Arctic sea ice likely to hit record low next week

[legionnair]

No doubt using a car less, buying a more efficient car will use less or no fossil fuels. But the biggest thing we can all do to make a difference is buy local produce/meat from farmers markets. The largest consumer of fossil fuels is major agriculture and the transporting of it. If we just stopped buying at Walmart,Superstore,Costco any major chain and purchased local we would lessen the planes, trained, boats, and trucks burning the fuels to bring us or out of season produce and high end meat from around the world. I made the switch over a year ago and it is great cheaper food, higher quality, and you can feel better about supporting a local farmer. Or even better start growing your own food.

There I will step off my soap box

Dustin

[glenn]

Dustin - thank you for that.

You're totally right. If you want to be "good" you have to look at every single thing you do. Buying a prius does not make you green - we can't spend our way out of this.

I too stopped eating any factory meat for much the same reasons as you - mostly that global beef production produces more greenhouse gas than all auto-mobiles put together - and that when you look at . . . . well . . . it's disgusting.

We get our beef from a 100 mile house rancher - grass fed, free range, all natural, no hormones, happy beef from a rancher that I can shake hands with. It's pricier and we eat way less beef now, but boy, is it good.

And remember, you are what you eat.

[Diver]

By far the biggest thing you can do to massively increase your carbon footprint? Have kids!

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/ ... on-impact/

A program on UK TV recently put it this way: 'Having one child increases your carbon footprint by the equivalent of a return flight from London to New York EVERY DAY'.

I don't have any kids, I reckon I can drive, eat ,fly, whatever, wherever and whenever I like!

[glenn]

Ah, that may be true - existence is definitely more carbon intensive than non-existence. But it's a bit of a stretch to include the children's future fertility rates in the calculation - esp because it uses current fertility rates.

So, by that same logic, the very best thing one can do to massively reduce one's carbon foot print is to die. It's a 100% reduction. But, it's a bit bleak I would say.

Sorry, not having kids doesn't get you off the hook. And I don't think I can convince my two kids to go back in.

[Firesong]

I believe it's a cycle. Arctic ice melts and it freezes. Can't remember when they said the next big freeze is but im not sure my l300 diesel is going to run well in the cold.

[Diver]

For sure it's a cycle. In the spot where I am now 20,000 years ago was under about a mile of glacier.
Man may be contributing to the climate changing in an unnatural fashion. But the natural fashion (if man were not here at all) would not look any different. Why would we think the planet's climate ought to stay the same all the time? It never has in the past.
My earlier tongue-in-cheek point has validity. If governments really thought we were dooming the planet with our carbon footprints and we accept that no amount of green taxes, economical cars and eating different food makes the slightest difference if you wipe out all the benefit 50 times over by simply having a child, then we would be having our desperate desire to shove more and more people into an already hugely overcrowded planet curbed.
Having children is a purely selfish act that has a disasterous effect on the environment. And yet no-one ever thinks to suggest to mention it. In fact, here in the UK, if you have a child the government gives you money. Money that comes out of the same coffers that the green taxes go into.
I don't think Delica or F150 drivers are selfish monsters destroying the planet. People doing what people naturally do will take care of that. We just have to pay for it.

[glenn]

Man may be contributing to the climate changing in an unnatural fashion. But the natural fashion (if man were not here at all) would not look any different.

Unfortunately, about 95% or more of publishing scientists disagree with you. There is overwhelming evidence that the current warming trend is a direct result of man-produced carbon. Plus, the warming "trend" is occurring at an unprecedented rate in geological history. This is not business as usual for the climate.

And before you dump so much on those who have children - remember - you are someone's child, and what are you doing protect the future of our environment? The environment doesn't care if you reproduce or not.

These are selfish times indeed.

[Diver]

The problem with publishing scientists is they speculate about the unprovable. And it doesn't matter how many of them agree with each other, the truth is not a democracy that you can vote into existance. How can they know what the climate would be like if man were not here? What if, instead of humans, the surface of the earth were covered with vast numbers of methane producing herbivores? Would their greenhouse emissions change the climate to a larger extent? Would it be 'natural' so therefore OK? Without an exact control replica of the earth for comparison it's impossible to say. Yet say they do.
Not dumping on people with kids and lets face it no-one with kids is ever going to blame themselves for the environmental effect. Merely pointing out that all of the measures we're forced to take to get carbon emissions under control are rendered completely impotent when put up against a population increasing in an out of control spiral.
As for what am I doing? Well, I live in an extemely carbon efficient house, grow much of my own food and don't have kids. My carbon footprint is tiny. By comparison yours is enormous. What are YOU doing?

[glenn]

Unfortunately you are wrong again about science. There is an extremely compelling and very well supported argument that man is causing our current warming trend. But, there will always be a vocal minority of people that make unsubstantiated claims that all is well. And for the most part, they use this as a justification to sit around and do nothing.

Also, this magazine article, and television piece uses a very flawed paradigm to draw their conclusions about the footprint of people who have kids. Their model depends on the fact that the next generation of children will reproduce at the same rate as today's people. It's also assuming that the standard of living that my children, and all their descendants will be the same as mine - which is very unlikely. It is unlikely, that the earth will continue to be able to support exponential population growth for much longer. It's more likely that the earth will experience a massive human die off in my children's lifetime.

