“It is an uncomfortable inconvenient scientific truth:
By on Feb 12th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
“It is an uncomfortable inconvenient scientific truth:
we cannot pour into the atmosphere all of the fossil fuels that were buried in the ground over millions of years without creating a different planet, without destroying creation, without being miserable failures in our stewardship of the planet we were blessed with.” — NASA Institute for Space Studies chief James Hansen, in his latest “must read.“
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Gee that takes a rocket scientist to figure out ?
February 12th, 2007 at 9:56 pmOf course, although I am a government employee, these are just my opinions as a private citizen. They do not represent government policy. Thank you.
Too bad we live in a country where this paragraph was necessary.
Well done, James Hanson!
February 12th, 2007 at 9:57 pmAnd it’s time to put the heat on those who think global warming is a hoax. Demand change. Demand advancement in alternative energy and do all you can to reduce your fossil fuel consumption. Hell, I dry all my clothes on the line outside (OK, the undies go in the dryer). So, it take two days for the jeans, sweaters, and t-shirts to freeze and then dry. At least it’s my little something (and my gas bill is near nil).
Theresa
February 12th, 2007 at 10:00 pmIt seems to me that the people that don’t think Global Warming is happening are Christian, right wing sort of people (not there is anything wrong with that). Didn’t God give us a duty as the most intelligent beings on Earth to preseve his creation? Stewardship is key, in my opion. It is our responsiblity.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:07 pmZooey, I keyed in on the same phrase. I hope he is allowed to continue his employment at NASA.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:10 pmMarcella,
Even the Evagelicals are starting to worry about global warming, so no it is mostly the big business types who deny.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:14 pmI hope he is allowed to continue his employment at NASA.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
More likely he’ll be spending more time with his family soon.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:15 pmKrazny, Yes Sir, you are right. I have read this, regarding the Evangelicals. I hope they perservere.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:21 pmTheresa: One of the changes we need is to stop spreading pro-industry propaganda to children and start educating them about global warming. That’s how we could have a long-lasting impact.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:23 pmOnce again, NASA personel are meddling in areas outside of their area of expertise, and trying to use their credentials as NASA scientists to lend weight to global warming theories.
At the University of Detroit, Father Staudimeier, who has written many books and taught a class on science and engineering ethics, was very adament about the tendencies of those who, upon receiving one degree, feel they are expert in everything. In so doing, these individuals muddle not only unfamiliar topics, but tarnish their credibility in their own field.
Such a ridiculously generic statement – “by burning fossil fuels … we are destroying creation” – cannot be taken at all seriously. The only scientific statement that can be made is that we are achieving an overall lower entropic state – that’s all. Mass / energy cannot be destroyed, just converted back and forth with a loss of entropy.
A true scientist should be embarassed by such comments.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:24 pmZooey and BnF
February 12th, 2007 at 10:24 pmI, too, found that last sentence quuite the disclaimer. Something like “responsible for my debts only” that used to be all over the newspaper ad pages. The guy must believe that if he doesn’t equivocate his essay, he is in danger of being unemployed.
#10: A true scientist should be embarassed by such comments.
I agree, to a certain degree. While I don’t disagree with Hanson’s basic conclusions, I think his rhetoric is a bit off-putting, offering easy fodder for naysayers such as yourself.
A responsible person should review the peer-reviewed scientific literature before forming a judgment about anthropogenic global climate change. The evidence–the mountains upon mountains of evidence–available there should be enough to convince any reasonable person that the problem is serious and that it demands our immediate attention.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:33 pmMarie,
You’re probably right, and it’s disgusting. We are in the midst of a “dumbing down” of America, and we will pay for it sooner than we realize.
One of the first things out of my Geology, Sociology and Anthropology professors mouths was:
So apparently it’s been quite the problem at the University, and I can’t imagine we’re the only one.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:41 pmSuch a ridiculously generic statement – “by burning fossil fuels … we are destroying creation†– cannot be taken at all seriously. The only scientific statement that can be made is that we are achieving an overall lower entropic state – that’s all. Mass / energy cannot be destroyed, just converted back and forth with a loss of entropy.
A true scientist should be embarassed by such comments.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 12, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
February 12th, 2007 at 10:41 pmSo Jason-If you are cremated you would only be changed into a lower entropic state-but, not destroyed-Right? I am with you on the Mass/Energy issue thingy-Mass “frozen energy” right ? I think I will file a patent on that.
#12, Luke,
Is the author complaining about chemical pollution, heat pollution, species eradication – what?
One only has to visit Los Angeles to understand air pollution is caused, in part, by fossil fuel burning automobiles and power plants, yet local, state and federal standards allow this condition to exist, so someone must have deemed it as “not destroying”.
Heat pollution does contribute to localized weather changes – elevated temps, different rain patterns, but local, state and federal agencies still deem this as “not destroying”.
Heat pollution also causes the displacement (attraction / repulsion) of some species, but again, local, state and federal standards also regulate that to a level deemed as “not destroying”.
This so called scientist just seems to be saying bad, bad, bad, yet doesn’t explain how burning ethanol would be better than burning decaying / decayed bio-mass in the form of oil, coal and natural gas.
NONE of this is science.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:43 pmNONE of this is science.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Define the word “science.”
February 12th, 2007 at 10:45 pm#14, Joefriday,
You would have a point, if we were discussing the burning of living human beings, but we are not. We are discussing the burning of fossil fuels – decayed biomass fermented and ready for energy consumption.
