Climate Justice Clips: Countdown to Copenhagen, Day 3

Thanks! I appreciate the discussion!

I suggest you haven't seen serious studies because you haven't taken the time to look. There are a myriad of professional journals with peer-reviewed work you could investigate, for example. Or, might i suggest you contact some climate scientists on their web pages. A quick google search will lead you to some.

Personally, I tire of the "debate" to the point I am trying to put the focus on reasons it is important to have sustainable energy resources. You are right to see that issue as important. For more reasons than just carbon emissions. But it leads to the same end, so either way, we should all be onboard with finding renewable resources.

Unfortunately, scientists are great at what they are great at, which is science. When it comes to communication...not so much. We are getting better, but still tend to be reactive rather than proactive, which is one of the reasons this has gotten out of control.

If you listen long enough to the debate, what comes through very quickly is the economic argument. It can't be real because it would be economically devastating to do anything about it. It's not a scientific argument, but I see the roots of the denier's arguments being more economic than scientific.

Perhaps emphasis on energy would make a difference, although without the environmental aspects being part of the discussion, we'll find ourselves developing coal and oil shale, resources we have loads and loads of, but which are far more environmentally-impacting than oil (and for those of us concerned about climate, they emit far more CO2). And we have a history of not caring where our energy comes from, as long as it's NIMBY.

I would argue that we need to factor in the true costs of fossil fuels (environmental impact, health impact, conflicts), which would make renewables far more competitive, development would increase, and we just might find ourselves finally in a new energy economy based on renewables, rather than fossil fuels.

Just curious...how much carbon is going to be dumped by all the people flying to Copehagen?

Unfortunately, scientists are great at what they are great at, which is science. When it comes to communication...not so much. We are getting better, but still tend to be reactive rather than proactive, which is one of the reasons this has gotten out of control.

If you listen long enough to the debate, what comes through very quickly is the economic argument. It can't be real because it would be economically devastating to do anything about it. It's not a scientific argument, but I see the roots of the denier's arguments being more economic than scientific.

Perhaps emphasis on energy would make a difference, although without the environmental aspects being part of the discussion, we'll find ourselves developing coal and oil shale, resources we have loads and loads of, but which are far more environmentally-impacting than oil (and for those of us concerned about climate, they emit far more CO2). And we have a history of not caring where our energy comes from, as long as it's NIMBY.

I would argue that we need to factor in the true costs of fossil fuels (environmental impact, health impact, conflicts), which would make renewables far more competitive, development would increase, and we just might find ourselves finally in a new energy economy based on renewables, rather than fossil fuels.

Thanks for your time in writing back. I will look into it more.

Great video. I am all for a sustainable energy plan. I think most people are, but I do not know if climate change is caused by man.

People just keep saying global warming is manmade, but I have to see serious studies that show it is. It's just rhetoric, that is repeated and repeated so much that those repeating begin to believe it is true. And then they go so far as to say that if you don't believe in manmade climate change, then you are a moron. It's like a cult-like religion. It does not leave room for a civil discourse while people like Al Gore are using the rhetoric to make millions if not billions in profit by lobbying governments for green initiatives that will profit businesses he supports.

Also, climate change seems to be happening but currently in the cooling direction. I just don't know if the science lines up, but I am all for supporting sustainable energy, fair trade, and other initiatives to help the world's poor. I don't think we have to scare people into an "end of the world is coming" fervor in order to get them to make decisions that would help the cause. I think the climate change initiatives just divide those who would be united on sustainable energy, fair trade, etc.

You are right. I have not tried hard enough if the minimum level of expectation is to go out and read scientific peer-reviewed journals. If manmade global warming is real, I am willing to accept that. But a convincing case, in the general public, has not been made.

But I am more than willing to join with you in pushing for sustainable energy, cleaner industry, etc. I just think wrapping those in "climate change" language only alienates a lot of people who would be for it. If the goal is to change the way we do things, maybe the language we use should be changed in order to not be divisive without producing any extra results.

Just to add to my comments--I would argue a convincing case has been made to the general public, but those most economically-impacted by what we need to do to stop it have worked very hard to muddy the waters.

Thanks! I appreciate the discussion!

Thanks for your time in writing back. I will look into it more.

Unfortunately, scientists are great at what they are great at, which is science. When it comes to communication...not so much. We are getting better, but still tend to be reactive rather than proactive, which is one of the reasons this has gotten out of control.

If you listen long enough to the debate, what comes through very quickly is the economic argument. It can't be real because it would be economically devastating to do anything about it. It's not a scientific argument, but I see the roots of the denier's arguments being more economic than scientific.

Perhaps emphasis on energy would make a difference, although without the environmental aspects being part of the discussion, we'll find ourselves developing coal and oil shale, resources we have loads and loads of, but which are far more environmentally-impacting than oil (and for those of us concerned about climate, they emit far more CO2). And we have a history of not caring where our energy comes from, as long as it's NIMBY.

I would argue that we need to factor in the true costs of fossil fuels (environmental impact, health impact, conflicts), which would make renewables far more competitive, development would increase, and we just might find ourselves finally in a new energy economy based on renewables, rather than fossil fuels.