On 13 Dec 2006 10:27:31 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Varis wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:

In the final analysis; nobody with a motorized pleasure boat has any
license, at all, to seriously complain about the global consumption of
fossil fuel. (Sort of like Al Gore travelling around in a big SUV). A
true believer would need to sink his or her boat, junk out his or her
car (not just sell it, and transfer the problem to another person), and
take up walking, rowing, and bicycling instead.

Maybe he is demotivated by the thought that the million guys next to
him will not let go of their SUVs anyway? And... how do you know how
much gas _his_ boat consumes? :-)

Risto

All very probably true. However, nobody should call upon others to make
sacrifices that they are personally unwilling to endure. Matters not
whether it's the fundie preacher having gay sex with his meth pusher on
Saturdays and then screaming that all gays are going to hell from his
pulpit on Sunday, Al Gore traveling around in a 12 MPG SUV while
railing against mankind's acceleration of global warming, or some guy
who owns a boat suggesting that others should not do the same because
it is a frivolous use of fossil fuel.

Anything burning less fuel than my boat (about 2 gph) is probably under
sail; but darned if I would assume some moral soap box to insist that
others conserve fuel that I am personally unwilling to conserve. Every
drop of fuel burned in a pleasure boat, every drop of fuel burned in a
motor vehicle for a pleasure trip, and nearly every drop of fuel burned
in any private passenger vehicle larger or more comfortable than a
Mini-Cooper is a discretionary waste.
Show me the guy who uses nothing but solar or wind energy, walks, bikes
or rows everywhere he goes, eats no commercially grown, processed, or
transported food, buys nothing made of plastic or imported from a
country with few meaningful environmental laws (China), and that will
be the guy who has earned the right to tell the rest of us we need to
change our living standards to forestall global warming.

There's a chance that we're no more than a generation or two from the
next Dark Age.
When radiation poisoning, famine, warfare, and disease reduce the
population to a small fraction of what it is today, the survivors will
get a chance to evaluate whether suspending the use of fossil fuels,
allowing the forests to once again cover the continents, etc will have
any effect on global warming. Most of us will be long gone, and perhaps
primarily by natural causes- but our grandkids or great grandkids will
need to be lucky as well as strong and resourceful to survive in a
future that it is *already too late* to salvage. Gawd that's
depressing- good reason to own a boat. :-)

(But if you own a boat, you have no creds in the "global warming"
discussion)

Chuck, do you have the URL for that 'doomsday' article which basically said
what you just did? Someone posted it here a few months back, and I've lost
it. Thanks.
--
John H

*Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!*

Chuck Gould wrote:

Anything burning less fuel than my boat (about 2 gph) is probably under
sail; but darned if I would assume some moral soap box to insist that
others conserve fuel that I am personally unwilling to conserve. Every
drop of fuel burned in a pleasure boat, every drop of fuel burned in a
motor vehicle for a pleasure trip, and nearly every drop of fuel burned
in any private passenger vehicle larger or more comfortable than a
Mini-Cooper is a discretionary waste.
Show me the guy who uses nothing but solar or wind energy, walks, bikes
or rows everywhere he goes, eats no commercially grown, processed, or
transported food, buys nothing made of plastic or imported from a
country with few meaningful environmental laws (China), and that will
be the guy who has earned the right to tell the rest of us we need to
change our living standards to forestall global warming.

That's an interesting view. According to you, one has to have a
completely clean record to be able to expect anything from others.

Personally I think one can set an example with any little action - it
may not be much but already that gains some high ground - then one can
say, OK I gave up my SUV but you still have yours and continue to
endanger our common environment, how come? Of course, the more you give
up the more leverage you have... It looks like the carbon trading
scheme is based on a similar frame of mind: give up a little (money or
carbon credits), gain a little, give up a lot and gain a lot.

There are few people who actually demand that we go to zero carbon
emissions. That might result in a good and enjoyable life style, but,
you're going to have a bit of a work to convince modern people about
that, and hopefully, it's not really necessary in anyway, or at least
it looks like that in the face of current knowledge.

It's a tradeoff of risk, cost and values. You can pay a bit now and
avoid most of the risk, provided that you have worked through the
political inertia of creating a system of effective payments. Or you
can wait and lose much more money later on, besides natural values that
can be hard to estimate financially. (How much does it cost to replace
an extinct species?) Even with a consensus on a human-induced global
warming, it is very difficult to tell how soon and how strong the
effects will come. But in the end, one could view global warming as a
purely economic risk calculation.

There's a chance that we're no more than a generation or two from the
next Dark Age.
When radiation poisoning, famine, warfare, and disease reduce the
population to a small fraction of what it is today, the survivors will

From the PoV of the ecosystem, we are living in a Dark Age, sometimes
called the holocene extinction event as well. You can read that on
about a half of the global land area the original ecosystem has been
replaced by monoculture, a far cry from biodiversity. Likewise almost a
half of all biomass is either humans or used to feed humans (not sure
if they count the oceans in that though...).

(But if you own a boat, you have no creds in the "global warming"
discussion)

So it's a moral discussion, not a scientific one?

Risto

Varis wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:

Anything burning less fuel than my boat (about 2 gph) is probably under
sail; but darned if I would assume some moral soap box to insist that
others conserve fuel that I am personally unwilling to conserve. Every
drop of fuel burned in a pleasure boat, every drop of fuel burned in a
motor vehicle for a pleasure trip, and nearly every drop of fuel burned
in any private passenger vehicle larger or more comfortable than a
Mini-Cooper is a discretionary waste.
Show me the guy who uses nothing but solar or wind energy, walks, bikes
or rows everywhere he goes, eats no commercially grown, processed, or
transported food, buys nothing made of plastic or imported from a
country with few meaningful environmental laws (China), and that will
be the guy who has earned the right to tell the rest of us we need to
change our living standards to forestall global warming.

That's an interesting view. According to you, one has to have a
completely clean record to be able to expect anything from others.

Personally I think one can set an example with any little action - it
may not be much but already that gains some high ground - then one can
say, OK I gave up my SUV but you still have yours and continue to
endanger our common environment, how come? Of course, the more you give
up the more leverage you have... It looks like the carbon trading
scheme is based on a similar frame of mind: give up a little (money or
carbon credits), gain a little, give up a lot and gain a lot.

There are few people who actually demand that we go to zero carbon
emissions. That might result in a good and enjoyable life style, but,
you're going to have a bit of a work to convince modern people about
that, and hopefully, it's not really necessary in anyway, or at least
it looks like that in the face of current knowledge.

Trading carbon credits is just another way to redistribute wealth.

As they say a rising tide lifts all boats. Sucking all of the water out
of a pool leaves everyone at the bottom.