The Late Night Debate on Global Warming: Gary weighs in again

Hi everyone, Before I get into the meat of todays responses from Gary. I want to share a picture my 4 yr. old daughter took yesterday while she was taking the lawnmower pic. I think it reminds us to stop and smell the roses look around and enjoy what we've got. Now on to the late night debate. Thanks again Gary for the thought provoking debate!

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:46 AM, Gary XXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:

Hi Glen,
Sure, you can post my response.

I request though that you just say that I'm going to "vote for the Libertarian candidate whoever it may be; this election it is Bob Barr". Sorry for the equivocating, but alot of Libertarians (including me) have reservations regarding Barr so I'd rather it was clear that I'm voting Libertarian, rather than voting for Barr in the particular.

I just want to be clear here: I have nothing, whatsoever, against people privately doing whatever they wish, so long as they are not harming someone else. One of the Founders wrote: "Your Right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" and that's completely right, in my mind, but the problem we're facing today is that way too many people are claiming to have noses that are ten miles long.

Essentially, I don't like government becoming involved. All government business is done, at the end of the day, at the forceful point of an authoritarian gun (which is something altogether different from the point of a privately owned gun).

Our government is not designed to grant us all a guarantee that we will live to be a 105 years old, or to protect us from ourselves, and our Rights as outlined in the Constitution were purposely phrased in a particular way so that they would not be confused with entitlements, which most people confuse them for. Specifically, our Rights are defined not in terms of what we are allowed, but in terms of what government has no authority to do to us ("Congress shall make no law..."). Rights are not "government permission slips". Rather, in the Founders view, they are viewed as being "natural rights" meaning that you are not permitted them, but naturally embodied with their Freedom as something self-evident. In the same way you have skin, you have Rights. They're not permissions, they're guarantees that, if push comes to shove, you are entitled to the use of force to protect. (That, btw, is why the Second Amendment exists. It isn't to be repealed because someone might shoot a cop; it is there for the very reason that you may have to shoot a cop. You'll notice that it doesn't say "feel free to shoot cops". In fact, it expects that you will probably be killed for doing so. It only says "Yes, you have every right to have a gun.")

Many people, for example, will say "I have a Right to breath clean air". First, there really is no such thing as "clean air". If one wants to just breath in the basic components of the atmosphere their entire life, I hope they don't mind dying before they are 40 due to their complete lack of immunity and resistance. Also, one has no such "Right", but they are not necessarily excluded it either, because the Ninth amendment serves the purpose of making this clear. Basically, it says "just because a Right isn't listed here, that doesn't mean that you are being denied such a Right just because we failed to list it."

I also believe history has proven that we have had some effect on that system and the decisions and behaviors we engage in effect that system and it's course. I also think that technological advances alone won't help solve some of the challenges we are facing and will be facing as time marches on. The point of my blog is to advance such discussion and maybe give people a few ideas of what they can do to make it a little easier on the system.

First, again, this is America and you have every Right to say what you like, share those ideas with others, and engage in behavior that pleases you. There's nothing wrong, at all, with "going green", etc., so long as one puts the dividing line at believing that other people should be coerced via government into doing the same.

More to the point, in what you've written above, you've engaged in what I perceive to be a real philosophical problem with environmentalism. Namely, that "nature" and "we" are two separate things.

This philosophical problem is known as "Russell's Paradox" named for Bertrand Russell, the philosopher who came up with it. Actually, let me simplify this by giving a simpler version of the same problem called "The Barber's Paradox" because "Russell's Paradox" is a bit complicated.
Here is "The Barber's Paradox":

Suppose there is a town with just one male barber; and that every man in the town keeps himself clean-shaven: some by shaving themselves, some by attending the barber. It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule: He shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves.

Under this scenario, we can ask the following question: Does the barber shave himself?
Asking this, however, we discover that the situation presented is in fact impossible:
If the barber does not shave himself, he must abide by the rule and shave himself.
If he does shave himself, according to the rule he will not shave himself.
Here is "Russell's Paradox" (skip it if you want, "The Barber's Paradox" will do. Russell's Paradox causes headaches.)

Libraries have catalogues. Some libraries list the catalogue itself within their catalogues. Let's call these library catalogues "Type I". Other libraries do not list their own catalogue within their catalogue. Let's call these catalogues "Type II." I am the Library Director at the central, master library for my region. I have been assigned the function of creating a list of all the "Type II" libraries in my region for the regional master catalogue. I finish my task and realize that I've left something out. My library catalogue, the central catalogue, does not create a listing for its own catalogue, just like all of the other Type II libraries. So, I add my library to the list of "Type II" libraries. I return to my desk, finished with the task, when I now realize that the "Type II" listing of catalogues that do not include themselves as a catalogue entry now includes my catalogue in the listing, so it now includes itself as a catalogue entry, thereby no longer making it a "Type II" library. So, I get up yet again... and it won't be my last trip. I'll be going back and forth forever because there is no way to solve this problem.

You can't create a set of all sets that do not refer to themselves within their respective sets. If you do so, the set you just created belongs in the set. But when you put your set into the set you just created, you've destroyed the defining property of that set.

(Told ya. Apirin's in the cupboard)

So, "who cares?" and "What the Hell does this have to do with global warming?"

Global warming makes a presumption that finds itself trapped in this paradox. One system (the ecology of Earth) created an inclusive system (the system of mankind); we were not "put on" this Earth; we "came out" of it and we are not the masters of the Earth's ecology, but, in fact, a part of that ecology. That is, until it becomes inconvenient for global warming alarmists to think that way.

If we see a factory with a smokestack, we point at it and arbitrarily label it "unnatural". However, the only property the factory has that sets it apart from anything else is that it was built by humans instead of some bear or whale or bird or flower. Suddenly, humans are not part of the ecology of Earth, but foreign entities that stand above it and outside the system of it. Which is it? Are we in or are we out? If we are part of the interwoven collective of nature, then what we do is by definition part of nature. If we are not part of the interwoven collection of nature, then what are we? Alien beings? I don't think so.

One can not say that we are part of an interwoven network when if fits their needs, then suddenly decide that we are outside that network and "masters" when that argument fits their needs.
Global warming is not environmental, it is political. It is a coercive sales pitch for Socialism and if one wants to discuss the merits and demerits of socialism, that is something quite different from "The World is Ending" ideas of global warming. There is quite a difference between asserting that we are harming ourselves and that we are "harming the planet". The planet and nature, I can assure you, has fully taken us into account and it will have its way with us long before we will ever our way with it. In fact, it is now, always has and always will do with us what it intends to do. It is a complete contradiction to believe that everything in nature is good, but then make a special exception for human beings born of our own self-perception.

I've gotten carried away. Please don't misinterpret my being assertive for aggression. I enjoy the discussion and I hope you take it in the intended spirit.

Take Care,

Gary

---

Gary,
I totally understand your logic and have been down many of the same roads of thought you have as a result of the environmental science class I took at SUNY Albany. My philosophy with the blog is that if you can't beat them beat them(Them being, big energy, and big corporations). I want to eventually cover environmental business practices and help lead the market through free market principals and example not legislate it. Help contribute to economic evolution if you will because the minute you start labeling "Right Wing Whack-Jobs" and "Commie bastard leftie tree-huggers" it is counterproductive. Like our fore fatheres (framers of the constitution) I want to be active not apathetic in this crazy thing we label a democracy. Although I believe some legislation may be necessary because like nature everything in our society and our lives has to achieve some sort of balance. Our bodies do it everyday. Remember the old concept of homeostasis? (the body keeping it's systems up and running and in check?) Both government and Free market capitalism are needed because if one is given too much power it will run a muck. By the way Gary you should really start your own blog, you'd be good at it. Also can on cut and paste you last email in the comments section of my blog? Oh yeah check out today's posts "You're a star!" By the way it feels so good to be using my brain again for something other than being a German teacher.

Gary.....Friday July 18, at 1:07 AM

Glen,

Just found this.

http://www.aps.org/

Okay, I appreciate your practical outlook on the matter.

I was perusing your blog and, for instance, an electric lawn mower is a fine idea, especially for people with small yards. I'm quite skeptical regarding that websites statistics though and the comparisons drawn. As you are probably aware, statistics of that nature are not drawn from actual measurements but based on computer models that have a rotten tendency to be tweaked according to the political feelings of those who construct them. (Remind me some time to tell you about the skull measurements taken in the 19th century in Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man".)

On some of the conservative sites I visit, there is this banner ad (you've probably seen it) where it proclaims "There is enough oil under America to power 60 million cars for the next 60 years!" Of course, since there are 240 milion cars on the road in America, that oil would last us only 15 years, and we don't even know for sure that it is accessible. So, just playing devil's advocate to make a further example of political motivation.

Also, I read this book called "Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology" (Wendy and/or Sean may have read this, because I think I remember discussing it with them the last time I saw them, but I might be mixing things up.) Anyway, I reviewed it on Amazon so I won't repeat myself. (Scroll to bottom of page).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1PW0I19S34NZO?ie=UTF8&display=public&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview&page=1

This book contains some of the themes in environmentalism that also disturb me; namely, the tendency to overemphasize the benefits of neo-luddism. I cover that in the review.

I find there to be a very disturbing subtext in modern environmentalism; a nihilistic undertone of self-hatred and misanthropy. There was a recent book that I didn't read that was very popular called "The World Without Us". Granted, this is an interesting concept, but I follow books a lot and I found it to be a bit of an oddball in terms of its popularity. I watched the History Channel documentary on it and basically it's "I Am Legend" without Robert Neville and the coldwar communist zombies. It's a documentary about weeds and decay destroying the remains of our infrastructure. I guess people find this fascinating because it puts humans "in their place" but, to me, this was not news. I've been quite aware for a long time that everything is a temporary state of affairs and that's kind of the inverse of what I was touching on in my previous email.

You, however, are not an extremist, so I'll give you some of my practical thoughts.

-Remember those old windmills that people had on farms? (Google "farm windmill" on image search). Why isn't something like that mounted on the roof of everyone's apartment building? In people's front yards? Why aren't larger windmills mounted on multistory buildings? I know that there is a serious cost prohibition in transporting wind power over power lines to municipalities, but this "windmill on a roof" option seems to me to be an easy solution that could be completely driven by the free market and be completely fostered through private property. In fact, probably the only obstacle in it's way would be, of course, government, which probably would forbid these structures as building violations. (Also, unlike RFK Jr., I happen to find the windmills aesthetically pleasing to look at.) Government should get out of the way of such alternative solutions or, at best, provide tax breaks for them. Hell, a lot of people have windmill replicas sitting in their yard or garden!

-I, like many, have apprehensions about nuclear power, but I also have apprehensions about flying and they are mostly irrational. Our Navy has nuclear subs floating around all over the place and has used nuclear power for decades without a single incident. If we are going to advance as a species and as a society, we are going to have to overcome our fears and take on our challenges and those challenges are likely to have risks, even if unlikely, that are comparable in scale to the challenges. (Obama, by the way, is the PERFECT guy to be saying this and it would serve him quite well considering the Kennedy-like place he holds in the imagination of many Americans. (Remember Kennedy saying "We're not going to do these things because they are easy, but because they are hard.") If Obama wants to start filling in the Superman outfit that has been placed on him, this would be an EXCELLENT step in the right direction. Truth be told, nuclear power would be much easier than going to the moon was. We already have the technology, but special interests keep us from using it.

-Hydroelectric power. ("Save the fish!" they'll scream)

-Regarding cars. I've watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?" and I wasn't blown away by it, to be honest. I don't think that there is a grand corporate conspiracy against electric cars, and their was also an issue with electric cars being a fire hazard ( a model named Veronica Webb had her house burned down from powering an electrical car). For now, we're stuck with oil and gas. This gets very, very involved on the grand scale so I can't give the issue proper service here. Drill. For now, we must drill. Also, if I ran the world, I would exempt commercial drivers only and totally from gas taxes and tolls, but we can't do that because it would be "unfair". Rush Limbaugh asked one of his corporate car manufacturing pals why the sell hybrids and his answer was simple: "Because they sell". If the technology and efficiency is there, car manufacturers will sell us energy efficient cars.

Sorry for running so long on these, but I like to write and it is a subject I'm interested in. I could keep this going for a hundred pages, I think. I'm actually stopping myself here.

