CDZ Environment can be restored without pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

[emilynghiem]

It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?

No, not really. It's like saying you're fine with sprinkler systems in all buildings, but you don't want to legislate the storage of gasoline inside them.

Once we reduce the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere, a lot of other environmental problems can be easily solved.

But that does not preclude reduction of waste and hazardous or toxic emissions from farms and factories.

Hi Nosmo King
Why can't reduction of carbons be argued in terms of reducing pollution and imbalance/destruction of natural air quality in GENERAL?

Why can't reduction of waste, hazardous, toxic or UNNATURAL emissions be addressed per se?

As unnatural and not sustainable?

Where does this "absolutely depend" on arguments about Global Warming?

Thanks for being the only person attempting to address the issue.

Can you please explain why it isn't enough to agree that it is unnatural, unsustainable, harmful and unhealthy to release unnatural substances in collective quantities when this can be REDUCED and/or eliminated so it is as close to natural as possible.

Thanks!

Because there are folks who will listen to energy companies and not scientists. Those folks, who remain suspicious of science will contend that carbon, in and of itself, is natural. They will talk about cow farts and volcanoes and other sources of greenhouse gases and exclaim "Look! The Liberals want to take over our very way of life!"

Well, that is a political response, not a scientific one. Those science skeptics will find some e-mails or some conference on Global Warming and pick apart scientific findings with no real scientific knowledge just to bolster the position told to them by pundits who are in the employ of energy companies.

In other words, once a position has been staked out in the political arena, any and all science will not move them to knowledge due to their intrinsic fear of science..

Hi Nosmo King
Can't the science be used for solutions?
And not focus on trying to prove "one group right or wrong" about "Global Warming"

Any large collective emission that isn't naturally occurring isn't going to be naturally compensated for.

Mother Nature doesn't naturally produce more plants and technology to counteract that
at the level it is produced unnaturally. That doesn't take a bunch of scientific experts to prove.
I can explain that and discuss with Conservative friends just using Common Sense!

In order to address the SYSTEMIC attitude change,
to speak with Conservatives I would go with aligning with their existing values
such as "respect for God's creation" and for sustainable cost-effective business practices.
So if they want business people to make decisions for themselves, without political conflicts over regulations,
why not focus on better technical solutions instead of arguing about GW if they don't relate to that?

Thanks NK
You've given me a good idea of presenting this to the Humanists Ideas group and religion/ethics forum in Houston.

The idea of agreeing not to push the God/creation issue if this is not critical to prove,
and likewise not to push the GW issue if this is not critical to prove or believe,
but to agree to work on the real issues and common solutions regardless of people's beliefs.
And let those resolve themselves in the process of seeking common sense solutions all sides agree on anyway.

 

[JoeMoma]

It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?

No, not really. It's like saying you're fine with sprinkler systems in all buildings, but you don't want to legislate the storage of gasoline inside them.

Once we reduce the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere, a lot of other environmental problems can be easily solved.

But that does not preclude reduction of waste and hazardous or toxic emissions from farms and factories.

Hi Nosmo King
Why can't reduction of carbons be argued in terms of reducing pollution and imbalance/destruction of natural air quality in GENERAL?

Why can't reduction of waste, hazardous, toxic or UNNATURAL emissions be addressed per se?

As unnatural and not sustainable?

Where does this "absolutely depend" on arguments about Global Warming?

Thanks for being the only person attempting to address the issue.

Can you please explain why it isn't enough to agree that it is unnatural, unsustainable, harmful and unhealthy to release unnatural substances in collective quantities when this can be REDUCED and/or eliminated so it is as close to natural as possible.

Thanks!

Because CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food.

Hi JoeMoma But we all know the normal amounts of elements without any unnatural production going on.
Why can't this be agreed to reduce so it is closer to normal rates of exchange?

That doesn't require ME to believe anything about Global Warming to see that it is
"more natural" to reduce "excess collective emissions"
rather than have a bunch of global corporate plants pumping this out
at a higher rate than humans and living things naturally expel. Duh.

But thanks to you for at least trying to explain WHY it makes a difference.
I just don't think that point is "absolutely necessary" to believe or prove
in order to AGREE to reduce not only CO2 but other emissions that
are "not normally emitted/produced on that collective scale worldwide"

Thanks!

CO2 is one of the most benign and natural chemicals we produce. Historically levels of CO2 has been both much less and much more than today's levels even before the industrialized society of today. At one time, a clean chemical reaction (combustion) was considered to be one that produced energy, water, and Carbon dioxide. Treating carbon dioxide like a pollutant makes about as much sense as treating water like a pollutant.

 

[Nosmo King]

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?

