Anyone see this or hear about it?

Banner on High-E

Just wondering if already happened... And if there was a lynch mob...

The article states they intend to do this on April 14. I'm always glad to hear people who want to be involved politically but really think they miss the boat to imagine I will be swayed to their views by such an act as this. I personally tend to be pushed the other way by those who would do so.
So, if High-E has the usual spring morning 4 hour waiting line at the base, are they gonna spend the whole day just waiting to hang this banner? What if it rains?

It's scheduled for April 14th. On their website they ask for volunteers and say they are working out details with the Mohonk Preserve.

This should be interesting.

Edited to add: That they say they are "working out details with the Mohonk Preserve" doesn't necessarily mean the Preserve has agreed to placement of the banner on the cliff.

Is the preserve now going to ask me not to climb High-E that morning to allow a political statement to be made instead? I might ask for my money back in that case. Do they re-imburse life memberships? I think the preserve board would do better to Step It Up and tell would-be political commentors to go do so somewhere else. I'm sure this is a well intended stunt but it smacks of self-importance and disregard for others who want to climb in as natural an enveronment as possible. I gladly pay the preserve in order to enjoy the climbing environment and my friends while avoiding as much government influence as possible to the area. Things might be different if the preserve depended on government funding and had to lobby for such.

This is the kind of visual action that makes me want to vomit. If the group has no permission from the preserve then climb High E all they want, but leave the banners in the trunk, if they do have permission from the preserve then consider this my formal notice not to renew my membership this year.

Oops... Apparently I can't read good...

So April 14th it is... Should be interesting after all of the controversy the belay quotes caused, as this is a much more visible and direct political statement!

Starting April 7th, start plastering signs around NP that read:

STEP IT UP... BUY BIGGER SUVs. SUPPORT THE US ECONOMY

STEP IT UP - VOTE REPUBLICAN!

STEP IT UP -MORE RAMPS FOR THE HANDICAPABLE

STEP IT UP - SMUSHING ROACHES IS A CRIME!

STEP IT UP - INCREASE THE SPEED LIMIT TO 75!

Dilute the message so it's pointless.

If the Preserve sanctions this event and banner, I won't like it, but it's their property and so I'll respect their wishes. If on the other hand they don't sanction this event and the organizers persist in a sort of guerilla insurgency hanging of the banner there or elsewhere on the cliff, I'd be willing to participate in a peaceful counter insurgency effort.

I'm with you Kent. If it ever happens, which I kinda doubt, that banner will not be up for long.

I was a voice in the wilderness supporting the earlier small notes on belay stations. But this latest thing is beyond the pail. I'd gladly be the first to cut the banner down and throw it in the trash; it has no place on the cliffs.

GO

Spoke with the communications person at Mohonk, Debbie Clifford. The preserve does not sanction this. There is no "discussion" because the preserve said no to the cliff banner. They are allowing a banner in the visitor's center.

FYI

Operation counter insurgency it shall be then

Well....they ARE getting PR, at any rate.

Now, they can get more PR by admitting that announcing the intent was premature, and they should have waited till the request by the preserve was achknowledged....

Gotta spin it to win it, doncha know.....

Maybe. But it sure isn't sounding like it. Time will tell.



Kudos to you for doing so. Thanks.

GO

I heard about this last fall and emailed them immediately, with the request that they first contact the Preserve for permission, as this was private land. I am glad they did.

Step It Up certainly does a horrible job on educating you on what their cause is for and how to go about their cause.

imo a tshirt on the person climbing is most likly better suited than a banner.

Just today they pulled all specific info about the "New Paltz" event from the website. As well, they pulled all comments made about every event nationwide, including those made by Mim, RG, GO, and Alice. Coincidence?

They have a similar banner on the cliff event still planned at Seneca and have suggested a banner on the Grand Teton even

Organizers' Frequently Asked Questions

How big should my rally be?
The short answer is, as big as possible. Numbers count--a thousand is better than a hundred is better than a dozen in terms of sheer impact. But there are exceptions--maybe you're hoisting your banner in a hard-to-get-to place: on top of the Grand Teton , say. In that case, a few is as good as a throng.

Yeah, that will certainly be noticed for miles around. Obviously they have a bit to learn about PR and visibility. Sure, put a banner up on High-E, waaaay down the carriage road. If they were serious about being seen, Shockley's, above the hairpin, or the middle of the Nears (visible from the 299-44/55 intersection) would have been much better choices.

...they pulled all comments made about every event nationwide, including those made by Mim, RG, GO, and Alice.

Kent, our comments (I now have two) are still up as far as I can tell. The url is the original one posted, http://www.stepitup2007.org/article.php?id=56.
Maybe that location is no longer linked from inside their web page---I didn't check---but you can still go there directly, read previous comments, and post.

Hey Rich,

Navigating from their front page earlier in the day brought one to the link you have posted I believe. If one navigates from their front page now, the New Paltz event isn't listed at all, at least not that I can find. Perhaps I'm simply having synaptic issues today.

Thanks for the tip on the older (I think), still active, direct link though.

The event has been cancelled.

RESPONSE FROM THE MOHONK PRESERVE:

Thank you to all of you for expressing your concerns. Please be assured that THIS EVENT IS CANCELLED. We at the Mohonk Preserve were never asked about this proposed event and never condoned it. In early February, one of our staff alerted us to the action posting on the Step It Up site. We contacted the event organizer, Alana Sagin, who graciously agreed to our request not to hold this event on the Preserve. We then alerted Step It Up, who confirmed that the cliff action was cancelled. We’ve now contacted Step It Up again to ask them to update their site to reflect this.

For the full text of our response, see Step It Up

Thanks very much,

Debi Clifford, Communications Director

Thank you to the Preserve for your response and well thought out follow through.

But is the slippery slope argument still not fallacious?

Ok, sorry to dig. I really would like climbers as a cult
to get along and support each other more ...

But is the slippery slope argument still not fallacious?

Slippery slope arguments are usually not fallacious, since they typically involve logical consequences of the premises. But sometimes people refer to a logical consequence as "fallacious" when what they really mean is "improbable." So when a slippery slope argument adduces a highly improbable though perfectly logical consequence, it is often said to be fallacious, especially by those who do not wish to be bound by the conclusion.

In the case of using the cliff as a billboard for causes, I find the slippery slope argument that one such use will encourage more such uses both relevant and convincing, and the Step It Up episode looks to me like evidence for this position, which was originally advanced with respect to tagging rappel stations.

I did not get to see the original article before the event was cancelled, but:

I cannot believe that the Gunks community and the Mohonk Preserve does not support this event.

It's time to look at the bigger picture. Our actions are having an adverse effect on the planet, and this grassroots movement is doing their best to curb the greed and ignorance of America.

This is not a political issue. This is a human existence issue. There should be no arguement that we need to take action in order to cut back on our carbon emmisions. So what if they decided to take action on April 14th. Maybe they might actually make a difference. I'll admit High E may not be the best location, but the message must get out there. Clearly people aren't listening. Use the parking lots at the preserve on any spring/summer/fall weekend as a barometer. There are more poor mileage subaru's, BMW's, Sport Util's, and trucks there than befit's a supposedly conservationist-minded demographic.

Be careful, we climber might just be hippocrits.

Oh yeah, let's step it up by doing something we already do for fun!! woohoo. who needs to sacrifice anything or do any real work towards a goal? who needs to do anything other than a pointless gesture? as i said on the step it up site before it got taken down, you can't work towards saving the environment by littering, no matter how temporary. that's what's hypocritical.

My understanding is that the AMC hopes to bring pressure on congress to effect environmental change and stop global warming through this campaign. While I believe it is possible that we are having a small effect on the global warming deal, I find that the vast majority of evidence is completely correlational and not causal. I'm not talking about the ozone, but rather the overall cyclical cooling and warming that is part of how we all got here on the kind of earth we consider normal. Sort of like our Presidency in relation to our country, it seems our emissions activity is more like the flea on an elephant's back. While the planet continues to come out of the little ice age and re-warm again for the umpteenth time, it would take naught but a couple good volcanic eruptions to put us back there again. Many cycles have occured and resulted in huge shifts well before we came along. Yes, lets push Kyoto for the U.S. while China builds 200 new coal burning plants using the highest sulfer content coal known! Anyone else remember all the scientists who warned we were starting another ice age in the 70s? They were reacting in good faith to the data available at the time but appear to have missed the mark. This is not meant to start debate about global warming, although I'm sure some will have to let me know how superior you are with a booklet of quasi-knowledge pushed by some poly-sci teacher, simply letting you know why I do not support politically motivated, short term thinking, tripe of the moment stances and don't see how placing a sign across a beautiful scenic face would be of any real benefit to mankind and the earth. I value the recreational and environmental gains made through the AMC, such as Yosemite becoming a park,etc. but do not agree with this particular gesture as accomplishing anything. Voting and personal education is the power, not demonstrations, which generally push away most people from a cause. I'm done. Was that a rant?

Ah if all things in life were so simple. As you get older you will find that with all things controversial in life, the truth lies not on one end of the extreme or the other, but somewhere in the middle.

To me the hardest part on GW is not getting the message out but finding the truth within.

Hehehe... Look at smike being all existential!

I think this would prove interesting if nothing else:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1

Although nether can be seen as having any formal background in climatology, they both seem to have taken upon themselves to be the spokesperson for each side the GW debate.

The heat generated by this debate will make a significant contribution to global warming.

yellowhole

If you call hanging some pansy-ass banner off high e "taking action"...

Putting aside the issue of whether or not the banner would have been an effective tool in fighting global warming, you seem to be under the misaprehension that climbers are particularly conservation-minded. I'd suggest that you'd be a lot more clear-headed if you assumed that climbers at the Gunks have an almost identical split between conservation-minded and otherwise, to the general populace.

