I wouldn't hang my hat on Lester Brown, he's exactly the kind of screeching alarmist that discredits genuine environmentalism. I remember quoting Brown while a high school debater in the early 80s predicting the imminent demise of virtually everything (and seeing almost identical quotes from the early 70s predicting the same thing). Brown has been predicting for decades that we're about to run out of practically every metal being mined as well as out of water, oil and probably air too. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be concerned about using too many resources or about pollution, of course; that would be equal parts absurd and dangerous. Rational environmentalism is plenty compelling on its own, but the kind of Chicken Little pronouncements that Brown has been making for decades now only undermines the credibility of environmentalism in general.
Todd Spencer
· 1 year ago
The Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act were responses to degrading air quality and overdevelopment. Since 1970, we've experienced continuous degradation, including ozone layer depletion and acid rain in the '80s, global warming in the '90s and now dead zones in the oceans in the '00s. The slide continues not only unabated, but accelerated as population grows, the earth heats and regulation of industrial polluters is repealed by our elected officials.
Saying that Lester Brown (and all the United Nations climatologists who agree with him) are wrong about the need to reduce our footprint on the planet because the world didn't totally collapse in 1990, is a strange argument.
Your distaste for emotion in the delivery of scientific facts in no way lessens the validity of those facts.
In the history of the planet, science has determined that the normal range of carbon in the atmosphere is between 180-300 parts per million. Today, Lester Brown announced, quite dryly in fact, it's 387, and rising every two years.
If a man cries, screams and rants that fact to the world, as you suggest he has, you might find that distasteful or it might make you feel uncomfortable. The fact, no matter how delivered, remains a fact. Alarmism is not our enemy. Pollution is. And when there's a fire, you sound the alarm. It's not emotional to do so. It's logical.
tspencer
· 1 year ago
Since 1970, we've experienced continuous degradation including ozone layer depletion and acid rain in the '80s, global warming in the '90s and now dead zones in the oceans in the '00s. The slide continues not only unabated, but accelerated, as population grows, the earth heats and regulation of industrial polluters is repealed by our elected officials.
Saying that Lester Brown (and all the United Nations climatologists who agree with him) are to be ignored about the need to reduce our footprint on the planet because the world didn't totally collapse in 1990, is a strange argument.
Your distaste for emotion in the delivery of scientific facts in no way lessens the validity of those facts.
In the history of the planet, science has determined that the normal range of carbon in the atmosphere is between 180-300 parts per billion. A panelist up on stage with Lester Brown announced, quite dryly in fact, that today it's 387, and rising currently at a rate of two more parts per year.
If a man cries, screams and rants factual information such as the statistic mentioned above, as you suggest Brown has "for decades," you might find that distasteful or it might make you feel uncomfortable. The fact, no matter how delivered, remains a fact.
Alarmism is not our enemy. Pollution is. And when there's a fire, you sound the alarm. It's not emotional to do so. It's logical.
ebrayton
· 1 year ago
Todd Spencer wrote:
Saying that Lester Brown (and all the United Nations climatologists who agree with him) are to be ignored about the need to reduce our footprint on the planet because the world didn't totally collapse in 1990, is a strange argument.
I didn't say that. In fact, I explicitly said (and strongly believe) that we must take the problems of environmental degradation and overuse of resources very seriously. The problem with Brown, in my view, is that his breathless pronouncements of imminent collapse, which he has been making year after year for decades now, cause people not to take those problems seriously when his predictions of the demise of the species don't occur when he says they're going to. I remember using quotes from him in debate from the early 70s predicting the collapse of most of the world's ecosystem within a staggeringly short period of time. When those exaggerated claims turn out to be false, it undermines the credibility of those who are making more reasonable environmental claims. If you're going to continually claim, year after year, that we are on the brink of an immediate collapse in food supplies, for example, and year after year that collapse doesn't happen, it doesn't take long to become Chicken Little or the boy who cried wolf. He's not wrong to push us all to conserve and to adopt policies that reduce environmental degradation; he's wrong for continually exaggerating the extent and immediacy of every possible threat. That kind of alarmism IS the enemy of genuine environmentalism because it undermines the credible arguments being made by non-alarmists.
ebrayton
· 1 year ago
And let me add that I agree with you on "clean coal." It should be called "slightly less dirty but still enormously polluting coal."
tspencer
· 1 year ago
Here's more on "clean coal" at the DNC from DailyKos.
moe33
· 1 year ago
It's disgraceful how extensively the coal industry has been allowed to infiltrate the convention this year... but not particularly surprising. While Republicans receive the majority of contributions from the coal lobby, this year's Dems have taken 32% of the total--a level not seen since 1994. Clearly, ties between Democrats and King Coal are strengthening, despite the rhetoric.
The numbers are from www.opensecrets.org, and there's another website that provides incredibly valuable stats on specific members and specific donor corporations--www.followthecoalmoney.org (Oil Change USA and Appalachian Voices). It then correlates that with how members have voted on pertinent legislation. It's interactive, and kind of fun :)
All Comments
Saying that Lester Brown (and all the United Nations climatologists who agree with him) are wrong about the need to reduce our footprint on the planet because the world didn't totally collapse in 1990, is a strange argument.
Your distaste for emotion in the delivery of scientific facts in no way lessens the validity of those facts.
In the history of the planet, science has determined that the normal range of carbon in the atmosphere is between 180-300 parts per million. Today, Lester Brown announced, quite dryly in fact, it's 387, and rising every two years.
If a man cries, screams and rants that fact to the world, as you suggest he has, you might find that distasteful or it might make you feel uncomfortable. The fact, no matter how delivered, remains a fact. Alarmism is not our enemy. Pollution is. And when there's a fire, you sound the alarm. It's not emotional to do so. It's logical.
Saying that Lester Brown (and all the United Nations climatologists who agree with him) are to be ignored about the need to reduce our footprint on the planet because the world didn't totally collapse in 1990, is a strange argument.
Your distaste for emotion in the delivery of scientific facts in no way lessens the validity of those facts.
In the history of the planet, science has determined that the normal range of carbon in the atmosphere is between 180-300 parts per billion. A panelist up on stage with Lester Brown announced, quite dryly in fact, that today it's 387, and rising currently at a rate of two more parts per year.
If a man cries, screams and rants factual information such as the statistic mentioned above, as you suggest Brown has "for decades," you might find that distasteful or it might make you feel uncomfortable. The fact, no matter how delivered, remains a fact.
Alarmism is not our enemy. Pollution is. And when there's a fire, you sound the alarm. It's not emotional to do so. It's logical.
I didn't say that. In fact, I explicitly said (and strongly believe) that we must take the problems of environmental degradation and overuse of resources very seriously. The problem with Brown, in my view, is that his breathless pronouncements of imminent collapse, which he has been making year after year for decades now, cause people not to take those problems seriously when his predictions of the demise of the species don't occur when he says they're going to. I remember using quotes from him in debate from the early 70s predicting the collapse of most of the world's ecosystem within a staggeringly short period of time. When those exaggerated claims turn out to be false, it undermines the credibility of those who are making more reasonable environmental claims. If you're going to continually claim, year after year, that we are on the brink of an immediate collapse in food supplies, for example, and year after year that collapse doesn't happen, it doesn't take long to become Chicken Little or the boy who cried wolf. He's not wrong to push us all to conserve and to adopt policies that reduce environmental degradation; he's wrong for continually exaggerating the extent and immediacy of every possible threat. That kind of alarmism IS the enemy of genuine environmentalism because it undermines the credible arguments being made by non-alarmists.
The numbers are from www.opensecrets.org, and there's another website that provides incredibly valuable stats on specific members and specific donor corporations--www.followthecoalmoney.org (Oil Change USA and Appalachian Voices). It then correlates that with how members have voted on pertinent legislation. It's interactive, and kind of fun :)