Monterey Bay climate change summit fi...

Monterey Bay climate change summit fights global warming

There are 75 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Jun 4, 2011, titled Monterey Bay climate change summit fights global warming. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

Local elected, environmental and business leaders met Friday to discuss how the Central Coast can tackle climate change, refining an effort that began in 2007 and striving to make the region a leader in preventing global warming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#63 Jul 3, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
this seems somehow more fitting for them given their official opposition to taking responsible action to reduce, delay, or reverse those elements of global warming which are subject to our collective control.
Here's what humans have, "collective control" over:
The approximate numbers.
There is 0.04% CO2 in the Earth's Atmosphere and of that "Man" has added an extra 4%(1 part in 62,500)

4% of (0.04%)= not a lot when considering how many trillions it would cost to mitigate for zero benefit.

Humans need to move away from fossil fuels, but not because the human input of CO2 is overheating the planet, it isn't.
Reality Check

Hayward, CA

#64 Jul 3, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignoring the slightly racist implication of being regarded as "off the reservation," I apologize for the unintended inference that Katrina was part of the global warming discussion. Instead, it was my intent to emphasize the difference between Gore as a global warming believer and the Republican politicians that I mentioned as global warming deniers in regard to their housing location choices as these relate to rising sea level consequences. It was only because of the Katrina flooding damage due to storm surge that the exposure of Barbour's and McConnell's homes to the potential effects of sea level changes became both evident and well-known.
Not wishing ill on anyone, nevertheless, I cannot help observing that the homes of these politicians may suffer more significant natural consequences, in addition to being tragic for them and hundreds of thousands of others in less fortunate housing circumstances (think New Orleans 9th Ward), and that this seems somehow more fitting for them given their official opposition to taking responsible action to reduce, delay, or reverse those elements of global warming which are subject to our collective control.
I promise I don't think you're an Indian, OV. Though I don't do PC, so if that colloquialism offends a native american reader, oh well.
While you may believe storm damage was poetic justice, I'd say it's more about wealthy people with beachfront homes. And it has not a whit to do with rising sea levels.
Ocean View

Pebble Beach, CA

#65 Jul 4, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Here's what humans have, "collective control" over:
The approximate numbers.
There is 0.04% CO2 in the Earth's Atmosphere and of that "Man" has added an extra 4%(1 part in 62,500)
4% of (0.04%)= not a lot when considering how many trillions it would cost to mitigate for zero benefit.
Humans need to move away from fossil fuels, but not because the human input of CO2 is overheating the planet, it isn't.
While I appreciate the accuracy of the left side of the mathematical equation, the right side lacks credible definition. The problem is that the "extra 4%" added since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is continuing to rise with C02 concentrations increasing by 2-3 ppm annually. At some point, the consequences of these increases will become irreversible, having reached a tipping point beyond which C02 reduction will no longer be able to slow the natural progression leading to ocean acidification and its negative consequences on phytoplankton, which produces nearly 40% of the earth's oxygen, and other sea life upon which the complex marine food web relies.

While not a complete parallel, the circumstances regarding ozone depletion as a result of CFC use is somewhat instructive as to effects of small quantities leading to larger consequences. While 4% of 0.04% C02 created by human activity may not seem like a lot, neither is 0.10 ppm of ozone, except when persistent in the atmosphere in which people breathe. This is why California in the 1970s undertook strict measures costing auto companies billions in order to increase fuel efficiency, while also installing catalytic converters, and costing oil refiners billions to reformulate gasoline and to remove lead additives, the latter of which causes permanent brain damage in small doses as well.

So, it's not the size of the increase, it's the effect that a small increase has, and especially if the increase is expected to continue without abatement. Otherwise, we can continue to add arsenic to our diet in small amounts in order to give ourselves that regal pale countenance until it eventually increases and accumulates to levels which begin to signal us that something is wrong. We're at that point now as we begin to see ocean warming, glacial melting, and a variety of other significant impacts worldwide.
Ocean View

Pebble Beach, CA

#66 Jul 4, 2011
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I promise I don't think you're an Indian, OV. Though I don't do PC, so if that colloquialism offends a native american reader, oh well.
While you may believe storm damage was poetic justice, I'd say it's more about wealthy people with beachfront homes. And it has not a whit to do with rising sea levels.
It had to do with the false claim that Al Gore, the believer in global warming and rising sea levels, purchased beachfront property, which would have been inconsistent with his beliefs, while his conservative counterparts, being consistent with their opposite beliefs, suffered consequences from Katrina which will most likely recur, and more frequently, as sea levels rise. So, the comparison was meant to be predictive.

As for the opening comments, what a privilege it is to be able to be an equal opportunity offender, to not have to be cognizant or respectful of others because they're not members of the same socially/politically dominant group as others are. I wonder where they can go in this country to earn that privilege, or does it just come with the territory of being WASP in America.
douchefighter

AOL

#67 Jul 5, 2011
Hey, all. Have you figured out already that ocean view is merely an automaton for the human hating eco-nazis? He can barely contain his disgust for us being on a planet that is intended only for non-human species. Any disaster, he will blame on human activity. If it is hot, it is our fault. Cold? Our fault. Floods, droughts? Guess who's fault? If the ocean rises? ooo, those pesky humans! To him we are a disease, a blight to be eradicated. Never mind he is one too, he does not think he is. He has "evolved". This is why the climate change movement will eventualy lose all but the ocean views of the world soon. You just cannot maintain hate for too long a period.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#68 Jul 5, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
While I appreciate the accuracy of the left side of the mathematical equation, the right side lacks credible definition. The problem is that the "extra 4%" added since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is continuing to rise with C02 concentrations increasing by 2-3 ppm annually. At some point, the consequences of these increases will become irreversible, having reached a tipping point beyond which C02 reduction will no longer be able to slow the natural progression leading to ocean acidification and its negative consequences on phytoplankton, which produces nearly 40% of the earth's oxygen, and other sea life upon which the complex marine food web relies.
While not a complete parallel, the circumstances regarding ozone depletion as a result of CFC use is somewhat instructive as to effects of small quantities leading to larger consequences. While 4% of 0.04% C02 created by human activity may not seem like a lot, neither is 0.10 ppm of ozone, except when persistent in the atmosphere in which people breathe. This is why California in the 1970s undertook strict measures costing auto companies billions in order to increase fuel efficiency, while also installing catalytic converters, and costing oil refiners billions to reformulate gasoline and to remove lead additives, the latter of which causes permanent brain damage in small doses as well.
So, it's not the size of the increase, it's the effect that a small increase has, and especially if the increase is expected to continue without abatement. Otherwise, we can continue to add arsenic to our diet in small amounts in order to give ourselves that regal pale countenance until it eventually increases and accumulates to levels which begin to signal us that something is wrong. We're at that point now as we begin to see ocean warming, glacial melting, and a variety of other significant impacts worldwide.
I understand what you're trying to say, albeit a touch long-winded.
Why you felt the need to mention ozone, arsenic and the work of Thomas Midgeley, but neglected methane, is anyone's guess.
-
Like many others, some scientists included, you don't appear to have much faith in progress and the probability of a future that doesn't involve much in the way of fossil fuel use.
It's only necessary to take a quick look back 100 years to see how much progress has been made in that short period of time.
Suffice it to say that the dangers of modern life have been identified and will eventually be dealt with, hopefully before yet 'another' of those infamous, "tipping points" is reached.
Reality Check

Hayward, CA

#69 Jul 5, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
It had to do with the false claim that Al Gore, the believer in global warming and rising sea levels, purchased beachfront property, which would have been inconsistent with his beliefs, while his conservative counterparts, being consistent with their opposite beliefs, suffered consequences from Katrina which will most likely recur, and more frequently, as sea levels rise. So, the comparison was meant to be predictive.
As for the opening comments, what a privilege it is to be able to be an equal opportunity offender, to not have to be cognizant or respectful of others because they're not members of the same socially/politically dominant group as others are. I wonder where they can go in this country to earn that privilege, or does it just come with the territory of being WASP in America.
How about Gore purchasing an(other) energy sucking mansion and flying around in private jets? Is that consistent with his (stated) beliefs that CO2 is going to destroy the world?

As for the PC rant, anyone can be offended. Or not. Regardless of one's social/political group.
Ocean View

Pebble Beach, CA

#71 Jul 6, 2011
douchefighter wrote:
Hey, all. Have you figured out already that ocean view is merely an automaton for the human hating eco-nazis? He can barely contain his disgust for us being on a planet that is intended only for non-human species. Any disaster, he will blame on human activity. If it is hot, it is our fault. Cold? Our fault. Floods, droughts? Guess who's fault? If the ocean rises? ooo, those pesky humans! To him we are a disease, a blight to be eradicated. Never mind he is one too, he does not think he is. He has "evolved". This is why the climate change movement will eventualy lose all but the ocean views of the world soon. You just cannot maintain hate for too long a period.
"Human haters" would tend to ignore issues such as global warming and climate change, preferring to kick the can further down the road, so that they don't have to deal with them, unlike those of us with children and grandchildren who want to leave the world to them in as good or better condition than that in which we received it. If someone doesn't care about the future of mankind, it is not those of us who have invested in that future through the care and concern about our families and communities.

In my lifetime, "eco-nazis" have been responsible for successfully addressing many local and national air pollution and water quality issues that had been and would have continued to be ignored otherwise, and the support for each of those issues was based on scientific evidence. Encouraging both accountability and responsible action to "first do no harm" is not only a valid approach for individual doctors, but should also be a guiding principle for individuals, communities, corporations, and governments in regard to the finite resource that is our planet. Some will choose to ignore such a dictum, but others will embrace it, not out of hatred for others, but for love of life and future generations.
Ocean View

Pebble Beach, CA

#72 Jul 6, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I understand what you're trying to say, albeit a touch long-winded.
Why you felt the need to mention ozone, arsenic and the work of Thomas Midgeley, but neglected methane, is anyone's guess.
I didn't want to appear "long-winded." I guess I can't win either way.
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Like many others, some scientists included, you don't appear to have much faith in progress and the probability of a future that doesn't involve much in the way of fossil fuel use.
It's only necessary to take a quick look back 100 years to see how much progress has been made in that short period of time.
Suffice it to say that the dangers of modern life have been identified and will eventually be dealt with, hopefully before yet 'another' of those infamous, "tipping points" is reached.
Considering the political and corporate status quo of ignoring problems until they reach a crisis level, I am concerned that this dynamic of resistance to necessary change if there isn't profit involved is short-sighted. While I have faith in some individuals and institutions to make progress where needed, that faith is not universal, and thus feel that unless and until more resources and efforts can be directed to addressing scientifically valid issues to either slow or reverse the environmental effects that certain practices are producing, there is cause for great concern.
douchefighter