GO

Well, this action is better than inaction.

Do you really think that they planned on leaving the banner there to shred in the wind? Of course not. That would absolutley be littering.

Really. I am totally surprised that we climbers are split on this issue. When we climb we make a direct connection with the medium which we value so dearly and debate so hotly on this forum, and yet it seems that some of us gunkies aren't willing to go the extra mile to protect it.

Buying a season's pass does not entitle someone to ignore how to live efficiently in other parts of their life. Leave No Trace ethics can go beyond the trail...

Arguing regarding whether or not global warming exists is a ridiculous as denying that the holocaust happened.

Can climbers really believe that the environment is really so expendable that we're willing to abuse it so badly?

I know I'm an idealist, but I would hope that's better than the other options.

Buying a season's pass does not entitle someone to ignore how to live efficiently in other parts of their life.

Might a lifetime pass allow one this?

Ha! Nice...

I think it's litter even if someone goes back later and picks it up. It's litter while it's there.

But mostly it's just pointless. I didn't know that this banner had anything to do with global warming until it was mentioned on this thread. What does "step it up" mean? How would someone know that? It might as well say "just do it". Sounds more like an advertisement than anything. Probably is. Immediately following the event, Power Bar will come out with their new slogan and thank you for the free advertising.

I'm also surprised that climbers are split on the subject of hanging slogans from the cliffs, but I'm surprised that any climber could be in favor of it.

i think they should hang a banner that says "welcome to the gunks." i wonder where they would hang it....

At the Uber-Pooper

Yellowhouse, it might or might not surprise you to see me picking up trash in parks or at the cliffs, recycling, and generally trying to be a good earth steward. I simply find the evil human GW campaign completely lacking in causal evidence and find it sounds more like the self-important projecting how much they think they are capable of. I don't think they are bad people, just mislead.

BANNERS R FER QUEERS

To think that I'm for hanging slogans is to be shortsighted. Shortsightedness is why the problem of climate change exists.

I am surpirsed that climbers are split on the issue of global warming. I am surprised that climbers would be against any action that would promote protection and proper stewardship of our environment. It's called the Mohonk PRESERVE, and that's what we should do for it. Is it really worth the risk of having no place to climb (or camp, mtn bike, swim, ice climb) because we cooked the planet? I know it sounds overly dramatic, but then so did talk 70 years ago of a 'nuclear age'. We need to preserve this land, because it's all we've got.

Hanging a slogan from the cliff is not the point at all.

The fact that the 'Step It Up' slogan made you ask the question, 'what does step it up mean', means that it's working. Hopefully you did some research and learned about the cause.

It is certainly not pointless. This is a very real problem and since I thought climbers were usually on the educated forefront of environmental issues, I find it surprising that someone would argue against it. Of course, the Preserve has agreed to allow the display of the banner at the visitors center, so all this is slightly moot.

Perhaps hanging a silly banner isn't as effective a 5 page forum thread on the region's premier sounding board for climbers...

there will always be something fun to do.
but perhaps it will just be a bit farther north.

If the 'self-important' didn't project how much they were capable of, the preserve wouldn't exist in the first place.

A group of people, climbers actually, took it upon themselves to prove that they could care appropriately for the land so that they could climb there. Our roles have not changed since its establishment.

Lacking in casual evidence? Puh-lease. Have you been paying attention? More and more World Cup ski races in Europe have to be cancelled each year due to lack of snow. Ice climbs that have formed for years no longer form. Entire forests in Alaska are being destroyed due to melting permafrost. Go there. See it. You will not leave unimpressed by our obvious impact on the earth.

And I'm sure your karma is boosted by caring for your immediate environment, but we need to look further than perceived politcal agenda and ask ourselves what's really at stake?

I think you again miss my point. I'm not arguing that global warming is not occuring. It has been for at least 100 years, more likely about 150. I do not think that the cause is a slam dunk, although it is portrayed such by many. I could just as easily say that global warming is occuring because people started sticking ice axes in glaciers over this period of time and continue to do so at an accelerated rate. The statistical correlation is just as strong as what is currently being promoted. The difference between our views is that I do not yet see significant evidence of our activity being the primary cause of this change, and I do pay very close attention to what is being researched in this field.

No, 'fraid not. I'm not one to buy into viral marketing, which is what this gimmick sounded like.

Personally knowing those who started this mess, I would just like to say that their plans had no intentions of reaching this level originally. At first plans were something small, like climbing in T-shirts or something, but somehow the preserve got word of plans for the event. The immediate reaction of the preserve was to attempt to shut down any actions but upon hearing the details the preserve changed its tune and wanted to join in. Apparently the preserve wanted to make it a town-wide day for the step it up campaign. Now Im not so sure what the status is and Im guessing nothing will take place.

Chip- I dont think any scientist who is seriously engaged in this study would say that human gas emissions are the only or primary cause of global warming. What has been shown, in many different studies, is that the release of greenhouse gases are indeed accelerating the natural process of warming. In fact, many argue that this effect is on the order of natural processes and hence causing warming at a far too rapid rate. In this light, it would be foolhearty to ignore the impact humans have on this. If no action is taken now, impact from the growing population will only exacerbate the problem.

Hope that clears some things up.

Ross

Chip, If you did say that, you'd be something of a moron.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that anthropomorphic global warming is a reality. The IPCC report is a representation of that consensus. Of course there are naysayers, for example the good old American Enterprise Institute.

Who are funded (in good part) by Exxon.

Irrespective of the somewhat myopic view that climate change is somehow not man-made or "man-worsened", I don't think many people would disagree that we humans as a species, need to learn to use less carbon in our daily lives, and the sooner people remove their heads from the sand about that fact, the better.

I agree that High-E is no place for a banner though.

Yes, lets push Kyoto for the U.S. while China builds 200 new coal burning plants using the highest sulfer content coal known!

Recent (Mar. 2007) satellite photos:



It may be hard to goad US and European individuals to cut back on personal carbon dioxide emissions while China loads up the atmosphere with it. (Yes, I know CO2 is invisible, but you know that such haze as you see contains much.)
I've heard that about 25% of California's air pollution is sent from China via slow transpacific airmail. And yes, I know, pointing a finger at China may be counterproductive, but it seems just as if ordinary citizens are lectured to be honest while the "big guys" cheat like bandits.

speaking of the Big Guys Cheating like Bandits;
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

spasmatron nailed it. There is no genuine debate. There's a lot of smog generated by people who have a vested interest in the unregulated emitting of greenhouse gases, but that's about it. Otherwise there would be at least a few peer-reviewed studies questioning global warming. As of 2004, there wasn't a single one (and 928 confirming it), and the evidence has just gotten stronger since then.

Gore vs Monckton would be a delightful 2007 reprise of Huxley vs Wilberforce. Man, if only videotape had been invented a century earlier - that must have been quite a rout.

To take this back into climbable terrain, besides worrying about the end of the world as a whole and the economy in general, does anyone have any sense of the net effect on climbing?

We'll sorely miss glaciers once they're largely gone, that's for sure, but it will make some approaches easier while others harder, right? Some routes, such as the North Face of the Eiger, have become harder, almost undoable, as solid ice and snow become verglass and water, but do other routes on other cliffs become lovely all-rock ascents that never were before?

Are there other direct consequences? More violent monsoons, perhaps?

spamatron & steve cherry make excellent points.

presently, we can thank our lucky stars for "global dimming".....

for now...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1108853,00.html

dont worry. the ice will be back in another 4000 years.

Most arguments on GW go something like this:
……………
Global Warming is real based on all the scientific data and studies. (most will use numerous sound bytes and graphs to try to ‘dumb’ down and simplify what is one of the more complicated, exhausted scientific studies of our time which is far from complete) ‘If’ a true connection with Global Warming and man made factors is not conclusive then one ‘must’ error on the side to do everything and anything to counter emissions since doing so it the right thing to do as inhabits of this earth. If we wait until the evidence is conclusive it will be too late to change it anyway.
……….

The former holds up with decades of science data, the latter point is but an ethical one of good nature. The scientific community does not evaluate or make conclusions based on ‘emotions’ yet most others fill in the unanswered questions with emotional statements that do injustices to the scientific communities work as a whole. (This happens on both ends of the GW spectrum)

For mainly that reason there becomes ‘debate’ which is born out of merging of scientific research with emotions and personal agendas.

The former holds up with decades of science data, the latter point is but an ethical one of good nature.

I think it's a lot more than an ethical point. It's a simple though imperfect cost-benefit analysis. It asks: what's the probability that people are contributing to global warming times the cost of the consequences of not taking action, versus the costs of taking action times the probable effects of taking action.

The debate, I think, is over the probabilities involved. The argument for taking action is that the chance that people are making the problem worse is significant, and the consequences huge; therefore, it's worth the costs of doing something about it. Reasonable people can disagree about the calculations, but it's more than an ethical point.

I think it's a lot more than an ethical point. It's a simple though imperfect cost-benefit analysis. It asks: what's the probability that people are contributing to global warming times the cost of the consequences of not taking action, versus the costs of taking action times the probable effects of taking action.

Those who have the power to do something might suffer some penalty for doing so, while if they do nothing and things go bad, they will be retired or dead by then.

Well Einstein, isn't that the root of about 99% of the debate.

