global warming

[Kim O'Hara]

Perhaps consider these sorts of efforts to be an act of dana for future generations in order that they might have a place (i.e. planet) for Dhamma practice (to say nothing of having a place, at all). Many monks and nuns in the suttas did things "out of compassion for future generations", so I fail to understand how making changes to unsustainable lifestyles while educating ones fellow humans in this matter feels at odds, to you, with your individual Dhamma practice. Where is the generosity, the compassion for others both now and in the future?

The inevitability of anicca is hardly warrant for apathy - after all, the continuity of the Dhamma as a teaching has causes and conditions, per the suttas... it isn't fated to die off at a certain time...

Agreed.

I may not be able to save the planet, but I do have a good chance at awakening and saving this one being here from the cycle of suffering. This is why I have generally tried to avoid these debates recently and focus on my practice.

For me, these debates and the actions which flow from them are *part* of my practice: compassion in action, and a reference point for Right Livelihood (which in turn flows into Right Lifestyle, I guess ).
Each of us chooses his/her own path but mine really needs that outward-looking compassion and social conscience to counterbalance my chronic tendency to over-intellectual disengagement.


Kim

[Buckwheat]

I have hesitated to 'come out' properly here, but I think I can safely do so, and not get pilloried for it. We are all friends in the Dhamma after all, and that surely overrides any difference of opinion we might have regarding AGW.

Hi, Manas,
Thanks for making your position clear.

But over the years I also began to read some disturbing things.
(1) That the measuring stations are in locations where one would expect higher temperatures, for example, thus skewing the data.
(2) That most of the climate research is basically computer modelling and not 'hard' science at all. [and later: These are verifiable concerns, not just based on computer modelling. ]
(3) Plus the way that the mainstream media taints anyone who expresses doubt about it with the emotive term, 'denier' with it's implications - we all know what they are hinting at with that term, I think.
(4) And does everyone remember how there was this incident where scientists did not get the data that they wanted, and so simply changed it to suit themselves? And we trust these people?

All well-known memes!
(1) Dan addressed this but if you want more detail try http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/urban-heat-islands-and-u-s-temperature-trends/ or http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm. The issues are known and have been exhaustively analysed, and the real numbers are out there but basically the trend is what is important, anyway.
(2) Computer modelling is especially important in climate science because we only have one world and we can't run a series of experiments - especially in real time. But the models have been improving even faster than the hardware they run on. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm. And computer models are tested every which way, constantly checked against each other and (as much as possible) against the real world. They really are pretty accurate and reliable and in many cases are the only way of obtaining data. And in other cases, scientists do get out into the real world and collect all the available data - there are even teams of people combing old ships' logs for weather observations.
(3) You're getting the "emotive" and (unspoken) "Nazi" implications straight from the denialists. They don't like the term because their whole campaign depends explicitly on maintaining there is "reasonable doubt" about AGW. There isn't any - see http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16568&start=20#p236121. See also "Merchants of Doubt" for what is really going on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt. The denialists would prefer to be called "skeptics" but anyone who now denies the basics of AGW does so from ignorance or in an attempt to deceive, and calling them "skeptics" is lying. I won't do that, as you may have noticed. I do regret having to be offensive but I can't come up with a better name for them.
(4) Climategate was a smear campaign based on a crime. Many separate independent enquiries cleared the scientists of any wrong-doing but the mud seems to have stuck. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy or (more briefly) http://climatecrocks.com/2011/08/23/climategate-debunked-again-climate-deniers-mike-mann-born-in-kenya/.

I still live as sustainably I can, by the way. I try to organise life so there is as little driving as possible, I buy organic when I can afford it, and I would love some solar panels (if only I could afford them).

Great!

But I think that the real issues are the destruction of forests and ecosystems, the erosion of the topsoil, pollution of the biosphere with pesticides, nanoparticles, and genetically modified organisms, the destruction of clean underground water by fracking...take your pick, we have a lot of real issues to work on, and these are the things I will continue to try to raise awareness of. As for CO2, we've had periods in Earth's history when the concentrations were MUCH higher than they are today; it's being used as a 'scapegoat' to distract the masses from those other, truly urgent issues I mentioned, I believe. Where is the alarm about GMO's here? Anyone concerned about the growing land-mass made of plastic in the Pacific? Did the 'water' coming out of your tap catch on fire lately, due to nearby fracking?
Metta.

