“Next year, when my youngest daughter goes to college, I wouldn’t mind spending more time in Hawaii” I mused over dinner with my friends Tom and Betsy. And quickly added that I felt conflicted about the idea. Given the climate situation, I told them, it felt irresponsible to engage in such gratuitous behavior. Both of my friends looked at me as if I was some crazy woman. Why wouldn’t I want to fly to Hawaii? No way would they change their habit of flying to Europe three of four times a year. Tom started ranting about not subscribing to moralistic attitudes towards climate change. No, the solution lied in new technologies. What about all the predictions that keep getting worse and worse? I asked. Tom, an engineer with an interest in data visualization, expressed skepticism. There is a lot we don’t know. All those data are to be taken with a grain of salt. No, both he and Betsy were adamant they were not about to change their lifestyle, one bit. I was shocked. And changed subject.
This morning came this alarming news from the Associated Press:
The world pumped up its pollution of the chief man-made global warming gas last year, setting a course that could push beyond leading scientists’ projected worst-case scenario, international researchers said Thursday.
The new numbers, called “scary” by some, were a surprise because scientists thought an economic downturn would slow energy use. Instead, carbon dioxide output jumped 3 percent from 2006 to 2007.
That’s an amount that exceeds the most dire outlook for emissions from burning coal and oil and related activities as projected by a Nobel Prize-winning group of international scientists in 2007.
Meanwhile, forests and oceans, which suck up carbon dioxide, are doing so at lower rates than in the 20th century, scientists said. If those trends continue, it puts the world on track for the highest predicted rises in temperature and sea level.
The pollution leader was China, followed by the United States, which past data show is the leader in emissions per person in carbon dioxide output. And while several developed countries slightly cut their CO2 output in 2007, the United States churned out more.
Still, it was large increases in China, India and other developing countries that spurred the growth of carbon dioxide pollution to a record high of 9.34 billion tons of carbon (8.47 billion metric tons). Figures released by science agencies in the United States, Great Britain and Australia show that China’s added emissions accounted for more than half of the worldwide increase. China passed the United States as the No. 1 carbon dioxide polluter in 2006.
Emissions in the United States rose nearly 2 percent in 2007, after declining the previous year. The U.S. produced 1.75 billion tons of carbon (1.58 billion metric tons).
“Things are happening very, very fast,” said Corinne Le Quere, professor of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey. “It’s scary.”
Gregg Marland, a senior staff scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, said he was surprised at the results because he thought world emissions would drop because of the economic downturn. That didn’t happen.
“If we’re going to do something (about reducing emissions), it’s got to be different than what we’re doing,” he said.
The emissions are based on data from oil giant BP PLC, which show that China has become the major driver of world trends. China emitted 2 billion tons of carbon (1.8 billion metric tons) last year, up 7.5 percent from the previous year.
“We’re shipping jobs offshore from the U.S., but we’re also shipping carbon dioxide emissions with them,” Marland said. “China is making fertilizer and cement and steel and all of those are heavy energy-intensive industries.”
Developing countries not asked to reduce greenhouse gases by the 1997 Kyoto treaty – and China and India are among them – now account for 53 percent of carbon dioxide pollution. That group of nations surpassed industrialized ones in carbon dioxide emissions in 2005, a new analysis of older figures shows.
India is in position to beat Russia for the No. 3 carbon dioxide polluter behind the United States, Marland said. Indonesia levels are increasing rapidly.
Denmark’s emissions dropped 8 percent. The United Kingdom and Germany reduced carbon dioxide pollution by 3 percent, while France and Australia cut it by 2 percent.
Nature can’t keep up with the carbon dioxide from man, Le Quere said. She said from 1955 to 2000, the forests and oceans absorbed about 57 percent of the excess carbon dioxide, but now it’s 54 percent.
What is “kind of scary” is that the worldwide emissions growth is beyond the highest growth in fossil fuel predicted just two years ago by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
Under the panel’s scenario then, temperatures would increase by somewhere between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4 to 6.3 degrees Celsius) by the year 2100.
