Back this past spring, all the media were atwitter with the forecasters’ predictions that we’d have another barn-burner of a hurricane season to match last year’s record-breaker (for as far back as we have records, which isn’t all that long). The increased tempo of killer-‘canes was supposed to be the result of global warming, which was the result of Americans driving too many gas-guzzling SUVs. And George W. Bush. Because it’s always Bush’s fault, no matter what it is.
But what do you know? Old Mother Earth doesn’t seem to be cooperating. In fact, the hurricane season so far has been pretty mild and the meteorologists are downgrading their forecasts.
Of course, the global climate change folks will say that, somehow, this is an indicator of global climate change. No matter what happens to the climate it’s an indicator that Americans are nasty consumers who are destroying the planet, whether it’s colder or warmer, whether there are more or fewer hurricanes, whatever.
Similarly, tornado experts predicted that 2006 would be one of the busiest tornado seasons ever, based on a large number of tornadoes at the beginning of the season in March and an “extremely warm winter,” blaming it once again on global warming. What happened? If you listen to disappointed tornado chasers you’ll hear that despite a quick start, it turned out to be one of the quietest tornado seasons ever. Of course, apart from those of you actually living in Tornado Alley, no one heard a peep about the fizzle. Good media hype doesn’t include reporting on what didn’t happen.
The five questions to ask about global climate change
Technorati Tags:climate change, global warming, hurricane, tornado
In our local paper(Bay Area California), one columnist last year blamed global warming for the increase level/strength of hurrincanes and the increase in earthquakes.
Seems like each day there is a new crisis or concern associated with global warming. Just in the past couple of weeks I’ve read about the potential negative impact on ski resorts in Colorado and California, the potential decrease grape production for wines in North America, the potential impact on tourism in the Mediterrian, the potential negative impact on fish feeding habits, blah blah blah. I think I’ll blame my hair loss on global warming (damn that President Bush!).
I can’t help but think that there is an agenda behind all of this. This topic does seem to have good legs for certain groups and I am sure it helps in their fundraising.
Plus you hear sappy stuff, which lacks substance, about the need for hybrid or zero-emission cars as it is good for the environment. I’ll argue that it may not be as bad for the environment (not sure if it that it true or not—have not seen the data) as such products are based on the consumption of the world’s resources and energy required in mass production processes (Hybrid and zero-emission vehicles are not all sugar & spice growing from nice little trees in the orchard).
For one thing, they all run on electricity which usually comes from coal- or oil-fired generators. Some people have claimed that hybrids and ZEVs have a higher carbon footprint (the trendy new term) than regular, old internal combustion engine cars. But what’s important is that you feel all good and self-righteous, not that you actually accomplish anything.
Of course, I’m not opposed to electric vehicles per se. If we would only replace some of those fossil fuel plants with nuclear plants we’d be on to something. But the global warming crowd doesn’t like them either.
Having spent time travelling to less than first world countries (India, China, Indonesia, Brazil, Peru), I can say that the pollution that is spewed out from the mega cities as well as the countryside far surpasses the pollution we see and smell here in the US. India and China alone have over 2 BILLION people. You can believe me when I say they don’t have “Californina emissions” on their vehicles. The US is not all that big of a problem.
Our diocesean paper picked up on this feel-good/no substance approach to the environment. It has a notice asking readers to switch from the paper version to the on-line version so to “save the environment.”
In many places, trees are crops that are replaced and harvested. The on-line version does require semiconductors and computers that require electricity and ar made from such starting raw materials such as petroleum, copper, gold, arsenic, silicon dioxide, chromium, lead, etc. that must be drilled for or mined.
Such materials are converted into high-purity forms, some through very energy intensive processes, that create toxic precursors and by-products, and so on and so on…
“While the earth’s own climate cycle of cool down to warm up and back again has more impact than humans, it would seem that we’re having more of a negative impact than a positive one. “
How is positive vs. negative or good stewardship to me measured? Is driving a car (hybrid or not) good stewardship? Am I being a good steward if I drive a car that gets 36 mpg vs. one that gets 17 mpg? In either case, both are consuming energy.
Is owning a home a positive or negative impact? what size home in square feet is considered good stewardship? Is using a computer good stewardship?
Speaking of good stewardship, I have been bothered by how much food we Americans waste. My wife, who only moved to the U.S. several years ago, noted this. A visit to any restaurant, fast food or not, or school cafeteria reveals that a lot of food ends up in the trash.
This topic is of importance because we hear so many times that the Church’s teaching on birth control contributes to over population, especially in regions were there is not enough to eat. I think the data will show there is plenty of food available globally, yet it us Westerns who waste and waste…
peace,
“As usual, the answer is probably somewhere in between. Don’t go crazy about it but don’t neglect it either.”
Amen.
“Well, I’m off in the car to drive the family 1.5 miles to dinner in my gas-powered car”
Be sure to snack as high on the food chain as possible.
