<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Response to "Death": Part I]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by jdhlax http://www.grist.org/article/ken-ward-response-to-death-part-i/ Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:05:03 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/ken-ward-response-to-death-part-i/1 Watson Was (Mostly) Right

We almost certainly "are screwed no matter what we do," and only self delusion would lead to any other conclusion.  As Paul Watson pointed out, unless people as a whole are willing to immediately cease 1) having more than one child per family until the human population comes down to an ecologically harmless level and 2) consuming oil, including use of oil-produced electricity and plastics, there is nothing that can be done about global warming.  (It should be noted that even if all human activities that cause global warming were to completely cease immediately, it would take 40-50 years for those actions to have any effect.)

That said, one should never give up hope.  Paul Watson is still fighting, and risking his life, for the Earth, and there is no reason to stop doing so if you're really an environmentalist.

P.S.  I urge everyone to read Watson's comments on the "Death of Environmentalism. " They're by far the best I've read, though Mike Roselle's were the most entertaining.

]]> Watson Was (Mostly) Right

We almost certainly "are screwed no matter what we do," and only self delusion would lead to any other conclusion.  As Paul Watson pointed out, unless people as a whole are willing to immediately cease 1) having more than one child per family until the human population comes down to an ecologically harmless level and 2) consuming oil, including use of oil-produced electricity and plastics, there is nothing that can be done about global warming.  (It should be noted that even if all human activities that cause global warming were to completely cease immediately, it would take 40-50 years for those actions to have any effect.)

That said, one should never give up hope.  Paul Watson is still fighting, and risking his life, for the Earth, and there is no reason to stop doing so if you're really an environmentalist.

P.S.  I urge everyone to read Watson's comments on the "Death of Environmentalism. " They're by far the best I've read, though Mike Roselle's were the most entertaining.

]]> Comment #2 by mtneuman http://www.grist.org/article/ken-ward-response-to-death-part-i/ Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:56:39 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/ken-ward-response-to-death-part-i/2 Ken Ward: Response to "Death": Part I

Ken Ward wrongly states in his review that other critics of The Death of Environmentalism paper offered no alternatives to the status quo. That is simply untrue.

My comments included an alternative that differs radically from business as usual. Ward either didn't read it or chose to ignore it.

Briefly, my proposed "Conserve, NOW!" proposal would improve sustainability by reducing automobile travel and congestion, air travel, and emissions from power plants and residential sources of fuel burning.  It would do this by offering "rebates" to people who chose to drive less, fly less and/or use less energy in the home.  The use of energy intensive modes of travel (driving automobiles, flying airplanes) would be discouraged while the use of more sustainable modes of travel (walking, bicycling and using buses and trains) would be encouraged by rewarding
individuals who don't fly or drive over the course of a year, or drive very little, with meaningful rebates to supplement their annual income.

Conserve, NOW! would offer residences a way to earn additional income by reducing
their use of electricity and fuel throughout the year -- on top of the saving they would accrue for using less energy.

The drive-less rebates would be funded by federal and state gasoline taxes charged at the pump, the revenues of which are now being used widen state and federal highways and freeways but which will no longer be necessary.  Similarly, the fly-less rebates would be funded with revenues already obtained from airline ticket taxes used for airport expansion projects that can be avoided since there will be less people flying.   Rebates from using less energy in the home would be funded with the savings generated in delaying or eliminating costly power plant expansion and fossil fuel burning.  

This plan would also reduce air pollution, such as mercury, nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions, in addition to greenhouse gas emission reductions from combustion sources, all of which collectively inflict a heavy health care cost to society, in addition to the costs result when natural resources are degraded (e.g. mercury contamination of fish).

Additional information on this proposal can be found at:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/message/486  



]]> Ken Ward: Response to "Death": Part I

Ken Ward wrongly states in his review that other critics of The Death of Environmentalism paper offered no alternatives to the status quo. That is simply untrue.

My comments included an alternative that differs radically from business as usual. Ward either didn't read it or chose to ignore it.

Briefly, my proposed "Conserve, NOW!" proposal would improve sustainability by reducing automobile travel and congestion, air travel, and emissions from power plants and residential sources of fuel burning.  It would do this by offering "rebates" to people who chose to drive less, fly less and/or use less energy in the home.  The use of energy intensive modes of travel (driving automobiles, flying airplanes) would be discouraged while the use of more sustainable modes of travel (walking, bicycling and using buses and trains) would be encouraged by rewarding
individuals who don't fly or drive over the course of a year, or drive very little, with meaningful rebates to supplement their annual income.

Conserve, NOW! would offer residences a way to earn additional income by reducing
their use of electricity and fuel throughout the year -- on top of the saving they would accrue for using less energy.

The drive-less rebates would be funded by federal and state gasoline taxes charged at the pump, the revenues of which are now being used widen state and federal highways and freeways but which will no longer be necessary.  Similarly, the fly-less rebates would be funded with revenues already obtained from airline ticket taxes used for airport expansion projects that can be avoided since there will be less people flying.   Rebates from using less energy in the home would be funded with the savings generated in delaying or eliminating costly power plant expansion and fossil fuel burning.  

This plan would also reduce air pollution, such as mercury, nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions, in addition to greenhouse gas emission reductions from combustion sources, all of which collectively inflict a heavy health care cost to society, in addition to the costs result when natural resources are degraded (e.g. mercury contamination of fish).

Additional information on this proposal can be found at:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/message/486  



]]> Comment #3 by mtneuman http://www.grist.org/article/ken-ward-response-to-death-part-i/ Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:01:19 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/ken-ward-response-to-death-part-i/3 Conserve, NOW! URL

CONSERVE, NOW! to reduce GHG emissions
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229

]]> Conserve, NOW! URL

CONSERVE, NOW! to reduce GHG emissions
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229

]]> Comment #4 by Ken Ward http://www.grist.org/article/ken-ward-response-to-death-part-i/ Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:55:44 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/ken-ward-response-to-death-part-i/4 Alternatives

I had not, it is true, seen the plan proposed by mtneuman. I don't pretend to be a energy expert, but would think that a variety of different policy approaches, including incentives to encourage behavioral change, will need to be employed. I was referring to the need for a political plan - to build sufficient power so that realistic policy solutions can at least reach the table.

]]> Alternatives

I had not, it is true, seen the plan proposed by mtneuman. I don't pretend to be a energy expert, but would think that a variety of different policy approaches, including incentives to encourage behavioral change, will need to be employed. I was referring to the need for a political plan - to build sufficient power so that realistic policy solutions can at least reach the table.

]]> Comment #5 by Storm Dragon http://www.grist.org/article/ken-ward-response-to-death-part-i/ Fri, 25 Mar 2005 01:31:05 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/ken-ward-response-to-death-part-i/5 Environmentalism is not dead

As long as there is one person left who cares about the state of the natural world, and is willing to do somthing about it, environmentalism is not dead.  We need to stop wringing our hands, and start rolling up our sleeves.

]]> Environmentalism is not dead

As long as there is one person left who cares about the state of the natural world, and is willing to do somthing about it, environmentalism is not dead.  We need to stop wringing our hands, and start rolling up our sleeves.

]]>