So again, I ask, what is being destroyed?
February 12th, 2007 at 10:47 pmThis so called scientist just seems to be saying bad, bad, bad, yet doesn’t explain how burning ethanol would be better than burning decaying / decayed bio-mass in the form of oil, coal and natural gas.
NONE of this is science.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 12, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
It just that dang “heat island” affect.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:48 pm#17, Spudge_Boy,
“NASA scientists … are the cream of the crop.”
… which is why one of their most recent NASA Space Shuttle crew members wore a diaper and a wig wielding a buck knife and a bee-bee gun to harass a rival suitor to her man?
February 12th, 2007 at 10:50 pmJason,
Congrats on being way off the mark.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:53 pmThis so called scientist just seems to be saying bad, bad, bad, yet doesn’t explain how burning ethanol would be better than burning decaying / decayed bio-mass in the form of oil, coal and natural gas.
Guess you need to send that Ivy League diploma back – the carbon in the biomass in oil, coal and gas is sequestered from when it was laid down, releasing it adds to the CO2 count. The carbon in ethanol is part of a cycle – growing the crop, traps the carbon form the air, and then burning the ethanol releases it again Not quite carbon neutral I’ll bet, but probably close. I could look at it more, but it’s only you, Jason, so I can’t bothered.
The again, ethanol made by gas reformation is part of the net adders to CO2 in the atmosphere…
February 12th, 2007 at 10:54 pm#18: So again, I ask, what is being destroyed?
Jason, I actually agree with your basic point, that there isn’t anything particularly scientific about Hanson’s speech. From what I can gather, it was a speech for a lay audience, rather than an audience of scientists.
I take his comment about “destroying creation” to mean that the effects of global warming are, and will continue to be, destructive (which is, of course, consistent with what the IPCC and other scientific bodies have said). If I had my choice, I’d want him to be less poetic and more precise about what he meant, but hey, it’s his speech.
What’s troubling, of course, is that you (and others) will attempt to use Hanson’s speech as Exhibit A in arguing that global warming is a hoax. There’s nothing I can do to stop you, of course, but I’ll offer rebuttals if you say anything ridiculous.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:56 pm#22, TerrytheTurtle,
Don’t forget to mention all the land that needs to be converted from wilderness to farmland to cultivate all that ethanol, as well as the increased fuel costs to the poor, who now have to pay for more expensive fuel.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:57 pm… which is why one of their most recent NASA Space Shuttle crew members wore a diaper and a wig wielding a buck knife and a bee-bee gun to harass a rival suitor to her man?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 12, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
I think green house gases could be the cause of this problem. You know, coupled with the heat island affect-then again that “depends”.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:58 pmwhich is why one of their most recent NASA Space Shuttle crew members wore a diaper and a wig wielding a buck knife and a bee-bee gun to harass a rival suitor to her man?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Projection, bad, bad projection.
The logic does not fly Jason
James Hansen is no way involved in that case and your comments sound very much like liable to me.
Care to try to back that up with fact, that Hansen was involved as you are insinuating?
Far reaching smears to try to discredit someone don’t fly here.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:59 pmProve it.
And Jason if Hanson was not involved, what relevence does your statem,ent have other than nonsense?
February 12th, 2007 at 11:01 pmDon’t forget to mention all the land that needs to be converted from wilderness to farmland to cultivate all that ethanol, as well as the increased fuel costs to the poor, who now have to pay for more expensive fuel.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 12, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
I think you’ll find my opinions of ethanol as the panacea that the big two grain companies would like it to be quite close to yours, in fact. My position: different drug, different pushers, same result.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:02 pmWayne,
You try to throw around the NASA brand like it is infallible, and I merely submit the most recent example of their frailties. More over, don’t bradish around “liable” / slander threats at me you dickless piece of shit, I am happy to show my whole name, where is yours?
February 12th, 2007 at 11:05 pm#24: Don’t forget to mention all the land that needs to be converted from wilderness to farmland to cultivate all that ethanol, as well as the increased fuel costs to the poor, who now have to pay for more expensive fuel.
Jason, you’re on a roll! (Either that, or I forgot to take my meds.) I agree that ethanol is not going to be the long-term solution to the fossil fuel crisis. It does burn cleaner than petroleum-based products, and there’s the chance it could eventually become a cheaper option than petroleum. But you’re right about the land issue, and it does still release enough carbon dioxide to continue being a threat to the climate system.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:05 pmA true scientist should be embarassed by such comments.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 12, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
A true human being should be embarrassed to be saying that!
#18: So again, I ask, what is being destroyed? (also from Jason)
Uh… the breathable air?
February 12th, 2007 at 11:07 pmHave you ever tried to live without air, Jason? Or is that what happened to your brain?
#28, Terry,
Correct about substituting big agriculture for big oil. Only thing it will alleviate is dependence on foreign oil, which is the only thing Dems really want, so they aren’t forced to fight in foreign wars and get a hangnail or something devasting like that ….
February 12th, 2007 at 11:08 pm#13 zooey
February 12th, 2007 at 11:08 pmObviously highjacking a class on anthropology by fundamentalists has become a problem in class.
The religious wackos and conservatives sneer at academia for their liberal views — kind of reaffirms to me that if academia tends to be liberal it is because they THINK, they require honest STUDY, and they rely on PROOF.
dependence on foreign oil – all oil is ‘foreign’ that’s what global fungibility of oil means.
so they aren’t forced to fight in foreign wars Seems to work for Japan, they’ve guessed correctly that a global market for oil means you can buy the stuff off anyone providing they want to sell it. And the Japanese know an awful lot about using their military to secure natural resources….
February 12th, 2007 at 11:11 pm#32: Only thing it will alleviate is dependence on foreign oil, which is the only thing Dems really want, so they aren’t forced to fight in foreign wars and get a hangnail or something devas[ta]ting like that.
Oh, Jason. You were doing so well. But you had to start dragging your knuckles on the ground again.
The last time I checked, soldiers in Iraq were getting more than “hangnails.” Indeed, it seems that soldiers there are getting their arms and legs blown off. Why don’t you head into your local USO chapter, make your “hangnail” comment, and see how that goes over?
February 12th, 2007 at 11:14 pm#35, Terry,
Right, so Dems have been hard at work trying to grow corn and have Jimmy Carter lead the anti-semitic fervor, so that Dems have no obligations to the middle east.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:17 pmOnce again, NASA personel are meddling in areas outside of their area of expertise, and trying to use their credentials as NASA scientists to lend weight to global warming theories. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 12, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Once again, Jason is meddling in areas outside his area of expertise. He wonders why he’s seen as a pedantic hypocrite. Hah!
At the University of Detroit, Father Staudimeier, who has written many books and taught a class on science and engineering ethics, was very adament about the tendencies of those who, upon receiving one degree, feel they are expert in everything. In so doing, these individuals muddle not only unfamiliar topics, but tarnish their credibility in their own field.
Did you ever consider that maybe he was lecturing to you?
Such a ridiculously generic statement – “by burning fossil fuels … we are destroying creation†– cannot be taken at all seriously. The only scientific statement that can be made is that we are achieving an overall lower entropic state – that’s all. Mass / energy cannot be destroyed, just converted back and forth with a loss of entropy. Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 12, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
What a stupid comment. I could explain how the earth is an open, not a closed system (solar energy, nuclear, etc.) in terms of the heat available in the atmosphere. A better thing to say, is that your analysis is stupid.
A true scientist should be embarassed by such comments.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 12, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
You’re right a true statement should be embarrassed by your comments – and your spelling. For someone that claims an ivy league education, your spelling, grammar, reason, logic and articulation are that of a child.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:18 pmGood news. Some countries ARE fighting global warming.
On nuclear power plants, the real choice in alternative clean and safe energy to fight global climate change, China is on track to build two new nuclear reactors every year for the next 14 years. Japan, which is only the size of California, is building 11 new nuke plants … India wants to build up to 20 new plants … and Russia is shooting for at least 42. Even in Australia, which currently has no nuclear power, the Prime Minister is pushing a plan to build 25 nuclear power plants. By the way, don’t count on other alternative energy sources. None of them are quite ready yet. Everyone wants to know about the US: About 30 new nuclear plants have been proposed in the U.S. Well, if we can get ‘em by our enviro-crowd.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:18 pm#35: [Importing foreign oil s]eems to work for Japan, they’ve guessed correctly that a global market for oil means you can buy the stuff off anyone providing they want to sell it.
It’s “worked” in that their economy has benefited. So far. The thing is, we’re all going to have to move away from a fossil fuel-based economy for two main reasons: (1) “peak oil” has already happened, or will happen soon; and (2) the damage from global climate change is going to be much more expensive than the cost of transitioning away from fossil fuels. And the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:18 pm#35, Terry,
Right, so Dems have been hard at work trying to grow corn and have Jimmy Carter lead the anti-semitic fervor, so that Dems have no obligations to the middle east.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 12, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
Well Jason, you are outstanding in your field….. of straw men. If Carter is anti-semitic for daring to question Israeli policy, then that would make anyone who questioned whether Africa could possibly be fit to govern itself…. a racist bastard, wouldn’t you agree?
February 12th, 2007 at 11:20 pm#36: Right, so Dems have been hard at work trying to grow corn and have Jimmy Carter lead the anti-semitic fervor, so that Dems have no obligations to the middle east.
This makes no sense. I’m guessing you think there’s some sort of vast liberal conspiracy–and the fallback strategy, when you have no idea what you’re talking about, is to accuse some prominent progressive of anti-Semitism, but beyond that, I can’t make any sense of what you’re saying.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:22 pmThe only scientific statement that can be made is that we are achieving an overall lower entropic state – that’s all. Mass / energy cannot be destroyed, just converted back and forth with a loss of entropy.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
I dont know if this have been said but:
February 12th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Why don’t you head into your local USO chapter, make your “hangnail†comment, and see how that goes over?
Comment by Luke
Oh, yeah Jason, why don’t you, please.
Jimmy Carter lead the anti-semitic fervor — Jason Moron Hendler
Prove it. show me something from a reputable source, Jason.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:30 pmDems only obligation in the middle east is to get the hell out of there, and to force Bush out of the presidency as he attempts to peddle his half-baked intel on Iran.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:31 pmthe Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Comment by Juan C
Yep, Jason didn’t do well in Physics class, now did he? =D
February 12th, 2007 at 11:33 pmWe’re having trouble working out just what Jason is good at – he hides it really well.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:38 pmJason, why don’t you meet me on the veteran cuts thread and try to defend Bush, like to see you try.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:38 pm#43: Dems only obligation in the middle east is to get the hell out of there, and to force Bush out of the presidency as he attempts to peddle his half-baked intel on Iran.
I sort of agree with your point, although I’d argue that it’s in the U.S.’s interest to try to help the peace process along in the Middle East, as best we can. I do agree, though, that our first responsibility to Iraq is to get the hell out of there. Iraq will never have peace as long as it’s occupied by U.S. troops.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:38 pmJason didn’t do well in Physics class, now did he? =D
Comment by Wayne
He says he is a telcom engineer. I think it is a requisite to learn physics.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:46 pm#45: We’re having trouble working out just what Jason is good at – he hides it really well.
It’s kind of funny–both you and I extended olive branches to Jason, pointing out where we agreed with what he was saying. This seemed to drive him into a rage, spewing all sorts of crap about anti-Semitism and people getting “hangnails” from fighting in Iraq. The cognitive dissonance of having anyone agree with him seemed to make his brain explode.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:50 pmThe cognitive dissonance of having anyone agree with him seemed to make his brain explode.
Comment by Luke
That’s how we know his name has not been hijacked.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:53 pmIntroduction
Most people in the Third World lack the basic amenities of modern life that we in the West take for granted: clean drinking water and a reliable supply of electricity. And Third World governments are eager to industrialise in order to catch up with the West. But environmentalists say that if they do this, the future of the planet will be imperilled.
“If everybody in the world consumed like the British, the Europeans or the Americans,” says Tony Juniper, Campaigns Manager for Friends of the Earth, “then we’d need about eight planets to meet people’s needs. And it would still be unsustainable.”
In the name of preserving nature, environmentalists have challenged the old ideas of progress and economic development. But in doing so, they have been accused of needlessly consigning millions of people in the Third World to poverty and early death.
The Shadow Of The Enlightenment
The attempt by man to understand and to conquer nature was at the heart of Enlightenment thinking. A scientific, rational understanding of the physical world was a means of changing nature to serve our needs and desires better. But these Enlightenment ideas of rationalism and progress have been called into question by environmentalists. They have led, they say, to the monstrous creation of modern industrial life, with its factories and cars, chemicals and fumes.
“People seem to have accepted the view that they should feel guilty about man’s impositions on nature, about progress and technological improvement,” says Steve Hayward of the Pacific Research Centre. “Even science today is somewhat suspect in the public mind. I think this is a result of the pervasive environmental philosophy that there’s a distinction between man and nature, and that what man does is bad and what nature does is good.”
Gregg Easterbrook, author of A Moment on the Earth, a critique of environmental thinking, agrees. He argues that the idealisation of nature common in the environmental movement is a modern luxury that has, paradoxically, been made possible by development. “Most of our ancestors spent their lives struggling to grow food, to protect themselves against disease and the elements,” he says. “They found nature did not know best. Nature was a hostile force for them.”
The Power Of The Greens
Environmentalists often depict themselves as folk heroes and rebels, fighting a mighty anti-Green establishment. But the Green movement itself has become a powerful political force, which dominates much of Western thinking. “It’s said they control the Clinton administration,” says Senator Larry Craig.
Green Popularity
The environmentalist movement today is rich and powerful: the top 12 Green organisations in the US alone have an annual turnover of just under a billion dollars. In the UK, four million people are members of Green organisations — that’s more than are members of all the other political organisations put together.
Suspending Disaster: The Myth Of Global Warming
Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: “I think we’re going to drown in our own muck.”
Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: “Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories.”
According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What’s more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of ‘greenhouse’ gases became significant.
According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. “As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age,” remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.
Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, “When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years.”
But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.
“Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation,” says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, “with extremes of cold and heat when you don’t expect it. You can’t predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it’s never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it’s going to be extremely unpredictable.”
Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.
What’s more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn’t even affect climate.
Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth. ( Further Reading )
Clearing The Air: Growth, Technology And Pollution
The industrial First World represents the Greens’ worst nightmare. More economic growth, they say, can only mean more pollution and environmental degradation. But others argue that, on the contrary, over the past half century the environment in the advanced industrial world has actually improved.
“Air pollution has been falling in modern industrialised countries for the last 40 years,” says Steve Hayward. “And it’s been falling precisely because of economic growth and improvements in technology. Even in Los Angeles, which has the worst smog in the United States, air pollution levels have fallen by about half in the last 25 years — and that’s at a time when the area’s population has doubled and its economy has tripled.”
In the United States as a whole, over the past quarter of a century, the population has increased by 30 per cent, while the number of cars and the size of the economy has nearly doubled. And yet, during the same period, emissions of the six main air pollutants have decreased by 30 per cent. In addition, says Gregg Easterbrook, Americans have stopped pumping waste water from cities into lakes and streams, stopped dumping untreated sewage in the sea and toxic wastes on land, and eliminated the use of CFCs.
“Lake Erie 30 years ago was virtually dead,” adds Steve Hayward. “Today you can fish in it, you can swim in it. The statistics on the amount of pollution in the food chain have shown dramatic improvement in the last 30 years.”
Western cities such as London are cleaner today than they have been for centuries. In the mid 1900s, before cars were even invented, air and water quality was so poor that many thousands of people died each year from typhus and Tuberculosis.
Supporters of economic development don’t just argue that the industrial world is getting cleaner, they also say that industrial progress has transformed our lives for the better. “We live longer, we are healthier, we are better educated, we know ourselves better and we are much more able to take control over our destiny than any other time in the past,” says Dr Frank Furedi, author of the book Population and Development. “Yes, industrialisation is often exploitative, often leads to the uprooting of people. But at the same time it adds to human civilisation and means progress for all.” TOP
The pre-industrial fantasy
But the Greens insist we must turn our backs on these ‘outdated’ ideas of economic and industrial progress. If we are to avoid an environmental catastrophe, they say, we must go back to living in harmony with nature. And to do this we must learn from pre-industrial tribal societies in the Third World.
40 per cent of the world’s population still uses either wood or dung for fuel instead of electricity. But the indoor pollution from this is deadly, especially for women and children who spend most time in the home. According to the World Health Organisation, 5 million infants die every year in the Third World from respiratory diseases caused by breathing indoor smoke and rural smog.
Basic pollution of this kind kills far more people than all First World environmental problems combined. One and a half billion people in the Third World suffer air quality that is recognised by the World Health Organisation as ‘dangerously unsafe’, a level of pollution almost unknown in the Western world.
Dr Anil Patel is responsible for the health care of more than 200 villages in Gujarat, in north-west India. The vast majority of medical problems he encounters have been brought on by environmental causes. But the environmental problems he is concerned with come not from modern industry but rather from the lack of modern luxuries such as electricity and clean water.
“Clean water is completely out of question,” says Dr Patel. “The water they get is untreated. Most of the time it is contaminated with human faeces and cattle faeces, and the ultimate result is that there are all sorts of water-borne diseases.”
Water-borne diseases in the Third World have not been caused by modern industry. On the contrary, the only way to get rid of them is with modern water-cleaning facilities— the kind we take for granted in the West.
In the Third World, 250 million people are infected each year by water-borne diseases, mostly dysentery. Patients suffer severe stomach cramps, chronic diarrhoea and various other disorders such as skin disease, and each year 10 million of them die. The World Health Organisation estimated that in 1996 3.9 million children under the age of five died from diseases communicated by impure drinking water, mostly diarrhoea.
“Death from diarrhoea has been unheard of in the Western world in the past two generations,” says Gregg Easterbrook. “That 3.9 million children dead in the developing world last year exceeds all deaths at all ages from all causes in the United States and the European Union combined. And yet we endlessly speak of water purity in the West as an issue.”
The idealisation by Greens of life in the Third World is resented by many people there. “I see in this a serious problem of hypocrisy, and if not hypocrisy, a gross insensitivity,” says Dr Patel.
According to the World Health Organisation, life expectancy for people in the Third World is 20 years less than our own. In the poorest areas they live 35 years less.
Damning development: the Greens and the Narmada project
People in India are struggling to emerge from the backward condition in which they find themselves. The Indian government is trying to build a hydroelectric dam on the Narmada river to provide clean water and the electricity which is vital for industrial progress. It will submerge 350 square kilometres of land and provide enough electricity to supply almost 5,000 villages in north-west India. It will provide clean drinking water for 30 million people and it will be an enormous boost for economic and industrial growth.
Not everyone is keen, however. Lisa Jordan is a director of The Bank Information Centre, an environmentalist group which tries to stop the World Bank from funding large-scale development projects in the Third World that are deemed environmentally unfriendly. She is keen to preserve traditional tribal life. “This is genocide of tribal people who have lived in the forests that are being drowned for centuries. They’re one of the oldest living populations on this earth that have been documented. These are the cultures that pay because of a large dam being developed to pipe water to a larger agriculture system, to provide electricity, to provide the dream.”
But locals are not so keen on preserving things as they are. “Instead of saying that we want this particular life to be encased like a museum, we must say that we want progress,” one woman told Against Nature. “We want development of a particular kind and therefore we need larger dams.”
Environmentalists are worried about the damage the dam will do to wildlife in the area, but supporters of the dam are equally appalled that the environmentalists are so concerned with preserving bio-diversity at the expense of human development.
“What exactly is the value of all this bio-diversity?” asks Wilfred Beckerman. “This idea that you have to preserve every scrap of nature, even though destroying it might confer enormous benefits on people whose standard of living and quality of life is so low as to be unimaginable for the vast majority of people in the Western world, I think is scandalous. I just get very angry when I hear this sort of thing. Whose side are these people on?”
As it happens, no pristine forest will be destroyed by the Narmada dam and the only endangered species to be affected is a colony of sloth bears, for which the Indian government is building a wildlife reserve nearby.
But the Greens say they aren’t just concerned about the natural destruction of the dam. They point to the number of tribal people who will have to be resettled elsewhere. Brent Blackwelder, chairman of Friends of the Earth US, says more than 100,000 people will be uprooted from their homes. But according to the Indian government and the World Bank, the project will displace 70,000 people, who will be given farmland elsewhere with the benefits of roads, schools, electricity and clean water.
Critics of the Greens say environmentalists themselves are prepared to push tribal people off their land to make way for wild animals. Nature reserves founded in India by the World Wildlife Fund have displaced at least 25,000 people simply to make way for tigers.
Five years ago Dr Patel welcomed environmentalists’ concern about tribal people and was even persuaded by the Greens to campaign against the dam. Today, he believes the real concern of environmentalists is to block progress. He is now a fervent supporter of the dam and accuses the Greens of seeming to care more about animals than people.
Many environmentalists argue that if people in the Third World want electricity, they should use solar power or wind power. But not only would solar and wind power fail to meet the need for clean water, environmentalists themselves admit that they would be fantastically more expensive. To produce the same amount of electricity as the Narmada dam using wind power would cost at least six times as much. Using solar power would cost more than seven times as much— and even then it is doubtful that it could be done. The Narmada dam will produce 400 times as much electricity as the largest solar panel installation currently in existence.