If this trend continues for the century, “you’d have to be luckier than hell for it just to be bad, as opposed to catastrophic,” said Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider.
I read this, and I think about my conversation with Tom and Betsy. And I wonder, what is it going to take, for the reality to sink in, with people like them. The message is not getting through.
La Marguerite 
Hi Marguerite,
I’ve had similar encounters.
It’s going to take alot of things. But, alas, and uncomfortably, I think one of the things it’s going to take is to discuss the matter right then and there. I don’t mean, of course, to discuss it for hours, or until the bitter end, or until fists start flying, but I do mean carrying the conversation into the real discussion and friendly give-and-take of points for five or ten minutes, sharing the factual light with them, showing calm confidence, asking the right thought-provoking questions, and so forth.
I know that’s uncomfortable to do with friends sometimes, but it’s a sort of “tough love” I suppose, or rather, it’s just honesty on a serious issue.
I think that by you remaining “in” the conversation, and sticking with it, until you’ve shown your factual resolve and deep concern, chances are your friends will leave (when they eventually do) knowing that you believe the matter is serious and knowing a few additional facts that they didn’t know when they arrived. If they are real friends, they’ll still be real friends, just as much.
(Put it this way: If someone is going to like you less just because you had a genuine, serious, human, fact-based conversation about climate change with them for ten minutes, then you probably don’t need them as friends.)
Too often these days, we become uncomfortable discussing matters of disagreement with people, so they don’t get discussed, so they remain disagreements, so life itself becomes a bit superficial/shallow while the political process can’t get anything done.
I think people need to talk more, even though it’s sometimes uncomfortable.
For these next two months, I’m going to see if that will work. Gotta pull out all the stops.
Cheers.
Well, think of it this way.
The man who wrote, “All men are created equal” was a slaveholder, and never freed his slaves, just thought about it and then decided it was inconvenient for him.
And it’s funny, too, because that guy was pretty non-racist, thought the enslaved people were naturally his equal, and others among his contemporaries thought they were inferior – but freed them anyway.
So this is nothing new in history, the contrast between the ideas people have and what they actually do about them.
What I do is have the courage of my convictions, I take care of what I control, and try to influence those close to me to change their behaviour, too. But I don’t preach – I save that for my blog. I just say,
“I live this way because I feel it’s the right thing to do. I don’t care if it has any effect. If I’m honest I don’t expect it to make everyone in the world never lie again. If I’m faithful to my woman it’s not because I expect the other 3 billion men in the world to keep it in their pants. It’s just the right thing to do. And for me, same thing about not taking a heap of plane flights. That’s me. It’s not you. We each do what we feel is right.”
Sometimes if they really piss me off, I’ll say, “I’m guided by these principles – A, B and C. That’s why I do what I do. What principles guide you? Obviously different ones to me, and that’s fair enough. But what are they?”
And most people don’t really have an answer. I think it’s fair enough to follow different principles – but you should have some principles. Otherwise you’re not an adult, you’re a child.
That’s why I only say that if they piss me off, because it really makes people uncomfortable when you accept their principles before they even tell you what they are, and then they can’t tell you because they never thought about it.
That’s the source of your friend’s rant and anger. He probably has some vague unformed principles, and feels bad because he’s not following them. It’s like a guy screwing around on his woman – feels really good in some ways, but also makes him feel pretty sad and sordid. And if you mentioned to him that you stayed faithful, that guy might get all angry and defensive, too. “I can’t compromise on my lifestyle!”
Yeah, whatever.
The problem with climate change I guess is its lack of concrete aspect.
It’s like Germany and its weapons’ production in the 1930s and their willingness to expand, until it blew of on September 1939, it was but some wiiiild rumors…
I just hope we will wake up before something really awful occurs.
The climate is already going off tracks : Hurricane season in America, floods in India, typhoons in China, drought in Australia… What will it take us to change in order to prevent the worse from occurring?
I saved a ton of carbon dioxide this year just by taking the train instead of a car. it’s not much, but it is already a start. I follow my principle of emitting less greenhouse gases by daily easy acts…
So yeah, I agree with both Kyle and Jeff, once again !
