Earth Day Open Thread
Nick Gillespie | April 21, 2007, 4:23pm
Tomorrow is Earth Day, the Festivus of the environmental movement.
What do you think about it?
Go here for a list of reason's previous articles and comments on ED.
If you must read one reason Earth Day story, in Gaia's name, make it Ron Bailey's tremendous May 2000 cover story, "Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet's future has never looked better. Here's why." A snippet:
[Like the original sponsors of Earth Day,] many contemporary environmental alarmists are similarly mistaken when they continue to insist that the Earth's future remains an eco-tragedy that has already entered its final act. Such doomsters not only fail to appreciate the huge environmental gains made over the past 30 years, they ignore the simple fact that increased wealth, population, and technological innovation don't degrade and destroy the environment. Rather, such developments preserve and enrich the environment. If it is impossible to predict fully the future, it is nonetheless possible to learn from the past. And the best lesson we can learn from revisiting the discourse surrounding the very first Earth Day is that passionate concern, however sincere, is no substitute for rational analysis.
Neu Mejican | April 22, 2007, 4:12pm | #
A read about what "intelligent, unbiased persons" agree on.
"There are a lot of things that "everybody knows." Everybody knows that Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth, that 2+2=4, that most people have two eyes—and a lot of other things. If I were to go on, it would get tedious very fast, because, after all, these are things that everybody knows.
But there are also a lot of other things that "everybody knows," except that not everybody agrees that everybody knows them. For example, everybody knows not only that there has been significant global warming recently, but also that human beings caused this by burning fossil fuels. We know that evolution is as solidly proven as most of the rest of science, and that intelligent design isn't science at all; that Iraq never had any weapons of mass destruction (after they destroyed them); and that the U.S. government had nothing to do with the destruction of the World Trade Center. Except that, for each of these things "we all know," significant minorities insist that they're false.
Those dissenters, however, don't matter much when it comes to most journalism, reference, and education. Society forges ahead, reporting and teaching things without usually mentioning the dissenters, or only in a disparaging light. As a result, certain claims that some of us don't accept end up being background knowledge, as I'll call it. If you question such background knowledge, or even express some doubt about it, you'll look stupid, crazy, or immoral. Maybe all three."
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/sanger07/sanger07_index.html
Mr. F. Le Mur | April 22, 2007, 10:45pm | #
If dead_elvis's comments about the Earth's magnetic field are exemplary of the level of science knowledge held by the commentators here, then I would say it's no wonder you can disbelieve in GW:
Read it and weep...
Fairly different takes on the earth's magnetic field(s) and reversal, summary:
How long since the last reversal - 1 million years, or 700,00 years, or less than 30,000 years ago.
How often - Every 250,000 years, or every 500,000 years, every 1 million years, or randomly.
Effect - Will have bad effects on climate, or probably not a problem, or some (not most) may have caused extinctions. Atmosphere could be 'blown away' by solar wind if there were no magnetic field (i.e., Mars) (which isn't the same as field reversal), or maybe not (i.e. Venus).
+++
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,837058,00.html
Sun's rays to roast Earth as poles flip
'Earth's magnetic field has disappeared many times before - as a prelude to our magnetic poles flipping over, when north becomes south and vice versa,' said Dr Alan Thomson of the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh.
'Reversals happen every 250,000 years or so, and as there has not been one for almost a million years, we are due one soon.'
...
'These solar particles can have profound effects,' said Dr Paul Murdin, of the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge. 'On Mars, when its magnetic field failed permanently billions of years ago, it led to its atmosphere being boiled off. On Earth, it will heat up the upper atmosphere and send ripples round the world with enormous, unpredictable effects on the climate.'
+++
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=523
...
For example, lava that solidified 30,000 years ago shows that the magnetic field was in the opposite direction at that time.
One effect that may occur during a magnetic reversal is that the Earth may not be protected from charged particles streaming from the sun. ...This could be a problem, but most likely the atmosphere is thick enough to protect the Earth's surface.
Although the recent movie The Core tells the story of the Earth's magnetic field dissipating, causing the entire atmosphere to disintegrate, you don't need to worry about that happening! The magnetic field will exist as long as the outer core is liquid - and that will be for a long long time!
+++
http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/magnQ&A1.htm#q6
HOW LONG AGO: about 700,000 years, according to the "tape recorder"
HOW MANY TIMES: Many, about half a million years apart on the average.
+++
http://geomag.usgs.gov/faqs.php
However, before the last reversal, which was about 780,000 years ago,
Reversals are random events. They can happen as often as every 10 thousand years or so, and as infrequently as every 50 million years or more.
The magnetic field of the Earth does protect us from fast-moving charged particles streaming from the Sun, but so does the atmosphere. It is not clear whether or not the radiation that would make it to the Earth’s surface during a polarity transition, when the magnetic field is relatively weak, is sufficient to affect evolution, either directly or indirectly, and cause extinctions, such as that of the dinosaurs. But it seems that the radiation is probably insufficient.
++++
At least these guys aren't pretending that they can predict the future climate, much less the weather next month.
tarran | April 22, 2007, 11:10pm | #
Ken,
You may not be aware of this, but up till the 1830's or so, polluters routinely did get assessed for damages in court. Pollution, under common law, was treated as a form of vandalism and trespass.
For example, a factory owner could expect to be sued by people who lived downwind of his smokestacks and forced to pay damages for the damage his soot caused. To prevent this factory owners did start investing in primitive emission control systems.
Then the courts began to rule differently, stating bluntly that the advantage to society provided by factories outweighed the benefits of people not having their property polluted.
In effect, the government courts gave businesses a carte-blanche to pollute. And, pollute they did. Freed from having to pay for the damage they did, factory owners began to treat the world around them like a garbage dump. In fact, they had to; an ethical factory owner who allocated precious capital to pollution control processes from his production systems automatically placed himself at a competitive disadvantage.
Modern environmentalism takes the same approach; instead of respecting private property rights, it seeks to have the courts define "ecological diversity" or "environmental conditions" as taking precedence over both the privilege to pollute that the government granted to factories, and the private property rights of land-owners.
Speaking for myself, this is why I am down on mainstream environmentalists. They are, in their own way, behaving just as immorally as those whom they claim to oppose. To use a much abused analogy, just because I oppose George Bush's War on Terror, does not mean I support Al Queda.
Ken | April 22, 2007, 11:33pm | #
"Then the courts began to rule differently, stating bluntly that the advantage to society provided by factories outweighed the benefits of people not having their property polluted."
I'm with you all the way there. I've read many of the cases you refer to. But I will say this: there was a time when common law took it to polluters, then they backed off, but environmentalists pushed for regulation which deterred polluters, and I think that is all good. I don't like people dumping crap in my air and water, and if the government is stopping that, then more power to them! In fact, I may not have the time or wherewithal to find out who is dumping what, so three cheers for the EPA for doing it for me.
You've correctly IDed a source for trouble: when private property rights conflict with "ecological concerns." We agree (I think?) on the idea that the government should step in to protect our property rights (they can do so with tort law or with enviromental law it seems to me). But what happens in the latter case? If there is only three blue furred minx, and I think my kid should be able to see a blu furred minx, but two of them live on your land and you want to kill 'em and build a Starbucks...Well, I say maybe the majority should be able to vote to disallow you from doing your plans, but that should be a taking and you should be compensated...I mean, you don't get to make that decision about what my kids want to see...
"It is the classic libertarian argument, and you of all people should know that. The government does not recognize property rights in air or water. No property rights = tragedy of the commons = dumping shit in the rivers"
WC, I'm not sure where you are coming from...The gov currently works hard to keep people from dumping anything in any river or air (their tort law protects water and air, to a certain degree). Is that not a good thing?
TJIT: "Libertarians and conservatives oppose ineffective, counterproductive, expensive, government environmental policy. Don't confuse that with opposition to environmental protection."
So what environmental protection do you support? I imagine that it will be similar to what an "environmentalist" supports. I imagine this because it's reasonable to not want people to dump sh*t in the air you and I breathe, and the rivers we fish and drink from. And this is actually what the government does... There is of course some tension when the government acts for purely "ecological reasons", i.e., to protect "nature" in ways that do not "directly" affect humans. I'm curious, which species would you not care about if they went extinct, and what government restrictions would you support to keep such extinctions from happening?
tarran | April 23, 2007, 12:21am | #
Ken,
I don't quite agree; I'm one of those free market anarchists that thinks we should get rid of the government entirely! Obviously, without a government to promulgate them, in my utopia there would be no governmental regulations. :)
This is not an area I've really considered in depth, but I would suppose that the response depends on the localizability of the pollution. The act of polluting falls on a continuum; At one extreme, would be one man dumping garbage in his neighbor's yard; At the other extreme you have every internal combustion owner pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (I don't consider CO2 to be a pollutant, but for the purpose of this posting let's assume it is).
Now in the case of the man dumping garbage, it's very easy to assign a victim and an aggressor. This is just the thing that courts can handle easily (historical anarcho-capitalist societies have had courts: the courts were limited in enforcement mechanisms and lacked monopoly power), so this is not of concern.
But the other end of the continuum is quite a problem. It's hard for a victim to prove that they were damaged. It is also hard for a victim to identify who emitted the CO2 that injured them.
So I don't see courts as being able to handle this. What I would expect would be that market processes would handle it based on how much of a nuisance this diffused pollution is.
If it is a nuisance that impacts vast numbers of people, they will boycott the polluters. So, let us assume that CO2 caused 60% of the population to have runny noses. Of course, they hate it, so they start boycotting car-manufacturers, some of the car-manufacturers (many of whom also have runny noses from the pollution their products cause) try to gain a competitive advantage by marketing reduced CO2 cars and nature takes its course.
On the other hand, if only 1% of the population suffers from runny noses, their boycott will probably get them no where, so they will have to find some other way to mitigate the damage, perhaps by buying CO2 filters for their noses, or living out in the Ho rainforest or something.
I actually think the Carbon Offsetts market is a very interesting attempt to handle this problem. Again, I personally think these markets are an attempt to fix a non-problem, but looking at it from an economic perspective, this is a classic case of private environmental protection, where a charity collects money from supporters, and sends that money to persuade people to behave in ways that the supporters wish.
Now for ecological preservation, it really comes down to the landowners' choices. So, if I owned some forest, and thought an owl species was worth preserving, I would preserve it. If I wanted to harvest wood from my forest an kill the owls, I would do that instead.
In the case of your blue-furred minx example, I categorically disagree with you. If you want your kid to see the animal, buy it from me. Or buy the land. But invading my land and threatening to hurt me if I use it in a way that is not to your liking is actually quite monstrous! Before you protest that you don't want to invade my land, consider what would happen to me if I were to defy your blue-minx killing law. When a person is arrested and jailed, they are in effect kidnapped at gunpoint and held for many years.
But, in the absence of such violence, I think one would see free market attempts at species preservation. For example a charity would go out and negotiate with landowners and pay them to protect cute or popular species on behalf of their supporters in a manner similar to carbon offset markets.
As to my personal preferences about species preservation, I have very minor demands. I would like to see blue-jays, cardinals, chikadees, parakeets, dogs and cats preserved. Based on the conversations of Koko the gorilla and signing chimpanzees, I am inclined to recognize their "human rights", meaning that they should be allowed to own property, guns, etc. However, again, this is an inclination rather than a conclusion, perhaps its the result of reading L. Neil Smith and David Brin at an impressionable age. :)
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