So many problems, so little time!
And that is a genuine, serious problem. All we can do is put our efforts where we see the greatest need.
Some can only be addressed locally so it's good to get out and join (e.g.) a riverbank cleanup. Others can be addressed politically - Get-Up, Avaaz, Earth Hour, etc. Go for it!
But we can't ignore AGW. It is already driving extreme weather events - hurricane Sandy and others, Pakistan floods, etc - and the slower changes are driving species to extinction regardless of pollution, GMO's, etc.


Kim

No, great post.

[Buckwheat]

for the sake of saving the planet

When you strip away all the rhetoric, this is really what it boils down to. People trying to save an impermanent thing. Deep emotional attachment that some have to trying to save the planet. For some this becomes some kind of twisted green anti-humanism, that advocates murder via abortions for population control, suffering via energy poverty and other unwholesome things.

There is a difference between death by natural causes and murder.

[Buckwheat]

The reason people doubt AGW is because when one analyzes the data and what warms the earth or doesn't, then AGW makes no sense.

Source?

We also can't rely on simple linear models...

Have you seen a climate scientist describe a model. They are anything but linear. They account for dozen of interacting phenomena and feedback loops. Please start citing sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_models

We don't produce CO2 out of nothing. We release it back into the atmosphere. So there is limited amount of CO2. We are not making any more CO2 than there naturally can be.

You are thinking of Carbon, which is different from CO2. We extract hydrocarbons in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas and through combustion create CO2. The amount of Carbon remains constant through the process, but not the amount of CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

[Buckwheat]

A volcano eruption or some other natural event can easily bring down CO2 levels.

This is not true. Volcanic eruptions may have a global cooling effect, but it is not by bringing down CO2 levels.

The most significant climate impacts from volcanic injections into the stratosphere come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere. Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years.

Even a historic volcanic event has only a half degree effect for a few years, it will have no power to offset human activity causing global warming. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a very long time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... remain-air

[poto]

Where is the generosity, the compassion for others both now and in the future?

In order for you to do right for this generation and the future, you have to be right.

If you are wrong, even if your intentions are right, you can actually end up doing harm to this generation and future generations.

Better to get oneself right first. By doing so you will be better able to help others.

I have been wrong many times before. Realizing my own mistakes has taught me some degree of humility. I even once believed in AGW as some of you do, but after studying the matter and looking at the data myself, realized I was misled. Time wasted on such things is time I could have spent on worthwhile efforts that would have done real good.

There is a Christian saying that I think echos my sentiment on this matter... How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?

[daverupa]

If you are wrong, even if your intentions are right, you can actually end up doing harm to this generation and future generations.

Better to get oneself right first. By doing so you will be better able to help others.

I grok this; I wonder, though, whether this is a reasonable approach given that there is a shrinking window wherein action on climate change will actually be usefully preventative.

Overpopulation offers similar problems.

These things are very time-sensitive, and we cannot afford to pretend that Dhamma practice and sustainable living are mutually exclusive endeavors.

[Alex123]

We also can't rely on simple linear models...

Have you seen a climate scientist describe a model. They are anything but linear. They account for dozen of interacting phenomena and feedback loops. Please start citing sources.

What I've meant was showing charts of small amounts of selected data which look like the trend is up, and then saying "Look the amount of CO2 is increasing" and imply that it will keep increasing in nearly linear way.

You are thinking of Carbon, which is different from CO2. We extract hydrocarbons in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas and through combustion create CO2. The amount of Carbon remains constant through the process, but not the amount of CO2.

But ultimately there is a natural limit to how much CO2 we can make. We can't make it out of nothing, we use already existing elements found on Earth and combine them.

That the CO2 and temperature (has been going up, some question if it still goes up in last few years) can mean nothing more than natural bouncing from historic low levels of both. CO2 used to be almost 3500ppm - 7000ppm for millions of years in Cambrian vs < 400 ppm for thousands of years today.

World didn't end in Cambrian there was life then.

[Alex123]

I grok this; I wonder, though, whether this is a reasonable approach given that there is a shrinking window wherein action on climate change will actually be usefully preventative.

Overpopulation offers similar problems.

These things are very time-sensitive, and we cannot afford to pretend that Dhamma practice and sustainable living are mutually exclusive endeavors.

What should we do with overpopulation? Kill billions of people? Forced sterilization? What are your suggestions?

What do you suggest we do about emitting CO2? That we stop driving cars, stop buying food in the supermarkets (where it was brought by large trucks). Should we revert almost to pre-industrial era? How will large cities survive? They need trucks (or other vehicles that depend on oil derivative fuel) to bring food.
Do you advocate mass starvation, etc, to bring population down?

If somehow we would drop to pre-industrial levels of human CO2 emission, What EXACT effect on temperature would it have?

There were no humans driving cars in Cambrian. Yet C02 levels did rise almost to 7,000ppm and typically stayed above 4,500ppm. So absence of human activity does not mean absence of new CO2 being released into atmosphere.

During end of Ordovician, the average temperature was about as LOW as today. Yet CO2 levels were >4,000ppm. So high CO2 does NOT have to cause high temperatures in all cases. Maybe some human projections that as CO2 increases, temperatures increase are too catastrophic?



Please note that dinosaurs and plants lived quite well for millions of years with CO2 levels above 1,000ppm and higher temperatures. Waves of Tsunami after tsunami did NOT keep killing them.

Please note that even with CO2 levels many times higher than today, the world temperatures didn't get constantly higher than 22C. So no apocalypse and heat death.


Look at the trend of black line, CO2. It is incorrect to call it trending up and being catastrophic.

[poto]

If you are wrong, even if your intentions are right, you can actually end up doing harm to this generation and future generations.

Better to get oneself right first. By doing so you will be better able to help others.

I grok this; I wonder, though, whether this is a reasonable approach given that there is a shrinking window wherein action on climate change will actually be usefully preventative.

Overpopulation offers similar problems.

These things are very time-sensitive, and we cannot afford to pretend that Dhamma practice and sustainable living are mutually exclusive endeavors.

For me, this seems to be much speculation, which is something the Buddha often frowned on.

If I am right, then I will have spent more time sitting and less time speculating/arguing about climate change. If I am wrong, and climate change presents a real problem at some future time, then I will still have spent more time sitting and meditating.

Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same."

[Buckwheat]

What should we do with overpopulation? Kill billions of people? Forced sterilization? What are your suggestions?

What do you suggest we do about emitting CO2? That we stop driving cars, stop buying food in the supermarkets (where it was brought by large trucks). Should we revert almost to pre-industrial era? How will large cities survive? They need trucks (or other vehicles that depend on oil derivative fuel) to bring food.
Do you advocate mass starvation, etc, to bring population down?

This has not been proposed. Instead, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation

If somehow we would drop to pre-industrial levels of human CO2 emission, What EXACT effect on temperature would it have?

Mitigation does not require pre-industrial revolution levels. It requires modest reductions from our worst polluters such as vehicles, power plants (and I'm all for restriction on nuclear... hydro is quite damaging to the environment as well). Again, I refer you to the mitigation article I with the above link.

There were no humans driving cars in Cambrian. Yet C02 levels did rise almost to 7,000ppm and typically stayed above 4,500ppm. So absence of human activity does not mean absence of new CO2 being released into atmosphere.

The living beings at that time had millions of years to evolve to those conditions, not decades as we a about to force upon this great Earth. In the past, when these changes have happened relatively quickly (100,000 years) there were extinction events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

During end of Ordovician, the average temperature was about as LOW as today. Yet CO2 levels were >4,000ppm. So high CO2 does NOT have to cause high temperatures in all cases.

There are many variables to climate. However, if all other varibles are held constant, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Maybe some human projections that as CO2 increases, temperatures increase are too catastrophic?


Please note that dinosaurs and plants lived quite well for millions of years with CO2 levels above 1,000ppm and higher temperatures. Waves of Tsunami after tsunami did NOT keep killing them.

Please note that even with CO2 levels many times higher than today, the world temperatures didn't get constantly higher than 22C. So no apocalypse and heat death.


Look at the trend of black line, CO2. It is incorrect to call it trending up and being catastrophic.

I'm begging: Please cite sources!!

What really matters is this: if there is a large sudden spike in temperature, many of the existing species on earth will go extinct. If one of the many variables that determine global temperature spikes (such as CO2) then there would be a corresponding spike in temperature leading to great tragedy on Earth. Do we want this to be our kamma?

[Buckwheat]

If you are wrong, even if your intentions are right, you can actually end up doing harm to this generation and future generations.

Better to get oneself right first. By doing so you will be better able to help others.

I grok this; I wonder, though, whether this is a reasonable approach given that there is a shrinking window wherein action on climate change will actually be usefully preventative.

Overpopulation offers similar problems.

These things are very time-sensitive, and we cannot afford to pretend that Dhamma practice and sustainable living are mutually exclusive endeavors.

For me, this seems to be much speculation, which is something the Buddha often frowned on.

If I am right, then I will have spent more time sitting and less time speculating/arguing about climate change. If I am wrong, and climate change presents a real problem at some future time, then I will still have spent more time sitting and meditating.

Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same."

In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha suggests making the safe bet in the face of uncertainty. Act as if kamma is real, and you will be better off either way.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

I do not suggest replacing meditation with arguments about global warming. I suggest replacing our carbon footprints with meditation time. Would you agree that is the safe bet?

[polarbuddha101]

It is the safer bet to act as if anthropogenic global warming is an indisputable fact even if you think otherwise. That being said, what does the individual do other than conserve energy (and use public transportation or a gas efficient car if you can afford one) and donate money or time to stop deforestation?

[poto]

The safest bet is to wait.

The longer we wait the cheaper and more effective climate control and mitigation technology becomes. Such is the pace of technological progress.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/03/moores-and-wrights-law-are-best.html

In comparison, the AGW proponent's efforts to cripple our energy use will cost far more in economic damages than the cost of mitigation down the road.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/11/100-trillion-climate-change-or-20-to-50.html

[Ron-The-Elder]

It is the safer bet to act as if anthropogenic global warming is an indisputable fact even if you think otherwise. That being said, what does the individual do other than conserve energy (and use public transportation or a gas efficient car if you can afford one) and donate money or time to stop deforestation?

There are myriad things, which an individual can do :
1. Get off or contribute to the grid by using solar sources, wind, water, and etc.
2. Get off the grid by simply giving up use of computers, t.v.'s radios and etc.
3. Walk or bicycle to as many places you have to go instead of driving.
4. Car pool where you must use vehicular transportation.
5. Go vegan and agrarian by planting, raising and eating your own foods.
6. Buy only bulk foods and bring your own reusable bags for your groceries at the store for what you can't grow on your own.
Overall, no matter what you do: when in doubt: reduce, reuse, recycle

[Buckwheat]

The safest bet is to wait.

The longer we wait the cheaper and more effective climate control and mitigation technology becomes. Such is the pace of technological progress.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/03/moores-and-wrights-law-are-best.html

Except that a basic assumption of Moore's law is that you are working diligently to develop the technology, not sitting around hoping for a miracle. So in order to set Moore's law into motion, we would have to take climate scientists mitigation efforts seriously starting right now.

In comparison, the AGW proponent's efforts to cripple our energy use will cost far more in economic damages than the cost of mitigation down the road.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/11/100-trillion-climate-change-or-20-to-50.html

This reminds me of:

"There are in the Himalayas, the king of mountains, difficult, uneven areas where neither monkeys nor human beings wander. There are difficult, uneven areas where monkeys wander, but not human beings. There are level stretches of land, delightful, where both monkeys and human beings wander. In such spots hunters set a tar trap in the monkeys' tracks, in order to catch some monkeys. Those monkeys who are not foolish or careless by nature, when they see the tar trap, avoid it from afar. But any monkey who is foolish & careless by nature comes up to the tar trap and grabs it with its paw. He gets stuck there. Thinking, 'I'll free my paw,' he grabs it with his other paw. He gets stuck there. Thinking, 'I'll free both of my paws,' he grabs it with his foot. He gets stuck there. Thinking, 'I'll free both of my paws and my foot,' he grabs it with his other foot. He gets stuck there. Thinking, 'I'll free both of my paws and my feet as well,' he grabs it with his mouth. He gets stuck there. So the monkey, snared in five ways, lies there whimpering, having fallen on misfortune, fallen on ruin, a prey to whatever the hunter wants to do with him. Then the hunter, without releasing the monkey, skewers him right there, picks him up, and goes off as he likes.

"This is what happens to anyone who wanders into what is not his proper range and is the territory of others.

"For this reason, you should not wander into what is not your proper range and is the territory of others. In one who wanders into what is not his proper range and is the territory of others, Mara gains an opening, Mara gains a foothold. And what, for a monk, is not his proper range and is the territory of others? The five strands of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable by the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Sounds cognizable by the ear... Aromas cognizable by the nose... Flavors cognizable by the tongue... Tactile sensations cognizable by the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. These, for a monk, are not his proper range and are the territory of others.

"Wander, monks, in what is your proper range, your own ancestral territory. In one who wanders in what is his proper range, his own ancestral territory, Mara gains no opening, Mara gains no foothold. And what, for a monk, is his proper range, his own ancestral territory? The four frames of reference. Which four? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This, for a monk, is his proper range, his own ancestral territory."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

In general, when working with ecosystems, it is much more effective to work diligently to avoid disruptions than it is to make a disruption, repair it, then repair the damages from making repairs, then reparing.... repairing... repairing...

That approach costs much, much more in the long run.

