Saturday, March 10, 2007

Turning the GW crisis into an opportunity

Shouldn't we turn a crisis into an opportunity, risk into reward?

Our biggest problem is poverty and underdevelopment, basically the ever-widening gap between the poor and the rich. Poverty also has environmental impacts.

Global warming presents opportunities to developing countries, such as the Philippines. Pinoy environmentalists should frame the discussion as one of opportunity, not as sacrifice. The sacrifice should be done by those living in the developed world, not the developing countries. The industrialization of the West laid the seeds of destruction via global warming. They must bear the bulk of the burden.

We should look at:

1. Developing green technologies (see my alt tech xmas list), including green building technologies as one path towards sustainable industrialization
2. Developing the carbon credit exchange market
3. Developing alternative fuels

4. Educating the next generation of engineers, designers, educators on green technology and business
5. Getting the rich countries to pay us to develop our industries in a clean manner unlike their growth pattern

Sustainable development is not only about conservation.

It is also about human development that addresses basic needs of food, shelter, health, clothing, education, etc. including improving the quality of life.

Following the global warming money/ GW links

Why is the Virgin founder offering a $25 million prize for the technological solution to global warming? See the following from
Bloomberg, Alex Morales and Elliott Gotkine, 09 Feb 2007
The Independent
An interview with Sir Richard Branson

I've noted from others previously that no one, except for two Russian scientists, want to bet $10,000 that global warming (climate change is the term used by the republicans) is occurring and is being exacerbated by man's activities. See:

The Pieser report mentioned to discredit the Oreskes artice in Nature was defective methodologically. See Tim Lambert's post ( Here's the primer on how to talk to a climate change skeptic (

Follow the money of the skeptics.... (

Lastly, Mother Jones' series on anthropogenic global warming ( should be must reading...

How many scientists do we need to accept that global warming is occurring?

The science behind global warming is becoming clearer over time. There are so many credible scientists who have reached the same conclusions. Apart from the 2,500 IPCC scientists, recently, the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) released a statement on climate change. AAAS was founded in 1848. It is comprised and/or serves 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, reaching 10 million
individuals. Their statement can be found at:

AAAS Board Releases New Statement on Climate Change:

Global warming denialists are quick to point out that communists and leftists are mainly behind the efforts to promote global warming action. Indeed the leftists are present, but so what? They are not as big a threat as the rightwingers make them. The American kind may be irritating, but they are not of the Soviet type that led the USSR into economic and environmental ruin.

I say follow the money. As i posted last year, if you don't believe in global warming there are those who do and will bet you $10,000 that it's true.

Follow the oil company money used to pay journalists, scientists, and think tanks to contest gobal warming.

But more importantly, follow the money being invested in alternative technology.

I think this is a growth sector: carbon credits, solar, biofuels, reforestation, etc.

A few years from now, we'll see who was right and who made money.....

Common sense on global warming

The science behind anthropogenic global warming in ADDITION to natural phenomena is sound and documented. Any appeal to the "flat earth" analogy for arguing that there is not enough scientific data to posit that there is a global warming is a disingenous argument. The scientific methdology has improved over the past few decades and since the 60s the scientific results have mainly supported the global warming thesis.

On the contrary, most of the political editorializing are by the paid GW denialists, at least here in the US political and media arenas. There are no heroic figures in the GW denialist camp. None of them is a Galileo. They are all well-paid and well-fed.

Don't you think, as someone elsewhere noted, that it is immoral and self-destructive to pump out thousands of metric tons of toxic fumes every year in the name of progress?

If it stinks,

If it irritates your skin,

If it pollutes the water,

If it makes it difficult for your children to breathe,

If it causes CANCER,

If it kills you,

Then why continue to pump it out?

As they say, use your [common] senses....

Tucson can do better

Tucson ranked 21 out of 72 cities in the US in terms of "greeness". It's from the Urban Environment Report published by the Earthday Network. There are seven subject areas used for scoring: (1) toxics and wastes, (2) air quality, (3) drinking and surface water, (4) quality of life, (5) parks and recreation opportunities, (6) human and public health, (7) global warming and climate change.

These subject areas are mediated or weighted by a vulnerable population index (VPI), which accounts for the concentration of people vulnerable to, more sensitive to, or susceptible to environmental change ("citizens at risk").

Tucson's scorecard can be seen at:

Mesa, Az ranked 16, while Phoenix is 30th.

I liked the term used by VP Al Gore last night at the Oscars. He used "environmentally intelligent" technologies or processes instead of using "environmentally friendly" or "environmentally sustainable".

Friday, March 09, 2007