Comments ebaerren has made

Meat as number one cause of global warming

Hi, this would be all well and good had not methane levels in the atmosphere slowed until last year when it leveled out.  That is, carbon dioxide is still increasing in concentration, methane ... not so much.

This could change, and eating less meat certainly has its place.  But, the notion that you can't be an environmentalist and still eat meat is fantasy born from the animal rights movement (what if you get your meat from the right honorable tradition of hunting and fishing?), which is concerned with the ethics of how we treat animals (an honorable line of thinking) and not about the environment.

Stick to your own issue, people, and stop trying to interject your agenda where it ain't wanted.On The subjects of PETA and vegetarianism ... posted 2 years, 2 months ago 15 Responses

Whatever...

You (bleeped) up.  The OTA and the MESB are not the same thing ... not even close.  You didn't advocate replacing the hacks with good scientists, but you did suggest that our governor was just as bad as Newt for having abolished the thing.

So, sad.On Michigan gov. follows Gingrich's example, kills science advisory board posted 2 years, 3 months ago 8 Responses

Entirely predictable

Making a serious commitment about spending habits requires a serious commitment on the issue.  It hasn't been that long that the media has stopped providing think tank flacks equal space to climate scientists in mainstream news stories, so it's safe to assume that the American public has yet to realize full cognizance on the issue.

Until that happens, and until people have a tangible sense of how climate change affects them directly, don't expect substantial changes in how people buy things.On Turns out consumers don't care that much posted 2 years, 4 months ago 9 Responses

But, it isn't a sea change...

George Bush has been acknowledging global warming, in various speeches, for years.  It's the actions of his administration that are saying he isn't being sincere.On Hold the applause on the administration's posted 2 years, 5 months ago 9 Responses

I'm not sure what this means, but...

I may think I'm a conservative, but in many settings I'm not a good one.  By thinking about environmental questions, I've crossed the boundary.
It's worth remembering that the environment was essentially ceded to liberals back in the early 80s.  Up until that time, when the conservative wing of the Republican Party decided that the easiest way to combat regulation in the name of the environment was to pretend that there were a) economic trade-offs even when none were provable and b) environmental problems simply didn't exist, Republicans had done much for the environment (here in Michigan, our most eco-friendly governor was a moderate Republican).On Oy posted 2 years, 6 months ago 14 Responses

We're all happy you're here pimping your site

In fact, we should all be ecstatic that you understand the relationship between causing waves and generating site traffic.  Go Marketing!

But, if you want to be taken seriously (and maybe you're just an ass)...

*--Don't refer to someone's argument as "agitprop."  Not only is it not propaganda to believe something and espouse it, but use of the arcane term "agitprop" makes you look obsessed with Soviets and like something of a John Bircher.  That's soooooooo 1964.

*--Going on Letterman is a sign of decline?  Mean like when George Bush wiped his glasses on Letterman's assistant's skirt when he was running for president?  Does the YMCA rate higher or lower than the elementary school class in which Dubya read "My Pet Goat" while the Twin Towers burned?  Or, are you arguing that significant public figures with a message they want to get across remain separated from their intended audience?  And, how exactly does one get a job as a diatribe?

*--If there's a bias involved in advocating solutions for global warming, it's a bias among contrarians.  Science isn't political, and if you think of global warming as a liberal/conservative issue (and you must if you think this site, which regularly discusses global warming, has a liberal bias), then you not only misunderstand science but you've helped politicize it.  This probably also helps to explain why you've lost the debate on global warming but don't yet understand why.

*--The President?  Fuel cells?  Hydrogen?  Yes, the president has an undeserved reputation for not taking global warming seriously (or, the environment in general, for that matter).  I mean, his administration is the most ethically sound -- scientifically speaking -- and wouldn't ever dream of appointing people who'd try to manipulate what scientists reporters can talk to, how reports are written, or insisting that international policy papers are watered down to highlight doubt and cover up scientific strengths.

*--If you think this site is full of jerks, you're happily invited to stop reading it.  The marketplace of ideas is your friend in this respect.  It never ceases to amaze me when you free market types wander into a room owned and operated by someone else and complain that -- despite the fact that you contribute not one red penny for its operation and upkeep -- it doesn't suit your tastes.On More Gore posted 2 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

Nature for nature's sake works...

People react very clearly to arguments about nature for nature's sake.  I realize this is counter to what passes for conventional wisdom these days, but it's just true.

One need not go back to Brower's New York Times ad that helped kill the Grand Canyon dam.  Fights over wildlife habitat are themselves arguments about nature for nature's sake ... a particular species of plant or animal is worth saving, even if it provides us no tangible (economic) benefit.

Here, in Michigan, a considerable groundswell of popular opposition has sprung up against a proposed nickel mine in our Upper Peninsula, where unemployment runs high and where sustained mining could mean good paying jobs.

What has prompted this opposition?  Because people like the river the way it is.  That is, the mine is opposed because people think the nearby river and plains area have value the way they are.

This is hardly the kind of thing that is headed for irrelevance.On 'Nature for nature's sake' has limited appeal posted 2 years, 8 months ago 15 Responses

An argument for not ceding the first point

If we didn't preach economic growth as an inherent good, we wouldn't need to rely so much on exploiting the Third World.

