consider this fair.  I mean when it is -35C I need to burn alot more carbons than a typical European ?  It also takes alot of energy to get all our Canadina energy out of the ground.  So what power will allocate us our foot prints ?

  • schrodingerseconomy

    Hey Linda,

    Another good post. It is always good to keep all aspects of our future in sight, there is a structure to all things and items such as energy, environment, culture and economy are co-dependent variables.
    I’m not sure if you’re aware, I’ve posted a couple times, but I’m a geologist by trade (M.Sc.). One of the key endowments that the study of geology provides is one of scale. A good example is Sequence Stratigraphy, I won’t bore you but it is the study of stacking patterns of sedimentary deposits in response to changes in relative and/or eustatic sea-level. In these stacking patterns we can sea the changes from minor decadal variations in sedimentation, glacial-interglacial, all the way to super-continent and dispersed land masses. One is immediately struck by the massive natural variation in the both cyclical and non-cyclical processes.
    Now we are faced with an anthropomorphically modified system, and the immediate response is one of rejection as of course “nature” is better. However, I propose a thought experiment. 3000 years from now the interplay of Earths orbit and rotation cease the natural (albeit accelerated) warming trend and begins a trend of cooling. Now, 15000 years ago my fair city in western Canada was under 1000m of ice.  A warming trend certainly can be disruptive, and we certainly will experience massive change in what we consider “static” lives, however 1000m of ice is worse, way worse.
    This leads to a decision point, one can let nature take it’s course (dooming our society and culture) or we face the certain future crisis to to try and preserve human lives as best we can. The only potential future solution is full-scale, global geo-engineering of our planet. Sounds kind of scary, but is true none-the-less.
    The shitty part is that very few people would consider a change for their childrens generation, let-alone 100 generations hence. This may or may not provide clarity on where I would think the state of discussion of the environment needs to go, hopefully it provides a different window to view issue from. Anyway, cheers.

    Scott 

    • lgrinaker

      I most certainly recall earlier posts of yours, schrodinger… (In fact, I thought of you when I had begun to post about climate change a couple of weeks ago, wondering if you would join in the conversation, ;-)). And I really appreciate your contribution to such a discussion, contributions which are always thoughtful (and thought provoking).

      I think it is helpful, if it can be done, to find a common ground from which to discuss things and move forward.  At this point, we (people in general, at least in the U.S.) seem to have lost that, with large groups of people not even able to agree on what is currently happening as far as whether or not there is “climate change” happening to any significant degree, and, if so, whether or not human beings have been a significant contributing factor.

      Now, you are working from a later point down that line.  You are writing as if man’s contribution to a major shift in global climate is a given, and then asking for us to at least consider a larger time-frame… in the long-run, could this current change actually help to stave off something even more challenging down the line?  Or, yes, what’s on the fairly near horizon is real and significant, but with the resources we have now (which we may not have access to much longer to the extent we currently do), maybe we should consider what we can do now not only to mitigate the climate as it veers one way, but also as it veers in the opposite direction, which would also be cataclysmic, likely far more so (and yet, by that time, we wouldn’t have the resources to do much about it, not like we do now).

      Is that something like what you were getting at, schrodinger?

      ~~~~

      Hmmm.  I guess an analogy that comes to mind is our current understanding that an individual life faces a “natural” life-span, in which a body will “naturally,” at some point, be overcome by issues of aging, even if he/she lives the whole of his/her life in a relatively healthy manner, along with no particular genetic defect or the like.  And then we look at a person who may smoke and/or drink and/or overeat, etc., at a clearly toxic rate, and we understand that not only will that person face an apparently fundamental limit for his/her lifespan (which even the healthy face), but also that he/she will face factors from his/her own actions that will likely hasten that underlying trend.

      Now, I could imagine that something like the issues above are being discussed between an individual and his/her doctor.  But then, a person comes in with a further wrinkle, bringing up something analogous to what you brought up above.  Someone could say, yes, these things will likely hasten a faster end of life for this individual than might otherwise be the case, but maybe we’re taking that underlying, so-called ”natural” trend for granted as well.  Maybe we should also be attending to other things going on that will certainly bring this individual’s life to a close, even if the other issues are addressed.  Maybe we could affect not only the current toxic behavior, but also, for example, the underlying mechanisms leading to aging, etc..

      ~~~~

      I’m not sure if the above analogy is an apt one for the wrinkle you brought up, schrodinger, but that’s what came to mind – what do you think? ;-)  Further, if it is apt, I’m not sure what I would do with such a wrinkle in either case, ;-).

      Whatever the case, I do respect your thoughtfulness in addressing the issue…

      Linda