No, not really. It's like saying you're fine with sprinkler systems in all buildings, but you don't want to legislate the storage of gasoline inside them.

Once we reduce the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere, a lot of other environmental problems can be easily solved.

But that does not preclude reduction of waste and hazardous or toxic emissions from farms and factories.

Hi Nosmo King
Why can't reduction of carbons be argued in terms of reducing pollution and imbalance/destruction of natural air quality in GENERAL?

Why can't reduction of waste, hazardous, toxic or UNNATURAL emissions be addressed per se?

As unnatural and not sustainable?

Where does this "absolutely depend" on arguments about Global Warming?

Thanks for being the only person attempting to address the issue.

Can you please explain why it isn't enough to agree that it is unnatural, unsustainable, harmful and unhealthy to release unnatural substances in collective quantities when this can be REDUCED and/or eliminated so it is as close to natural as possible.

Thanks!

Because CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food.

Hi JoeMoma But we all know the normal amounts of elements without any unnatural production going on.
Why can't this be agreed to reduce so it is closer to normal rates of exchange?

That doesn't require ME to believe anything about Global Warming to see that it is
"more natural" to reduce "excess collective emissions"
rather than have a bunch of global corporate plants pumping this out
at a higher rate than humans and living things naturally expel. Duh.

But thanks to you for at least trying to explain WHY it makes a difference.
I just don't think that point is "absolutely necessary" to believe or prove
in order to AGREE to reduce not only CO2 but other emissions that
are "not normally emitted/produced on that collective scale worldwide"

Thanks!

CO2 is one of the most benign and natural chemicals we produce. Historically levels of CO2 has been both much less and much more than today's levels even before the industrialized society of today. At one time, a clean chemical reaction (combustion) was considered to be one that produced energy, water, and Carbon dioxide. Treating carbon dioxide like a pollutant makes about as much sense as treating water like a pollutant.

No one disputes CO2 is a natiral compound. But you mentioned treating water like a pollutant. There's a area of concern that you may have overlooked or not considered. Dose.

Just as too much water can be lethal, too much CO2, no matter how benign, can be lethal. When carbon is introduced to the atmosphere at a steadily increasing rate over decades, the atmosphere can and has become super saturated by it. That. Traps more of the sun's radiation, keeps water vapor from dispersing at a normal rate, effects snow and ice pack and warms the oceans.

The effects of carbon have been demonstrated, qualified and quanitified.

But here's the catch. Oil, natural gas, coal and the extraction and refinement of those commodities are the major contributing factor in the increase of carbon levels. Powerful concerns are rightfully worried about their viability. They'll cite everything's from the loss of jobs (a populist plea but consider the loss of jobs 150 years ago in the whale oil business or how many peat diggers lost jobs) to clanging a bell warning of the political consequences.

There are plenty of alternative to our current energy policies. I'm old enough to remember and suffer through energy crisises since the Nixon administration. And yet we have just budged the needle away from carbon based fuels. Why do you think that is?

 

[JoeMoma]

No, not really. It's like saying you're fine with sprinkler systems in all buildings, but you don't want to legislate the storage of gasoline inside them.

Once we reduce the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere, a lot of other environmental problems can be easily solved.

But that does not preclude reduction of waste and hazardous or toxic emissions from farms and factories.

Hi Nosmo King
Why can't reduction of carbons be argued in terms of reducing pollution and imbalance/destruction of natural air quality in GENERAL?

Why can't reduction of waste, hazardous, toxic or UNNATURAL emissions be addressed per se?

As unnatural and not sustainable?

Where does this "absolutely depend" on arguments about Global Warming?

Thanks for being the only person attempting to address the issue.

Can you please explain why it isn't enough to agree that it is unnatural, unsustainable, harmful and unhealthy to release unnatural substances in collective quantities when this can be REDUCED and/or eliminated so it is as close to natural as possible.

Thanks!

Because CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food.

Hi JoeMoma But we all know the normal amounts of elements without any unnatural production going on.
Why can't this be agreed to reduce so it is closer to normal rates of exchange?

That doesn't require ME to believe anything about Global Warming to see that it is
"more natural" to reduce "excess collective emissions"
rather than have a bunch of global corporate plants pumping this out
at a higher rate than humans and living things naturally expel. Duh.

But thanks to you for at least trying to explain WHY it makes a difference.
I just don't think that point is "absolutely necessary" to believe or prove
in order to AGREE to reduce not only CO2 but other emissions that
are "not normally emitted/produced on that collective scale worldwide"

Thanks!

CO2 is one of the most benign and natural chemicals we produce. Historically levels of CO2 has been both much less and much more than today's levels even before the industrialized society of today. At one time, a clean chemical reaction (combustion) was considered to be one that produced energy, water, and Carbon dioxide. Treating carbon dioxide like a pollutant makes about as much sense as treating water like a pollutant.

No one disputes CO2 is a natiral compound. But you mentioned treating water like a pollutant. There's a area of concern that you may have overlooked or not considered. Dose.

Just as too much water can be lethal, too much CO2, no matter how benign, can be lethal. When carbon is introduced to the atmosphere at a steadily increasing rate over decades, the atmosphere can and has become super saturated by it. That. Traps more of the sun's radiation, keeps water vapor from dispersing at a normal rate, effects snow and ice pack and warms the oceans.

The effects of carbon have been demonstrated, qualified and quanitified.

But here's the catch. Oil, natural gas, coal and the extraction and refinement of those commodities are the major contributing factor in the increase of carbon levels. Powerful concerns are rightfully worried about their viability. They'll cite everything's from the loss of jobs (a populist plea but consider the loss of jobs 150 years ago in the whale oil business or how many peat diggers lost jobs) to clanging a bell warning of the political consequences.

There are plenty of alternative to our current energy policies. I'm old enough to remember and suffer through energy crisises since the Nixon administration. And yet we have just budged the needle away from carbon based fuels. Why do you think that is?

Too much anything can be lethal. That being said, the doom days predictions that were suppose to happen according to the suposely settled global warming science by 2015 didn't happen. I agree that too much carbon dioxide can be problematic, but how much is too much? Is 120 parts per million too much? Let's not seek a cure that is worse than the problem.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, not really. It's like saying you're fine with sprinkler systems in all buildings, but you don't want to legislate the storage of gasoline inside them.

Once we reduce the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere, a lot of other environmental problems can be easily solved.

But that does not preclude reduction of waste and hazardous or toxic emissions from farms and factories.

Hi Nosmo King
Why can't reduction of carbons be argued in terms of reducing pollution and imbalance/destruction of natural air quality in GENERAL?

Why can't reduction of waste, hazardous, toxic or UNNATURAL emissions be addressed per se?

As unnatural and not sustainable?

Where does this "absolutely depend" on arguments about Global Warming?

Thanks for being the only person attempting to address the issue.

Can you please explain why it isn't enough to agree that it is unnatural, unsustainable, harmful and unhealthy to release unnatural substances in collective quantities when this can be REDUCED and/or eliminated so it is as close to natural as possible.

Thanks!

Because CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food.

Hi JoeMoma But we all know the normal amounts of elements without any unnatural production going on.
Why can't this be agreed to reduce so it is closer to normal rates of exchange?

That doesn't require ME to believe anything about Global Warming to see that it is
"more natural" to reduce "excess collective emissions"
rather than have a bunch of global corporate plants pumping this out
at a higher rate than humans and living things naturally expel. Duh.

But thanks to you for at least trying to explain WHY it makes a difference.
I just don't think that point is "absolutely necessary" to believe or prove
in order to AGREE to reduce not only CO2 but other emissions that
are "not normally emitted/produced on that collective scale worldwide"

Thanks!

CO2 is one of the most benign and natural chemicals we produce. Historically levels of CO2 has been both much less and much more than today's levels even before the industrialized society of today. At one time, a clean chemical reaction (combustion) was considered to be one that produced energy, water, and Carbon dioxide. Treating carbon dioxide like a pollutant makes about as much sense as treating water like a pollutant.

No one disputes CO2 is a natiral compound. But you mentioned treating water like a pollutant. There's a area of concern that you may have overlooked or not considered. Dose.

Just as too much water can be lethal, too much CO2, no matter how benign, can be lethal. When carbon is introduced to the atmosphere at a steadily increasing rate over decades, the atmosphere can and has become super saturated by it. That. Traps more of the sun's radiation, keeps water vapor from dispersing at a normal rate, effects snow and ice pack and warms the oceans.

The effects of carbon have been demonstrated, qualified and quanitified.

But here's the catch. Oil, natural gas, coal and the extraction and refinement of those commodities are the major contributing factor in the increase of carbon levels. Powerful concerns are rightfully worried about their viability. They'll cite everything's from the loss of jobs (a populist plea but consider the loss of jobs 150 years ago in the whale oil business or how many peat diggers lost jobs) to clanging a bell warning of the political consequences.

There are plenty of alternative to our current energy policies. I'm old enough to remember and suffer through energy crisises since the Nixon administration. And yet we have just budged the needle away from carbon based fuels. Why do you think that is?

Here Nosmo King How about this angle
Both the greens/environmentalists want sustainable communities that have their own resources, food, jobs, schools.