My point wasn't that the Third World doesn't matter.  It was that I'm going to take full advantage of the opportunity (yes, privilege) to argue on my terms when I can.  I don't consider this a luxury built on exploitation of the Third World, because I assume that the same people who are exploiting the Third World don't see it as an either-or proposition.  They'd happily drill for oil in Alaska and Nigeria, or log both Indonesia and the redwoods of California, at the same time.

I acknowledge that this is an inconsistent approach.  I also acknowledge that it opens me to criticisms that I care more for trees than I do for people.  I just don't care.On Earth Firster urges a return to conservationism posted 2 years, 8 months ago 42 Responses

Nature for the sake of nature

I cringe when I read argument that a message should be shaped by how it will be perceived by its critics.  The critics will attack the message no matter how badly it's sanitized.

The obvious rejoinder to "environmentalists care more for trees than they do people," is "growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."  We hear Ed Abbey's classic line all-too-infrequently these days.

The problem is that this cedes a very important position ... that is, it is a tacit endorsement that economic growth is always good.  We know it isn't, least of all for our own collective satisfaction (anyone else read the Bill McKibben essays floating around that argue that the creation of wealth has gotten to the point where it's made us a nation of unhappy people?).

All of us understand that when we argue in favor of wilderness, or leaving something the hell alone so it can just be, we're also arguing in favor of something that benefits us as a people.  I know that when I go out into the wilderness, part of the enjoyment I get is the knowledge that I am ultimately responsible for everything ... not only do I have to cook my own food, but I also have to supply the fire even if it means priming and lighting a portable stove.  I know that if I do something stupid, it's up to me to get myself out of the mess.  There is no wealth created, but I come out of the experience happier and more satisified.  I am also happier for having been away from the city and the rat's race for a period of time.

I get all of this on land, near water, and in air that isn't being developed, that is being left to its own devices, where natural processes are more obviously dominant.  This is nature for nature's sake, and there is value in it not only for nature but also for me.

How this translates overseas isn't of concern to me.  I wish those people well, and I hope they can balance development and the environment, but I'm not going to give in to the idea that nature for its own sake is an albatross around my neck simply because I'm afraid Rush Limbaugh or Jonah Goldberg will say I don't care about the Third World.

Why pretend that this criticism has merit?  As we've seen with the debate over global warming, those kinds of people aren't the least bit afraid to say something stupid if they think it'll advance their political agenda.  Why cede that growth and jobs are automatically our top priorty, when we know that they shouldn't always be?On Earth Firster urges a return to conservationism posted 2 years, 8 months ago 42 Responses

I think this is entirely reasonable...

Here in Michigan, we have an even darker situation.  As was noted here and elsewhere a few days ago, Midwestern utilities are hell-bent for leather on building more coal plants.  Michigan utilities are currently planning to build 10 of them.

Idiocy.

I place nuclear before natural gas for a couple of reasons -- here in Michigan, our three plants already account for about one-quarter of the state's electricity; and using too much natural gas to generate electricity drives up the prices of home heating during our long Michigan winters.

I don't enthusiastically advocate for nuclear, but  in this state, renewables and efficiency has to be bundled with something else to keep the lights on.On Join me for some navel gazing! posted 2 years, 8 months ago 69 Responses

The new conservative line

The idea that we should do nothing today, but wait for something to magically present itself just fills me full of ennui.  How did this guy become a prominent American pundit again?

I don't think his mistakes are driven by fear, but rather an inner-laziness and unwarranted fame that have given him the impression that he need not actually research anything ... that because he gets paid a lot for his opinion, it must be the equal of anyone's.On Peek beneath the sarcasm and machismo posted 2 years, 9 months ago 10 Responses

You can skip the "dear ..."

I think we're the only ones still commenting on this thread, and I don't think we need to worry about confusion.

My point isn't that I was insulted or offended even considering the elitist undertones of Pollit's piece (I actually agreed with most of it), but that lifestyle changes are the first, most important step you need to take in "saving the world" (I'd settle for humanity, personally, since the world will recover from anything I can do to it, even if it takes a few thousand years).  There seemed, in her piece, to be the underlying assumption that a dollar has the same impact whether used to support a sustainable lifestyle or given to a worthy cause.

I disagree with that wholeheartedly.  Not only does change need to be driven, to large extent, by better consumer choices; but industry regularly argues that the market drives their decision making.  They say they'd willingly dismantle factory farms, for instance, if only people didn't insist on such cheap meat.  Buy more expensive grass-fed beef and you yank this carpet right out from under them.

And, if you read arguments forwarded by the anti-green movement, they're always happy to pick at folks of our ilk who talk the talk but don't walk the walk.  How many skeptics have I read the last six months ridicule Al Gore for using jet aircraft to spread his global warming message?  I don't know, and I don't think Al Gore is a hypocrite (sometimes, this is simply the only way to get things done), but a good way to win the war is to deny the other side ammunition.

I don't really want to belabor the point.  I understand what her point is, and who her column is really directed at (not folks like you and I).  

Anyway, based on the success of yesterday's fund-raising drive here (zero dollars raised), I'm afraid you're on your own for awhile ... unless you want some of the chutney I whipped up earlier this week.On Your lifestyle won't save the world posted 2 years, 10 months ago 15 Responses

Ahem

I understand the point that Pollitt hasn't made an either/or statement, but she confused spending habits and lifestyle.  I don't eat grass-fed beef, for example, because I have the money to afford it.  I eat it because it's the right thing to do.  Pollitt makes it seem like it's a decision based on a life of luxury.On Your lifestyle won't save the world posted 2 years, 10 months ago 15 Responses