A Spencer’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Part of being passionate is thinking in terms of risks, in terms of the worst-case scenario, and Mr. Sacks has done that. When the stakes are so high, why would we not want to speak in such terms? He's based his views on what is essentially the scientific consensus of the worst-case scenario -- don't you think our level of action should correspond to this level of the perceived threat? Are you suggesting that his view be dismissed because it isn't exactly "PC"?On Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago 112 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  We should not put a single dime into geoengineering projects. There are too many unknowns, and we cannot accurately gauge the consequences. I wrote an email to none other than Bill McKibben recently about this, asking him what exactly it entailed and if it presented a viable option at all. Here's his blunt, yet thoughful response:

  
  "geoengineering comes in many flavors--aerosols in the stratosphere, a fertilized ocean to encourage plankton growth and hence co2 absorption, giant mirrors in space. they all seem both expensive and fraught with potential risk, and we used to dismiss them all as crazy. they still are, but the planet is in such tough shape (from our ongoing co2 geogengineering project) that serious scientists are spending more time thinking aobut them, at least as a backup project. but in any event, they require that we also stop pouring more carbon into the atmosphere"

  What we really need is investment in education, so that young people can become informed and active, and not repeat the mistakes of previous generations. We need campaign finance reform DESPERATELY, in order to get real leaders in positions of power -- leaders who have the people and ethics in mind, not those who contribute the most to keeping their sorry butts in office. This, of course, in addition to robust action on climate change both on a governmental level and a more local level, down to every last citizen. People need to be aware of just how big a threat we're facing here...

  On Geoengineering schemes shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, scientists say posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I was so intrigued about this that I emailed Bill McKibben directly. This was his response to my question: is geoengineering a plausible solution? What exactly is it?

  
  "geoengineering comes in many flavors--aerosols in the stratosphere, a fertilized ocean to encourage plankton growth and hence co2 absorption, giant mirrors in space. they all seem both expensive and fraught with potential risk, and we used to dismiss them all as crazy. they still are, but the planet is in such tough shape (from our ongoing co2 geogengineering project) that serious scientists are spending more time thinking aobut them, at least as a backup project. but in any event, they require that we also stop pouring more carbon into the atmosphere."

  On The fallacy of climate activism posted 3 months ago 100 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Ugh, the last thing I see before I go to bed. Geoengineering is what exactly? Last I heard this entailed injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, in order to reflect more light away from the earth. Is that right? If so, that is a completely moronic idea. Humans think they know everything there is to know about all the complex processes of the planet, and that by ingenuity and technology alone they can control these processes. This is backwards thinking, pure and simple.

  What is really required is the realization, the concession, that we know next to nothing for certain, and certainly not what the outcome of such an action would be. People will come up with ANYTHING that doesn't entail changing their own behavior, or changing their fundamental mindset that we HAVE to give up significant aspects of what we consider normal in order to avoid the worst possible outcomes that scientists who actually study this stuff predict, and are in general concensus with one another about. You missed the point of Sacks' article. Human culture is what has to change, and if that is accompanied by an increase in carbon-neutral practices, so all the better. This is going to be a bitter pill to swallow, asking people to do the incomprehensible and change the very way they approach thinking about human life on this planet. People will not be happy if we tell them that the standard human way of life (the irresponsible consumption of natural resources that has raged unchecked since the Industrial Revolution) has to end if we want to ensure the survival of our species. Not everyone is going to make it, pure and simple. No matter what you argue, the earth can barely sustain 6-7 billion people as is (the basic necessities of human existence, food and water, are already in crisis), and if we are to have 12 billion people actually survive, the major fundamental change has to begin, well, yesterday. I just don't see it happening quickly enough.

  "Geoengineering" the environment sounds like a death wish to me. Technology can certainly be used to help solve the problem, but no matter what technology we employ, in the end Mother Nature will always come out on top.

  On The fallacy of climate activism posted 3 months ago 100 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Thank you for your comments.

  I have one response to this part of what you write: "I also agree that we are not yet very good at intelligent and swift collective response to middle or long term problems or to ones that start to really show far away from our little patch."

  As far as I can tell, the tendency for Americans to not be able or willing to mobilize themselves to make real changes is a relatively recent phenomenon. For example, in December, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt started the mobilization of America for WWII. Within 6 months, Detroit had been completely retooled (we were not building cars AT ALL during this time). Within 6 months it shifted to the manufacture of tanks, planes, weapons, artillery, etc. On the whole, starting in December of 1941, it took the United States about 3 years and 8 months to mobilize, fight major wars in both the Pacific and against fascist Germany and Italy, and begin to demobilize. 3 years and 8 months from start to finish to address what was the greatest threat to our lives at that time. 3 YEARS, 8 MONTHS.

  Another example. President J.F. Kennedy announced on May 25, 1961, 4 months after taking office, that we would put a man on the moon. People thought this couldn't be done. But in July of 1969, about 8 years later, America sent Apollo 11 on its historic mission, and we all know how that turned out.

  My point is that the current threat is not being perceived with the same severity as a Hitler or a Mussolini or a Hirohito. The prosperity following WWII made something change. I was born in 1981 so I didn't live through all this, and have to rely on what I know of history and my own research. But the prevailing American culture -- the consumer culture -- is perhaps the greatest impediment to mobilizing our people, and from what I can tell people are so entranced by the lure of cheap consumer goods that they will go to great ends to defend that system. If I try to talk to my peers about issues like global warming, I get a sea of glazed eyes and apathetic looks. Something more fundamental needs to change in our culture, and I think that is what Sacks is getting at, and is what more and more people are coming to realize and accept.

  On The fallacy of climate activism posted 3 months ago 100 Responses