AOL

#73 Jul 6, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
"Human haters" would tend to ignore issues such as global warming and climate change, preferring to kick the can further down the road, so that they don't have to deal with them, unlike those of us with children and grandchildren who want to leave the world to them in as good or better condition than that in which we received it. If someone doesn't care about the future of mankind, it is not those of us who have invested in that future through the care and concern about our families and communities.
In my lifetime, "eco-nazis" have been responsible for successfully addressing many local and national air pollution and water quality issues that had been and would have continued to be ignored otherwise, and the support for each of those issues was based on scientific evidence. Encouraging both accountability and responsible action to "first do no harm" is not only a valid approach for individual doctors, but should also be a guiding principle for individuals, communities, corporations, and governments in regard to the finite resource that is our planet. Some will choose to ignore such a dictum, but others will embrace it, not out of hatred for others, but for love of life and future generations.
What a pant load! Eco-nazis looked at what was done in the 70's and decided to make an industry of it! Look at what is going on now. You cannot build a factory in the USA any more. You cannot have fireworks in the ocean waters without an environmental impact report. Lies told about immortal plastic in the ocean killing the fish, when microbes are eating it as we speak. The ocean is becoming so acidic because of CO2 that it will kill all ocean life, when in dinosaur times, the ocean was millions of times more CO2 infested, and life did just fine, thank you. Lies after lies after lies! You don't want to leave a better world, you just want to keep the unwashed masses from enjoying or having access to what you have. Funny, the eco-nazis never hold themselves accountable for anything. How about MTBE? How about stealing thousands of turtles from Louisiana and sending them to Florida, when they did not need to? How about the mess they made in rescuing birds in Louisiana by not washing them till they got to an "approved" bird washing house? Yeah, accountability is only for evil human polluters. I could go on for hours. Don't try to tell me the eco-nazis care about anything but their own sorry hides.
Ocean View

Pebble Beach, CA

#74 Jul 6, 2011
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
How about Gore purchasing an(other) energy sucking mansion and flying around in private jets? Is that consistent with his (stated) beliefs that CO2 is going to destroy the world?
Gore took an existing house with 5 fireplaces off the market, rather than building a new house. That sounds environmentally sound to me, although in an indirect fashion. As for flying around in private jets, I'm unaware of any other former vice-president with required Secret Service protection who flies commercially, so I'm not sure that there's any other option.

Still, if the net effect of Gore's travels to provide information to persuade others to take action is that CO2 emissions are ultimately reduced as a result, that seems to be a fairly reasonable trade-off. The alternative is to become Ghandhi-like and avoid any of the trappings of modern life, however that sort of approach is unlikely to be regarded as viable or very influential in our culture.
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the PC rant, anyone can be offended. Or not. Regardless of one's social/political group.
And yet, there is a choice between being deliberately offensive and not, especially when comments have been identified as being so. Regardless, the importance of one's social/political group is due to the power of that one may have over the other. When a member of a dominant group disrespects a member of a non-dominant group, it's often justified as "I don't do PC; get over it" However, when a member of a non-dominant group does something similar in regard to a member of the dominant group, they are frequently regarded as insulting, unworthy, "uppity," or are in other ways discounted, if not completely ignored.

Ultimately, there is no way to counter the unearned privilege of the dominant group to set the terms by which the non-dominant group will be identified, unless there is an agreement to accept each others' designation of themselves and to adhere to exhibiting a reasonable level of sensitivity and respect for one another.
Ocean View

Pebble Beach, CA

#75 Jul 6, 2011
douchefighter wrote:
<quoted text>
What a pant load! Eco-nazis looked at what was done in the 70's and decided to make an industry of it! Look at what is going on now. You cannot build a factory in the USA any more. You cannot have fireworks in the ocean waters without an environmental impact report. Lies told about immortal plastic in the ocean killing the fish, when microbes are eating it as we speak. The ocean is becoming so acidic because of CO2 that it will kill all ocean life, when in dinosaur times, the ocean was millions of times more CO2 infested, and life did just fine, thank you. Lies after lies after lies! You don't want to leave a better world, you just want to keep the unwashed masses from enjoying or having access to what you have. Funny, the eco-nazis never hold themselves accountable for anything. How about MTBE? How about stealing thousands of turtles from Louisiana and sending them to Florida, when they did not need to? How about the mess they made in rescuing birds in Louisiana by not washing them till they got to an "approved" bird washing house? Yeah, accountability is only for evil human polluters. I could go on for hours. Don't try to tell me the eco-nazis care about anything but their own sorry hides.
I wasn't trying, I was succeeding. But, OK; I won't anymore. Still, my experience differs, and more damage is still being done to the environment by corporations (Exxon/Mobil) and government than the efforts of environmentalists will ever do, even when mistakes are made.
Reality Check

