Automotive Bailout vs. the morons in Washington

[Auricauricle]

It is, yet I think that it is silly to think that the earth, human behavior, and everything else in nature thrives in a state of homeostasis. Entropy is the natural order of things. Still as you say, we're pretty slovenly creatures nevertheless. At least we know better; let's just do better...

[JSE]

I know I'm steppin in a Huge Pile but........Just gotta say,

What these Chicken Littlests don't understand is that they can have load of proof supporting their "theory" but it only takes one solid concrete piece of evidence to destroy it. They conveniently ignore ice core evidence (and not just from the past 100 years), the fact that the solar activity is increasing, increased thermal venting, historic temperature cycles, changing ocean currents, etc.

Life will adapt, the atmosphere has been a lot more toxic in the past, life adapted and carried on. Will it affect our "way of life"? Sure, but this is a very self serving statement. Our society, we call civilization, is but a small blip on the evolutionary scale and the earth will flourish with or without us. I have all the confidence that human kind will adapt. The world will not end people.

OK, I feel better now.

I got yer back! Well said.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I think that you are right in saying that in some way or another, the world will find a way of going on with or without us, Luvin', but I hope that we humans don't hasten the process so much that Mother Nature can barely keep up. Even so, worse cataclysms have come and gone, and we're still here, so maybe we're looking through a scanner darkly, here, right?

"Scanner darkly"... Niiiiice play on words there sparky.

[Auricauricle]

Thanks Rich, but it ain't my phrase. I been readin' a bit o' Philip K. Dick, lately. I guess the phrase popped out and into print before I could stop it.

[nightflier]

I'll be dead and buried long before GW has any effect on my life, so what do I care?

Well, even putting aside any altruistic sentiments about how this kind of indifference will affect the rest of the world, we should care because current climate measurements are changing exponentially. That is, what was measured 10 or even 5 years ago, is not at all what is being measured today (i.e. the present). Climate change happens in short spurts, we know this from previous climate changes that we've studied in ice cores. It resulted in the dying out of whole ecosystems and species. Nature isn't kind, warm or fuzzy. That's why we need to stop mucking with it.

If we look at evolution (another "theory" right JSE?) it didn't come about slowly over time as Darwin initially hypothesized. Gould & Eldridge and many other scientists, describe the process as occurring in short, very fast changes, spurred on by a punctuated equilibrium in the environment. These changes can be devastating to any one species that doesn't have the capacity to adapt quickly enough. Let's remember that evolution involves a lot of "dying off" too. What makes us think that we will be the species best able to adapt to rapid change? Maybe we're not.

The idea that there will be no effect in our lifetimes is misguided. It is now quite well documented that the past decade has been highly unusual in temperature shifts, natural disasters, and ecosystem disruptions. This indicates that the changes are happening and that we are actually in the throws of a punctuated equilibrium. I believe that this is exacerbated by human activity, JSE does not, but there's no denying that something major is happening all around us. In a way, we had better hope that it is human activity, because then we can do something about it.

Just this past weekend we had record temperatures here in SoCal, and we're headed for what looks to be a fairly serious drought. Tex, in your neck of the woods, I think you're also headed into a "fun" year with greater expected fluctuations in temperature and precipitation than you've likely seen yet - that's a nice way of saying that you're going to have one heck of a hurricane season. Canada is expected to have a record number of forest fires and drought conditions as well. While this evidence isn't exactly scientific, it bears mentioning that what we're experiencing is just minor compared to what is about to happen in India, Greenland, Indonesia, East Africa and other places around the globe this year. Now this is not in 100 years, or even decades from now, so we had better start caring.

One other point: I just don't see how this is liberal thinking. Why is worrying about the environment a liberal thing? It affects our health, our homes, our jobs, our access to water, energy, food, and air. What is liberal about caring about those things? Why not think of this as caring about your own rear end? That's pretty conservative & libertarian, if you ask me. Not convinced? Well it affects our access to audio gear too. Now does it matter?

[Rich-n-Texas]

No. I use a remote to access my audio gear.

[nightflier]

Funny. Well not really.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Hey, you're the one who felt the need to expound on my simple little attempt at humor. All I did was re-simplify it.

[nightflier]

OK.

(I was going to leave it at that, but apparently a one-word message is too short. I guess this forum frowns on brevity.)

[Auricauricle]

Wanna tell me what this "punctuated equilibrium" is? Sounds like mumbo jumbo t'me, Hoss!