The modern environmental movement has been overtaken by extremists who completely monopolize the discussion. There are "win-win" scenarios here, as you seem to recognize, but so many now have what I call a "sourcewatch" view of reality that it is becoming impossible to have a rational discussion. I take it that this is what you're looking to facilitate with your blog, so I will follow with interest. (Also, I've provided a video link as a P.S. It covers in a general sense some of my apprehensions.)

Take Care,

Gary

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9025137241544411194&q=Penn+and+Teller+environmentalism&ei=3iSASPrrCYr2rQKDlJm8DQ&hl=en

Me and my electric mower...

One other new habit I picked up from my time in Germany was mowing with an electric mower. I just came in from mowing my front lawn and had my four year old shoot this pic with my redneck hat and all. I picked it up at the local Bi-Lo for $1.99. I thought what a bargain and it will help this transplant New Yorker blend in here in South Carolina. I think the electric mower gives me away though, and yes that is a 100 foot cord you see slung over my shoulder. My neighbor from 5 doors down stopped me once while mowing and asked "Hey will that cord reach over to my house?" All kidding aside the reason I opted for this is I hate the smell of gas mowers and mowers aren't the most efficient things on gas I read somewhere once that gas mowers burn through nearly as much or more barrels of oil as our cars on the roads do. Every weekend, about 54 million Americans mow their lawns, using roughly 800 million gallons of gas per year according to the EPA. Here's a site if you want to find out more about the mower thing. It is where I got my facts for this post and the cute graphic below.
By the way there is a rechargeable battery version of the electric mower now which I wish I had purchased instead because when I moved down here the house I was renting had a much smaller lawn and I was used to the plug in kind, not to mention it was cheaper. Oh well live and lawn (learn, ha ha). And yes I know about the push option I actually bought one of those first but it broke after my first row of cutting at the rental house and my lawn now is way to big for that. My goal is to landscape the back more with shrubs and ground cover etc. so the mowing is kept to a minimum. Keep going green! Just don't stain your good sneakers with the grass too much...

Also the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states, a traditional gas powered lawn mower produces as much air pollution as 43 new cars each being driven 12,000 miles.

Gary responds to the mention of him in my new blog

(Notice the picture to the left from my year in Budenheim, Germany. I call it "The Greenhouse effect" hehe)

Glen,

Nature is a self-correcting system and we are part of that system. If nature has to deal with the exponential population growth you point out, it is not going to do so with environmental catastrophe. Rather, it is going to be the dogmatic mass-movement ideologies that form around contrived ideas like anthropogenic global warming.

Considering the effectiveness such methods have had, don't you think that would be alot easier than getting people to emit enough carbon to melt the ice caps?

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

There is nothing wrong, at all, with one privately trying to be a bit more "green", or coming up with more efficient technologies. There are so many rational discussions to be had regarding such matters, that confusing the matter with the scare-tactic political demands of global warming alarmists is completely unnecessary, distracting and counter-productive.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/your_2007_carbon_footprint.html

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore on why he left Greenpeace:

http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3

I could write a book here. I'm trying to keep this short.

(BTW, I'm not, per se, a Bob Barr supporter so much as I am a supporter of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarians could have picked any one of many people to be the candidate and I would probably vote for him/her. So, if you could maybe clarify that a bit on your blog, I'd appreciate it.)

Hope all are Well,

Gary

Gary,

Could I post your response from this last e-mail as well as the links you provided in it on my blog? Because I agree with you on Nature being a self-correcting system and us being a part of it but I also believe history has proven that we have had some effect on that system and the decisions and behaviors we engage in effect that system and it's course. I also think that technological advances alone won't help solve some of the challenges we are facing and will be facing as time marches on. The point of my blog is to advance such discussion and maybe give people a few ideas of what they can do to make it a little easier on the system. I'm not talking about sounding alarms but simply making people aware of the choices they have and how those choices effect them and others. I liken the green economy movement to a buffet like everything else in the world you take the ideas and actions you believe in and you leave the rest. Because these small actions taken by many can also have an exponential impact. AND AS YOU ALL SEE I POSTED HIS COMMENTS…MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT. Keep thinking GREEN!!!!

Planet Elbow Room : Forget about global warming...How about globlal crowding?

