by the way, are you guys watching the "planet earth" series on the discovery channel? it was also broadcast on the beeb a year ago.
if you haven't been watching, please do! i highly recommend it. really, everyone in congress, the white house, etc., hell, every human being on the planet needs to see it. it's all the better if you have high definition television.
I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand i like the idea of a more carbon concious government, on the other hand I'm not sure how much I like uncle sam telling everyone in this country how to live. I'm not worrying about how business is going to be affected by this, if at all, i'm just peeved that the government just feels the need to control practically everything now.
As far as I have seen in TV documentaries, there's as much evidence to prove climate change is a natural occurence as evidence suggesting it's man-made. If fact, the evidence I've seen makes the more compelling case for the former.
If architects are about creating long-term environmentally responsible solutions, isn't it about time we started designing for a hotter climate with, erm, stilts, depending on where you are? Even James Gleick (Gaia theory) suggests that it's too late to reverse things, so why are architects jumping on this stupid, populist, panicky bandwagon? To my mind, sustainability is the more enlightened direction but even then, the market will drive the use of new materials once the old ones run out. I'd say it's the market, too, that's driving our current obsession with climate change.
I forgot there that sustainability isn't just about materials. More significantly, it's about the plundering of natural environments and habitats of other creatures. As the better side of humans involves compassion, some concern over the livelihood of other animals; plants too, seems appropriate.
so... you suggest that we should care about the environment and our future lives (and the lives of our children) by ignoring the FACT that actions by humans contribute to the changes in the environment? I don't get it.
The overwhelming evidence states that environmental change is partly the result of our actions - the consensus about this has been building for years, it's not a "current obsession".
from William K. Stevens essay in NYT (6 feb 2007)
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years. In the panel's parlance, this level of certainty is labeled ''very likely.''
Only rarely does scientific odds-making provide a more definite answer than that, at least in this branch of science, and it describes the endpoint, so far, of a progression:
In 1990, in its first report, the panel found evidence of global warming but said its cause could be natural as easily as human.
In a landmark 1995 report, the panel altered its judgment, saying that ''the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.''
In 2001, it placed the probability that human activity caused most of the warming of the previous half century at 66 percent to 90 percent -- a ''likely'' rating.
And now it has supplied an even higher, more compelling seal of numerical certainty , which is also one measure of global warming's risk to humanity."
The idea that the market will solve things is ridiculous - the market will sell products that people will buy, and it will develop environmentally friendly materials & processes if the people (and the governments of people) demand them - not before. and how is the market driving our "current obsession"? please explain.
Helsinki: how do you then explain that the atmospheric temperature near the earth's surface has warmed up whereas the temperature in the upper atmosphere has not? As you know, greenhouse gases congregate in the upper atmosphere, trapping the heat at that level. Unlike the sun, of course, which warms the earth's surface. Furthermore, if you'd seen the documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' like me, you'd maybe feel a little suspicious, as I do, about the so-called consensus of the so-called Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
You're quite right, though, to say that this thing about Climate Change and the possibility of human causes or exacerbation thereof is not a new thing. It's been an issue of concern, research and debate for forty years or so. So why is everybody, governments included, suddenly so interested? Isn't it apparent from the history of politics that there's often an ulterior motive for things? War being good for the defence industry being good for the economy, for example? War being good for galvanising public opinion in a certain direction by uniting everyone against a common enemy? Isn't it convenient that the UK and US governments now have an enemy that we can all be terrified of again, just in case Terror doesn't quite hack it in the long run?
I'm not actually saying that these means might not justify decent ends. But I am suspicious and don't like 1)being sent into an apocalyptic panic unless I'm absolutely convinced of the science (currently I'm not: the consensus is not as consensual as we're led to believe, believe it or not) and 2) the creation of public taboos about which people are made too scared to argue lest they be seen as monsters of one stripe or another.
Furthermore, the climate change issue is seriously starting to obscure the wider environmental agenda: it's all getting seriously dumbed-down. Now maybe that's OK, if it goes in the right direction. Or maybe it's getting just a little scary for reasons quite different to climate change itself.