I agree with your basic point - that having children is an increased burden on the environment. However, this piece, is not a serious piece of research into the environmental impact of having children. I wouldn't go around quoting it as justification for the superiority of not reproducing.

I believe that there are tough times ahead. Life on the planet will survive - as you say. Perhaps they will be exothermic, methane breathing bacteria scum, who knows but the earth won't die. However, the question is, will we survive?

What do I do? Well, I work from home, my wife commutes by bike, I walk my kids to school everyday, we hardly use our car during the week, I don't eat factory meat, support local farmers, don't buy any new electronics, don't buy any new gadgets, almost no new clothes for anyone in my family, in fact I buy everything I possibly can used, I fix things when they break even if it cost more than replacing, I grow as much food as I can, I am a craftsperson and designer blah, blah, blah. Basically, I try to consume as little as possible, at all times. Am I perfect, no. But, I make every effort to live lightly and justly.

And I teach my children by example. The next generation will need kids like mine. Kids that know how to make things, kids that know how make due with less. People who have a strong moral core and sense of justice. I'm not prepared to just turn over and leave it to everyone else to form the next generation. I want to be proactive. That's why I have kids.

Anyway - no hard feelings. I know a lot of people think I'm chump because of my efforts. But, I like my lifestyle - I'm healthier, and because I don't have so much stuff to support, I spend more time with my family. I think everyone should slow down and start enjoying life more. Win-win!

[legionnair]

Glen I agree with you 100%, its more if you make the effort than make the excuse of why its happening. We need the shift towards a simpler life style and teach the next generation how to do the same

[konadog]

I agree too. And athough I do try to live with an eye to reducing my footprint I have no illusions that there is any hope for us - The biosphere is dying we will be going down along with it. Any changes we make at this point are too little too late - It's a done deal. Enjoy what's left of our time while you can.
I wonder what the bounce back will look like - Earth, post humanity....

[Diver]

I agree with you much more than you might think too Glenn. But if nothing else, this thread has been a great study of human nature. People will agree with 'published scientists' who fall in with their particular viewpoint while disagreeing with others who don't. People will preach to others about changing their ways to make a difference while being unwilling to change their own. And of course people will blame everyone for the problem without recognising their own part.
Humans have a massively adverse effect on the environment in many, many ways, not just carbon emissions. The climate will change in one way or another whether we are affecting it or not. Concentrating on just this small point is a distraction from the real issue that the more humans there are, the worse the environment will become because that's the effect we have on it just by being here. The problem is no-one will do anything about that until it is far too late.

[Elbrad]

You have to bear in mind Diver, that these published scientists are published for a reason.

Junk science, like climate change denial, is published in little dark corners on the internet, in many of the same places that publish information on our lizard overlords, alien abduction, and penis enlargement pills.

If the science was unsound, it wouldn't be published in respected science journals, and would instead be in the back pages of a conspiracy rag.

[nxski]

I fix things when they break even if it cost more than replacing, I grow as much food as I can, I am a craftsperson and designer blah, blah, blah. Basically, I try to consume as little as possible, at all times. Am I perfect, no. But, I make every effort to live lightly and justly.

Was the centre console of the L300's broken when it got replaced by the vurve box? Sorry, that was a bit of a jab, I mean no harm as I love your design and construction but there are small or large guilty pleasures that everyone has which contribute to harming the environment. I'll agree that no kids are better for the environment. How about communal living? Construction has a large impact on the environment so why not pile as many people as possible into our houses? I'm sure if you broke down the life of even the most hardcore environmentalist you'd find many things they could be doing better. Also, buying used is great but it means that in order for you to do this, someone has to be buying new. Fixing equipment rather than repairing is great too but in many cases the amount of energy, parts, chemicals, etc that going into fixing a big problem may be more than what it costs to produce the item. This was a point you brought up earlier when I stated that keeping an old car running no matter the fuel economy was better than buying new. I still stand by my reasoning, but based on your point of view, would not your idea of fixing everything be hipocrytical?

On the subject of climate change, I'm sure the earth would naturally get warmer over time, but I also beleive that humans are causing this to happen more quickly than it otherwise would. When you take excavate in many area's you can see the result of times in human history such as the industrial revoloution. If these times are noticeable by just looking at the ground they must have had some kind of impact on the air and soil.

[Diver]

You have to bear in mind Diver, that these published scientists are published for a reason.

Junk science, like climate change denial, is published in little dark corners on the internet, in many of the same places that publish information on our lizard overlords, alien abduction, and penis enlargement pills.

If the science was unsound, it wouldn't be published in respected science journals, and would instead be in the back pages of a conspiracy rag.

I'm a bit confused as to whether you're agreeing or disagreeing. Are you saying that the published study from OSU that I quoted has merit because it was published? Or are the findings of the scientists in Oregon junk? The point I was making is that people agree with the published scientists they feel represents their feelings. There are all viewpoints represented in respected publications but if they have opposite views they can't all be correct can they?