Washington Times Commentary:

Al Gore likes to present himself as a tribune of science, warning the world of imminent danger. But he is more like an Old Testament prophet, calling on us to bewail our wrongful conduct and to go and sin no more.
He starts off with the science. The world's climate, he reports, is getting warmer. This accurate report is, however, not set in historic context. World climate has grown warmer and cooler at various times in history. Climate change is not some unique historic event. It is the way the world works.
Not this time, Mr. Gore says. What's different is that climate change is being driven by human activity -- to wit, increasing carbon dioxide emissions. That means, he says, we have to sharply reduce those emissions. But what the scientists tell us is that some proportion of climate change is caused by human activity and some proportion by natural causes -- and that they can only estimate those proportions.
Their estimates have varied sharply. The climate change models developed don't account for events of the recent past, much less predict with precision the future.
To which the prophet replies, with religious intensity, that all debate should be over. Those scientists with inconvenient views should be defunded and silenced. We should replace scientific inquiry with faith. We should have faith that climate change -- "global warming" -- is caused primarily by human activity. And we should have faith that the effects will be catastrophic, with rising oceans flooding great cities and pleasant plains and forests broiled by a searing sun.
Even the New York Times bridles at this. After Mr. Gore won the Academy Award for his film on climate change, the Times printed an article in which respected scientists -- not Republicans, not on oil company payrolls -- charged Mr. Gore has vastly exaggerated the likelihood of catastrophic effects.
When you read the fine print of even the scientific reports Mr. Gore likes to cite, you find the same thing. Mr. Gore foresees a 20-foot rise in sea level -- 240 inches. The IPCC panel report foresees a maximum of 23 inches. Mr. Gore says "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this." Geologist Don Easterbrook says there have been shifts up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."
Science says we should learn more about possible bad effects of climate change and calculate rationally how we can mitigate them. Economic journalist Robert Samuelson notes there is little we can feasibly do in the short term to reduce carbon emissions; in the long term we may be able to develop substitutes for carbon fuels.
As the environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg points out, the Kyoto Treaty Mr. Gore helped to write (but which the Clinton administration never asked the Senate to ratify) would produce very little reduction in climate change at very high cost.
But religious prophets are not concerned about costs. Mr. Gore calls for an immediate cessation of new carbon-burning facilities. In other words, stop economic growth. But stopping economic growth in the developing world means consigning millions to miserable poverty. And we know what stopping economic growth in the developed world can mean. Read the history of the 1930s: fascism, communism, world war. There are worse things than a rise of 1 or 2 degrees Centigrade.
The natural human yearning for spirituality has produced in many people educated in secular-minded universities and enveloped in an atmosphere of contempt for traditional religion a faith that we vulgar human beings have a sacred obligation not to inflict damage on Mother Earth. But science tells us the Earth and its climate have been constantly changing.
Mr. Gore and his followers seem to assume the ideal climate was the one they got used to when growing up. When temperatures dropped in the 1970s, there were warnings of an impending ice age. When they rose in the 1990s, there were predictions of disastrous global warming. This is just another example of the solipsism of the Baby Boom generation, the pampered and much-praised age cohort that believes the world revolves around them and that history has become irrelevant.
We're told in effect that the climate of the late 1950s and early 1960s was, of all those that have ever existed, the best of all possible climates. Not by science. But as a matter of faith.

Well Einstein, isn't that the root of about 99% of the debate.

Of course it is. My point was that it doesn't involve any "ethics." We're making best guesses on the basis of incomplete information given the probabilities of incurring potential costs. That's not an ethical calculation; it's a hard-headed analytic one.

Mr. Gore calls for an immediate cessation of new carbon-burning facilities. In other words, stop economic growth.

Whaaaaa? How does ceasing carbon-burning facilities imply stopping economic growth?

There are many energy production methods that do not burn carbon: nuclear, hydro, solar, wind. Plus there are many ways of increasing efficiency so that we get more out of the carbon we do burn, which would increase economic growth without new carbon-burning facilities (indeed, without any new energy sources at all).

As I wrote above, there can be reasonable disagreements about the effects of human activity on the environment and the costs of changing and not changing our behavior (though I'm skeptical of those running the Washington Times to be impartial evaluators of the evidence). But the idea that putting a ceiling on carbon emissions means stopping economic growth is ludicrous. Maybe the editorial staff at the Washington Times should consult a smart junior high school student to check for logical consistency next time.

It's a shame that Al Gore is repeatedly vaunted as somehow having the authoritative say in the discussion on climate change. Why is his movie even being discussed?

The relevant facts are those in the IPCC report and The Inconvenient Truth is a Convenient Strawman for GW deniers to knock down.

And most important is that source of virtually all the earths pollution problems is growth, economic and otherwise. Stopping growth would be a good thing, and it needn’t have any impact on “consigning millions to miserable poverty.”

Does anyone know if any alternative/Preserve sanctioned Step It Up actions are still being considered at or near the cliff? If so we would be very interested in participating, as would many of our friends. Please let us know how we can help.

Troll?

Does anyone know if any alternative/Preserve sanctioned Step It Up actions are still being considered at or near the cliff? If so we would be very interested in participating, as would many of our friends. Please let us know how we can help.

The Preserve offered their headquarters as a focal point, with the banner hoisted there. Apparently, the organizers declined.