[Alex123]

This has not been proposed. Instead, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation

With large population, more cars are used (even if shared) - thus more gases emitted.

Mitigation does not require pre-industrial revolution levels.

Then the effects would be MINIMAL, just like our current contributions ( 0.0014664%) of CO2 to the atmosphere.
My post:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=280&hilit=climate#p118963

Sources:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-c ... ssions.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/ ... an_mlo.txt

The living beings at that time had millions of years to evolve to those conditions, not decades as we a about to force upon this great Earth.

And living beings will have to evolve today as they did millions of years ago. Do you expect CO2 levels to keep linearly increasing year after year?

Even if CO2 levels got higher, is it certain doom? No. Dinasaurs and plants lived quite well with 1,000ppm-7,0000ppm and temperatures DID NOT crash through the ceiling, meaning that there are some mechanism that prevents earth warming.

if all other varibles are held constant, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperature.

When CO2 levels were 7,000 the temperature was only 10C higher.

sources of the chart writte

Look at the trend of black line, CO2. It is incorrect to call it trending up and being catastrophic.

I'm begging: Please cite sources!!

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)


Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases.

References:

Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core

The data available from CDIAC represent a major effort by researchers from France, Russia, and the U.S.A.

1) Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,00 years).

Jouzel, J., C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, C. Genthon, N.I. Barkov,
V.M. Kotlyakov, and V.M. Petrov. 1987.

Nature 329:403-8.

2) Extending the Vostok ice-core record of palaeoclimate to the penultimate glacial period.

Jouzel, J., N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, C. Genthon, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, D. Raynaud, G. Raisbeck, C. Ritz, T. Sowers, M. Stievenard, F. Yiou, and P. Yiou. 1993.

Nature 364:407-12.

3) Climatic interpretation of the recently extended Vostok ice records.

Jouzel, J., C. Waelbroeck, B. Malaize, M. Bender, J.R. Petit, M. Stievenard, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, T. King, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, D. Raynaud, C. Ritz, and T. Sowers. 1996.

Climate Dynamics 12:513-521.

4) Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica.

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pepin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999.

Nature 399: 429-436.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

[Kim O'Hara]

The safest bet is to wait.

The longer we wait the cheaper and more effective climate control and mitigation technology becomes. Such is the pace of technological progress.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/03/moores-and-wrights-law-are-best.html

In comparison, the AGW proponent's efforts to cripple our energy use will cost far more in economic damages than the cost of mitigation down the road.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/11/100-trillion-climate-change-or-20-to-50.html

Hi, Poto,
Buckwheat's answer is correct but one could also point to just about all the reputable research into the question in, say, the last ten years.
For starters, may I suggest http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/28/330109/science-of-global-warming-impacts/? It is written by - no, I'll let you look him up for yourself - and is impeccably referenced. One comment describes it as "incredibly useful, as well as incredibly depressing" and that seems about right. If you would prefer something a little lighter, try http://www.scidev.net/en/climate-change-and-energy/adaptation/news/climate-change-mitigation-far-cheaper-than-inaction-.html
Main course is the Stern Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review with the Garnaut review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnaut_Climate_Change_Review on the side and the CSIRO study http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Reducing-GHG/Climate-change-impacts-on-Australia-and-benefits-of-early-action-to-reduce-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.aspx for dessert.
For the cheese platter, Goooogle "climate change mitigation costs" and graze at will.
The overwhelming majority of them say we've already passed the optimum time to invest in mitigation and adaptation, and that the later we leave proper action the more it will cost us in dollars, suffering and lives.
I will look forward to hearing from you in, say, a week or two, when you have digested that banquet and (I hope) put all memories of your current junkfood diet far behind you.

Bon apetit!
Kim

[Alex123]

It is the safer bet to act as if anthropogenic global warming is an indisputable fact even if you think otherwise. That being said, what does the individual do other than conserve energy (and use public transportation or a gas efficient car if you can afford one) and donate money or time to stop deforestation?

The problem is that it is not always convenient to do so. Try to switch off heating when it is freezing outside. Try to use over crowded public transportation to carry groceries.

As for deforestation. Even to build new land for vegetables, windmills, solar panels, etc - that can require clearing up space from trees.

Even if some solar panels are built over water, even then there is disruption for the fish.

Samsara is imperfect and we can never live in a perfect world.

The above is based on faulty statement that CO2 causes warming. It does not.


"CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. "
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

[Kim O'Hara]

Samsara is imperfect and we can never live in a perfect world.

But we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
There are lots of good things we can and should be doing.


Kim