On your article per say Marguerite : yes, it’s scary, yes we just discuss and discuss and fail to see the real solutions and keep on perpetuating the fallacies of the past. Just like in the 1930s…
Read this article for more thoughts :
http://www.elrst.com/2008/09/26/if-you-think-that-offshore-drilling-is-a-solution/
On this, I wish you all a great weekend !
Yes, have a great weekend Edouard, Marguerite, Kyle, and other LaMargueritians.
And GO OBAMA!
I’ve had many conversations like this. The consumption patterns of the wealthy (and, by any reasonable standard many of us who consider ourselves middle class are really extremely wealthy by world standards) are part of the problem.
I can’t consider myself green because I used about the same amount of energy as the average Danish citizen and my mix isn’t as clean. I can’t talk to students without them seeing some hypocrisy. Most of my peers use much more energy than I do.
One of the things I’ve given up on in trying to convince other adults to be green. Most just don’t believe the arguments enough to take important steps. There is a lot of rationalization – “it is just me – one person” or “it isn’t bad – look, I bought offsets…” or “look how bad it is in China and India…”
I lecture on campus quite a bit for other things (physics) and listen … my focus is reaching them and the younger kids to attempt to instill qualities where they don’t have to think about green and see the moralizing. I can’t say I’m successful, but it is an interesting learning experience. I try to position change as positive and hint that you can find fulfillment and joy even if you don’t consume to the hilt. I also suggest there shouldn’t be absolutes.
There are some technological pieces to the puzzle, but I think most that can be invoked in the near term are social.
It is good that people working in the area take different targets and approaches. For me that means kids and it means looking at myself and recognizing that I am not green, but I am on a pathway. That gives me much more credibility to myself and to the kids.
We put together an informal seminar on the emerging post guilt-driven green landscape recently to focus on some of these issues. Thinking about change and motivation across generations.
Touching base on the common green.
Composting ideas and reading few select posts. Watching local reactions to the reality of ever increasing prices. The middle class seems to be more willing to change habits than the desperately poor. They watch different channels and drive bigger trucks. The children are most reluctant to give up anything.
Social responsibility dictates that we must adhere to our natural principles; stick to the solid path, no apology necessary. Share reasoning, no forcing required.
Like a good set of tires, we cling to the road under any weather condition. The proof is evident in the behavior.
The friends will soon enough follow the example, by way of fashion or shame. For all the Toms and Betsy’s in the affluent current, there is one Marguerite gently steering awareness in a productive direction.
You should listen to your engineer friend who correctly pointed out that the predictions of disaster because of CO2 emissions need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. We simply do not know enough about climate to know if CO2 is going or be serious problem or not. People who claim otherwise are only fooling themselves.
More importantly, we cannot know whether migitation would actually help or whether adaptation is really the more cost effective solution.
You also must remember that all of the IPCC recommendations when it comes to choosing mitigation instead of adaptation are based on economic analyses rather than physical science. Given what has been going on Wall Street I think people have good reason to doubt the claims of any self-styled authority on economics who is trying to tell us what is going to happen 30, 50 or 100 years from now.
I came to this post from Tom Nelson’s blog.
You asked this question there:
“I am just puzzled by such an attitude and would love to hear how you got to such a place.”
I can’t speak for Tom Nelson, but my blog lays out the reasons why I think that what’s commonly known as “global warming” is a hoax.
brazil84.wordpress.com
I invite you to read and explain to me why you think I am wrong.
Thought you would like this, Marguerite
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/09/28/coin-lamp/
If only there was some such mechanism to remind people about the cost of their actions about EVERY decision they took, no?
We look into this issue continually and is a very difficult process to put into words. Humankind is like free-moving water – it will take the shortest and easiest route. If you notice the current (1950’s on) social trends in making things easier, faster, bigger – you will notice that it relaxed our ability to see things in larger perspectives. Similar to what TV does to kids – foster ADD as it does the thinking for them at amazing speeds, our society has become ecologically distracted by “all this cool stuff!” It truly takes great effort and a strong moral obligation to swim against this socially-accepted (if not morally obligated at this point) “cheap wealth.” It’s easy to be “green” (personal), it’s difficult to live “green” (social).
We cannot place blame on them for following social-doctrines since childhood – but we can point out to them that being human – we are allowed to make mistakes and shows great personal growth to admit them to oneself. At this point they may become quite defensive but you can continue… We can point out that there IS a vested interest in making sure global warming is a hoax while none in making personal decisions that reduces waste. So could it be that their drive towards conformity is based on comfort and commercialization of excess? If you get them to this possibility, that we human beings are quite malleable (and gullable) creatures, then perhaps your point of “change is a good thing” won’t sound so self-righteous (a trap many environmentalists find themselves in).
Until sustainability stops being political, socially-outcast, and a perceived detriment to the economy – it remains a sort of religion that is based on morals and phylosophy – that’s a tough sell to left-brain people…
Great blog by the way! Merci beaucoup!
Love the diversity of opinions and solutions discussed here!
I think it is important to differentiate between attitudes and behaviors.
I can understand why it is hard for people to change their behaviors. I only need look inside to know how hard it is to make changes, even small ones. But as longs as there is a will, there is a way. And I am convinced, if we put all our collective resources together, we can figure it out.
What I find most troublesome are comments from people such as Raven, or Brazil, or my friends Tom and Betsy. Such refutal of scientific evidence is beyond comprehension. It also flies in the face of our self-interest.
From a purely practical standpoint, it is probably best to focus on the willing, and ignore the skeptics. But again, it is not so simple. For, even the openly willing, also harbor some dose of skepticism, that needs to be dealt with. Let’s face it, if we were 100% convinced, the freeways would cease to be seas of cars, the malls would be empty, we would stop eating red meat, we would use clotheslines, and our land would be covered with solar and wind installations.
We can only do what we believe is right and hope others will follow. Preaching just turns people away although Kiashu’s thoughts on this are spot on.
Also, sometimes we find ourselves in positions of respect and leadership, and then we have to make examples even sacrifices of ourselves, because if we don’t it makes everything we’ve said and done previously a sham. This is why I hope Marguerite never goes to Hawaii again.
“Such refutal of scientific evidence is beyond comprehension.”
Then show me how my reasoning is incorrect. I laid out my case on my blog – brazil84.wordpress.com -. I promise to consider your evidence/arguments in good faith.
Brazil84 : All right, now let me assume one pico second that climate change has no anthropogenic cause or that global warming is the biggest hoax of all time.
There is still the need for us to combat energy scarcity. This means we got to get read of oil and coal as soon as possible.
Indeed, these energy sources will be depleted one day (sooner we expect).
Additionally, they literally pollute and destroy our environment and the health of many fine citizens around the world…
This still makes that we have to work a lot on energy conservation ASAP, and on alternatives energy sources like nuclear and renewables.
And if CAWG never happens as you believe, doing the above would be a fantastic thing to do in the first half of the 21st century, for us, for our Planet and for the future inhabitants.
read > rid… sorry for the mistake.
“Indeed, these energy sources will be depleted one day (sooner we expect).”
The fact is that my country (the USA) has lots and lots of coal. I have no problem with the concept of putting resources into proven winners like nuclear, or even more speculative things. But we need to critically and honestly look at the costs and benefits.
“Additionally, they literally pollute and destroy our environment and the health of many fine citizens around the world”
I’m not sure what this means. Putting aside the issue of CO2, excactly how are peoples’ health damaged by the use of, say, oil for transportation and heating? And how many people are we talking about here?
OK, fine by me… so, even if there were no global warming because of huge GHG emissions, coal burning would still cause :
– acid rains,
– destruction of land during mining,
– lot of dust,
…
Air pollution – partly attributed to coal and oil burning – kills hundred of thousands of people every year. In China, it’s a little 700,000 people :
http://www.elrst.com/2007/07/02/air-pollution-kills-thousands-every-year-in-china/
No idea of cancers and of respiratory illnesses it may cause in the country… or around the world. It must be some tiny little number that those pesky environmentalists are glad to show up for no reason.