Hayward, CA

#76 Jul 6, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
Gore took an existing house with 5 fireplaces off the market, rather than building a new house. That sounds environmentally sound to me, although in an indirect fashion...
That's classic! I'm sure all the other AGW folks will rush to buy mansions to 'take them off the market' in a bid to save us from CO2. That's really taking one for the team. LMAO.
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
... As for flying around in private jets, I'm unaware of any other former vice-president with required Secret Service protection who flies commercially, so I'm not sure that there's any other option.
Still, if the net effect of Gore's travels to provide information to persuade others to take action is that CO2 emissions are ultimately reduced as a result, that seems to be a fairly reasonable trade-off. The alternative is to become Ghandhi-like and avoid any of the trappings of modern life, however that sort of approach is unlikely to be regarded as viable or very influential in our culture...
Not only is he not *required* to have SS protection, he's not even *allowed* it. SS only covers VPs while in office. They only cover the Prez for 10 years, per a law passed in the Clinton years.
Next?

Interesting false choice there. He flies in G5s and lives in mansions, or becomes Ghandi. No middle ground in there?
"Do as I say, not as I do" - a compelling moral leader.
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
...And yet, there is a choice between being deliberately offensive and not, especially when comments have been identified as being so. Regardless, the importance of one's social/political group is due to the power of that one may have over the other. When a member of a dominant group disrespects a member of a non-dominant group, it's often justified as "I don't do PC; get over it" However, when a member of a non-dominant group does something similar in regard to a member of the dominant group, they are frequently regarded as insulting, unworthy, "uppity," or are in other ways discounted, if not completely ignored.
Ultimately, there is no way to counter the unearned privilege of the dominant group to set the terms by which the non-dominant group will be identified, unless there is an agreement to accept each others' designation of themselves and to adhere to exhibiting a reasonable level of sensitivity and respect for one another.
Wow - sounds like you got your money's worth from that sociology class. If it makes you feel better, you can call me 'cracker' and 'haole.'
douchefighter

AOL

#77 Jul 7, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't trying, I was succeeding. But, OK; I won't anymore. Still, my experience differs, and more damage is still being done to the environment by corporations (Exxon/Mobil) and government than the efforts of environmentalists will ever do, even when mistakes are made.
I rest my case. No accountability or responsibility. The ends justify the means. Lie, lie, use vagaries, irrelavent facts etc. If people get hurt, thats ok. It is in the name of "the earth". Never mind that the billions, maybe trillions of dollars wasted on climate change could feed starving people, build schools, roads. Maybe less draconian enviro regulations could help factories get built in the USA, and create jobs we need, instead of getting Al Gore and company fatter and richer. Oh yeah, evil corporations are worse than eco-nazies. In a pigs eye they are!

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#78 Jul 7, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
I didn't want to appear "long-winded." I guess I can't win either way.
That's for you to decide.
Ocean View wrote:
Considering the political and corporate status quo of ignoring problems until they reach a crisis level, I am concerned that this dynamic of resistance to necessary change if there isn't profit involved is short-sighted.
What's new, do you expect mankind to change his ideas overnight or wait until the last minute?
Ocean View wrote:
While I have faith in some individuals and institutions to make progress where needed, that faith is not universal, and thus feel that unless and until more resources and efforts can be directed to addressing scientifically valid issues to either slow or reverse the environmental effects that certain practices are producing, there is cause for great concern.
When hasn't there been cause for great concern?
And remember, "Faith can move mountains."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Sun Nicky21 111
News Police briefs: Beaten body found on Old Stage Road (Dec '09) Sun Oreo 16
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) May 5 RichAndrewd 1,553
Marina infested with gang boys (Mar '11) May 5 NorteXIVgang 18
News Seaside closes access to makeshift toy car trac... Apr '17 Jsherratt831 1
News Brown names Laird as Resource Agency chief (Jan '11) Apr '17 wmcnatt 8
the music thread (Apr '12) Apr '17 Musikologist 22

Monterey Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages