Jim,
A couple of first points... a) I agree with you in principle b) we
do indeed need to conserve and all of your points are valid.
Having said that, I have a problem with "conservation" as a root
premise, not because it's not valid - it absolutely is. My problem is
that the word we gravitated to implies the wrong behavior. It gives
people the impression that if we "cut back" that everything will be Ok
- and that's just not the case. We need to not only completely stop
in some cases but we need to aggressively remove what we've already
dumped into the biosphere, because what's already there is damaging
the biosphere. There's a report out today that China is being
severely impacted by pollution. Tens of thousands of square miles of
coast line is being damaged and they are at least connecting that
damage to growth of their civilization and that at least is a start.
Cutting back is good but everyone needs to recognize that anything
above zero incrementally adds to the problem we have and it doesn't
matter if that number is better than the previous year. I'll go so
far to say that if it's not a negative number it's not a good number.
Until carbon dioxide in our biosphere is below pre-industrial
revolution numbers we're in trouble and that's only one example. A
big one, but still only one.
No one should forget that there are companies like ExxonMobil, who in
that specific case has spent over $15 million, are actively confusing
the science data on climate change for the express purpose of
preventing any kind of unified action against their position.
I have a News Flash for Entrenched Pundits. H2Orbit will identify who
you are and we will post your position and behavior for everyone to
see and judge for themselves. One thing we have in our (our
collective) tool bags that people 30 years ago did not have is the
Internet. Lots of folks reading this have websites and we obviously
have H2Orbit. I encourage folks to use google's advanced search
capability on any given topic and make sure that you hone in - in a
manner that presents everything on the internet covering your topic or
point - then past that google search link back to your web site -
instead of the specific link you were looking for. From a global
knowledge management point of view this method will allow your readers
to see "Everything on the Internet" on your topic or point. This is
what we try to do on H2Orbit. Those entrenched pundits can't run from
this. a) it's global and spans national boundaries, b) there are too
many of us that care, c) it forces them to spend much more on
advertising, PR firms, consultants (and we should scrutinize those
sections of their annual reports to see if we are having the desire
result) and lastly d) it gives us an opportunity to point out to them
that they could be using that money to preserve their future position
with green technologies in advance of the technological and economic
shift that is going to happen with or without their help. If they
start now, along with the rest of us - they (financially) will be
better off. Either way - I don't care - we must succeed - or nothing
else will matter.
Summary point: Conserving is necessary but insufficient. We must do
more and aggressively take action.
See H2Orbit for more information.
Thanks
Chuck McGowen
--- In ClimateConcern@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Gagnepain"
wrote:
>
> [Note: Like it or not, ours is a hero-worshipping society.
Therfore, the more prominant public figures of ANY kind that speak out
in favor of common-sense conservation values and practices, the more
the general populace will sit up and pay attention.]
>
> [Baseball's Phillie All-Star had this to say:
> http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_marcher.asp?668915
>
> "...It's real, it's a danger and it threatens the well-being of all of
> us. I love America but I don't love how wasteful we are. With five
> percent of the world's population, we consume twenty-five percent of
> the planet's energy. We need to address global warming in a serious and
> meaningful way. All of us, not just those of us marching, need to take
> steps NOW to conserve. We need to think outside the corporate box on
> this - to solar, wind power, hybrids. We need a major shift in our
> mindset on what makes up the American dream. It's not two SUV's in
> every garage, it's creating a good and sustainable life for all of us
> for generations to come..."
> ---
> Jim Gagnepain
> http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/
>
posted to ClimateConcrn
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.