So, yeah, coal, that’s really a damn fine energy source. I can’t help but pray for my home country to get back massively to this energy source…
Ok, so you basically have no idea of the scope and nature of the health consequences of oil (or coal) burning.
Without that knowledge, it’s impossible to rationally assess the costs and benefits. And impossible to rationally conclude that we need to get rid of coal and oil as soon as possible.
My guess is that if you looked at the problem rationally, you would conclude that the Chinese need to impose emissions controls like we have in the United States.
All Right Brazil84, if you think coal is the 8th marvel of the world – Sarah Palin being 9th – it’s Kool and the Gang. But basically I, we, disagree on you opinion.
This discussion is going nowhere. It’s similar as if I entered a church in a middle of a prayer saying : ” I don’t believe in God, show him to me so I can tell I am wrong”
You have your opinions, we have ours. So, let us all stop wasting our time as we won’t convince you and you won’t convince us.
Bye now.
I just had this discussion with my partner this weekend. Each of us has flown once since 2001, when we (independently) started worrying about climate change – me, to visit him when he was out of the country for six months. Him, for work.
So I know he takes this seriously. He worries about the future, blah blah blah.
But he also thinks, of course someday when the kid is older we’ll fly to Colombia to see my brother, and probably go to Europe and do the tourist thing. And of course we’ll fly, because taking a ship is too slow.
Why? Well, because if we want to take a long trip, the only way to get there is to either take a few months off work (unthinkable!) or to fly.
So then we had to have a talk about which is more important, our wanting to give the kid cultural experiences or wanting to give the kid a future in a relatively stable climate. And I still think he secretly thinks I’m just crazy.
The worst thing is, that’s not my hardest flying dilemma right now anyway. My parents have offered me a choice: they can both fly to see us this winter, or me & the kid can fly to see them and they’ll pay for the ticket. But I am desperately looking for alternatives. Last year we drove to see them but it burned so much of my vacation time I didn’t have any to do things like take a day when I get sick. But at base, the question is the same as my partner’s wanting to go to Europe: which is more important, seeing the grandparents or not drowning people who live on islands?
“This discussion is going nowhere. ”
I slightly disagree. I suspect you won’t again try to argue that we must limit our use of coal because it’s quickly running out.
“So, let us all stop wasting our time as we won’t convince you ”
You’ll convince me if you advance an argument with merit. This is not religion to me and I am willing to change my opinion to follow the evidence.
Something along the lines of “We should stop using oil because it causes pollution that damages peoples’ health, but I have no idea how or how many people are harmed” is not an argument with any merit.
“and you won’t convince us.”
You should think about the implications of that statement. If there is nothing that could convince you to change your mind, then what does it say about you?
Marguerite,
Excellent post! Obvious from all the comments, the issue of ‘being polite with friends and not pushing too hard’ is pretty common.
I know it’s tough for me too. I guess that’s why I draw and write to express my ideas about climate change. Funny thing is that my friends and family REALLY know what my opinion is now… It can get quite comical as they try to apologize for their anti-environmental views/behaviors in front of me. (Not that I’m a perfect greenie by a long shot… lots of room for improvement as my ‘green conscience’ so often reminds me.)
I am getting braver though about questioning the ‘skeptics’ on their views, and challenging them (politely) on the science behind climate change. And telling them why I’m concerned.
But at the end of the day, I can’t worry too much about convincing guests over dinner. I just have to take the green path because it’s the right thing to do, for myself and for my children. And of course by documenting that green journey I may help others to see what I see.
And you’re clearly doing the same thing through your writing. Keep up the great work!
Best,
Franke
Brazil84, not to get into a heated discussion, but we’ve compiled some facts about coal and its implications here. There are benefits to it but primarily because it’s a fuel source that is accepted, understood, and is readily available. Does that make it the right fuel source?
On another topic but somewhat related, a co-worker was telling me about his 3yr old son who is deathly allergic to essentially everything (from Peanuts to Soy to Milk to Eggs to Peas – everything). They discovered it the hard way at 6 months old when he almost died from Soy formula. There is no family history and no explanation of why all this – just that the family and child are forever in a state of fear because of the unknown in every food item placed in front of him. According to his research and doctors, these allergies are strangely on the rise and they don’t know why. In another medical mystery, autism is also reaching epidemic levels, why?
Perhaps (no numbers to quantify to appease an analytical mind, sorry) it could be the biproducts and pesticides from the food the FDA allows through (this actually has been proven to alter DNA in frogs), perhaps it’s our society’s need to drive and fly everywhere and the benzine does a number to our nervous system (incrimentally but perminantly), or perhaps it’s the electromagnetic radiation from the poles outside. I don’t know – I wish I did
The point is (already too verbose, sorry), you buy your car and home insurance for the “just in case” so many of the people here decide to make choices for a similar “just in case.” We eat organic just in case, we bike in lieu of drive just in case, and we try and make sound choices… just in case. Why, because we can – as able human beings. May be slightly more difficult or expensive, but look at your insurance bill – that’s not cheap either…
the hyperlink “here” did not work so here it is…
http://www.greenofakind.com/LIVE/Awareness-Central/coal-power.html
” Does that make it the right fuel source?”
Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn’t. Personally, I think that my country (the US) should start building more nuclear plants. I was responding to the arguments that (1) we should stop using coal because it’s quickly running out; and (2) we should stop using coal because it’s damaging the health of many people. So far, neither of these arguments has been substantiated.
“but look at your insurance bill – that’s not cheap ”
Of course not. And in many cases I skip insurance because it’s too expensive. Would you pay a $100,000 insurance premium to insure a $20,000 car against theft? Probably not.
The point is that without studying the numbers carefully and critically, it’s difficult to be confident that one is advocating good policy. I have no problem with a family who wants to eat organic food “just in case.” I do have a problem with someone who wants the world to stop using oil and coal “just in case.”
“According to his research and doctors, these allergies are strangely on the rise and they don’t know why. In another medical mystery, autism is also reaching epidemic levels, why?”
That’s a different question. One that’s probably worth studying. My guess is that (1) health professionals are more vigilant now about spotting and diagnosing these problems; (2) people are waiting longer to have children; and (3) as medicine advances, more people who have minor medical problems are surviving past infancy.
Just a guess though.
I thought about something regarding your problem with going to Hawaii Marguerite.
If I was in your situation I would maximize my stays there. Instead of going several times for a week or two, why wouldn’t you go once or twice for several months. Would that be possible ?
That would drastically cut your needs to take a plane to see Prad.
Hope this helps 🙂
oh, before I forgot : Franke, I really like your drawings ! 🙂
Leviathan-like, ever-expanding economy crashes into the biophysical limitations imposed by a finite planet with the size and make-up of Earth?
It appears the predominant culture in the world today and its unbridled global economy are precipitating pernicious impacts on biodiversity, the environment and Earth’s body. If the leaders of this culture choose to keep relentlessly growing the gigantic world economy as they are doing now, and the family of humanity keeps getting what it is getting now, then life as we know it and the integrity of Earth could eventually become jeopardized.
The current organization of the predominant culture and its worldwide big-business expansion, one that results from the rampant economic globalization we see today, also appears to give rise to something else that is potentially ruinous.
If you will, please consider how conspicuous consumption of resources and hoarding of wealth by millions of people leave billions of people in the family of humanity hungry and in extreme poverty.
For a tiny minority of people with a lion’s share of the world’s riches to ravenously consume limited resources while millions of less fortunate people go without adequate food to eat, is an economic system in need of modification with all deliberate speed. Perhaps a time will come when such grotesque inequity will not be tolerated.
If the predominant culture modifies the soon to become unsustainable way the global economy grows as well as the careless way that economy distributes resources, then perhaps we will choose more reasonable and sensible ways to distribute wealth and super-abundant food harvests.
I am assuming that we can agree that the endlessly expanding scale of the world’s manmade economy in a finite planetary home with the make-up and size of Earth will eventually reach a point in space-time when this artificially designed, colossal economic leviathan becomes patently unsustainable.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001