On July 1st I opened my e-mail to find a response to a generic invitation I had sent out from Al Gore's We site . The response simply read: " Global Warming is a fraud.". Gary is a friend of mine from college who says he is voting for Bobb Barr the Libertarian candidate for president. I don't hold it against him or anything after all it is a free country. But my knee jerk (or maybe elbow jerk) response was... That may be true but even if it is there is one fact scientists have been pointing to for a while and that very few are disputing, that is the explosion in world population we have been seeing and will continue to see in the years to come. The planet has seen exponential growth in its population. There is no doubt this will put a squeeze on precious resources like fresh drinkable water and available farmland for food production. The chart to the left shows the J-shaped curve of past exponential world population growth.(besure to check out the links he has to other more "official" counters at the bottom of his page) Notice how it all started out slowly, but as time passes the curve becomes steeper and steeper. In 47 years the world population has more than doubled. In 1950 we were at 2.5 billion and had reached 5.9 billion by 1998. So unless death rates rise exponentially, world pop. will reach 8 billion by 2025 (that's only 17 years from now folks!) By the year 2050 it will be up to 10 or 11 Billion people and for 2100 the projection for our grandchildren is that they will be sharing elbow room with around 14 billion other human beings! I got my facts and figures from the World Bank and the United Nations.
Also I borrowed the graph from this site at Columbia University which explains the phenomenon well. The bottom line is some habits are going to have to change in order for that many people to live together on the planet and we can't forget we are all in the same boat. I want a livable future for my daughter who's elbow is featured with mine up above. See I told you the next post would be more concise. Keep going green!! Oh and Gary I love your responses because they keep me thinking and fired up!

I woke up this morning to the sound of a garbage truck going by

It doesn't currently stop at my house because I like to make sure things are sorted and end up in the right(ok better) places. My wife and I maintain a compost in the back corner of our lot and we recycle the majority of the paper, cardboard and assorted containers that make their way through our household. Then every 2 to three weeks I make a trip to the transfer station with my daughter and put it in the proper receptacles. It wasn't always like this I grew up in the 70's and as most Americans I was raised as a ravenous consumer of disposal of goods and services and most by-products ended up on the curb to be schlepped away by a dirty smelly gas-guzzling monster trash truck (unlike this one)that would then deposit all that stuff in a land-fill a few miles away from my home in the country somewhere. The cost of this fabulous service was rolled into my taxes. Now in the north and the south frequently trash removal services are yet another monthly bill on our credit card we need to pay. And I feel that these services don't always recycle the things we place in the recycling bin. That's why I do it myself now. In upstate New York they were very picky about what they would and wouldn't except in the recycling bin: this plastic and not that one, and only if sanitized, and only newspaper and only if it was in a separate bag etc. .

So currently we live in Upstate South Carolina. I am a German Teacher and my profession brought me here. My profession also led me to this point, this blog and many of the decisions I have made about the environment. I was born and raised in Upstate New York in a little town outside of Albany, NY called Voorheesville. The aforementioned dump has since closed and become a "transfer-station" itself. I wonder if officer Opey has measured it's (carbon) footprint or taken 8x10 glossy photos of it. (sorry for the random Alice's Restaurant reference, I'm an avid Arlo Guthrie fan as you can tell by my long winded blog post) So after graduating high school I "fled" to a little town in Germany for an 13th exchange year (they have one more year than we do for high school over there). It was during that year that I first learned about German culture, and habits. Even in 1987 Germany was far ahead of America when it came to environmental matters. Recycling and composting were commonplace. I didn't fully appreciate all the differences between these two industrialized countries until I returned to Germany with my wife and 2yr. old daughter in 2006 to obtain my masters degree through Middlebury college. In Germany they are organized as you may know and this extends even to their recycling. Even in public places like train stations and just out on the street they offer many receptacles for your trash (see photos above and below) At home it's easier though you have a composting bin (for food waste) and a "Gelbe Sack" (the yellow sack/bag) for everything else. You see in Germany there are laws about recycling and industry is responsible for all the packaging it produces and they must pay for the recycling of it. Since the enactment of this law in 1990 in Germany companies have rethought packaging and work with more recyclable materials and minimize packaging. This Wikipedia article explains it better look under concept for explanation of the yellow bags. Well that's it for today. I promise future posts will be more concise. I hope at least it gave you some food for thought. (here's another picture of a place to recycle/ put your trash in a Berlin subway.)