This map I did to show potential hotspots around the world.
Hi there! Well, the good thing about doing this blog is that the potential for fresh material keeps cropping up. My reservoir is always being replenished. The problem with my last blog was that I always felt like it took a lot of energy to look at the issue of each post, then put an essay out there on it. With this, I always seem to have enough energy to do this. Lots of times, I only have ideas for a few posts in the future, but ideas suddenly crop up, and the material has its way of falling into place.
Anyway, this might cause controversy, but here goes. Last night, at dinner, a discussion at the table turned heated. My grandfather, who is visiting from back east (Barre, Mass.) brought up an email he had sent to us all early yesterday morning. He is a chemist, who specializes in the study of applying biomass for uses in fuel and other utilities. He takes a very contrarian opinion on the issue of Climate Change/Global Warming. Quoting the email, he said: "I came to the conclusion in my note below that we should put more CO2in the atmosphere ASAP to prevent the next ice age, which is overdue."
He floated this at the dinner table, and my Mom was not going to have any of it. He pointed to this story on how airliners should be spouting more fuel into the atmosphere. He has floated this hypothesis that the Earth revolves around cycles of Ice Ages, and that our climate is currently overdue for such an Ice Age. He said in the email that it is "irresponsible" to only look at part of the climate data.
On the contrary, I believe, with all due respect, that it is irresponsible to use these findings to extrapolate that we should have even less regard for what our actions do to the Earth's cycles. It seems to be a way of justifying our poor environmental habits, rather than looking at the effect our processes have on the Earth's atmospheric, tidal, and climate cycles. As such, this is not solely a scientific argument, but also about our society, and our outlook.
This was what got under my skin about his train of thought. However, you have to understand that he was part of the World War II generation. To him, technological might has always been a good thing. The idea that our collective actions could harm the earth itself would severely undercut that narrative. This is why it struck me as a smug rationalizing away information that would help our worldview, literally our view of the world, evolve, mature.
His assertion was that most climate scientists only look at a limited portion of the past climate data. This is not entirely true, by the way. My brother looked up a graph, found on wikipedia that shows CO2 levels vs. atmosphere warmth for the last 800,000 years. It is very similar to this one that I found, that shows the same data taken over the last 400,000 years.
This graph is taken from data from Epica and Vostok measurements, which look at ice findings in the Poles.
Anyway, I think my brother made exactly the right move here. Not only did it shift the focus back to a discussion of science, rather than a statement made blithely, regardless of the views of others, and the explosion of resentments pent up, but it showed, in verifiable and nonconfrontational terms, that people have been researching this and pondering the data. I think this was the perfect way to defuse this situation.
Anyway, as I said, the way he presented this view just annoyed me with its blithe mockery of ocncern for our physical Earth, the climate scientists who have found this warming to be happening, and efforts to reevaluate our communities, our use of, just, anything, because it all comes from somewhere. His argument about an ice age being overdue may be the case, but it does not necessarily mean that this much CO2 is good for the climate, still less that we should continue, at more rapid rates, to put out CO2 in the ways we are now.
Furthermore, this totally ignores the undue harm that a warming climate does to the ecosystems of the world. To say nothing of the absolute havoc, chaos, and possibly violence it will elicit in societies around the world. As I mentioned, water and food will be more difficult to produce for people, and starvation can occur, and violence can follow.
Even more startling, Harry Shearer did a piece on his Sunday radio show called "News of the Warm," last November 6. He quoted a recent study from Science Daily that outlined how climate change is shifting the landscape of the Pacific Northwest and Western Canada, much more drastically, and with the potential to introduce unwelcome new species into this area.
One line in this study said "Conditions have become more favorable to outbreaks of diseases and insects." The one thing that got me was the point that large parts of Northern California, Oregon, Washington state, Idaho and British Columbia may shift from pine forests to grasslands or sagebrush desert. Imagining Oregon and Washington state covered in the kind of desert we have down here in Southern California. Just that image in my mind was startling.
The video below is presented to show the energy industry's influence on some scientists critical of the climate data. It also highlights some of the ways that "Global Warming" does not mean that it will be hotter all the time.
In all fairness to the skeptics, I do not believe that all people who don't believe in climate change are puppets of the oil industries. I am also including a story about a physicist who was skeptical, of his own volition and will, of the Climate data, and decided to double check it himself. Here's what his findings were:
My point here is not that CO2 is bad, or to just be a "doomsayer" as my Grandfather sometimes says. In fact, just this past Friday, we all went to a screening of a film called Carbon Nation, which focuses more on energy production without spewing unnecessary CO2 into the atmosphere. It has stories of self-interested business people, newly-converted environmental caretakers, people working on this issue, and, in the case of Van Jones, a heartwarming story of community growth and rejuvenation. From the tough ghetto of Richmond, California to the struggling to of Roscoe, Texas, it provides inspirational stories. These stories make you think "Gee, I didn't think that was possible." Far from being an indictment of humanity, it was full of the rich experience of people changing their lives, with the call to responsibility for our "footprint" being the rallying cry around which their lives could grow and do what human lives can do again.
think this pencil drawing above, done back in late 2007, is a good representation of my view now. It is trying to capture the quality of this landscape, up in the Central Valley, near the town of Lost Hills, and the starkness of the rusty oil derricks and pipes running over the brittle desert floor. Here, the bleak, ugly oil machinery is juxtaposed against the mellow, picturesque Central California semi-coastal sky. Even though people try to manipulate this land, and morph it into a technological landscape, they ultimately exist and live within it, and according to its laws. This leads nicely into my view, as it eveloves, on the environment itself.
My view is that we, as humans, need to be both indicted and cared for. We should both respect the dignity of the people in the business of raw material extraction, but we also must realize that these activities are often harmful to the physical world, to the animals, and to us, as well. We must respect our technological prowess, but know enough to realize that technology can harm both its creators, us, and, again, the Earth. The Earth itself operates much like a macro-organism. Indeed, no technological development or breakthrough can occur without our physical world and the materials it provides.
Anyway, the reason I sat down to write this is to talk about the family conflict. My Mom was really getting flustered. I could see her face turning red. There seems to be more drama happening between my family members now. Or maybe it just seems that way, because I am older, and I can pick up on familial conflicts now.
I had a few reactions to this. On the one hand, as I have explained, I objected to the argument, and thought I needed to say so, and why. On the other, I didn't want to get involved in all the ruckus of my four other family members talking heatedly at each other. At many points, I just stepped out, in between saying things I wanted to say, making sure that I didn't make anyone even more agitated. I don't like the confrontation. I have come to believe that people should listen in these arguments. Anyway I don't like to write others off, and tune them out, even if I am very pissed off at them, and want to get them back. Fault me for it, but that's what I have developed.
So, I didn't want to yell back at anybody. I also do not think it is right to just go along and indulge people. To agree when you do not really agree just makes you resent them even more. They will even begin to suspect, sooner or later, that you do not really mean it when you say "Yes. Okay. Nothing is wrong. I agree." Your body language and tone of voice will give you away. I didn't want to just tune out and be apathetic, either. I think it is better to talk about and mention things, rather than ignore them or wish them away. So I couldn't yell, I couldn't play along with his point, and I didn't want to just tune him out. What could I do?
I think that it is much better to say what you mean, listen earnestly, and respond in kind. Sometimes this is dangerous, but not having any other appealing options, I usually choose either tuning out, or in my better moments, saying honestly what I believe in. I have, as often as I could, given the other person or people, room to express themselves. I believe the best way to honor someone is to listen to them. After that, you do what you have to.
So my question for you, the reeder, is this. How do you deal with uncomfortable family conflicts? Do you withdraw, or fight back, or acquiesce? Is there anything you have done that you wish you hadn't? Tell me what you think you need to express here. See you soon!
See ya, and Keep wondering, folks!
No comments:
Post a Comment