AND the conservatives want people to solve their own problems and manage their own resources locally and NOT
grow Bigger and Bigger centralized govt managing everyone else's affairs that can be organized locally.

Why not focus on setting up communities to be self governing campuses
so both goals are met? Political independence and self-reliance/sovereignty
AND green sustainability.

Here's the example model that was written into federal laws for the national historic district where I live:
http www.houstonprogressive.org

Established groups that volunteer to build schools and facilities worldwide to end poverty through sustainable development
PACE Universal - Teach a girl feed a village Pace Universal
Architecture for Humanity Design like you give a damn Architecture for Humanity
Microlending and business training in Free Enterprise to grow economically:
Grameen Foundation Connecting the World s Poor to Their Potential
Independent labor backed currency to manage local economy
Home

Ben Carson and Obama both agree on microlending and business training to end poverty and welfare.

Do you see how this approach applies to setting up independent/self-reliant communities
to REDUCE the dependence on collective production and transportation.

Educating people in Constitutional self-governance and public participation in law enforcement
also reduces crime, and war from conflicts escalating to violence; it can change issues of local and national security so there isn't this mad race to aim bigger badder weapons at each other that can be dangerous even to support and store with advanced chemical, technology and energy going into that.

How many issues of sustainable economy and production can be solved
by organizing community development to represent and protect local interests?

And guess what? this falls right in line with Conservative beliefs about govt.
Why can't that approach, to longer term sustainable and healthy development
solve the SAME issues with excess pollution from industry, transportation, energy consumption etc.

how much can we reduce by re-organizing communities to be independent
while SHARING resources to reduce the energy consumption, loss and waste.

 

[Nosmo King]

Emily,

There are some policy initiatives that can flourish under small, district oriented leadership. Education, housing policy, waste management, safety services come to mind. But the environment effects everyone.

For background's sake, I have to tell you that I am fifty eight years old and I have lived here near Pittsburgh my whole life, save four years of college in Columbus, Ohio and four years working at an engineering firm in Sarasota, Florida. I've lived in industrial squalor, sub tropical paradise, and moving home, an environmental remediation specialist's wet dream.

When some economically depressed district elects to have at its economic base energy production such as coal mining or hydraulic fracking for natural gas or oil, that district will be, effectively polluting adjacent districts. The sulfur fallout from the coal burning power plants strung along the banks of the Ohio River endangered the forests of the Adirondck Mountains in up state New York. A hazardous chemical spill in Wheeling, West Virginia effects the drinking water of Louisville, Kentucky.

The environment is a policy initative that demands national policy t least, global policy to be truly effective.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily,

There are some policy initiatives that can flourish under small, district oriented leadership. Education, housing policy, waste management, safety services come to mind. But the environment effects everyone.

For background's sake, I have to tell you that I am fifty eight years old and I have lived here near Pittsburgh my whole life, save four years of college in Columbus, Ohio and four years working at an engineering firm in Sarasota, Florida. I've lived in industrial squalor, sub tropical paradise, and moving home, an environmental remediation specialist's wet dream.

When some economically depressed district elects to have at its economic base energy production such as coal mining or hydraulic fracking for natural gas or oil, that district will be, effectively polluting adjacent districts. The sulfur fallout from the coal burning power plants strung along the banks of the Ohio River endangered the forests of the Adirondck Mountains in up state New York. A hazardous chemical spill in Wheeling, West Virginia effects the drinking water of Louisville, Kentucky.

The environment is a policy initative that demands national policy t least, global policy to be truly effective.

Hi Nosmo King
And national policy is stronger when all people and locales agree to it.
We have to change policy locally, too.
if we don't change the paradigm, and keep relying on bullying from the top down,
instead of building consensus from the ground up, we keep fighting these same battles.
Not only do we lose resources and time, we lose relationships and the very sense of community
it takes to make sustainable decisions.

You act like once a community is set up with a certain base, that cannot change?
Why not work toward a SUSTAINABLE base so they aren't reliant on something that has problems
they have to resolve instead of creating more.

This is the approach that worked when environmentalist Judy Bari united the Logger's Unions
around sustainable jobs instead of logging their way into collapsing their company and pensions.

When the workers united with the sustainable environmentalist, they couldn't be played against each other.
The activists also aligned with corporate board members to compel changes. That's the way to go.

Because in the end we need to have cooperative working relations, not combative and political conflicts.
It's going to take 100% cooperation to clean up old messes and reorganize communities with longterm planning, instead of all this short term profit at the expense of the health of the people and environment and economy.

Might as well start working on sustainable solutions now, and invest in jobs and student internships
in the transition to better technology and community development.