Who's B.A.D.?
My mind doesn't have the energy, the gumption, the get-up-and-go, the what-for, the needle-to-the-record or the stick-to-it-ness to come up with something high-quality about the environment for Blog Action Day. I'm not a model conservationist. Yeah, I take my own bags to the grocery store (sometimes) and I don't own a car (and love it). And I hate how disposable our culture has gotten, but I still eat out almost every single day. I try, but I'm no example.
And it comes to global warming, where do I stand? Well, I don't think it's as easy as either side tries to make it out to be, but as with so many issues, I'm on the Jon Stewart side. Arguing with a global warming denier (whose argument was really no greater than "nuh uh!"), Stewart gave his common man view of things: that no matter what you think of the whole concept of "global warming", how can you deny that the massive explosion of population that the world has seen in the last century, combined with the massive increase in the cars, industry and products that those extra people require, how can anyone actually think that it hasn't affected the world? Not just the air that we breathe or water that we drink or swim in, but the overall climate? It's just naive.
It's really a shame that the environment is seen as a liberal issue. Do conservatives prefer to breathe dirty air or not care if there's toxic chemicals in the water they swim in? Do you really have to have liberal politics to do the math of how much garbage has been adding up from the hundreds of millions of people in this country alone and how there's only so many times we can sweep the trash under the rug before it starts exploding out? I just don't get it.
Anyway, there's my deposit in the Blog Action Day bank. It's not much, but maybe it'll make a little difference. A little fucking difference.
8 comments:
Interesting. I wouldn't say I'm a denier, but if I see global warming on TV or featured in a magazine I won't watch or read it. It's dull, and as for the science, it looks suspiciously like chartism.
I was talking to a friend once whose religious beliefs actually prevented him from acknowledging that the population was growing out of control, or that this was a problem at all. This was possibly one of the most frustrating conversations I've ever had.
Nicely said, by the way :o)
Wow, Mark. I'd love to be able to ignore all kinds of terrible things simply b/c they're "dull." I'm sure the people of Tuvalu also find it pretty dull that they have to leave their homeland for New Zealand. And chartism has nothing to do with it. You're against fair parliamentary democracy??
Reid, I'm a little surprised you're not a total believer by now. That South African study sealed it for me.
Welcome DC Blog traffic! I can't say I'm particularly proud of this post, but welcome anyway.
Jen, I think that the problem with a lot of people have with the concept of global warming is the causality; that it's hard to swallow a bunch of charts and figures that claims proof that, as someone new to the argument would see it, driving cars causes more powerful hurricanes. You and I can accept it, but we're in the choir. And even I sometimes have problems with that exact causality.
But that's why I think Jon Stewart's argument is so powerful: it's common sense to think that the sheer increase in toxins that we're putting in the air and the water is going to start having an effect on climate. This is why I think it's more simple arguments like that one that are ultimately going to be more compelling to the unconverted than any scare animations of New York underwater.
Given that the whole environmental movement was started largely by a Republican (Teddy Roosevelt, founder of the national park system), it does seem odd that it's now viewed mostly as a liberal issue. By definition, conservatives should also be conservationists.
I have to admit though, I'm a denier when it comes to global warming. It's a great theory; I think it's incredibly logical, and I hope someday there's enough data to conclusively prove it. But the earth has gone through cooling and warming trends for millenia, and nobody can say right now that a 1 or 2 degree difference over the past hundred years is clearly outside of that natural trend. Or that there even is a 1 or 2 degree difference, when you consider the thermometer technology in a time when people were still using outhouses. Is it really warmer, or did our measurements just get more precise?
Erosion, flooding, and the like have been with us since the continents were all one big land mass. They're not just suddenly happening, it's just that there are now more people living in the affected areas to notice, and better technology allows us to be able to detect the events. As for severe weather, computer models predict global warming increases ocean temperatures, which in turn strengthens hurricanes. However they also predict it increases wind shear, which weakens hurricanes. Just about every study supporting global warming has a corresponding study refuting it.
But the bigger problem I have with global warming is the focus on it as a catch-all for every single environmental issue; and the "let's all drink the kool-aid" mentality about it. Whether global warming exists or not, the actions proposed as a means of combatting it have merit in their own right. We should curb air pollution because we don't want to breathe smog or have our kids get asthma. We should curb water pollution because we want to be able to eat sushi and drink tap water without getting poisoned by mercury. We should develop alternatives to fossil fuels simply because they're running out, as well as the fact that it puts our national security at risk when we're dependent on a resource controlled by a bunch of terrorists. These are things we should be doing regardless of any so-called global warming. It's a completely unnecessary theory. So I guess my point is, until the scientists can prove it conclusively one way or the other, can we stop insisting on everyone *believing* in it, and just focus on the *doing*? There are a lot of Kramers in the world who will be happy to take part in the Aids walk, they just don't want to have to wear the ribbon.
You know, Scott, I actually agree that it's being used far too much as a catch-all. We've actually found in our work that people respond negatively to emails about global warming, but positively to ones about the environment.
While it certainly is possible that the environmental changes would be happening right now even if the world population was less than a billion and we didn't have oil or electricity, there's entirely too much coincidence to just dismiss it as a natural function of the earth. There are some huge environmental changes going on around us, and, as Stewart pointed out, how can we really say that all of the things we've been putting in the air have NOTHING to do with that? It's impossible.
And besides, whether it's global warming or a massive, natural environmental change, either of those deserves our concern.
I have several comments here, Reid. I agree with your original post that Jon Stewart's argument is very valid. And I agree with yours and Scott's comment as well, that has become a big environmental catch-all. And lastly, I agree that it should not be a liberal issue, that it transcends party lines. As Scott said, Roosevelt was a Republican. However, there are plenty of political issues that have migrated parties since Roosevelt was around.
All in all, I think you bring up some very good points. This conversation needs to keep going forward.
nice Mr Show reference
Post a Comment