Perhaps Al Gore, while preparing for his speech this week at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment in Oxford, England, laid down on the lawn of his multimillion dollar Nashville mansion, gazed at the cloud formations above, and thought that one of them looked remarkably like Hitler.

Because in Oxford, Gore said that, when it comes to global warming, politicians should follow the lead of Winston Churchill, ‘who aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War Two’.

This is not the first time that Gore has evoked the spirit of Churchill and the threat of Hitler to describe world leaders’ apparent apathy in the face of climate change. In his acceptance speech for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, he said: ‘[D]espite a growing number of honourable exceptions, too many of the world’s leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler’s threat: “They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”’

As for his Oxford speech, it is not surprising that Gore’s insistence that world leaders DO SOMETHING about global warming and fight CO2 emissions as if they were bombs falling out of Luftwaffe aircraft became the headline grabber. ‘We have everything we need except political will’, said Gore, ‘but’ - as he has quipped many times before - ‘political will is a renewable resource’. (Gore sure knows how to recycle jokes. Another of his favourites is to introduce himself as follows: ‘Hi, my name is Al Gore. I was the next president of the United States.’)

In his Oxford speech, Gore also talked of the importance of entrepreneurs showing leadership in the fight against global warming and the steps that can be taken to ensure global energy efficiency. He told of how some countries have started constructing zero-carbon buildings, and warned of the dangers of deforestation, industrial emissions, soil carbon and more.

Still, nothing beats a not-so-subtle hint at the N-word to ram home an alarmist message about impending global climate chaos. In fact, though some environmentalists have argued that Gore’s shrillness in Oxford might have been counterproductive, the Nazi comparison is the green movement’s trump card.

Continue reading...

Okay, First Things First: stop shooting at us.The threat of man-made climate change looms larger than any other problem facing the planet, so it's no wonder that the discussion about global warming has turned into a kind of choreographed screaming that drowns out the facts.

Science unequivocally tells us that climate change is real and caused by man, but predictions of destruction on an epic scale don’t stack up.

Consider the plight of the polar bear – a pin-up ‘victim’ of global warming. Some campaigners claim polar bears are dying because of warmer temperatures, but the facts don’t support the hysteria.

Since the 1960s, polar bear numbers have actually grown five-fold. Polar bears will eventually be affected by climate change, but many creatures and plants in the Arctic will do better as temperatures rise. That doesn’t make up for waning populations of polar bears, but we need to hear both sides of the story.

Scare stories are based on faulty assumptions about just one declining bear population. For the sake of argument, let's accept those faulty assumptions at face value. That means we are losing 15 bears a year to climate change. This means that – at most – 15 bears could be saved this year if we could stop global warming right now. Of course, we can’t. The Kyoto Protocol will cost $180 billion dollars, yet will not affect temperatures by very much: it would probably save .06 of one bear each year.

There are smarter alternatives. Hunters shoot between 300 and 500 polar bears each year. We can revoke hunting rights and clamp down on poachers. Surely it makes more sense to save 300-500 polar bears at virtually no cost than it does to spend hundreds of billions of dollars saving just one.

Of course, we don’t just care about polar bears, but also about the human toll of climate change. It seems logical to expect more heat waves and therefore more deaths. But though this fact gets much less billing, rising temperatures will also reduce the number of cold spells. And the cold is a much bigger killer than the heat. According to the first complete peer-reviewed survey of climate change's health effects, global warming will actually save lives. It's estimated that by 2050, global warming will cause almost 400,000 more heat-related deaths each year. But at the same time, 1.8 million fewer people will die from cold.

The Kyoto Protocol, at great expense, is not a sensible way to stop people from dying in future heat waves. At a much lower cost, urban designers and politicians could lower temperatures more effectively by planting trees, adding water features, and reducing the amount of asphalt in at-risk cities. Estimates show that this could reduce the peak temperatures in cities by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

Global warming will claim lives in another way: by increasing the number of people at risk of catching malaria by about 3 percent over this century. According to scientific models, implementing the Kyoto Protocol for the rest of this century would reduce the malaria risk by just 0.2 percent.

On the other hand, we could spend $3 billion annually -- 2 percent of the protocol's cost -- on mosquito nets and medication and cut malaria incidence almost in half within a decade. For every dollar we spend saving one person through policies like the Kyoto Protocol, we could save 36,000 through direct intervention.

The world shouldn’t ignore climate change. Rather than throwing trillions of dollars at a treaty that will achieve little, I advocate a dramatic increase in spending on research into low-carbon energy. If every nation took part, this would be much more efficient than Kyoto, yet cost almost ten times less.

We should remember when we respond to the threat of climate change that other huge challenges face the planet:

• 4 million people will die from malnutrition this year
• 3 million from HIV/AIDS
• 2.5 million from indoor and outdoor air pollution
• 2 million from lack of micronutrients (iron, zinc and vitamin A)
• And almost 2 million from lack of clean drinking water.

Climate change policies are not the most effective way of dealing with these issues.

My latest project, Copenhagen Consensus 2008, will look at the world’s biggest challenges and ask some of the world’s top minds to identify the best solutions to them. Four Nobel laureates and four other top economists will weigh up how much good could be achieved by different approaches to world problems, and will identify the most effective ways to make a difference.

There’s more information at Copenhagen Consensus.

Cutting carbon emissions through Kyoto has become the instantaneous answer to any problem, but we could achieve more through simpler policies.

For one thing, we should stop shooting polar bears.

Bjørn Lomborg is the organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus 2008, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, and author of Cool It and The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The right wing, imperialist-sympathizing, Texas oil-funded, British political magazine, The New Statesman, has just published a piece on global warming in which the author, David Whitehouse, states:

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a skeptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

For those who missed the sarcasm, The New Statesman is anything but right wing. Their interest in the threat of global warming could only be journalistic. Whitehouse holds a doctorate in astrophysics, and is the former on-line science editor of the BBC—which, as far as I know, gives him two more scientific credentials than Al Gore. So, when he explains:

[W]e are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data,

You’d think people would listen. Why, then, is it a certainty that they won’t?

For starters, the anti-Western trend in left wing thought is all-encompassing. The West, so the story goes, has exploited everything it could get its hands on in order to feed its rapacious capitalist machine. The victims include all non-Westerners and, now, the planet itself. This is a very attractive approach for those looking to make a quick judgment along history’s good guy-bad guy lines. Why not? After all, it’s not without some merit. It’s easy to point to the slave trade and colonial rule, and make a sound moral determination in the non-West’s favor. Deeper digging produces some compelling counter-arguments, but if you’re looking for a go-to stance then “the West is evil” is a lay-up. In regards to global warming, the logic proceeds as follows: atmospheric warming is caused by CO2 emissions; CO2 emissions are the result of industrialization; industry is synonymous with the West. Thus, global warming is caused by the West, (the U.S. in particular.)

This is tailor-made for an anti-U.S. institution like the United Nations. It’s also compelling stuff for universities, where anti-Western doctrine, and climate data, are generated. (This should get interesting, as China is about to surpass the U.S. as an emissions offender and there are virtually no checks on Chinese industrial pollution.) Out of concern for their careers, university researchers are scared to speak up against standard global warming theories.

The other engine driving the global warming scam is none-other than the evil lifeblood of industry itself: American capitalism. Al Gore and co. are fond of saying that when Americans find a model allowing them to make CO2 reduction profitable, they’ll lead the way in more considerate use of the planet. As it turns out, American marketers are far ahead of Al Gore. They’ve found that model. An article in the American Thinker has some interesting data comparing the countries that signed onto the lauded Kyoto treaty on emissions reductions to the U.S., who didn't sign:

* Emissions worldwide increased 18 percent.

* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21 percent.

* Emissions from non-signers increased 10 percent.

* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6 percent.

Clearly, something other than a commitment to international treaties has landed the U.S. in the 6.6 category. A few weeks ago, I read this off the label on my Poland Spring bottle:

The lightest 1⁄2 liter bottle ever produced*, the new, 100% recyclable Poland Spring Eco-Shape™ bottle is not only less impactful on the environment, it’s purposely designed to be easy to carry and hold. And because it’s lighter, it requires less energy to make – resulting in a reduction of CO2 emissions.

What thrilling news. I had been so guilt-wracked (not to mention physically burdened) drinking Poland Spring in the past. The company has tapped into the decision making process that most well-meaning people adopt when out shopping. If there’s a regular bottle and a “less impactful” bottle next to it, shoppers will opt for the one that eases their conscience. It’s the same process that drives the casual thinker to choose non-West over West. “Why not?” And it’s a marketing phenomenon with millions, if not billions, behind it. The earth can’t afford to stop warming. Too much money’s riding on that mercury.

A year ago, I was touring the Fox News newsroom (Fox News!) when my host told me with pride that they would soon be upgrading everything there to the most state-of-the-art environment-friendly equipment. Why not?

Here’s why not. Because, as a letter sent to the UN Secretary General, and signed by 100 prominent scientists, stated, “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems."

Problems even more real and pressing than how to satisfy our anti-Western self-righteousness. Or how to assuage our own Western guilt by choosing a different bottle of water at the supermarket.

So, the planet cools while global warming fear mongers tell the corporations they despise exactly how best to get their dollar. Meanwhile, money and research that could be put towards the relief of a thousand genuine problems goes down the drain.

There’s another casualty of the climate madness: the integrity of scientific methodology and debate. People say, “most scientists now agree . . .” having forgotten that consensus of opinion is not a valid factor in scientific determination. Or at least it wasn’t. Now, a show of hands is all it takes to determine that “the debate is over.” This, unlike climate change, is catastrophic. As Whitehouse puts it, “[T]he wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.”

Whew! At least he didn’t say “any financial cause, however profitable.” It's Christmas, after all.

This week on FaithHacker we're excited to welcome guest blogger Getzel Davis.  Getzel is, among other things, an environmental rock star, a former ADAMAH fellow, and pretty much the nicest guy I know.  To start things off I sent him some tough questions, and to no one's surprised, he totally rocked them. -TF

 

 

What kind of work are you doing now, and how does it fit into your spiritual journey?

I work for the Teva Learning Center as a Jewish environmental educator. Every week I get a new batch of 6^th grade day school students to try to inspire. We go off into the woods every day and practice feeling radical amazement in nature. After a week of group bonding and ecology lessons, I get to sit down with each child and school to help them brainstorm ways to make the world a healthier and happier place.

What's your favorite spiritual practice? Why?

My favorite spiritual practice at the moment is mikvah. It sounds a hokey, but time I get out of a mikvah, I physically feel spiritually cleansed (even if I am covered in muck from the lake). This year, to prepare for Yom Kippur, I dunked forty-nine times for the forty nine levels of spiritual impurity that people of capable of. When I got out, it felt like I was already at Neilah, the last service of Yom Kippur, when we are finally forgiven of our sins. I went through all the motions of Yom Kippur already knowing that I had been forgiven. It was incredibly powerful.

What's a Jewish ritual that really doesn't speak to you? Why?

Stoning gay people. I can’t imagine a compassionate G!d really wanted us to stone two consenting adults who love each other.

What's your favorite Jewish text to study and why?

My favorite text is the Mei Hashiloach by the Izbitzer Rebbe. Despite the fact that the Izbitzer was a leader of a chassidic ultra-orthodox Jews, half of his discourses are about the flawed nature of Jewish law. His radical theology allows for certain people at certain times to do perform acts contrary to normative Jewish law. This book is a great tool for anyone struggling personally with questions of halachic obligation.

What's a social justice issue that's really important to you and why?

I believe that the greatest issue facing humanity is global warming. Rising oceans and desertification of the land scare the shit of me. The solutions are not going to be easy things like recycling or buying hybrid cars (although both are great). The only way humanity will be able to avoid an incredibly ominous future is by radically changing how we consume things. We need to start holding producers responsible not only for the safety of a product while we own it, but also the impacts of its creation what happens to it after it has been thrown “away.”

Continue reading...

You'd think with a name like Cockburn, the hard-lefty editor of CounterPunch would be worried about ultraviolet radiation and an uptick in SPF numerals. You'd be wrong:

There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind's sinful contribution. Devoid of any sustaining scientific basis, carbon trafficking is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed, just like the old indulgences, though at least the latter produced beautiful monuments. By the sixteenth century, long after the world had sailed safely through the end of the first millennium, Pope Leo X financed the reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica by offering a "plenary" indulgence, guaranteed to release a soul from purgatory.

Also, "mainstream homosexual" Dan Savage politely asked The Nation how he should get from Point A to Point Clearance Sale without adding to the depletion of the ozone. And answer came there none.

Leaving aside the etymological hints as to what side of the political spectrum energy conservation should fall, the history of the modern environmental movement actually does begin with the right and not the left. Nature-loving gentry with expansive, lush estates were the first to worry about smokestack pollutants making a mess of the clean countryside air and otherwise lowering their property values. Marxists, on the other hand, were always gungo-ho about unfettered industrialization since more factories meant more alienated workers and more alienated workers meant world revolution.

It makes more sense to see evangelical Christians, who are now jumping on the eco-alarmist bandwagon, clamor to save the planet than it ever was to see socialists or socialist fellow travelers do so. Cockburn's plaint is not so much ironic as nostalgic. As for The Nation, well, they float wherever the fetid winds blow, so no surprises there.

The real question is: What indy pet causes is Al Gore going to turn his attention to now that his blockbuster one snagged an Oscar?  A sudden psoriasis epidemic among America's seniors?  ATM fees? Maybe he'll do a little theater in London about the victims of bad spinach.

A few scientists who cop to climate change but not to the Day After Tomorrow prognosis, are taking the ex veep to task for being a bogus Cassandra:

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

I knew there was a reason I left DC and Wonkette helped me today to see how sparse the eligible male population really is there. Read one man's blog post below, entitled "Paying The Price For All That Food Yesterday" and tell me it doesn't somehow turn you off of men, if not sex, completely:

Well, I guess the huge salad, avocado, lentil stew, and iced cream yesterday was too much for me. I was up half the night with diarrhea (TMI?), and feel like a zombie today thanks to the lack of sleep, DST change, and dehydration. J and I are meeting S after work for happy hour today, so hopefully I can hang on long enough to have a beer and some non-spicy/greasy food. Not a good start to the week!

One bit of good news today: environmentalist and awareness of global warming appears to be increasing among evangelical Christians. An article in Saturday's Washington Post described how a prominent evangelical organization has embraced environmentalism over the objections of some of the more conservative preachers in the group. What caught my eye in the article was the use of the term "creation care" as a Christian-oriented environmental catch-phrase, which I think is a stroke of pure genius by whoever came up with it. It gives them the cover, I think, to embrace environmentalism without all that messy science and evolution stuff. Obviously not the way I view things, but the more unlikely allies we can gather, the better. Next time I chat with my dad, I'll try out that line.

Only in DC does talk of politics trump bodily functions every time. Not to mention the friendly shtuck to good old dad. Still, you have to admire Mr.T In DC's uncanny ability to mirror his own internal shitdown with the global warming epidemic.

Melting Waters Run Deep: Especially when it just keeps getting warmer.Get the lifeboats ready, because if we keep polluting (or, uh, the cows keep farting), we're gonna be in for a wet time. From Scienceblogs.com:

Two studies were recently published, documenting changes in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, confirming that climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in Earth's largest storehouses of ice and snow (Greenland pictured at top and right). As if there could be any doubt regarding their conclusions, NASA recently published a satellite study of both regions and goes so far as to directly tie these changes to global warming, describing the survey as "the most comprehensive" ever for both regions.

Say goodbye to New York. ...And I never even passed "Guppy" in swimming lessons.

A Budding Chernobyl: With every Ding Dong, the crisis growsThese days few features of the American landscape are more exploited by the media than our penchant for porkiness. The so-called "obesity epidemic" serves as a terrific metaphor for lazy, bloviating French social critics, newspaper editors in need of a good headline, and now, environmentalists.

Gina Kolata covers a study today in the New York Times that links fatter Americans with extra fuel costs (fuel, farts, it's the same thing).

I personally find every American hamlet's decent into round-town a welcome development. Forced to shop throughout my adolescence in that embarrassingly isolated corner of any department store euphemistically called the "husky section," I dig that a new generation of pre-pubescent fat kids will mock their few skinny brethren for shopping in the "scrawny section."

The New Black: It's his world nowAt last, my long-held dream that "chunky Zionist chic" might become the new black is coming true. Eat, and fart, on America. Who needs glaciers anyway?