I don’t want to hijack this GQ thread any more so instead I will post this here. Colibri (don’t worry, I’m not Pitting you, just in case you’ve done a reverse-vanity search!) posted a link to this news article: Global warming to expose Arctic to oil, gas drilling.
Oh, well that’s all right then. For a crazy moment I thought that the melting of the ice caps might jolt the world into actually doing something to try and halt the process, but no.
If it weren’t so thoroughly depressing it would be truly comical. “Hey, we’ve burnt too much oil and gas and fucked up the entire climate. All the ice has melted. What should we do? Hold on… what’s that over there…? Y’know, I’ll bet if we kicked these polar bear carcasses and dying seals out of the way and built a big fuck-off oil derrick we could get tons of oil out of here!”
Is there anybody in charge of anything in this world that will not unhesitatingly choose short-term profit over long-term sustainability?
Once the Arctic reserves have been drilled out, sucked up and burnt, and the Antarctic has melted too, then what do we do? ‘Course, the oil execs’ grandchildren will be fine cos no doubt they have houses in the Rockies. Leave the rest of the poor schlubs to book swimming lessons.
All these movements start one person at a time. If everyone who thought it was important to reduce fossil fuel consumption, actually did then we would be getting somewhere. Instead they piss and moan about how horrible everything is, while still using their SUV because they “need” it and still keep their 3000sqft house well heated in the winter and well cooled in the summer.
The oil execs are not the ones buying the houses and cars and sucking up all that fuel WE ARE! Those guys are just trying to keep up.
I know we need power - but the average individual can’t invest in renewable energy sources - the energy companies have to do that. On a personal level I do what I can to reduce my energy consumption: I walk and use public transport, I don’t leave lights burning when they’re not being used, and so on.
My gripe is with firms refusing to develop alternatives to oil because it’s “too expensive”. Sure it’s not going to be as cheap as sucking oil out of the ground, but you can only go on doing that for so long.
And what was that bullshit I read the other day? Some crook holding forth about how “we now have the technology to develop the ANWR without harming the environment”. Uh huh. Pipes burst. Tankers crash. People fuck up. You tell me that drilling isn’t going to result in environmental damage.
It seems that every square inch of land has to account for itself and pay its way these days. It can’t just sit there looking nice, and providing a home for wildlife… no, it has to turn a profit.
Actually, many people can. I have my choice of electric utilities, one of which is a utility that gets most (if not all) of their power from “green” sources.
I go with the one that’s a few percent cheaper, myself.
Ah yes, this is the fellow: Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM):
No, Pete, with oil trading at nearly $50 a barrel, the case for developing realistic alternative technology is more compelling than ever. But then maybe those namby-pamby liberal green technologies won’t be prepared to pour quite so much cash into party coffers eh?
Sadly, it seems that the American public has shown at the ballot box that they would rather fuck up their environment (well, it’s near Canada, so it doesn’t really matter) than pay two dollars a gallon at the gas pumps.
Not to be contrary or anything, but the melting of the Artic icecap would lower sea levels, thus not threatening coastal cities.
Of course, I have a hard time thinking that ít’s only the Arctic ice that would melt, but still.
Anyhow, I know this is the pit and all, but blaming SUVs for global warming is just a bit too easy. In fact, we should build more roads with asphalt, to lock the carbondioxide. Oh, and have fewer cows.
First, we can get heat from renewable sources. The main being wood burning stoves and ovens. Sure, we’re talking an increase in home fires, but whatever it takes to save the bears. And then we have to deal with deforestation even though the logging industry plants 2 or 3 saplings for every tree cut. Sometimes more.
Second, there are times that public transport costs more than each person driving themselves in terms of fuel. In the almost 11 years living in my city, I’ve never seen a bus with more that 8 people on it. But, hey, keep those tanks full for the greater good.
The Earth has existed through 5 billion years, and many of those were more trying to the environment than a little more than 100 years of the internal combustion engine. Nature takes care of itself. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Oil and natural gas are products of Earth, and Earth will correct any damage from burning it.
Those worried about environmental impact of burning fossil fuels are concerned with themselves. Not the Earth. A good stance, and I agree with it. I support non-polluting sources of power, and beleive we’ll make it feasable. But when people say they’re worried about the planet when the real point is supporting the continuation of us evil humans to remain dominant, I tend to think of the word, um, bullshit.
Forget it. I’ve made a few posts where I challenged people to fill a glass half full of ice, top it off with water, let the ice melt and note the water level. It’s never acknowledged. There’s emotion on this subject, facts be damned.
Sadly, a lot of people got fucked a couple of years ago in California. People got to choose their energy provider, many of which were from ‘green’ sources like wind. When Enron manipulated the power supply, a lot of these people suddenly had to pay several times their normal rates. A FOAF in San Diego had been paying $50-$60/month for electricity, and suddenly had $400/month bills. I was on city power, so my rates remained low. (I just never got around to switching.) If it were a matter of a couple percent, I wouldn’t mind paying the premium; but having seen how the companies can be manipulated makes me take a second look at them.
Re the people who ‘need’ their SUVs. In 1999 I found that I really did need an SUV, albeit a compact one. I’ve used its capabilities to haul people, equipment, trailers, etc. I’ve also used its off-road capabilities. Yes, I did need an SUV thankyouverymuch. And I can average over 20 mpg if I drive it carefully. (A few times I’ve averaged 25 mpg.) But 18 mpg is more normal. Now I no longer really need it. It has come in handy at work, but personally I don’t need it. But guess what? I can’t afford to buy a new, more efficient car. I’d love to get a diesel Golf or a Mini or a Civic, Prius, or whatever. Can’t do it. If I could afford it, I would; but I can’t so I have to wait.
