What is your climate personality? | A New Shade of Green | Sherry Listgarten | Palo Alto Online |

Local Blogs

A New Shade of Green

By Sherry Listgarten

E-mail Sherry Listgarten

About this blog: Climate change, despite its outsized impact on the planet, is still an abstract concept to many of us. That needs to change. My hope is that readers of this blog will develop a better understanding of how our climate is evolving a...  (More)

View all posts from Sherry Listgarten

What is your climate personality?

Uploaded: Aug 11, 2019
People react to climate change in different ways. How do people in our area think about it? Do we accept it? Fight it? Fight against the fight against it? Are we optimistic? Depressed? Anxious? I have very scientifically (not) created a taxonomy of ten different “climate personalities”, described below. Take a look, decide which of these most closely reflects your thinking about climate change, then enter your choice here. Voting is anonymous, and you can select more than one “personality” if that fits best.

The last day of voting is Tuesday, August 20. Results will be shared on Sunday, August 25.



Naturalist. Species come and go. Mankind is just a blip in the grand scheme of things. We humans don’t plan well, we don’t collaborate well, we are emotional and short-sighted. So it’s arguably appropriate that we are roasting ourselves into oblivion. Nature will go on, in some form, without us. It’s sad, but I’m at peace with that. I’ll go along with whatever our leaders want, but I’m not making any big changes on my own. We’d just be delaying the inevitable.

Concerned. I am worried about climate change. If I think about it too much, I get anxious. I just wish we knew how to fix it. I am voting for people who care and will work to lower our emissions. And I have or will be getting an EV, maybe solar, and we recycle everything we can. But it is all a little overwhelming. People are telling us to stop flying and stop eating meat and stop buying things, and it doesn’t seem reasonable or achievable. We need the scientists to figure this out, to make things more sustainable. I think things will make more sense in a few years -- there is a lot of change right now. If not, we'll look at making more changes then.

Voice of Reason. Everyone knows that the climate is changing, and that much of that right now is due to human activity. But in the past it’s been due to natural causes, so people need to stop over-reacting. Climate changes, it always has and always will. Weather is complicated, and not every storm or every drought is from climate. The press has to sell papers, but they should stop the fear-mongering. We will figure this out, but let’s take our time, not make it any worse with bad science, and nail down the big issues before we start making changes.

Impatient and On It. We have been too polite about this for too many decades. It’s past time to act. People do not understand the scale of what’s happening or the pace at which it is happening. Every year matters. And it is not rocket science. Tax carbon. Build clean power. Reduce fossil fuel usage in cars, buildings, and industry by half in the next 10-20 years. Eat less beef and dairy. And build adaptations asap for the coming droughts, fires, or floods, depending on where you live. Our household has made big changes, and will make more, and we encourage others to do the same. It is unconscionable that our political leaders are not being more assertive on this. Of all the times to stand up and make a difference, this is it.

Just Let It Be. Yes, climate change is a problem, but these people that think government can fix it are deluded. Government has never fixed anything, at least without a lot of waste. Worse, some people are exaggerating the problem so that government will step in to solve all these other problems they want it to solve. Green New Boondoggle is what they should call it. This has to stop. We know that animals and plants and even people will adapt to the changing climate naturally. When cleaner technology is developed, people will move to it on their own, as they are already doing. These activists have got to get out of the way and just let the natural processes take over. That is how we will get through this.

Depressed. Climate change is a big worry. Worse, no one agrees on what to do. You have all the Republicans who don’t want to do anything, and all the Democrats who want to change everything at huge expense. We can’t get along when things are going well. And now? I don’t see how anything good is going to happen. I just get really depressed when I think about it, so I try not to.

A Brighter Future. Climate change is tough news. On the bright side, though, we have an incredible opportunity to make our planet a much nicer place to live 50-100 years from now, or even sooner. This is the time to reinvent our energy and transportation infrastructure, our manufacturing and agriculture, clean up our planet, and find gainful employment for all people. This is a chance for people with all skills -- engineers, social scientists, politicians, mechanics, economists, farmers, everyone -- to really make a difference. Our future is bright, and this is exactly the kind of problem we humans are made for. We are smart, creative, adaptable, and passionate. We just have to embrace this time of change. I am doing everything I can to get people on board, to take action, and to look ahead with optimism.

Not Our Problem. This whole thing is so frustrating. We are one of the cleanest nations on the planet, if not the cleanest. And our population isn’t even growing. It’s all the developing nations that are the problem, growing like crazy, burning all the coal they can find, and driving more and more dirty cars, buses, and trucks. They have to stop. Until their population drops by say half, and they stop all of their pollution, there is no hope for the planet. It is out of our hands. I hate to say that, because I like to fix things, but that is the reality, however much we may want to think otherwise. Pretending like we can make a difference is just a waste of time and money.

Doing My Part. I worry about climate change. Not just the physical impacts, but the societal ones. At the same time, I don’t believe in miracles. I like scientists, I have friends who are scientists, but they are not miracle workers. So I am making changes. I’m flying half as much as before, I eat red meat just once a week, I set my thermostat at 65 in the winter, and I’m switching to an EV, plus biking more. I know some people say it’s a drop in the bucket, but the drops can add up to a big difference and they take effect right away. The changes I’ve made are not a big deal -- they feel pretty normal already -- and it’s good for the planet. Why do people object so much? This is too important to leave to scientific discoveries, or the hope that our political leaders will somehow figure out a way to get along. That would be great, so I do hope, but at the same time I care, so I’m doing my part.

Yet More Bad News. The papers these days seem filled with an endless stream of bad news, and this is just one part of it. So, yes, it’s bad, but so is everything else. I don’t think the climate changes take precedence over the misery in so many places, the endless wars we are fighting, the sky-high medical costs, the jobs that don’t pay enough, and all the rest. It’s just one more thing that we are going to muddle on through. Or not.



All righty, those are your choices! Which is your climate personality? Vote here! The last day of voting is Tuesday, August 20. Please vote only once, and only for yourself, though I encourage you to share this article with others. I will have results for you on Sunday, August 25.

Current Climate Data (June/July 2019)

Global impacts, US impacts, CO2 metric, Climate dashboard (updated annually)

Comment Guidelines

I hope that your contributions will be an important part of this blog. To keep the discussion productive, please adhere to these guidelines, or your comment may be moderated:
- Avoid disrespectful, disparaging, snide, angry, or ad hominem comments.
- Stay fact-based, and provide references (esp links) as helpful.
- Stay on topic.
- In general, maintain this as a welcoming space for all readers.


What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Aug 11, 2019 at 5:54 am

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

Just as a heads-up, general comments about the personalities or suggested variations are fine. But comments that disparage any of the personalities will be removed. The goal of the poll is to find out where people stand, and that is harder to do if we dismiss some of the stances. Each has validity. I hope we can have a broader discussion when the results are posted.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by the science is real, a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks,
on Aug 11, 2019 at 7:45 am

I'm concerned, greatly.

I am also not that description above.

Our children will face a climate ravaged world with hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing entire regions leading to disease, civil was, war, terrorism, etc.. plus local catastrophes.

[portion deleted]


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Aug 11, 2019 at 10:08 am

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@Science. Most of the options are for people who are concerned about climate change. I hope you can find one that is close. But if you can't, it's also fine to suggest alternatives.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by the science is real, a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks,
on Aug 11, 2019 at 6:18 pm

other comments deleted - are ya pulling a Dougie?

it's your sandbox, your rules


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Aug 11, 2019 at 8:14 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

I did delete one comment, because I honestly couldn't understand it. It had points 9 and 10, but no 1-8, and afaict it had nothing to do with the topic (climate personalities). I feel like it's less bad if the 20th comment is random, but if it's the first few, I prefer they at least be relevant.

I think this is a really important blog post, so I want to give it a chance.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Don Keedick, a resident of Cuesta Park,
on Aug 12, 2019 at 12:18 pm

Don Keedick is a registered user.

Seems to me that we should worry when the activists who claim a crisis start to act like its a crisis.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Ceeds, a resident of Shoreline West,
on Aug 12, 2019 at 1:13 pm

> Seems to me that we should worry when the activists who claim a crisis start to act like its a crisis.

See? Doesn't take long for the deniers to show up.

Should just two other simple choices in the poll: deniers.

And "I believe in science".


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Aug 12, 2019 at 2:14 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

Really interesting exchange!