Climate change, whether man made, a combination of man and nature, or natural, is in fact occuring. Whether or not man caused the warming seems irellevant at this point. It is also known that man contributes to the warming of the earth by releasing copious amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
If the earth is warming, and we contribute, what is the point in defending arguments that we dont contribute THAT MUCH. The fact that we contribute at all is grounds for our immediate attempts to slow our contributions. I find it short sighted to argue that the will full destruction of the earth in any capacity is acceptable.
Why does it matter if the subject has become politicized?
Why does it matter if global warming is being used to galvanize public oppinion towards a cause?
For a cause which is so obviously critical to every person on earth, i dont understand why it would be negative that it has become a buzz word in politics.
solidred--
if im understanding you correctly and your claiming that the current boost in the awareness of global warming is being sensationalized in order to provide a 'war on terror' type effect, i would really like to hear your theories on how governments benefit so greatly from frightening people out of abusing our limited resources.
Solidred, if you think that the overwhelming consensus of the legitimate (read: scientists not paid by corporations for their "opinions") scientific community is anything other than that global warming is clearly being driven by human activities then I'm sorry to say your just not educated on the subject. And until you do educate yourself you'll continue to sound like a total noob whom doesn't know what he/she is talking about : )
Human beings actually have the hubris to think we can end all life on this planet forever simply by driving to work.
The climate is a changin' folks, and the way i see it we should do what we can to slow it down so that our kids have a better chance to adapt. But the planet, she's gonna be just fine, she's seen far worse. She's seen ice ages that covered the north american continent in 2 miles of ice down to applachian foothills, and she's seen temperatures so warm it turned antarctica into a swamp. The planets fine, the people are fucked. Stop worryin' about the polar bears and start worryin' about us, the polar bears will figure something out or die with the rest of us.
notably an April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine. Titled "The Cooling World," it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed that "[t]he evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it,"
We are a short sighted people. Calm down everything is going to be ok. Not to say that we should not take care of our planet, we should, but all of this fear mongering is crazy.
All this hatred toward Hummers should be diverted to vehicles that actually make a difference like private jets that fly from LA to NY with 4 people in them. Hummers are a blip on the screen compared to Jet fuel consumption.
lletdownl: "If the earth is warming, and we contribute, what is the point in defending arguments that we dont contribute THAT MUCH. The fact that we contribute at all is grounds for our immediate attempts to slow our contributions."
All I'm suggesting is that if we've inaccurately identified the source of a problem, a solution on that basis will be mis-directed.
mrfletchersevil: "then I'm sorry to say your just not educated on the subject. And until you do educate yourself you'll continue to sound like a total noob"
Says you. A debate in which all one side can say is 'you're just stupid' renders the process entirely pointless. Or did that concept not form a part of your own education?
Stop worryin' about the polar bears and start worryin' about us, the polar bears will figure something out or die with the rest of us.
some people seem to forget that we too are animals trapped in an ecosystem that treats every creature fairly, despite how unfairly some treat the environment. unfair is also the characterization that if you are passionate about ensuring a positive ecological future, based on enormous amounts of research not sponsored by the gop, then you are fear mongering...it'll be ok, keep shopping. so far, i have not witnessed any crazy fecal throwing lunacy from reports of global warming. legitimizing counterproductive argumentation is not popular, as some of you lament. and yes, the government is going to regulate your life to hell, like, dont burn fossil fuels. i know that that type of talk and legislation will throw some of you into an existential crisis of global proportions, but bear with the attempts to not waste time placating an already apathetic population. stare this down and dont be afraid.
I a little aside:
Dear vegitarians, plants are going extinct too.
Dear government naming agency, you've overused the word 'war' beyond all context.
Dear judicial system, thanks for making a difference too late.
Dear executive branch, thanks for nothing.
Dear Ronald Reagan, thank you for cutting solar tax credits from $684 mil. to $83 mil.; thanks for having solar panels removed from the White House roof... just becasue. You sure were a real environmentalist.
arguing that the planet will be fine, that its seen warming before, that its been covered by ice and torched by fire, volcanos and comets is completely beside the point.
im a selfish man, i dont care about the planet surviving... i am however not too enthused about the possibility that a drastically changing climate will severely disrupt an already disrupted human population. I dont worry about our survival as much as i worry about how damn inconvenient massive floods, draughts, huricanes tornados raising ocean levels and the destruction of living things (including humans) habitats would be.
and also, it was mentioned above that we always tend to act in such a short sighted maner... heres a beautiful opportunity to begin to reverse that trend... obviously none of us will be around to witness the full extent of our impact on the environment but its still not a good enough reason to avoid devoting significant resources to curbing a problem we know we are contributing too... i dont know how you argue against that notion
It's also a return to people trying to predict the future...
But for sure, considering holistic consequences seems more mature than leaving everything to the power of the buck.
yes lletdownl, i agree completely, its gonna be inconvienient for US and a bunch of other organisms too over-specialized to adapt. However i find it funny that some environmentalists think this is the end of the world, it isn't. The planet is a DYNAMIC place, we have to adapt to IT and stop trying to force it to adapt to US, because its so inconvienient our cities got flooded because we built them next to the sea. That's like building a cliff house in an earthquake/landslide region, you best be prepared for when that thing comes tumblin' down.
Speaking of building, something that the Architectural-community-at-large might want to think about is the intense amount of carbon dioxide produced in the manufacture of Portland Cement. I have read conflicting statistics (for which I always have a healthy disdain) about what percentage of total global CO2 emissions, but suffice it to say, it is definitely significant. The fact is that as Architects and Designers, we have the ability to propose alternatives and help to abate problems such as this.
Justices Rule Against White House on Emissions
A step in the right direction? See this New York Times article:
Justices Rule Against White House on Emissions
YEAH!!!!! sic it to them!
VETO THAT SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
maybe they've come to their senses..
hell ya...
it's about fucking time.
by the way, are you guys watching the "planet earth" series on the discovery channel? it was also broadcast on the beeb a year ago.
if you haven't been watching, please do! i highly recommend it. really, everyone in congress, the white house, etc., hell, every human being on the planet needs to see it. it's all the better if you have high definition television.
i had to get rid of my tv to reduce my carbon footprint :'(
I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand i like the idea of a more carbon concious government, on the other hand I'm not sure how much I like uncle sam telling everyone in this country how to live. I'm not worrying about how business is going to be affected by this, if at all, i'm just peeved that the government just feels the need to control practically everything now.
don't you want to save the world?
Cris
what is the carbon footprint of a new HDTV??
As far as I have seen in TV documentaries, there's as much evidence to prove climate change is a natural occurence as evidence suggesting it's man-made. If fact, the evidence I've seen makes the more compelling case for the former.
If architects are about creating long-term environmentally responsible solutions, isn't it about time we started designing for a hotter climate with, erm, stilts, depending on where you are? Even James Gleick (Gaia theory) suggests that it's too late to reverse things, so why are architects jumping on this stupid, populist, panicky bandwagon? To my mind, sustainability is the more enlightened direction but even then, the market will drive the use of new materials once the old ones run out. I'd say it's the market, too, that's driving our current obsession with climate change.
I forgot there that sustainability isn't just about materials. More significantly, it's about the plundering of natural environments and habitats of other creatures. As the better side of humans involves compassion, some concern over the livelihood of other animals; plants too, seems appropriate.
so... you suggest that we should care about the environment and our future lives (and the lives of our children) by ignoring the FACT that actions by humans contribute to the changes in the environment? I don't get it.
The overwhelming evidence states that environmental change is partly the result of our actions - the consensus about this has been building for years, it's not a "current obsession".
from William K. Stevens essay in NYT (6 feb 2007)
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years. In the panel's parlance, this level of certainty is labeled ''very likely.''
Only rarely does scientific odds-making provide a more definite answer than that, at least in this branch of science, and it describes the endpoint, so far, of a progression:
In 1990, in its first report, the panel found evidence of global warming but said its cause could be natural as easily as human.
In a landmark 1995 report, the panel altered its judgment, saying that ''the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.''