Local Indians such as Dr Patel dismiss all the Green arguments against the dam, saying that the dam will change things, but there can be no development without change.
Green pressure on the World Bank has led to funding for the Narmada dam being withdrawn. Consequently, work on the dam, which began in the early 60s, has all but stopped. Most environmentalists believe it will never be completed.
In addition, leading environmentalists have estimated that they have effectively blocked around 300 hydro-electric dams in the Third World, denying many millions of poor people the benefits of electricity and clean water.
Tom Blinkhorn of the World Bank thinks many people in the West who contribute to environmental organisations don’t realise the implications. “What they don’t see is the tremendous poverty that exists in other parts of the world, and that if we are going to help people address that poverty, we need to do it through large dams and activities that many organisations in the Green movement are opposed to. I think a lot of the constituency for Green groups simply do not know about the problems in the Third World.”
Conservation and conservatism
There have been many attempts in the past to block social and economic progress. But few have been as successful as today’s environmentalist movement, which uses the threat of a global ecological crisis to override the wishes of those people who most need the benefits of progress. And it’s not only dams that the Greens campaign against.
“Western environmentalist sentiment has been successful …in blocking a whole range of industrial facilities,” says Gregg Easterbrook. “Factories, roads, logging— even well-regulated logging— have been vehemently opposed.”
Steve Hayward argues that it’s immoral for rich environmentalists to impose their ideology on Third World countries, where people are poor and disease is rampant. “The best thing that could happen to those countries is to industrialise rapidly … so they have the resources not only to be healthier but also to protect their environment. To stand in the way of that is wrong and dangerous in my mind.” After all, adds Gregg Easterbrook, we became affluent through industrialisation and exploiting our resources.
Greens are often portrayed as left-wing radicals, battling against a backward-looking establishment. But they are in fact part of a long tradition of conservatism that idealises nature and the past. These conservative instincts motivated 19th-century figures such as Nietzsche and Wagner, and movements such as the Romantics, who were horrified by England’s ‘dark satanic mills’ (as William Blake described them) and dreamt of returning to a mythical past of medieval knights and maidens, and even the Boy Scout movement, which in its origins combined a mystical affinity with nature, Right-wing nationalism and a hatred of degenerate modern life.
“What we today call ‘environmentalism’ is … based on a fear of change,” says Frank Furedi. “It’s based upon a fear of the outcome of human action. And therefore it’s not surprising that when you look at the more xenophobic right-wing movements in Europe in the 19th century, including German fascism, it quite often had a very strong environmentalist dynamic to it.”
Fascism, animal rights and human rights
The most notorious environmentalists in history were the German Nazis. The Nazis ordered soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed numerous laws on animal rights.
“They had essentially a biological view of society,” Dr Furedi continues. “They regarded society as an organism to which you were rooted through blood ties … and felt much more comfortable with what they perceived to be natural than what were the products of human creativity. I think that’s one of the reasons why [Hitler] had this celebration of the animal kingdom, the celebration of wildlife.”
The historian Dr Mark Almond, of Oriel College, Oxford, goes further. “Goering made ferocious blood curdling speeches saying that people who were cruel to animals, including scientists who did research on them, would be put in concentration camps,” he says. “This was perversely part of the logic which could at the same time put people into concentration camps, on whom they experimented.”
Frank Furedi agrees. “History shows us is that whenever people begin to treat animals like human beings, it’s only a smell step away from treating human beings like animals. And that seems to me the logical outcome of this nostalgic, sentimental approach towards animal rights.”
A Western agenda
Environmentalists today have been accused of effectively imposing their views on the Third World, and causing immense suffering in the process.
“The new focus on environmental issues too often has the consequence of turning societies into theme parks,” argues Frank Furedi. “They are very attractive for the voyeuristic Western imagination, but actually doom people in those societies to a life of poverty.”
“And it seems to me that there is no accountability here. It’s not the people of Africa and Asia or Latin America that have demanded environmental policies; these are policies that are being pushed by everybody in the West, from the World Bank to Green organisations. Who gave them the authority? By what moral right do they dictate the terms of how these societies can develop and realise their potential for the future?”
Gregg Easterbrook emphasises the hypocrisy of attitudes in the West: “It’s still possible in affluent circles in the United States or Europe to see people sitting in an air-conditioned room eating free-range chicken and sipping Chablis, talking amongst themselves about how farmers in Africa shouldn’t have tractors, because it might disrupt the soil, or how peasants in India shouldn’t be allowed to have hydroelectric power, because it’s not appropriate to their culture…. What would really be immoral is if we insisted on keeping material affluence for ourselves and try to deny it to the billions of others in the world who want and deserve exactly the same thing.”
Our attitude to the Third World, as Frank Furedi puts it, is that “… your societies are doomed to be poor-houses for the rest of the world. It purports to be ever so radical and ever so sensitive, but what it does is it sets a Western agenda on the rest of the world. It’s as intrusive today as imperialism was in the 19th century. ”
“The problem isn’t that we have so much that we’re squandering resources, the real problem is that most people do not have access to even the most basic needs of everyday life. The real problem is that they’re denied good education and good health. Therefore, the answer does not lie in going backwards and trying to be anti-technological, close down factories and not build roads…. Only through the appliance of science and technology can people’s aspirations be realised even at the most elementary level.”
People today face many difficulties in the First World as well as the Third: poverty and squalor, ignorance and disease. But the battle against these evils cannot be won by returning to nature or some mythical past. Instead, we must go forwards to a better future with confidence in our ability to understand and change the world.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:59 pmJason may not be master of his domain, Luke.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:00 amThat’s how we know his name has not been hijacked.
Comment by Zooey — February 12, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
Another coffee-snorter from the Zoo!
February 13th, 2007 at 12:00 amThe global warmin stuff ain’t notin but libral agenda and scientists on the take! Read All About It
jon
February 13th, 2007 at 12:03 amAnother coffee-snorter from the Zoo!
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
Heh.
On that note, I shall take my Nyquil buzz and attempt to enter that legendary state of being, known as Sleep.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:10 am#51, wow, you have mastered cut-and-paste…. next on your list of things to do today, original thinking and the difference between peer-reviewed climate science papers and the phrase ‘many scientists’.
Piers Corbyn – has he published a peer-reviewed paper outlining his evidence with scientific data to support, or does he just use the phrase ‘many scientists’ and hope for the best?
February 13th, 2007 at 12:13 amThat’s how we know his name has not been hijacked.
Comment by Zooey
ROFLMAO!!!
February 13th, 2007 at 12:34 am#56: Piers Corbyn – has he published a peer-reviewed paper outlining his evidence with scientific data to support, or does he just use the phrase ‘many scientists’ and hope for the best?
It’s an excellent question, and the answer to the first part of your question is no. The reason the answer is no–and I’m sure you already know this, Terry, but for the benefit of our readers–is because there are no peer-reviewed scientific studies from the past 15 years that challenge anthropogenic climate change. We have lots of bile and spittle from right-wing think tanks, but no actual science.
By “many scientists,” do you suppose Corbyn means four–himself, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, and Timothy Ball? Or is there a fifth one I don’t know about?
I hate to pick on people’s names, but what the hell kind of pretentious name is “Piers Corbyn”? I know, that’s gratuitous, but it’s getting late.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:24 am#57: On that note, I shall take my Nyquil buzz and attempt to enter that legendary state of being, known as Sleep.
You’ve got the Crud, too, Zooey, huh? I’ve been on the Nyquil for over a week now. The doctor says it’ll be another 2-6 days before it finally clears out.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:26 amLuke
Jason, I have come to understand isn’t a troll per se, but he is nuts. He basically believes “A State of Fear” which calls the whole Global Warming thing the product of a vast liberal conspiracy to control the world. Its why I normally counter him with “Don’t give me science, give me science fiction!”
From wikipedia:
So, on the one hand you are an idiot, on the other, you are still an idiot. Global warming just happens to have been Dr Hansen’s field of research for the last couple of decades, and further NASA itself is not dedicated purely to rocketry – a far bigger, though less glamour filled part of its ambit is studying the climate. This has been ever since they figured out that knowing what the weather would be like would be kind of handy.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:00 amOnce again, NASA personel are meddling in areas outside of their area of expertise, and trying to use their credentials as NASA scientists to lend weight to global warming theories.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — February 12, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Once again, you’ve outdone yourself and shown for the ignorant fool you are: Study of the Earth’s climate in one of the areas of expertise of NASA.
I cannot believe you actually wrote that…
And whatever that astronaut did has no bearing on NASA’s, Hansen’s expertise or body of work, don’t be ridiculous.
Father Staudimeier, [...] was very adament about the tendencies of those who, upon receiving one degree, feel they are expert in everything.
He! This sounds so much like you.
I have also realised you have an uncanny ability for avoiding even a fleeting introspection.
In so doing, these individuals muddle not only unfamiliar topics, but tarnish their credibility in their own field.
You are one of those people who can never take their own advice. Except you muddled a familiar topic, i.e., the NASA’s role in the study of our planet’s climate.
The only scientific statement that can be made is that we are achieving an overall lower entropic state – that’s all.
First, he was not making a scientific statement. It is obvious he is using scientific facts to lend support to a -basically- theological argument.
Second, are we supposed to be impressed by your bloviation? (yes, I just made up the word).
A true scientist should be embarassed by such comments.
Not that you would know a true scientist if you ran head-on into one wearing a lab coat and bottle-bottom glasses.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:15 amWWCD… What would Crichton do? LOL.
February 13th, 2007 at 3:29 amWhile all right-wing types are not global warming skeptics, virtually all global warming skeptics seem to be right-wing for some unusual reason. They really have become a party of ‘pseudoscience’ and have severely embarrassed themselves. I don’t know what influence radical christianity has, but here is a quote from the disturbing movie “Jesus Camp”. One must wonder if this kind of thinking goes on in the White House:
“Global Warming doesn’t exist. Rape this world, rape this Earth. Take everything you want from it because you know what, it doesn’t matter. We’re not here for very long. Christ is coming to take us away from Earth. So cut down our trees, use all our oil. Take advantage of everything that the world has to offer.”
His statement (not sure who it is) may be the most ignorant, irresponsible, and insane that I’ve ever heard.
February 13th, 2007 at 4:43 amre#37 The Learning Curve
Anything that generates deadly waste that lasts for hundred of thousands of years cannot be called safe!
We did not inherit such waste, so what gives us the right to leave future generations with such waste?
Sheesh…
February 13th, 2007 at 9:59 amWait a minute here. Thinkprogress just got done smearing George Taylor (Oregon’s State Climatologist) as not being qualified to have an opinion on global warming because he doesn’t have a Phd in climatolgy, yet Hansen does not have a Phd in climatology and his opinion is a “must read”.