So, perhaps we could try to organize something else. Forget the banner. What about asking Ed Cook, or someone else doing real climate research at the Preserve, to speak about their work, about the local impact of global warming. The event could be held in the evening at the visitors center and people could climb at the uberfall during the day with Step It Up t-shirts and an informative poster at the kiosk promoting that evening's event. I was planning to go in to NYC for the Step It Up event there, but I would prefer to do something local if we can come up with an event which will engage the community instead of alienate them. Since the original event seems to have angered so many people on this board, I would love to hear what sort of event you think might be more effective.

Might as well just ask the worlds population to just stop breathing since it contributes to hot air as well.

Might as well just ask the worlds population to just stop breathing since it contributes to hot air as well.

China's one child policy, though unwillingly imposed on most inhabitants, has had a marked effect on diminishing the growth of that country's rural population. (Not that I advocate a one child policy or some of its consequences.)

And the idea of controlling growth isn't so far-fetched even from a purely self-interested viewpont. There may come a time when more "growth" put so much pressure on resources that it causes a crash and makes people worse off. At that point, it would be wise from a pure cost-benefit analysis to avoid growth unless a way can be found of avoiding the crash.

i take it you were going to drive by yourself not take public transportation or carpool. heck if you really want to send a message try biking everywhere.

That's the irony of stepitup2007 events. Almost every one of them has driving directions and involves people driving, sometimes from hither and yon, to attend x event to raise awareness of human contributions to global warming. Unfortunately, it seems more like step up the hypocrisy than anything else. In my opinion the original organizers would have been wise to have a "car free day" as a theme common to all stepitup2007 events.

The idea of growth I’m referring to is about “economic and otherwise” as put forth by mworking. Population is one part of that.


As long as you’re the one that already has more or less of what you desire. Try telling China or anyone else their GNP needs to level off at some point in the future.


From an America perspective that may be very well true since there may come a time that ‘maintaining’ standard of living is more of a pressing issue then achieving a higher one. Of course that’s easy to say when your #1 in the world.

Growth at any level is such a basic human desire, if it wasn’t then we all would be sitting around sucking our thumbs and having our diapers changed.

Try telling China or anyone else their GNP needs to level off at some point in the future.

I think you're missing my point. I'm arguing that there may come a point where increased growth might put pressure on resources (water, air quality) so that it makes people less healthy, less productive in the long run. In that case, it would make economic sense to stop growth because continued expansion will lead to a collapse. That's true whether it's in China, the U.S., or anywhere else. (If China's growth leads to local environmental disasters, they'll be sorry they didn't do things differently, regardless of how much stuff the rest of the world may have.) If growth isn't done in a sustainable way, then it can lead to a downturn that leaves people worse off--in which case it would have been better to forgo the growth to begin with, purely from a self-interested analysis.

It's the same with every event. There's certainly a cost, but the assumption is that the benefits of the results, getting the word out, far outweighs the costs. Ironic? Maybe, but no more ironic as Gore taking a jet to each city to which he travels for his presentation. But he gets to do many more shows a year by flying than he would by taking a bus.

I agree, I guess that when those factors kick in it will be way too late to make any difference and the damage already done. When talking about Global Warming isn’t really about ‘prevention’ of the disaster? Unless you are one the few that feel it’s already to late. The notion I’m arguing with is that to try and stop growth in some form or another to curb GW is a futile effort. To me ‘incentives’ go a long way to get countries to do the right thing, then the actual consequences of not doing the right thing.

i would be much more inclined to listen to someone who did pedal to the event then drive. In fact my first question would be how did you get to this event.

The notion I’m arguing with is that to try and stop growth in some form or another to curb GW is a futile effort. To me ‘incentives’ go a long way to get countries to do the right thing, then the actual consequences of not doing the right thing.

I think we're in basic agreement. The first question is whether the cost-benefit analysis favors taking action. The recent climate change report tries to settle that issue by concluding that GW is happening and that human activity is a major driver, but there are still some dissenters out there. If the consensus favors taking action, then there needs to be a mechanism to change behavior. Voluntary agreements to hold down growth are unlikely to work, but cap-and-trade structures and carbon taxes are ways of creating incentives to make personal interests align with the larger general goals people want to achieve, of making self-interest promote global interests.

I think a good analogy is the gas tax. If we're serious about being less dependent on foreign oil, a gas tax makes a lot of sense. Just asking people to drive less or buy more fuel efficient cars won't be very effective. But a gas tax puts all the incentives in the right places without necessarily hurting people at the pump. People would have the incentive to buy more fuel efficient cars, manufacturers would have the incentive to produce them, and you don't wind up spending more when gas is 40% more expensive if your car is 40% more fuel efficient. Plus it would make alternative fuels more competitive. It aligns self-interest with the national interest without depending solely on people's good will to do the right thing.

When science goes bad.