I'm curious, @Ceeds, what makes @Don a denier in your view? And Don, do you consider yourself to be a denier?

I also wonder which of the ten personalities would be labeled a "denier". Most of them believe in the science, or are not actively opposed to it. So none of them are deniers?

@Don, we shouldn't worry until ... what? Until people who say they care are also vegan? Are not flying? Or ... what is your yardstick?


 +   3 people like this
Posted by The Earth Belongs to Our Children, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood,
on Aug 12, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Old Saying,"The Earth is not ours. We borrow it from, our children."

I'm impatient. We can and must do better immediately. If you love your children and grandchildren, get on it.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Old Enough to Know Better, a resident of Rex Manor,
on Aug 12, 2019 at 10:57 pm

I would be happy to choose a "personality", but you utterly ignored a major option, the:
Fallacy of Human Ego

We humans always want to believe that we are the cause of everything we judge as "bad" because we feel that "if humans cause something, then humans can also fix it". It gives us a false sense of control.

The truth is that there is no linear relationship between CO2 levels and the global climate. The more CO2 that stacks up the less the greenhouse effect of the CO2. This has been established science for many decades.

The truth is that humans have seen many changes in our climate bigger than the one the current crop of Global Warmies are all worried about. We survived just fine and we will do just fine this time.

I am old enough the remember the huge scare about "Global Cooling" and the same scientists groups claiming that human activity is the cause of the Earth being drastically cooled and if we don't stop doing what we do right away, we will be in an ice age by the end of the 20th century. Back then their explanations of how human activity was cooling the Earth actually made a great deal more sense than the current explanations of the Global Warmies.

About 1,000 years ago, before the industrial revolution, the Earth got quite a bit warmer for a while, then got way cooler again and then settled into a pattern of shallower changes warmer and cooler.

13,000 years ago we had a serious deep ice age followed by a long period of time when we were quite a bit warmer than the predictions of the Global Warming crowd are worried about.

Humans are resilient, but not all powerful, it is sheer ego to think that human activity could possibly cause any measurable change in global climate.

Climate is controlled by our Sun and our Oceans, not by humans.

One volcano produces orders of magnitude more CO2 than all of humanity and there are always multiple active volcanoes putting out massive amounts of CO2 on a daily basis. Humans are not even a blip in that output.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Aug 12, 2019 at 11:24 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@Old. Hmm. You are right, I don't have anything quite like that. Thanks for spelling out your thinking. I would expect that "Voice of Reason" may be the closest?

I have been reading a lot about climate, as well as taking some courses, and several of the claims you are making are new to me. I'd love to review what you are reading, see what I can learn. Do you have any pointers or links? For example, I'd like to better understand these statements you are making:

- the long period of warming some time in the last 13,000 years that was "quite a bit warmer than the predictions". Do you have more info about when that was, etc?

- one volcano produces orders of magnitudes more CO2 than all of humanity -- again, would love a pointer, numbers, etc.

When greenhouse gases accumulate, their incremental forcing effect gradually diminishes. That is one reason that carbon dioxide is less powerful than methane. But the impact of CO2 is still very significant because it is still relatively rare, at 400ppm. So I wonder if you may have misconstrued the magnitude of the tapering effect. Have you got a reference for the science you are referring to?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by NIMBY Car Supremacist Option Missing, a resident of Downtown North,
on Aug 13, 2019 at 10:37 am

A common Palo Alto type is missing [portion deleted]: the NIMBY Car Supremacist aka "I'll do anything to address climate change except let more people live in my neighborhood because people need cars and I'm concerned about traffic and parking" type. We think that we're saving the planet because we drive EVs and don't use plastic straws, but our opposition to denser housing choices maintains the status quo of "drive until you qualify." Single family home sprawl is just fine as long as the people spending their lives in their cars have EVs. We aren't personally impacted by the housing crisis because we own our homes and benefit from artificially low property taxes because of prop 13. We care about affordable housing but not if it comes at the expense of neighborhood character or livability (which it will because people need cars). We think that car-centric cities are natural, equitable, and good. We think that climate and housing are two unrelated issues.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Aug 13, 2019 at 10:52 am

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@NIMBY -- I'm not a big fan of that term, since it's intentionally divisive. But your point is a good one. I was thinking yesterday of adding apartment-living into some of the descriptions, but wasn't sure I should do that with so many votes already cast. But a few of us were talking about it in the context of eco-hypocrisy and @Don's comment above. Family size is another one. FWIW, I don't think it has to be a separate personality, but it could be added onto some of the ones already there ("I am not having children" or "I have moved from a single-family home into a city apartment").

