Global Warming

"Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have (Discussion)" was posted on May 12, 2014.  While I received no further comments or discussion directly relating thereto, one of my readers, Leonard Levenson, of Manhattan, NY, raised question regarding a related subject, namely, global warming.

He asked:

Although it is politically correct to oppose the increase in greenhouse gasses and indeed it is clear that considerable harm results, there are some questions that have never been answered to my satisfaction.  Perhaps you can help.

     

1. The earth is clearly warming causing sea levels to rise and possibly diverting the Gulf Stream all of which could have devastating consequences to Mankind.  However, doesn't this very warming also increase the growing season for crops in places such as Canada, Russia, Alaska, Patagonia and Greenland?  Does this not benefit large segments of mankind?

      

2.  Doesn't the melting of ice in the Arctic open up the long dreamed of Northwest passage of shipping from the US and Canada to Russia and Japan? 

      

3.  The Greenhouse effect results in inordinate amounts of rainfall, at least in the NE US.  Isn't this beneficial to agriculture, hydroelectric power and the environment?

I responded after doing research on the subject and I set forth below my response based on that research.

In setting forth my response, I must caution my readers that if they read only my text they will have missed a great many facts relating thereto, since I did not want to quote from my sources at length. Therefor, I urge my readers to take the time to access the links and to read, at least large portions, of the source material. My full response follows.

Politically correct or PC has nothing to do with the science of Global Warming, any more than the question of whether the earth is round (and yes there is a Flat Earth Society) or whether the earth is the center of the universe.

Global Warming is a scientific fact, and the fact that certain ignorant people, or shortsighted billionaires, and politicians who cater to them, prefer to pretend is doesn’t exist, doesn’t make it a political or controversial issue.

Nor is PC a way of censoring ideas that are not liberal, as our right wing blogosphere would have people believe, though there have been instances where misguided college students have used it that way.

Without doubt there may be some areas that benefit from Global Warming, such as the Northwest Passage, but they are few. You mention an increase in the growing season in a number of countries, assuming that cold climates would benefit from warmer weather. Alas that is very simplistic. See for example the following which has the sub-headline: 

"Insect infestations, forest fires, floods and drought reflect the devastating impact global warming is already having on the vast Canadian landscape, according to experts from all 10 provinces and two territories."

BY THE GAZETTE (MONTREAL) NOVEMBER 30, 2005

Please note that this was almost a decade ago. A more recent assessment for Canada can be found here. 

As for Russia, see here but you are right it would have some beneficial effects, See here.

As for more rainfall, Hurricane Katrina is an example: See here and don’t forget Hurricane Sandy which devastated the Northeast and we still have nowhere near recovered. But we know that the next one will be worse and we are being forced to spend billions on raising coastline infrastructure and getting ready for next time, which is inevitable.

But it isn’t just more rainfall. It is also less. See this New York Times article where the lede is:

"LOS ANGELES — The fire season here in the hot, dry West now lasts roughly 75 days longer than it did a decade ago, and nearly three dozen fires have been burning up and down California in the last two days, weeks before a normal season begins."

You think of it as more rainfall. But that isn’t it. It is the rise of the sea level that will wipe away huge swath of land. How will it effect the Mid-Atlantic region? See an EPA report here.

See how it is effecting our nations’ capital. Here is today’s (May 16, 2014) weather forecast.

As for Florida (Marco Rubio’s state) See here and allow me to quote from the assessment: 

"The map clearly shows that a sea level rise of only a few meters would inundate thousands of acres of highly developed land and beach communities along Florida's Atlantic Coast, the Florida Keys, and the Florida Gulf Coast. Significant flooding and environmental change would also be experienced in the Everglades. Zoom in on Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor or another area to see the impact of sea level rise in more detail. Florida is a low-elevation state and would feel the impact of sea level rise associated with global climate change much more strongly than other areas.”

In the Pacific whole islands will become uninhabitable: See this headline in Business Insider (not a “liberal source or a PC source) "Sea Level Rise Will Make Several Islands Uninhabitable Within A Decade."

See here and here.

And finally, here is a summary for the United States, which to be sure takes us quite far out. 

But maybe the worst part would be the endless migration of people from negatively effected area to less effected areas - a migration that would make the present immigration problems look puny. The result would likely be war and the killing of immigrants to protect the interest of the haves from the impinging hordes trying to find shelter where they are not wanted.

I pity my grandchild and even more the generation after that. My advise to my grandchild would be “Don’t have children. They will be born into Hell on Earth.”

If it isn’t already too late - it is certainly very close to that.

As usual, comments or questions are welcome!

Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have (Discussion)

On May 5^th 2014 I posted my latest commentary on my blog under the heading "Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have." This can be accessed here.

Almost immediately comments started coming in.

Nicole Scheller of Lawrenceville, NJ reacted with this:

An issue close to my heart. I even keep a stash of bags at school, so if I take the kids shopping, we're not forced to use plastic. I'm still considered weird for this, but I'm ok with that. I do hear a lot of folks excusing their use of plastic bags because they are recyclable now, but as you know recycling takes energy and the end product will find itself in a landfill eventually.

Joel Wiener of Arlington, Virginia expressed the view:

Some stores charge for plastic bags, while others give the customer a small credit for using their own bags.  I prefer to use paper bags since they decompose quickly and I use the empty bags for recycling newspapers.

Plastic bags can be recycled if disposed of properly.  

The problem, like with most things, is with compliance and a sense of personal responsibility.

To which I replied:

You are making an assumption that is commonplace. Please read the article here where you will find that paper bags don’t really have much of an advantage over plastic. To quote from part of the article:

“Before you brown bag it, consider these environmental disadvantages of paper:

•                Causes pollution: Paper production emits air pollution, specifically 70 percent more pollution than the production of plastic bags [source:Thompson]. According to certain studies, manufacturing paper emits 80 percent more greenhouse gases [source: Lilienfield]. And, consider that making paper uses trees that, instead, could be absorbing carbon dioxide. The paper bag making process also results in 50 times more water pollutants than making plastic bags [source:Thompson].

•                Consumes energy: Even though petroleum goes into making plastic, it turns out that making a paper bag consumes four times as much energy as making a plastic bag, meaning making paper consumes a good deal of fuel [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Consumes water: The production of paper bags uses three times the amount of water it takes to make plastic bags [source: Lilienfield].

•                Inefficient recycling: The process of recycling paper can be inefficient -- often consuming more fuel than it would take to make a new bag [source: Milstein]. In addition, it takes about 91 percent more energy to recycle a pound of paper than a pound of plastic [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Produces waste: According to some measures, paper bags generate 80 percent more solid waste [source: Lilienfield].

•                Biodegrading difficulties: Surprisingly, the EPA has stated that in landfills, paper doesn't degrade all that much faster than plastics [source: Lilienfield].

But that doesn’t mean that plastic is better, as the article goes on to say:

However, plastic didn't get a bad reputation for nothing. Here are some environmental disadvantages of plastic: (and then lists many).

There simply is no substitute for making use of re-usable bags, which we should all do voluntarily as I, my wife and my daughter do. 

But this issue is far too important to allow for voluntarism.  As my original post has indicated many governments have instituted action to discourage the use of disposable bags of any kind and that we need to do the same.

I personally would favor a significant tax on every bag issued by a retailer. I would urge a minimum of 25¢ per bag and preferably a $1.00 assessment. That would be an effective inducement to the use of re-usable bags. It is essential that we, as a society take action against the blight of waste and its devastation on the environment."

Which prompted this response from Wiener:

I suppose that canvas bags would also have an environmental impact due to their manufacture and the printing found on them:

The common message throughout all of these facts is to re-use bags, and the more they are re-used, whether paper, plastic, canvas or mesh, the less impact on the environment.

I think that the addition of a per bag tax would not be much of a deterrent, since even at a buck a bag, most people will forget to bring their bags and will have no choice but to pay the tax and get the bag, as opposed to carrying an armful of loose groceries. 

Which prompted this further observation on my part:

Your point is well taken. The key is "to re-use bags”.

But I don’t agree that a "buck a bag" would not be a deterrent. Even 25¢ a bag would be. We can see this from the extent to which people clip coupons and use store member cards to get discounts. But the common 2¢ or even less a bag does nothing.

The idea that "forgetting has its costs" is a wonderful way to jolt the memory.

(Some good slogans there.)

Albert Nikemkin of Vienna, Virginia chimed in with:

Thanks for sharing this.

IKEA has the solution to this problem. I was at a local store yesterday: it doesn't provide any bags at all for purchases. However, it does SELL reusable bags at the checkout counter for those who want them and/or forgot to bring one. I think that would certainly get the message across and solve the problem. However, a single merchant can't make this work. A municipality or state needs to outlaw the free distribution of plastic bags. That would either mean a return to paper, or adoption of the IKEA approach.

Prompting me to write:

Ikea is the correct solution. But as you point out an occasional responsible retailer or an occasional responsible consumer will not solve the problem. It is a societal issue and must be dealt with societally. Only a tax on disposable bags, both plastic and paper of at least 25¢ and preferably $1.- will begin to deal with this issue.

