<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I disagree for many reasons. Among these are;<br>
<br>
1) The weak warnings of the IPCC are convincing the general public that
the most serious results of global warming are going to happen after
their children's lifetimes, mostly to people in the global south, and
will only result in a few feet of sea level rise in about a thousand
years. This pushes the crisis so far beyond people's immediate lives
that they will be able to rationalize not taking any serious action.
(They will instead put their hopes in totally destructive and
technophilic neo-liberal responses like clean coal, carbon
sequestration, carbon credits, hydrogen, hybrids, nuclear power,
atmospheric and orbital mitigation, and biofuels.) However, if the
general public realizes that the climate crisis could result in extreme
consequences to their own lives, and possibly tens of meters of sea
level rise in a matter of a couple of decades, they will be forced to
face reality and act. We must remember that this is not an either or
question. The sooner and more dramatically we respond, the better our
results will be. The public has shown time and time again that it will
not make dramatic change unless it recognizes immediate danger. So
letting people know that their own children will live in a virtual hell
unless we take immediate drastic measures, will get them motivated
enough to allow us to at least meet the IPCC's warnings, if not our own.<br>
<br>
2) The IPCC process was totally undermined by very heavy handed
political maneuvering, which drastically toned down the process and
results. To accept those results would be a clear signal to those that
demolished the process, that they got away with it and should continue
to engage in such manipulation. (This is exactly why Kyoto should have
been soundly rejected -instead of foolishly embraced- by the
environmental movement.)<br>
<br>
3) Rachel Caron's 'Silent Spring' was extremely alarming and
depressing. Did its dramatic truths cause paralysis. Absolutely not. On
the contrary, it triggered the massively successful world wide
environmental movement.<br>
<br>
4) In my own case, I know the full depth of the problem and I am not
pessimistic at
all. Seeing the whole scope of the thing, I also see that we have an
excellent chance of averting a major crisis if we dramatically
reorganize our global civic infrastructure and energy use now. However,
we have no chance of doing so, if a sufficiently alarmed public is not
convinced to join us right away.<br>
<br>
The public does the right thing when it has the best information.
(Jefferson recognised this long ago.) When give half truths however, it
tends to dangerous apathy, and reliance on hopes that around the corner
technologies will solve our problems.<br>
<br>
Knowing the real danger, is the first critical step to doing something
about it.<br>
<br>
peace<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
Jeanne wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4768393A.90804@netvista.net" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type"
content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
I presume you have read the post by Gelbspan, which says about what you
are saying. Don't you think that pushing this extremely depressing
point of view makes people want to give up? I would prefer to go with
the IPCC recommendations - which we will probably not reach anyway -
rather than argue about how hopeless it is.<br>
<br>
Here's the link to the Gelbspan, if anyone has missed it.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.energybulletin.net/38315.html"><br>
http://www.energybulletin.net/38315.html</a><br>
<br>
Jeanne<br>
<br>
Eric Brooks wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4762F6E3.40103@aim.com" type="cite">
<pre>Hi all,
I just discovered a really good audio interview with coral reef
scientist Thomas Goreau on reefs and global warming, in which he also
details why the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) reports on
the predicted severity of human caused global warming are far too
optimistic and that the problem will be much worse, more quickly, than
the IPCC predicts.
The entire two hour interview is important and I recommend listening to
the entire program; however if you just want to hear the section
critiquing the IPCC go to the 32 minute mark of the first hour of the
program.
The first hour is at:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=25824&nav=&">http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=25824&nav=&</a>
The second hour is at:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=25825&nav=&">http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=25825&nav=&</a>
cheers
Eric
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre>--
Jeanne Rosenmeier
415 751-0901</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
Sustainability mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Sustainability@sfgreens.org">Sustainability@sfgreens.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability">https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara</pre>
</body>
</html>