Re the portion deleted, please stay away from ad hominem comments. I don't see how that furthers your point, and it creates a hostile environment that discourages productive conversation.

For the peanut gallery, this commenter was calling me out as an eco-hypocrite since I live in a single-family home and I worry about the traffic implications of dense housing developments without adequate transit and/or local services. And he didn't even get the half of it. (I have a lawn! I have a kid!) I promise, we'll have a post on eco-hypocrisy at some point, and I will be Exhibit A. That should be fun...


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Ceeds, a resident of Shoreline West,
on Aug 13, 2019 at 10:59 am

> the activists who claim a crisis start to act like its a crisis

Go ahead, draw Don out. Ask him when he started believing global warming was real. And driven by humans.

With that statement above, how do you think he's going express himself? Don - prove me wrong, please.

---

"old enough" is another denier. He won't give you links to any peer reviewed study. He's complaining because he *knows* he saw a Newsweek cover in the April, 1975 *proving* cooling ("same scientists" is always another giveaway)

Except it wasn't on the cover of Newsweek and it was an opinion, not a peer reviewed study. When he claims "same scientists" you should know he's a denier who makes false claims.

Oops.

---

I'm curious - why do you debate those who knowingly present misrepresentations and refuse to substantiate their claims? Do they *ever* support their fairy tales with at least a link to the far-right sites, that draw their lies from exxon funded denier sites like Heartland, etc..?

---

The poll lacks the two dominant 'personalities:

- I deny the scientific consensus
- I support science, scientific fact and the scientific consensus


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Ceeds, a resident of Shoreline West,
on Aug 13, 2019 at 11:08 am

> it is sheer ego to think that human activity could possibly cause any measurable change in global climate

That's a complete falsehood, and even "old enough" knows it (and we can get him to admit it with his answer to one simple question.) These are similar to the guys that claimed with such certainty that mankind couldn't be responsible for the hole in the ozone layer because of a few cans of hairspray.

Hubris, they claimed.

Hubris has morphed to "sheer ego".


 +  Like this comment
Posted by NIMBY Car Supremacist Option Missing, a resident of Downtown North,
on Aug 13, 2019 at 12:19 pm

[portion deleted] individual choices are not my concern. Where hypocrisy matters is when it concerns policy. It is one thing to have a single family home and 2 cars and a lawn, it is another to thing to back policies that require that your neighbors and would-be future neighbors choose the same bad car-centric lifestyle choices. Baby boomers who have only known heavily suburban sprawl with wide roadways and free parking are governing our future (or lack thereof) and lack imagination for something better. Concern for cars is consistently elevated above concern for humanity.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Aug 13, 2019 at 12:38 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@NCSOM -- FWIW, I agree with much of what you say, though I've never thought of it as car-first. No one really loves their cars that much, do they? People don't leave cities because they love cars, right? I think of it more as "Our love for nature and access to open space is killing the planet". (There is more to it, but you get the gist.) And you are asking a great question, namely should we be setting policy for how we want to live, or how we want the next generations to live?

Cue the population discussion...

Thanks for the great comments.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Car Supremacist, a resident of Midtown,
on Aug 13, 2019 at 1:25 pm

Suburban sprawl is what made Palo Alto a great place to live in. Now it's being destroyed. To densify means to lower the quality of life.
Draconian legislation, punitive measures, and artificial incentives will not stop climate change. Those are all *regressive* meaures like "get out of your car".
It's corrupt humans in government blaming corrupt humans in corporations but aren't we all collectively responsible for climate change if it is indeed "man-made"?


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Anon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood,
on Aug 13, 2019 at 2:02 pm

Posted by Old Enough to Know Better, a resident of Rex Manor,

>> Humans are resilient, but not all powerful, it is sheer ego to think that human activity could possibly cause any measurable change in global climate.

Various points deleted, but, I wanted to comment on this one. You are correct that the Earth's climate has many factors that affect it, and, CO2 is one of them. But, your deduction is incorrect. In fact, we -can- affect the climate by massive burning of fossil fuels, and, we -are-. Yes, there are many factors to climate, but, CO2 is quite capable of forcing the planet into a different climate regime.

>> Climate is controlled by our Sun and our Oceans, not by humans.

Solar output, as well as orbital variations, combined with the particular current configuration of continents, are all factors. But, your "hubris" concept is not an actual "argument". Simply, it is just as much "hubris" to burn all that coal and think we will be OK, as it is "hubris" to think that we are so important. "Hubris" can rationalize whatever position you want to argue against; therefore, it isn't a useful or meaningful argument.

>> One volcano produces orders of magnitude more CO2 than all of humanity and there are always multiple active volcanoes putting out massive amounts of CO2 on a daily basis. Humans are not even a blip in that output.

This is demonstrably false. The fact that in previous geologic eras volcanos emitted dominating quantities of CO2 doesn't mean that they are today. Humans are the dominant producers of excess CO2 today and volcanoes are negligible. If your point is that the carbon cycle is complex -- yes, it is. In fact --

One issue that doesn't seem to get as much notice by the general public is the impact of the sudden rise in CO2 on ocean life. We actually depend on ocean life for the long-term. Right now, the sudden jolt of higher ocean acidity combined with warming is killing certain vulnerable invertebrates. Short-term, this is more of a worry than sea-level rise. Web Link


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde,
on Aug 14, 2019 at 2:55 am

I need to cheer myself up and read Nevil Shute's "On the Beach" again.
This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper. -- TS Eliot


 +   13 people like this
Posted by Rev. Beecham, a resident of Barron Park,
on Aug 15, 2019 at 7:58 am

> About 1,000 years ago, before the industrial revolution, the Earth got quite a bit warmer for a while, then got way cooler again and then settled into a pattern of shallower changes warmer and cooler.

> 13,000 years ago we had a serious deep ice age followed by a long period of time when we were quite a bit warmer than the predictions of the Global Warming crowd are worried about.

> Humans are resilient, but not all powerful, it is sheer ego to think that human activity could possibly cause any measurable change in global climate.

> Climate is controlled by our Sun and our Oceans, not by humans.


^^^ To everything there is a season...Ecclesiastes.

Man is not omnipotent. Destructive & capable of reprehensible inhumanity towards others...yes.

Mankind is incapable of destroying the earth but earth is easily capable of destroying man.

That said, create a toxic environment that mankind cannot survive & mankind will perish...thus making way for new species who are either capable or have evolved towards living in this new setting.

God & environmentalism are on the same page.

Mankind is replaceable...no more significant than an ant or a single-celled organism.

Self-importance (aka ego) will be the downfall of mankind & it's already occuring.


 +   11 people like this
Posted by God & Global Warming, a resident of Midtown,
on Aug 15, 2019 at 11:31 am

Humankind destroyed Eden. Natural resources raped & pillaged for 'the advancement of modern society'.

There is no turning back. Global warming is REAL but the only surefire remedy would be to go back to pre-Renaissance times. Not going to happen.

We are doomed by contemporary delusions of perceived modern day conveniences & blatant materialism.

The Master of the Universe has a plan...let mankind destroy itself & then start all over again with a new blueprint.

This is OK with me.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Ceeds, a resident of Shoreline West,
on Aug 15, 2019 at 1:16 pm

wow


 +   9 people like this
Posted by We Are All Going To Die Anyway, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland,
on Aug 15, 2019 at 6:05 pm

According to the Bible, the earth is only about 7,000 years old but that is only taking humans into consideration.

Earth is actually quite older & humans have been around for about 10,000+ years or so excluding man-apes which the Bible does not acknowledge as human beings or having even existed...the same goes for dinosaurs.

So taking the Bible & modern science both into consideration, it would be safe to say that the earth has gone through various phases as carbon dating & fossil records indicate previous periods.

If global warming destroys the earth, there will probably be new adaptive life forms to take over.

God & science go hand in hand. For those who do not (or cannot) understand/accept modern science, there is always religion & vice versa.

It all amounts to the same thing & to argue science VS religion is folly.














 +   2 people like this
Posted by Staying Young Through Kids, a resident of Old Palo Alto,
on Aug 16, 2019 at 5:21 pm

Staying Young Through Kids is a registered user.

I find it refreshing that so many young single people find life in our area to be so easy without a car.

I'd enjoy hearing these same "car haters" thoughts if they stay local and find themselves in a relationship with a few kids.

Is it possible to raise a family in our area without a car? Not really. If there's more than 2% of Palo Alto families with 2 adults and even one child over 5 yrs who don't have a car (or a nanny with a car), I would be shocked! I redict the percentage of single parents without a car would be even lower.

When it's 40 degrees and raining and you have to get one child to daycare and another to school and still get to work by 830a...how do you do that? With a car!

When you have to leave work to pick your middle schooler up at their trumpet lesson, your other kid up at soccer practice, and still get home for homework and dinner...you need a car!

Density will not change this. Although if you replace "car" with nanny, it might be possible! And in Palo Alto, there's no shortage of nannies!

Can anyone live in Palo Alto for any period of time (10 years) with a family of 4, and 2 working parents without a car?


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Rev. Beecham, a resident of Barron Park,
on Aug 17, 2019 at 7:43 am

>> So taking the Bible & modern science both into consideration, it would be safe to say that the earth has gone through various phases as carbon dating & fossil records indicate previous periods.

>> God & science go hand in hand.

^^^ Yes. Clinging to one side or the other proves nothing. The earth in the Bible and of mankind was created after the prehistoric periods.

Prior to man's arrival, earth was an inhabitable environment for humans so this timeframe doesn't count unless one is a archeologist, paleontologist, or physicist.

And yes, man-apes did exist in earlier periods but they were not real people...just alternative lifeforms that lived & perished.

We as humans are also 'alternative lifeforms' for the duration that we are consciously here on earth.

The environmental problems that we have created are simply by-products of our ongoing existence & preferred lifestyles. It is like food...what goes in, must come out but in another form. And as the say, too much of anything is not good for you.

Man has destroyed nature in bits & pieces so environmental considerations/factors (or God depending upon one's belief system) is telling us that in time, the game will be over.

No big deal as this conclusion will not be occurring tommorow or within the next 100 years. So when it comes to topics like global warming, it is one thing to be concerned about it but another to expend one's mental & emotional energy being a doomsday prophet.

Are we that concerned about our future ancestors in 2400 AD? By that time, they will not even have known of your existence and could probably care less.

We are all destined for oblivion. Three generations of rememberance is about it & then families gradually branch out into new ones moving onwards in time.

The proof is in the cemetaries...how many flowers do you see placed at headstones where the individual(s) passed away 80-100 years ago?

So as far as climate goes, it really depends on where one lives & to dwell on something we have no actual control over (as a whole) is pointless.





















 +   3 people like this
Posted by Sophie, a resident of Gemello,
on Aug 17, 2019 at 9:54 am

I have to say people in developed countries use/consume natural resources more much excessively compared to people in developing countries. And of course, the super rich environmental elitists taking private jets to attend the global environmental summit in Italy shows how hypocritical they are.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Ceeds, a resident of Shoreline West,
on Aug 17, 2019 at 10:53 am

Deniers: every major part of the US government and all universities agree that we are staring at the disastrous effects of climate change in a short number of years (not "2400 AD".)

But y'all know better, don't ya? "They're Liars!" "God will save us!" "It doesn't matter - I'll be gone!" "Humans are doomed anyway!" "The changes outlined are toooooooo haaaaard!"

I pray you are not raising kids with such an attitude. No child deserves that.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by God & Global Warming,, a resident of Midtown,
on Aug 17, 2019 at 3:19 pm

>> "God will save us!"

No he will not...further banishment (i.e. the eventual extinction of man) is the result of humans having destroyed Eden.

No punishment from God required. Mankind is punishing him/herself.

Global warming is REAL but human beings are to blame. People couldn't be satisfied living a simple life.

God has given up on people. School's out.

Accept the inevitable & repent all wrongdoings. Maybe we will get another chance in another life.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Ceeds, a resident of Shoreline West,
on Aug 17, 2019 at 3:41 pm

> God has given up on people.

When did your God give up on people? Is your God the vengeful type? Like the Falwell/Robertson vengeful God that allowed 9/11 to happen because of the gays? Web Link


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Moishe the knife, a resident of another community,
on Aug 18, 2019 at 5:47 am

Greetings and comments from Nova Scotia, Canada, the other side of the continent.

My comments in multiple parts as the website rejected due to the URL links embedded.

If someone is going to quote science, then, get facts right.

In response to Old Enough to Know Better who posted on August 12...sorry, but, you're seeing the picture on a human time scale and the earth works on geological time.

Sherry, here's an answer to some of your questions. Humans simply can't grasp geological time because an area that is volcanically very active may have eruptions every few years. Doesn't seem like much but that's geological time.

The most volcanically active places on earth with the number of active volcanoes are:

Indonesia - 139.
Iceland - 130.
Japan - 112.
Chile - 104.
Ethiopia - 57.
Papua New Guinea - 53.
Philippines - 50.
Mexico - 43.

Yet, we don't hear about eruptions constantly. When was the last major volcano in Iceland?

(Answer, Eyjafjallajökull erupted in April 2010 disrupting flights between North America and Europe).

Iceland is “mourning" the loss of a glacier. The Ok glacier has melted and is no longer considered a glacier and a plaque to the future has recently been unveiled. Most adults living today won't see the extreme and dramatic effects of climate change.

Web Link


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Moishe the knife, a resident of another community,
on Aug 18, 2019 at 5:48 am

It's my thinking that we've already reached the tipping point and that there is no hope for the future. On a regular basis we read of unexpected melting in the polar regions and warming of ocean waters.

We in Nova Scotia are getting warming of ocean waters of our shores. Again, this is geological time...but...it appears to be geological time on fast forward.

Web Link


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Moishe the knife, a resident of another community,
on Aug 18, 2019 at 5:49 am

We in the western world have for hundreds of years lived the high life and the good life at the expense of the third world. Cheap goods, cheap labor, cheap everything. The third world now wants it's chance at the good life and as an example China builds coal fired generating plants at an alarming rate. Now, we are alarmed and want the third world to reduce. I'm not moralising here, but, is that fair? Are we Westerners more deserving?

Web Link


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Moishe the knife, a resident of another community,
on Aug 18, 2019 at 5:49 am

Finally, the total CO2 output of volcanos is a tiny percentage of the CO2 output of humans. Get the facts straight. If you don't want to be bothered reading this article, I've written down the numbers. BTW this article is from 2009. We can be certain that volcanic activity has not increased and we can also be certain that human causes of CO2 emissions have increased in the 10 years since this article was published.

Volcanic annual emissions " 200 million tons CO2 " 200 000 000
Human annual emissions " 24 billion tons CO2 " 24 000 000 000

Written as a number it's obvious. Humans put out 120 times as much as volcanos. It's just that volcanos are dramatic but the “clean" emissions from my car are not noticeable.

Volcanoes vs humans

Web Link

BTW I voted Naturalist


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Game Over, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Aug 18, 2019 at 1:22 pm

> It's my thinking that we've already reached the tipping point and that there is no hope for the future.

^^^ Agreed. Circumventing global warming at this point in time is like trying to use a band-aid to stop a hemorrhage. Game over.


>> We in the western world have for hundreds of years lived the high life and the good life at the expense of the third world...The third world now wants it's chance at the good life and as an example China builds coal fired generating plants at an alarming rate. Now, we are alarmed and want the third world to reduce.

^^^ You are correct again. The 3rd world could care less when it comes to environmental concerns. As you stated, they now want their share of the good life & this involves creating more pollution.

Global warming (whether created by humans or by nature itself) cannot be stopped... pure & simple.

Life on earth will adapt to the newer conditions. Whether humans survive the changes, who cares? They've had their run of things for a long time.



Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.

Email:

SUBMIT

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields


All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Local Transit to the Rescue?
By Sherry Listgarten | 25 comments | 3,180 views

Morsey's Creamery brings buffalo-milk gelato to downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 11 comments | 2,080 views

"You Gotta Have Balls [to do counseling] . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,784 views

Eating Green on the Green – August 25
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,138 views

Moral Panic, again on guns
By Douglas Moran | 18 comments | 756 views

 

Register now!

​On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More Info