The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.
Showing posts with label Environmentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environmentalism. Show all posts
Monday, June 18, 2007
Climate Facts
High price for load of hot air
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Environmental Optimization
In my last piece, I argued for optimization over preservation, as my preferred goal for environmental stewardship. This goes against the traditional view of environmentalism. Preservation, the traditional goal of environmentalism, is a mostly mindless exercise. Protecting nature achieves the goal, while changing nature violates the goal. Preservation is simple to understand, simple to enforce, and simply wrong for the advancement of humanity.
The traditional view of environmentalism also has a very nasty underbelly. Preservation is achieved by the enforcement of laws enacted to limit the freedom of citizens to own and use land in the most optimal way. Preservation is achieved by imposing the will of some on the will of others. The “some” who impose their will are usually the elite who believe they know better than anyone else how to use and preserve resources.
Optimization, however, is not so simple to define, enforce, achieve, or even understand. Optimization for some farmers may mean higher yields per acre of land, while optimization for other farmers may mean more nutritious or flavorful produce. Some consumers of apples may want less expensive or larger apples, while other consumers of apples may want more flavorful or colorful fruit.
Some voters may want to use a publicly owned piece of land for hiking in a natural environment, while other voters may want to build a football stadium, and still other voters want to build a park or a golf course. For some, optimization is preservation, while for others, optimization is development.
Does every species of rodent, and every species of bird, and every species of plant, and every species of anything need protection from extinction? Perhaps God created every species with unique characteristics for the benefit of the environment, but it is far more likely that many species have characteristics that are harmful, not beneficial. Mosquitoes carry malaria and are extremely irritating. It’s clear to me that optimization means getting rid of both mosquitoes and malaria. Neither need protecting. Fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated and mosquitoes become extinct makes about as much sense as fear of what might happen if the Yankees lose the World Series.
Fear of what might happen if certain species of rodents become extinct is only slightly less silly than fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated. However, what is extremely silly to me may not be silly to a rodent lover. Does a rodent lover have a moral right to impose his will on everyone else in order to ensure a rare species of rodent is protected? Does everyone else have a moral right to ignore a rare species of rodent while developing land inhabited by rare rodents?
Since optimization means different things to different people, who gets to decide the definition of optimization? The only fair way to decide who gets to decide the definition of optimization is the same as the only fair way to decide other matters.
The owner of a piece of property is the one most likely to care for his or her land and derive the optimum value out of the land. The owner of a piece of real estate can use free market commerce to determine the optimum value of a piece of land. He or she can preserve the land, develop the land, or sell the land based on the preferences of others willing to part with an appropriate amount of hard earned cash. All other methods for determining the appropriate and optimum use of land are forms of socialism, which is what most environmentalists want anyway.
The traditional view of environmentalism also has a very nasty underbelly. Preservation is achieved by the enforcement of laws enacted to limit the freedom of citizens to own and use land in the most optimal way. Preservation is achieved by imposing the will of some on the will of others. The “some” who impose their will are usually the elite who believe they know better than anyone else how to use and preserve resources.
Optimization, however, is not so simple to define, enforce, achieve, or even understand. Optimization for some farmers may mean higher yields per acre of land, while optimization for other farmers may mean more nutritious or flavorful produce. Some consumers of apples may want less expensive or larger apples, while other consumers of apples may want more flavorful or colorful fruit.
Some voters may want to use a publicly owned piece of land for hiking in a natural environment, while other voters may want to build a football stadium, and still other voters want to build a park or a golf course. For some, optimization is preservation, while for others, optimization is development.
Does every species of rodent, and every species of bird, and every species of plant, and every species of anything need protection from extinction? Perhaps God created every species with unique characteristics for the benefit of the environment, but it is far more likely that many species have characteristics that are harmful, not beneficial. Mosquitoes carry malaria and are extremely irritating. It’s clear to me that optimization means getting rid of both mosquitoes and malaria. Neither need protecting. Fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated and mosquitoes become extinct makes about as much sense as fear of what might happen if the Yankees lose the World Series.
Fear of what might happen if certain species of rodents become extinct is only slightly less silly than fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated. However, what is extremely silly to me may not be silly to a rodent lover. Does a rodent lover have a moral right to impose his will on everyone else in order to ensure a rare species of rodent is protected? Does everyone else have a moral right to ignore a rare species of rodent while developing land inhabited by rare rodents?
Since optimization means different things to different people, who gets to decide the definition of optimization? The only fair way to decide who gets to decide the definition of optimization is the same as the only fair way to decide other matters.
The owner of a piece of property is the one most likely to care for his or her land and derive the optimum value out of the land. The owner of a piece of real estate can use free market commerce to determine the optimum value of a piece of land. He or she can preserve the land, develop the land, or sell the land based on the preferences of others willing to part with an appropriate amount of hard earned cash. All other methods for determining the appropriate and optimum use of land are forms of socialism, which is what most environmentalists want anyway.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Stewardship
As I read Chaplain Dave’s piece about his views regarding environmental stewardship, I thought this might be a good time to reexamine my own views and write a few of my own pieces on this topic.
