Recently and not so recently you may have noticed the number of appeals to save this poor endangered planet, and the number of impending tragedies and catastrophes that loom over us, waiting for the right moment to strike and doom all of us. Personally, I don't like to get so emotional about change in the environment, and have not had a look at the numbers involved, so I cannot judge whether some of those claims make sense or not.
Problem is, many, MANY of the arguments I've heard sound silly, plain wrong or simply the wrong argument to pick.
Let's start with an article I've read on some English newspaper a little more than a year ago (sorry I can't give a good reference for it). At some point during summer 2007, an Italian politician had given a speech in which, between other things, she referred to public administration buildings and dressing codes, her argument being: this summer is scorching hot, Italy has been having energy troubles for a long time, if everybody turns their air conditioning on the power grid will simply shut down, and the temperatures are high enough to be a serious health danger for very young and very old people. Let's drop the dressing code in public offices and buildings, leave the tie home and crank down the air conditioning (and save some public money in the process).
EDIT well actually her position was slightly different, but these assertions are my interpretation of what are the possible advantages, based mostly on what I've heard on tv last summer.
The journalist attacked this claim by asserting that global warming is an unproved problem, and, even if it turned out to be true, that would been good for England, since up here the climate is so much colder than Italy.
I wonder if it's fair to the journalist to attack his/her claims. I mean, whoever wrote it is obviously clueless about how global warming works in the models the scientists have prepared (whether you think that those models are valid or not). An increase of the average temperature on Earth is NOT going to warm up England, quite the opposite. The models predict increase of extreme phenomenons, hurricanes, heavy rain and droughts, due to the fact that hurricanes depend on energy the sun pours into our oceans: increase that energy, e.g., through the increase of temperature, and you get more and more powerful hurricanes. Plus, Great Britain is actually warmer than its geographical position grants for, and that's a well known effect of the Gulf Current. The model also includes a weakening of this current, due to changes in the temperature of water that would disrupt the flux (and there seems to be some evidence backing up this bit of the model, i.e., the Gulf Current seems to be weakening). Therefore, the most likely prevision for the climate in UK, if global warming is an actual threat, is that it will get COLDER, with increasing rain and the occasional hurricane sweeping up its coasts. Well, you could say, increasing rain, so what? We're used to it...
I beg to differ on this point. Apparently, enough rain can drown UK like any other country, if last year can be used as a comparison. Apparently, even high security installations, i.e., AWE-inspiring nuclear weaponry facilities are not immune to wet feet.
So, this should be enough to prove that UK should give global warming some thought (again, to either prove or disprove it - I'm not religious about it, I'm about to claim that it is the wrong argument to win this discussion). But, back to the article: why should we drop the ties and turn off the airco? To help the kids? To save grandma? That is all nice and good, and it appeals to me personally: I have a young niece and my grandma always struggles with the heat, plus I hate ties (they're useless by definition, I don't like the look of them and I've also heard disquieting rumors about how ties are not supposed to be washed). But each and every single point I just made can be discussed: someone loves ties, someone else has no children or grandmas, someone else may think the problem is in the power grid that needs fixing (and Italy might well decide to get nuclear plants or start studying renewable sources seriously, btw). So none of these arguments holds too much water, and why? Because they are based on goodwill (save this kid, or this small puppy, or whatever), or on personal tastes (burn those useless pieces of cloth around your neck, they're dangerous if you even have to put your head close to your car engine while it's spinning - rant end), and none of these is measurable or universal or objective. The winning argument here is in the last phrase I attributed to the politician: save some money. That's objective, measurable, and universal (show me someone who likes to WASTE money - not spend money for useful or useless things, waste as in: increase the cost, get exactly the same result - I'll show you a fool...). This is so true that even big companies have been known to bend to this law: an example from last year (again) is ENI.
Count the notes in your pocket, would you like to have more of those without changing your life style? Did I hear a "no" from back there? Honestly, mate, what's wrong with you?
Also from last winter (or maybe since last autumn, I'm not sure), there was this very funny advert: open field, sheep, and a guy going: "this is the animal that will save us from global warming. Put on a jumper and turn down the heating a couple of degrees."
I loved the joke, it was great. How many people do you think have cranked down the heaters because of it? Fifty? One thousand? Far from enough to make a difference. Same with this year ads on switching to 30 your washing machine, so that you can save the polar ice. Again, who do you know that gives a crap? If you live in Amsterdam you may refrain from buying a house and keep renting, just in case the sea overthrows the dams (my geography skills suck, so you may replace Amsterdam with any city that's really close to the coastline), but apart from that probably the only concerned people are those in Greenpeace, etc.
And there goes the BIG reason why saving the environment is the wrong argument to use. There is a lot of political color involved in claims like that, there are ideologies based on that, and there are a lot of people who would attack those ideas because of the other ideas that recently have learned to go arm in arm with them. To cite one, it seems that in Italy you cannot be concerned with your environment without being leftish (same goes for not wanting your country to go to war and invade other countries, or for preferring one charity to another - there's lots to be said about that as well, probably in another post). So what happens is that the battle to decide what's the next smart move becomes a political battle, and you get the following plan to disengage from dependence from oil coming from Arabic countries: let's drill in Alaska, leave SUV engines as big as possible, we'll keep petrol cost low by saturating the market.
No matter what you think of Alaska salmons becoming unedible, you can see that this plan is similar to the guy caught by rain next to a forest. He runs under a tree to avoid rain, and he wonders: what when rain filters through this tree? Oh, easy, I'll go under the next tree. Do I need to tell you he'll get home wet?
These days, with the word "recession" being screamed from each tv, the obvious argument to use is even more obvious: do all the little things that make you environment friendly, that make you a tree hugger, and so on and so forth. Why? Because you will save money! Buy a car with a smaller engine, you'll save money! Walk more instead of motoring around, you'll save money! Double glaze your windows!
All this stuff can be proved to help you make ends meet. It will also make you look like a bloody green, the children in the schoolyard will call you names, but you and me are self confident enough to survive some name calling, are we?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment