06-28-2006, 04:03 PM
One implication of the predominant global warming science that gets overlooked is that due to the high residence times involved (centuries for CO2), if the common scenarios are correct then we are facing the results of our actions 50+ years ago today, and the sorts of measures proposed by something as "ambitious" as the Kyoto protocol would do little, if anything, to help the situation in the medium-term future.
Basically, if this generation is screwed, then we're already on the ride with no functional accelerator or brakes. Marginal actions taken now would potentially work out to observable results for children/grandchildren. Even completely unrealistic actions taken now (end of all industrial CO2 emissions for instance) would take many years to have significant effects in these models.
Of course, that's not a very upbeat message and doesn't tend to motivate people (trying to motivate a polititian to make a change that will only have a demonstrable effect once they are long out of office is a tricky proposition).
I gave up on the environmental field shortly after graduating from MIT with an Environmental Engineering degree, as the "contract with America" revolution was already cutting funds to the industry and every place I was interested in working at was either conducting layoffs or in a hiring freeze and I had the ever so idealistic concern of feeding myself to worry about. I now work to develop ways for people to distract themselves from worrying, i.e. game development.
If people (and the elected representatives they vote for) wish to delude themselves into thinking everything is fine, believing fiction writers over scientific consensus, etc., you can't really stop them. Delusion is a very powerful coping mechanism when reality is an unpleasant picture and doesn't offer many answers. I try to reduce my personal energy consumption / CO2 emmisions as much as practical, but I don't really attempt to re-hash the climate issue with people who don't want to accept the science. My elected officials are already more environment friendly than the other guys I could vote for (with a chance of winning, I'm registered Green Party for laughs), and yet they spend very little time working on the issue, as best I can tell.
Back to the OP, I didn't see the movie, but given the spokesman I seriously it accomplished much more than preaching to the choir / overdramatizing facts that shouldn't need any drama or special effects to make their case. I don't know what spokesman would sway public opinion to effect meaningful change, but considering best case for "meaningful change" at this point is following Kyoto many years after the fact (or more likely some sort of Kyoto lite regime) I really don't care much whether the nation is half-assed or no-assed about it.
It takes something like a mushroom cloud or two skyscrapers falling to grab the (temporary) attention of most Americans. Slow, gradual threats working devastating changes over the course of decades just doesn't have as much traction to this ADD prone population. Maybe a bunch more Katrinas, but I doubt we'll be so "lucky".
At least, that's my cheery take on the subject.;)
Basically, if this generation is screwed, then we're already on the ride with no functional accelerator or brakes. Marginal actions taken now would potentially work out to observable results for children/grandchildren. Even completely unrealistic actions taken now (end of all industrial CO2 emissions for instance) would take many years to have significant effects in these models.
Of course, that's not a very upbeat message and doesn't tend to motivate people (trying to motivate a polititian to make a change that will only have a demonstrable effect once they are long out of office is a tricky proposition).
I gave up on the environmental field shortly after graduating from MIT with an Environmental Engineering degree, as the "contract with America" revolution was already cutting funds to the industry and every place I was interested in working at was either conducting layoffs or in a hiring freeze and I had the ever so idealistic concern of feeding myself to worry about. I now work to develop ways for people to distract themselves from worrying, i.e. game development.
If people (and the elected representatives they vote for) wish to delude themselves into thinking everything is fine, believing fiction writers over scientific consensus, etc., you can't really stop them. Delusion is a very powerful coping mechanism when reality is an unpleasant picture and doesn't offer many answers. I try to reduce my personal energy consumption / CO2 emmisions as much as practical, but I don't really attempt to re-hash the climate issue with people who don't want to accept the science. My elected officials are already more environment friendly than the other guys I could vote for (with a chance of winning, I'm registered Green Party for laughs), and yet they spend very little time working on the issue, as best I can tell.
Back to the OP, I didn't see the movie, but given the spokesman I seriously it accomplished much more than preaching to the choir / overdramatizing facts that shouldn't need any drama or special effects to make their case. I don't know what spokesman would sway public opinion to effect meaningful change, but considering best case for "meaningful change" at this point is following Kyoto many years after the fact (or more likely some sort of Kyoto lite regime) I really don't care much whether the nation is half-assed or no-assed about it.
It takes something like a mushroom cloud or two skyscrapers falling to grab the (temporary) attention of most Americans. Slow, gradual threats working devastating changes over the course of decades just doesn't have as much traction to this ADD prone population. Maybe a bunch more Katrinas, but I doubt we'll be so "lucky".
At least, that's my cheery take on the subject.;)