I think most people would agree with the sentiment of Chaplain Dave’s piece. Humans are unique among God’s creation in that we were given dominion over nature and we have the ability to affect nature more than any other creature. However, the application of Chaplain Dave’s sentiment is where morals need to be clarified and lines need to be drawn.
The goal of stewardship should be clear in our minds before we decide on the methods for practicing stewardship. Traditionally, conservation and environmentalism have been synonymous with preservation. I don’t have to think very long before I reject the traditional view. For a believer in God to accept the traditional view, the believer in God would have to believe that everything God created except humans was perfect in its original form. Certainly, God created the earth the way HE wanted it created, but this belief that humans are destroying God’s perfect creation doesn’t make sense; why would God give the imperfect dominion over the perfect? Mosquitoes, viruses, severe weather, diseases, predatory animals, and other aspects of nature that are harmful to humans need to be controlled or eradicated, not preserved.
I believe a better goal of stewardship should be optimization of the environment, not preservation of the environment. Sometimes preservation will be a method for achieving optimization, but preservation should never be the primary goal. Why would we want to preserve polio or HIV?
Refrigeration optimizes our environment by allowing foods to remain nutritious for longer periods of time. Pasteurization and irradiation have a similar optimization effect. Food processing may sound unhealthy, but the opposite is true. The processing of food has led to less expensive, more nutritious, and a greater variety of foods than ever before in human history which has led to healthier and longer lives for most people.
As much as I would love to play golf on a traditional seaside course in Scotland, I have no illusion that the golf would be better than a modern course in California where the fairways, bunkers, and greens are practically perfect. God created some very appealing golf venues, but humans have optimized the course for a better golf experience. As much as I would love to sit in Lambeau Field in late December and watch the Green Bay Packers against the Chicago Bears, I have no illusion that the football game would be better than if it was played indoors in Detroit or Indianapolis. Humans have optimized the football environment in order to experience the best football games.
The modern environment humans have created to live our lives is infinitely better than the natural environment we started with. I sometimes get a good chuckle out of serious environmentalists because it seems to me that the ones who are most serious about the environment are the ones with the most expensive and technologically advanced outdoor equipment. The best mountain bikes, the best hiking boots, the best outdoor clothing, etc…, all of which were created by humans wishing to optimize the outdoor experience. Shouldn’t a preservationist at least try to endure without modern equipment?
In my next piece, I will consider the methods of environmental stewardship.
He made it and us of the same "stuff", except we have that vital spark, the imago dei so that, among other things, we can have dominion, stewardship over and tend this, His creation. As such, we are inextricably connected to the Creation. We are to make our living from the earth. God set up a gloriously beautiful and intricate system - even in its fallen state - whereby we can draw life and sustenance from it. …
But with this gifting comes responsibility. I have to believe that His placing Adam in the Garden to cultivate and tend it - have dominion over it, didn't imply allowing his appetites to run amok, thus abusing it.
I think most people would agree with the sentiment of Chaplain Dave’s piece. Humans are unique among God’s creation in that we were given dominion over nature and we have the ability to affect nature more than any other creature. However, the application of Chaplain Dave’s sentiment is where morals need to be clarified and lines need to be drawn.
The goal of stewardship should be clear in our minds before we decide on the methods for practicing stewardship. Traditionally, conservation and environmentalism have been synonymous with preservation. I don’t have to think very long before I reject the traditional view. For a believer in God to accept the traditional view, the believer in God would have to believe that everything God created except humans was perfect in its original form. Certainly, God created the earth the way HE wanted it created, but this belief that humans are destroying God’s perfect creation doesn’t make sense; why would God give the imperfect dominion over the perfect? Mosquitoes, viruses, severe weather, diseases, predatory animals, and other aspects of nature that are harmful to humans need to be controlled or eradicated, not preserved.
I believe a better goal of stewardship should be optimization of the environment, not preservation of the environment. Sometimes preservation will be a method for achieving optimization, but preservation should never be the primary goal. Why would we want to preserve polio or HIV?
Refrigeration optimizes our environment by allowing foods to remain nutritious for longer periods of time. Pasteurization and irradiation have a similar optimization effect. Food processing may sound unhealthy, but the opposite is true. The processing of food has led to less expensive, more nutritious, and a greater variety of foods than ever before in human history which has led to healthier and longer lives for most people.
As much as I would love to play golf on a traditional seaside course in Scotland, I have no illusion that the golf would be better than a modern course in California where the fairways, bunkers, and greens are practically perfect. God created some very appealing golf venues, but humans have optimized the course for a better golf experience. As much as I would love to sit in Lambeau Field in late December and watch the Green Bay Packers against the Chicago Bears, I have no illusion that the football game would be better than if it was played indoors in Detroit or Indianapolis. Humans have optimized the football environment in order to experience the best football games.
The modern environment humans have created to live our lives is infinitely better than the natural environment we started with. I sometimes get a good chuckle out of serious environmentalists because it seems to me that the ones who are most serious about the environment are the ones with the most expensive and technologically advanced outdoor equipment. The best mountain bikes, the best hiking boots, the best outdoor clothing, etc…, all of which were created by humans wishing to optimize the outdoor experience. Shouldn’t a preservationist at least try to endure without modern equipment?
In my next piece, I will consider the methods of environmental stewardship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