That’s special pleading, and you know it.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:06 am#65: Do some research. Nuclear power is much safer than what we’re currently doing. This is why the countries linked to in the article are ramping up their nuclear power plants.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:05 pmThe attempt to malign Dr. Hansen is really remarkable. Some people really have a hard time distinguishing who is credible and who isn’t. Well, he is an example of one who is. Let’s look at his bio:
- B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction
- M.S. in Astronomy
- Ph.D. in Physics
Here are Dr. Hansen’s recent publications. Note the names of peer-reviewed journals:
Global temperature change. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.)
Sea-ice and North Atlantic climate response to CO2-induced warming and cooling conditions. (J. Glaciol)
Forced and unforced ocean temperature changes in Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci)
Present day atmospheric simulations using GISS ModelE: Comparison to in-situ, satellite and reanalysis data. (J. Climate)
Role of tropospheric ozone increases in 20th century climate change. (J. Geophys)
Solar and anthropogenic forcing of tropical hydrology. (Geophys. Res. Lett)
A slippery slope: How much global warming constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interferenced”? An editorial essay. (Clim. Change)
Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. (Science)
Efficacy of climate forcings. (J. Geophys)
Distant origins of Arctic black carbon: A Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE experiment. (J. Geophys. Res)
Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere. (Science)
Carbonaceous aerosols in the industrial era. (Eos Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union)
Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci)
Greenhouse gas growth rates. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci)
Monitoring of aerosol forcing of climate from space: Analysis of measurement requirements. (J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer)
Black carbon emissions in the United Kingdom during the past four decades: An empirical analysis. (Atmos. Environ.)
Large historical changes of fossil-fuel black carbon aerosols. (Geophys. Res. Lett)
Behavior of tropopause height and atmospheric temperature in models, reanalyses, and observations: Decadal changes. (J. Geophys. Res.)
Global atmospheric black carbon inferred from AERONET. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci)
Climate simulations for 1951-2050 with a coupled atmosphere-ocean model. (J. Climate)
Changing trends in sulfur emissions in Asia: Implications for acid deposition. (Environ. Sci. Tech)
Global warming continues. (Science)
Climate forcings in Goddard Institute for Space Studies SI2000 simulations. (J. Geophys. Res)
A brighter future. (Climatic Change)
Climate effects of black carbon aerosols in China and India. (Science)
General circulation model simulations of recent cooling in the east-central United States. (J. Geophys. Res)
The notion that Dr. Hansen is not qualified in this is beyond ridiculous. Those who say so are not only incapable of understading the science, but are obviously not even able to make evaluations of even the most basic nature. Too bad they also don’t realize that they look like total idiots.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:38 pmSteed Lankershim
You mean George Taylor as in the guy who claims to hold a position which, actually, you know, exist?
Gee I wonder why we don’t trust his word then?
February 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pmYou mean George Taylor as in the guy who claims to hold a position which, actually, you know, exist?
Should read:
You mean George Taylor as in the guy who claims to hold a position which, actually, you know, doesn’t exist?
February 13th, 2007 at 1:06 pm#69 and 70
Sorry you’re seriously misinformed.
The American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) recognize the George Taylor and the Oregon Climate Service at OSU’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences as a certifed ARSCO (American Association of State Climatologists Recognized State Climate Office).
From the AASC State Climatologist webiste
http://www.stateclimate.org/arsco/
To become an ARSCO, a state agency must secure a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the National Climatic Data Center. The MOA shall be between the NCDC and the host institution. The Director of NCDC shall sign on behalf of the government and a senior management official must sign for the state. The MOA may be established once the AASC has officially recognized a state agency as an ARSCO.
For the AASC to officially recognize a state agency as an ARSCO, three basic documents must be submitted to the AASC President:
1. A document that details current and planned activities that demonstrate a willingness and commitment to meet the ARSCO Terms of Reference.
2. A letter of support from the state’s Regional Climate Center Director.
3. A letter of support from at least one National Weather Service Forecast Office serving the state. Once the documents have been received and approved, the AASC President will notify the state agency and the NCDC.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:31 pm#61, Bruce,
Heinz award? You might as well call it the Kerry award …
It is just about as meaningless as handing the Dixie Chicks a grammy for calling Bush names …
February 13th, 2007 at 4:38 pmIf this isn’t POSITIVE PROOF that CHIMPya is 666, “The Great Beast” who “Seekest to Destroy the World and Plunge It Into Armageddon,” I don’t know what is! Though I detest that pug and plug ugly Chavez, he was right when he called CHIMPya “el Diablo,” THE DEVIL! Ditto for the repugnant-repubs who support CHIMPya–QUICK! BRING THE SEVEN SACRED DAGGERS OF MEGIDDO–THERE’s WORK TO DO A-PLENTY!!!!!
February 13th, 2007 at 8:21 pm#71: So, are you trying to argue that there’s scientific evidence showing that global warming is a hoax? Or are you just being contrary?
February 13th, 2007 at 9:46 pm#72: Heinz award? You might as well call it the Kerry award …
It is just about as meaningless as handing the Dixie Chicks a grammy for calling Bush names
Whatever. You’re not seriously suggesting that Hansen isn’t one of the world’s leading climatologists, are you?
February 13th, 2007 at 9:49 pmYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 amRes Singer
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page?and have to say thanks. nice read?
March 24th, 2008 at 9:43 pmNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 6:19 pmpet friendly hotel
I don?t agree with you in 100%, but you covered some good points regarding this topic?
March 28th, 2008 at 7:36 pm