In 2001, it placed the probability that human activity caused most of the warming of the previous half century at 66 percent to 90 percent -- a ''likely'' rating.
And now it has supplied an even higher, more compelling seal of numerical certainty , which is also one measure of global warming's risk to humanity."
The idea that the market will solve things is ridiculous - the market will sell products that people will buy, and it will develop environmentally friendly materials & processes if the people (and the governments of people) demand them - not before. and how is the market driving our "current obsession"? please explain.
Dude - mine the moon and shoot all the garbage into space. Onjly animals live in there filth.
In a related topic, this time not so positive:
Reports From Four Fronts in the War on Warming
"War on Warming", sounds about as futile as "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs"
Couldn't agree more. Isn't it time for less "War on..."?
Helsinki: how do you then explain that the atmospheric temperature near the earth's surface has warmed up whereas the temperature in the upper atmosphere has not? As you know, greenhouse gases congregate in the upper atmosphere, trapping the heat at that level. Unlike the sun, of course, which warms the earth's surface. Furthermore, if you'd seen the documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' like me, you'd maybe feel a little suspicious, as I do, about the so-called consensus of the so-called Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
You're quite right, though, to say that this thing about Climate Change and the possibility of human causes or exacerbation thereof is not a new thing. It's been an issue of concern, research and debate for forty years or so. So why is everybody, governments included, suddenly so interested? Isn't it apparent from the history of politics that there's often an ulterior motive for things? War being good for the defence industry being good for the economy, for example? War being good for galvanising public opinion in a certain direction by uniting everyone against a common enemy? Isn't it convenient that the UK and US governments now have an enemy that we can all be terrified of again, just in case Terror doesn't quite hack it in the long run?
I'm not actually saying that these means might not justify decent ends. But I am suspicious and don't like 1)being sent into an apocalyptic panic unless I'm absolutely convinced of the science (currently I'm not: the consensus is not as consensual as we're led to believe, believe it or not) and 2) the creation of public taboos about which people are made too scared to argue lest they be seen as monsters of one stripe or another.
Furthermore, the climate change issue is seriously starting to obscure the wider environmental agenda: it's all getting seriously dumbed-down. Now maybe that's OK, if it goes in the right direction. Or maybe it's getting just a little scary for reasons quite different to climate change itself.
Climate change, whether man made, a combination of man and nature, or natural, is in fact occuring. Whether or not man caused the warming seems irellevant at this point. It is also known that man contributes to the warming of the earth by releasing copious amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
If the earth is warming, and we contribute, what is the point in defending arguments that we dont contribute THAT MUCH. The fact that we contribute at all is grounds for our immediate attempts to slow our contributions. I find it short sighted to argue that the will full destruction of the earth in any capacity is acceptable.
Why does it matter if the subject has become politicized?
Why does it matter if global warming is being used to galvanize public oppinion towards a cause?
For a cause which is so obviously critical to every person on earth, i dont understand why it would be negative that it has become a buzz word in politics.
solidred--
if im understanding you correctly and your claiming that the current boost in the awareness of global warming is being sensationalized in order to provide a 'war on terror' type effect, i would really like to hear your theories on how governments benefit so greatly from frightening people out of abusing our limited resources.
Solidred, if you think that the overwhelming consensus of the legitimate (read: scientists not paid by corporations for their "opinions") scientific community is anything other than that global warming is clearly being driven by human activities then I'm sorry to say your just not educated on the subject. And until you do educate yourself you'll continue to sound like a total noob whom doesn't know what he/she is talking about : )
Here's something i find hilarious:
Human beings actually have the hubris to think we can end all life on this planet forever simply by driving to work.
The climate is a changin' folks, and the way i see it we should do what we can to slow it down so that our kids have a better chance to adapt. But the planet, she's gonna be just fine, she's seen far worse. She's seen ice ages that covered the north american continent in 2 miles of ice down to applachian foothills, and she's seen temperatures so warm it turned antarctica into a swamp. The planets fine, the people are fucked. Stop worryin' about the polar bears and start worryin' about us, the polar bears will figure something out or die with the rest of us.
notably an April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine. Titled "The Cooling World," it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed that "[t]he evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it,"
We are a short sighted people. Calm down everything is going to be ok. Not to say that we should not take care of our planet, we should, but all of this fear mongering is crazy.
All this hatred toward Hummers should be diverted to vehicles that actually make a difference like private jets that fly from LA to NY with 4 people in them. Hummers are a blip on the screen compared to Jet fuel consumption.
lletdownl: "If the earth is warming, and we contribute, what is the point in defending arguments that we dont contribute THAT MUCH. The fact that we contribute at all is grounds for our immediate attempts to slow our contributions."
All I'm suggesting is that if we've inaccurately identified the source of a problem, a solution on that basis will be mis-directed.
mrfletchersevil: "then I'm sorry to say your just not educated on the subject. And until you do educate yourself you'll continue to sound like a total noob"
Says you. A debate in which all one side can say is 'you're just stupid' renders the process entirely pointless. Or did that concept not form a part of your own education?
Stop worryin' about the polar bears and start worryin' about us, the polar bears will figure something out or die with the rest of us.
some people seem to forget that we too are animals trapped in an ecosystem that treats every creature fairly, despite how unfairly some treat the environment. unfair is also the characterization that if you are passionate about ensuring a positive ecological future, based on enormous amounts of research not sponsored by the gop, then you are fear mongering...it'll be ok, keep shopping. so far, i have not witnessed any crazy fecal throwing lunacy from reports of global warming. legitimizing counterproductive argumentation is not popular, as some of you lament. and yes, the government is going to regulate your life to hell, like, dont burn fossil fuels. i know that that type of talk and legislation will throw some of you into an existential crisis of global proportions, but bear with the attempts to not waste time placating an already apathetic population. stare this down and dont be afraid.
I a little aside:
Dear vegitarians, plants are going extinct too.
Dear government naming agency, you've overused the word 'war' beyond all context.
Dear judicial system, thanks for making a difference too late.
Dear executive branch, thanks for nothing.
Dear Ronald Reagan, thank you for cutting solar tax credits from $684 mil. to $83 mil.; thanks for having solar panels removed from the White House roof... just becasue. You sure were a real environmentalist.
arguing that the planet will be fine, that its seen warming before, that its been covered by ice and torched by fire, volcanos and comets is completely beside the point.
im a selfish man, i dont care about the planet surviving... i am however not too enthused about the possibility that a drastically changing climate will severely disrupt an already disrupted human population. I dont worry about our survival as much as i worry about how damn inconvenient massive floods, draughts, huricanes tornados raising ocean levels and the destruction of living things (including humans) habitats would be.
well then don't worry, lletdownl, the inconvienient truth regarding massive floods et al have been blown way out of proportion.
im curious as to how you know that?
and also, it was mentioned above that we always tend to act in such a short sighted maner... heres a beautiful opportunity to begin to reverse that trend... obviously none of us will be around to witness the full extent of our impact on the environment but its still not a good enough reason to avoid devoting significant resources to curbing a problem we know we are contributing too... i dont know how you argue against that notion
It's also a return to people trying to predict the future...
But for sure, considering holistic consequences seems more mature than leaving everything to the power of the buck.
yes lletdownl, i agree completely, its gonna be inconvienient for US and a bunch of other organisms too over-specialized to adapt. However i find it funny that some environmentalists think this is the end of the world, it isn't. The planet is a DYNAMIC place, we have to adapt to IT and stop trying to force it to adapt to US, because its so inconvienient our cities got flooded because we built them next to the sea. That's like building a cliff house in an earthquake/landslide region, you best be prepared for when that thing comes tumblin' down.
Speaking of building, something that the Architectural-community-at-large might want to think about is the intense amount of carbon dioxide produced in the manufacture of Portland Cement. I have read conflicting statistics (for which I always have a healthy disdain) about what percentage of total global CO2 emissions, but suffice it to say, it is definitely significant. The fact is that as Architects and Designers, we have the ability to propose alternatives and help to abate problems such as this.
I never met a vegetarian whose primary justification for not eating meat was that animals are going extinct.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.