Not that I’m in favour of drilling in ANWR. I’m definitely concerned about global warming, and I think we should take steps to stop it. I find the attitude of the spin doctors who tout the ‘silver lining’ of global warming to be stupid. I just object to being painted as an environmental criminal because I can’t afford to replace my existing vehicle.
My point is that is it all of us using this power wantonly. You want to blame the energy companies for not using alternative fuels, but it’s not really all their choice.
We are not going to pay for more expensive alternate fuels, we’re cheap sons of bitches who would trample people at a WalMart to get a $30 DVD player. We’re people who seem to think that a 1700sqft 3br house is “too small”. Shit, I’m looking at real estate, and what pops into my head is that all the houses in my price range are tiny hovels. Of course, they were good solid housing back in the 50’s, now they’re crap ass little shacks.
Blame the energy companies all you want, not a damn thing will change until the public at large wants it to, and changes their own lives to conserve.
I don’t think the problem is with the Arctic ice cap, but with the Antarctic one. The North Poll is an ocean and, as you said, its melting wouldn’t raise sea levels; but the Antarctic is an ice-covered land mass. Were the ice to melt there, water that is currently not in the oceans would flow into the oceans. (And I understand the land there would rise, incidentally, because of the reduced weight.) In the north, Greenland would also contribute to higher sea levels if its covering of ice were to melt.
I certainly won’t argue with that. “Facts be damned”, nothing. I have a masters degree in chemistry, so I know all about coefficients of expansion. Two things that spoil this little experiment are:
A lot of the ice that will melt is not currently floating on water.
Water at, say, 15ºC takes up more space than Water at, say, 12ºC. Not much more, but enough to make a difference when multiplied up by billions of billions of gallons of ocean.
I am not entirely convinced by the arguments for global warming either - it could be short term fluctuations in the environment. But my main beef with oil drilling in the Arctic is not the emissions that will be caused by burning the oil. It is the act of drilling itself, which will inevitably spoil one of the last wilderness areas on Earth.
Maybe my reasons are selfish - yes, I would like there to be some areas of this planet which haven’t been dug up and messed around with by humans. I’d like to be able to swim in clean seas (not in the Arctic, mind!) and breathe clean air.
Whether global warming is real or not, continuing to rely on oil is clearly not sustainable, and it makes sense to start spending money on finding replacements NOW, rather than start panicking when the oil does run out.
I actually had that one in the back of my mind, without really knowing it was there. So allow me another question without completely hijacking this. (I hope, I hope, I hope)
Does anyone know if global warming would affect the evaporation rate of the oceans in respect to rainfall in the rest of the world? What I’m wondering is if the jet stream or some other force would somehow redistribute the water to other parts of the planet. Like, say, rain in deserts. We’ve already been through at least one Ice Age that humans have survived. This may warrant it’s own thread, but I’m curious what would happen if a new wrinkle were thrown in the mix.
Not that this applies to me, of course. I just like paying less.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to have my car upholstered with the skin of beaten seal pups.
Actually, I’d be interested in a solid cite showing that power plants meeting US environmental standards are a significant source of greenhouse gases (as opposed to, say, cars, trucks, third-world power plants without polution controls, etc.).
Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. If we could come up with a way to get sustainable, cheap energy from a glass of water, I’d be right there calling for funding. I believe it’ll happen eventually, be it hydro, solar, wind, whatever. But for now, fossil fuel is what we have, and we have to keep the supply going at a reasonable price. I appreciate the call for public transport, but Boston, NYC, London and Paris don’t take into account the rest of us 6 billion souls hurtling through space. We have to heat our homes as well, and some of us live in REALLY cold environs come winter. When you pay $400+ a month for gas to keep the house at 65 degrees, PLUS the electric charges, you may understand the notion that a sea lion isn’t so important.
That’s something that nobody knows right now (and may never know beyond statistical probabilities), and even after whatever happens happens, it will probably be impossible to prove precisely what the cause was. Weather systems are the result of so many variable forces at so many different points (air temperatures, water temperatures, surface reflectivity, cloud cover, water currents, air currents, radiation absorption, rotation of the earth). And not only do they interact, they change each other as they interact, causing them to then interact differently. This is why weather forcasts can’t be accurate beyond a few days.
Global warming could have effects (in the short run, anyway) that run completely counter to intuition (heavy snowfall, drops in temperature due to heavier cloud cover, etc.). It may also have radical effects on ecosystems that directly affect us (fish populations suddenly collapsing, for example, because changing temperatures cause the ocean currents to shift). IMO, though, the odds are very low that the effects would be nothing at all.
Thanks sublight. I’m sure the effects would not be nil, but I’m getting tired of the “sky is falling” mindset that a few degrees per century would be the end of life as we know it. As has been proven, we’ve made it through the latest Ice Age unscathed. It’s such a slow change that life adapts.
I’ll say it again. My 7th grade Earth Science teacher, an unabashed '60’s hippie, showed how we’re still at the tail end of the Ice Age and the warming began long before humans ever burned fossil fuels.
Heck, here’s the lake that covered my home 8,000 years ago. I have yet to see a Hummer dated that far back. Nature works in cycles. And nature will continue to do so, no matter what we do.
(This isn’t a slam on you sublight, just quoting to give context to where this post is coming from)