Didn’t want o write this last week, but my solution to most of our global and regional problems are to “limit” growth. If the earth had say one tenth its current population and it was intelligently located, I do not believe there would be much problem with pollution of any kind incl GW.
I feel there would be les competition and tension over the resources we do have. Our oil supply would last a lot longer, and poor subsistence areas would have a lot more land per person to hunt and farm.

Actually I am pretty sure of this, but I’m not going to run for office with it. We’ll just have to wait until we are forced to make a decision like this. Luckily for us I don’t think it will be in our life time.

This week's TIME magazine is a double issue on the global warming problem and it is very well put together with in-depth articles.

......my solution to most of our global and regional problems are to “limit” growth. If the earth had say one tenth its current population and it was intelligently located, I do not believe there would be much problem with pollution of any kind incl GW.

What do you propose be done with the other 5.85 billion people? Which group would you place yourself in, the chosen or the culled?

Furthermore, are you planning to put said "solution" into practice from the core of a hollowed out volcano at a secret location in the middle of the pacific ocean?

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA

That's just a silly response. It wouldn't have to be done all at once to work.

i was thinking about getting a python. python have been known to swallow a whole cow. feeding humans to a hungry python could help keep the population down.

That's what AIDS, H5N1, Drug resistant TB (Got a guy locked in solitary in AZ for that) are for, they are just taking awhile.

That's just a silly response. It wouldn't have to be done all at once to work.


Seriously, please tell us how your solution will go about achieving a total worldwide population of just 650,000 people.

Pythons don't eat very often though. You'd need a lot of them.

Maybe a big mincing machine, so you could grind up the 5.5 billion and feed them to all manner of hungry omnivores.

Soylent Green anybody?

Mmmmmmm, people .......

I was thinking about selecting all the bad drivers to feed the pythons to, that way you cut down on population and car exaust.

Perhaps if we just started a bigger war.

But China is really the only worthy opponent. The present wars just represent a slow bleed. We need abrupt population control if the earth is to be saved.

Maybe we need a new system of eugenics, environmental eugenics to cleanse the earth of the most consumptive.

Or maybe we need a lottery like the one in Stephen King's short story The Long Walk wherein, on a future overpopulated earth (presumably now), all the teens of a certain age in the local community were required to participate in a government organized annual long walk where you had to walk til you dropped. Whoever walked the farthest won hundreds of millions of dollars. But, if you stopped walking, the National Guard would shoot you on the spot.

The planet will be so appreciative.

Good idea, as long as it is the 13-19 age group we're talking about and not any other age groups.

"Seriously, please tell us how your solution will go about achieving a total worldwide population of just 650,000 people."


First I want to emphasize that I never promoted this solution as a plan, and I make no attempt to promote it as a plan at all. In fact I specifically wrote “I’m not going to run for office with it”. That does not change the fact that I believe the world would be better off with negative growth in business, and in population.

Second, there is nothing special about the specific quantity. I simply picked a round number that would be far less than what we now have. Actually I’d be interested on learning what a good number might be!

I simply believe that the earth and its living matter are analogous to a very large Petri dish with bacteria growing in it. Eventually they starve or die in their own waste. It occurs much faster if their population growth is very fast. The world’s modern human population is very, very destructive to our environment, and it is growing very fast. I don’t see that we are all that different from the Petri-dish.

So eventually, I think my solution will be implemented. I can not predict how painful it will be, but I can’t help but think that what we might do by our own choice would be less painful than what nature will do (though nature might be far more fair)in the long term if we do nothing. I believe that to change the outcome from what I see as inevitable, we must treat the earth far differently than we do now.

I think the question of how painful it would be would very much depend on whether you got the "long walk" option, the "eaten-alive-by-a-python" option or the "minced-up-and-fed-to-the-masses" option.

I have to believe that being in the belly of a python, while its gastric fluids slowly degrade you, would be a good deal more painful than being minced and eaten.

Me too.

I'd take the long walk any day.

Glad I'm not 13-19 though.

We could invent some tale of global catastrophe. Build three immense space ships to evacuate the planet, "Arks" of humanity to save the race. On the "A" Ark would go the great minds; Thinkers, Inventors. On the "C" Ark would go the Workers and Doers. On the "B" Ark would go the middle-men; managers, salesmen, phone sanitizers. Of course we would send the "B" ark first to ensure the planet we arrive on is well organized and sanitized...

That would work.

Although the remaining half million might all be wiped out suddenly by a particularly virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.

Remember to take two of each animal.

(Note: Last time we did that it worked.)

The big difference between us and the bacteria referred to, is that we are capable of continueing to think out and implement improvements to how we use our resourses and "waste" to overcome the crowding that would otherwise lead to our demise. To infinity and beyond!

You may well be right, but I have seen little evidence of it yet. Actually I am confident you are right, I just think it's a shame that we will surely have to wait until after some (probably) minor disaster to change our ways.

Capable of, sure. But much like bacteria we don't until something forces us, so in a way it's quite like evolution.

There's global warming and there's local warming. Look at the statistics concerning California warming.

We'll sorely miss glaciers once they're largely gone

Aah, who needs 'em?

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - South African workers striking over pay and benefits have a new complaint -- they no longer have the energy for sex.

Monroe Mkalipi, a regional chairman of the powerful COSATU federations of trade unions, complained that work conditions are so tough workers can't perform in the bedroom.

"The harshness that we have in all our workplaces is so severe to such a point that when you get home at night it becomes a problem expanding our families," the SAPA news agency quoted him as saying.

Public sector workers are negotiating with the government to increase pay for the first time since 2004.

Maybe it is just me, but if work conditions are so bad you can't perform why would increased pay be the stated goal? Shorter work days or week, more mechanized help, better environmental conditions or something similar seem more in line with the stated problem. Or maybe that really isn't the problem and is a NEGOTIATING TACTIC.

That was my first thought too. But then I started wondering if maybe there's a language translating deal here. Maybe the workers complained WE NEED A RAISE. And it came across as WE CAN'T GET IT UP.

The thought here is that if everyone worked that hard, the population would gradually decline.

declining population sounds like a good thing.

One thing to look forward to in the age of global warming is summer cruises through the Northwest Passage.

Pretty quick trip from England to the Pacific. Red arrow. Wonder how long before the blue arrow will go.



GO

Interestingly enough, I just did some research, and the blue route has been open and roughly navigable for a couple months each year in the summer since the late 19th/early 20th century.

So... what's the big deal with this new passage?

GO

Now it's "fully" navigable, meaning it's much safer to send a massive cargo vessel filled with millions of dollars of merchandise through.

The size and weight of the cargo ships means they can't easily maneuver, and can take as much as five miles to come to a complete stop. So you don't really want to risk sending them were icebergs could be falling off the ice pack directly into your path.

hmm. potentially shorter/faster trade routes? does that mean all the goodies we buy from china will drop in price?
AWESOME!

Prices of Chineses goods are going to start rising pretty soon, given all the shortages they're now seeing over there.

Oh, and if the dollar keeps sliding..........

Whenever I see the sign on the New Paltz tollbooth saying "Canadian currency discounted 20%", I have to laugh. Soon it could read "Canadian currency marked up 20% over US dollar"

Mr. Gore foresees a 20-foot rise in sea level -- 240 inches.

Oceans to fall, not rise, over millions of years

Thu Mar 6, 2008 2:06pm EST

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
OSLO (Reuters) - Sea levels are set to fall over millions of years, making the current rise blamed on climate change a brief interruption of an ancient geological trend, scientists said on Thursday.

They said oceans were getting deeper and sea levels had fallen by about 170 meters (560 ft) since the Cretaceous period 80 million years ago when dinosaurs lived. Previously, the little-understood fall had been estimated at 40 to 250 meters.

"The ocean floor has got on average older and gone down and so the sea level has also fallen," said Bernhard Steinberger at the Geological Survey of Norway, one of five authors of a report in the journal Science.

"The trend will continue," he told Reuters.

A computer model based on improved understanding of shifts of continent-sized tectonic plates in the earth's crust projects more deepening of the ocean floor and a further sea level decline of 120 meters in 80 million years' time.

If sea levels were to fall that much now, Russia would be connected to Alaska by land over what is now the Bering Strait, Britain would be part of mainland Europe and Australia and Papua island would be the same landmass.

The study aids understanding of sea levels by showing that geology has played a big role alongside ice ages, which can suck vast amounts of water from the oceans onto land.

DOWN NOT UP

"If we humans still exist in 10, 20 or 50 million years, irrespective of how ice caps are waxing and waning, the long term ... is that sea level will drop, not rise," said lead author Dietmar Muller of the University of Sydney.

Over time, Muller told Science in a podcast interview there would be fewer mid-ocean ridges and a shift to more deep plains in the oceans as continents shifted. The Atlantic would widen and the Pacific shrink.

Still, the projected rate of fall works out at 0.015 centimeters a century -- irrelevant when the U.N. Climate Panel estimates that seas will rise by 18-59 cms by 2100 because of global warming stoked by human use of fossil fuels.

"Compared to what is expected due to climate change, the fall is negligible," said Steinberger. Cities from Miami to Shanghai are threatened by rising seas that could also swamp low-lying island nations in the Pacific.

Rising temperatures raise sea levels because water in the oceans expands as it warms, and many glaciers are melting into the seas.

Antarctica and Greenland now contain enough ice to raise sea levels by 50 meters if they all melted, the article said. If all ice on land were gone in 80 million years' time, the net drop in ocean levels would be 70 meters rather than the projected 120.

The study challenges past belief that sea levels might have been only 40 meters higher than today in the Cretaceous period by arguing that measurements from New Jersey in the United States had underestimated the fall.

It said that the New Jersey region had itself subsided by 105 to 180 meters in the period, skewing the readings.

Whoda thunk it. Sensationalised predictions based on incomplete and short term models don't appear correct over the long haul. Don't worry, next week someone else will find another interpretation.