Elaine Krigsman of Montclair, NJ prompted this exchange by writing:

While I agree with you that a tax would be the best way to solve this problem, the chances of this actually happening are slim to none.  We can't even get a gas tax passed here in NJ that would begin to address our needs.  Stores should just stop providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe.  IKEA's system is not original but it is effective, even if it is just one customer at a time.  

Which caused me to reply:

Unfortunately, the likelihood of stores no longer "providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe” is also slim to none. First it is up to us to act individually to use re-usable bags, and second we need to keep working to achieve societal and political goals even if at the moment they seem out of reach. The stupidity of not raising the gas tax is beyond compare, as was the failure of Christie to allow new rail tunnels between NJ & NY even though the Federal government would pay for it, a project that was first proposed by Christie supporter, former mayor, Giuliani.

And then Christie won by a landslide. 

Simply throwing up ones hands accomplishes nothing.

Prompting this final concurrence:

I agree with you on all points!

And finally Joanna Cooke of Jackson, Wyoming expressed this view:

I haven't commented in years, largely because I feel way out of my league in terms of understanding the issues you've explored. But this one I have an opinion on. We regularly use cloth bags--some have been in use over eight years at this point. I also reuse the plastic bags for when we get things in bulk for new bulk purchases. Whatever bags we do use, plastic or paper, get reused in some fashion, for example, for garbage in the bathrooms (and I often simply empty out those bags and use them again for the same purpose).  I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic. Our local natural food store gives a credit that can be donated to local community foundations, and even the box grocery stores give some kind of credit, a few cents per bag or something. I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic (emphasis added).

To which I replied:

Allow me to address some of the concerns you raise. You "wonder about the economic concerns." I don’t see that there are any realistic ones. Even a dollar tax on each bag would not cause people to shop less, but it would, in most cases, cause them to bring their own bags.

As for your question as to "what the best forms of education are on this topic” I really don’t know. The environmental community must spend resources on education. Unfortunately they have not invested very much on this issue. I do not have any influence in this community. Those who do should use that influence to get them to speak out more aggressively.

The main obstacle to imposing a significant tax on disposable bags is the general aversion of the public to all taxes and the antigovernment mood created by Reagan’s slogan, “Government is not the solution, Government is the problem” and the anarchic anti-societal attitudes that have arisen from it, particularly within the Tea party, but within the Republican party in general. They have a no lose strategy, because the more outrageous their behavior in the councils of government, the more they bring government into disrepute, which strengthens their anarchic and anti societal agenda. Since the public instinctively hates taxes, this too feeds into their opposition to all tax increases and supports their constant call for fewer taxes until in the words of, Grover Norquist, "I just want to shrink it (the government) down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Politics has its cycles, and in time the public may recognize that without government to regulate our food and drug supplies, to protect our environment and to guarantee competition, etc. capitalism cannot function.

I will be happy to entertain any further comments anyone else cares to make.

Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have

I have stated before, and herby restate, that because of a lack of expressed interest in my postings on my blog I have ceased writing for that venue, until and unless I receive a reasonable number of responses indicating an interest in my continuing. 

However, since I continue to write for other venues from time to time, I will continue to post those on my blog.

On April 21, I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Record (The Fort Lee Suburbanite no longer appears to be interested in publishing Letters to the Editor). It was published in the April 23, 2014 edition.

The letter appeared under the Headline “Stop Using Plastic Bags” and reads as follows:

I find it appalling to find that most people take their purchases in plastic bags, rather then using reusable canvas bags. It appears they mean well, because every merchant offers reusable canvas bags and many buy them. But it appears that most people seem content with having bought such bags, even though they then fail to use them.

Why using reusable canvas bags is so is hard is difficult to contemplate. Most people use their cars when doing their shopping and it is the easiest thing in the world to keep some canvas bags in the car and take them with them when they shop. That is what I do.

Do they not realize what enormous damage they are doing to our environment? What happens to these hundreds, indeed thousands, and most likely millions of these bags? According to National Geographic there are “somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion plastic bags … consumed worldwide each year”. We see them hanging from trees where they pollute our visual environment. But worse they end up in our landfills, where unlike other garbage they do not decompose and remain there unto eternity. And still worse they end up in our streams and in our oceans where dolphins, and other creatures of the sea get tangled in them, or imbibe them and die a horrible death.

National Geographic also informs us that “Plastic bag litter has become such an environmental nuisance and eyesore that Ireland, Taiwan, South Africa, Australia, and Bangladesh have heavily taxed the totes or banned their use outright. Several other regions, including England and some U.S. cities, are considering similar actions.”

It is time for our state and/or our nation to do the same.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to, but will only be published at my discretion.