[nightflier]

Sorry, I misspelled Eldredge's name. Here's the full story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Basically the theory that in evolution things change fast and in spurts, rather than slowly over long periods of time. Recent environmental data suggests the same is happening now in the ecological sphere. Ironically, the theory has been applied to other fields as well such as politics and psychology, rather than just be localized to biology. There are a number of articles that suggest that punctuated equilibrium has much broader applications and that climate change may very well be one of those. Actually, we are talking about a field that involves a lot of life forms, including humans, so it certainly isn't inconceivable.

[Auricauricle]

Thanks....Here's a video I found on Youtube.....Remember this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGB9...eature=related

You realise that Gould was a biologist and that he wasn't referring to geological or planetary things, eh? Still, it's a nice theory to play with....I kinda like the idea of having thriteen eyes and three belly buttons.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Uhhh... The Dude, what're ya gonna do with three belly buttons?

[Luvin Da Blues]

7.1 ears might be kinda fun.

[Auricauricle]

Good one, Luvin'! Rich....thinka the possibilities, man! A place fer more lint, a place for more stash, a place for....Oh, crap.

[nightflier]

In the filed of evolutionary biology Punctuated Equilibrium has been accepted as a lot more accurate than Darwin-era evolutionary theory. Gould wrote the paper in 1972, but since then a lot has been added to the data. And it's a theory that has been applied to a lot of other fields with considerable success in fitting the model. Application to climate change isn't a stretch.

And while having three belly buttons may be funny (born-again Christians notwithstanding), there is the very real possibility that climate change will change us biologically. For example people with fairer skin may very well die off if their skin does not protect them against skin cancer from increases in UV exposure. My point being that climate change is not something to ignore, take lightly, or to expect affecting us in the distant future. It could very well affect us very soon, or maybe it is already affecting us, as in the case of skin cancer, which is rising to alarming rates, especially in the Southern states, I hear.

Increased CFC in the atmosphere -> depletion of the ozone layer -> increased surface exposure to UV radiation from the sun -> increase in skin cancer

The fact that depletion of the ozone layer additionally increases surface temperature doesn't even need to enter in the equation, even though it does as well.

[Luvin Da Blues]

I'm with NF on the Gould & Eldredge theory. I believe that the evolutionary process is hasten by geological and climatic changes. If there was 'stability' there would be no reason for change. I look at this as more support that sudden (by geological time standards) climatic changes have appeared in the past.

[Auricauricle]

As a refutation to traditionally adhered to notions of phyletic gradualism. cladogenetic alterations of our morphology is an interesting theory, but it shouldn’t be overlooked that Gould’s assertions concern isolated populations outside of the “homogenizing influence” of larger, more stable populations (Gould, 1977). Still, I think the notion, while compelling is not enough to endorse ideas that such changes occur suddenly but within the constraints of a terrestrially relevant time frame. I know that with all the precautions I take, I am going to have to apply sun block when I go out and hope to goshamighty that my skin will protect me from the cruel rays of Apollo. Already, half of my body has been carved up by dermatologists intent on removing pesky carcinomas and suspicious moles. In the meantime, I just do what I can because it’s simply the right thing to do. Period.

Sorta reminds me o’ that line from Bladerunner: “It’s too bad she won’t live. But then again, who does?”

[Feanor]

Well, even putting aside any altruistic sentiments about how this kind of indifference will affect the rest of the world, we should care because current climate measurements are changing exponentially. ...

Global warming and its effects, such melting of glacial ice caps, is happening faster than even the most pessemistic models. This is because "positive" feedback is not sufficiently accounted for in current models.

• The oceans have so far absorbed 1/3 of the increase human production, but as the seas warm, their CO2 absorption capacity reduces.
• Ice caps and snow cover in general reflects the heat of the sun, but as these reduce, more of the sun's heat is absorbed.
• As temperatures increase and snow cover decreases, global permafrost melts. The permafrost retains huge quantities of CO2; according to a statistic I heard, as much CO2 as is currently in the atmosphere. Plus the permafrost retains huge quantities of methane -- 20 times more greenhouse effect than CO2 per molecule -- and this will be released too.
• In the depths of the cold oceans, methane is also retained in huge quantities in chemical compounds. A rise in sea temperatures will release this methane and much of it could be release over a relatively short timeframe.

From what I've heard, any or all of these positive feedbacks could kick in big time with a temperature range of between 1 to 4 degrees Celsius.

Global warmng will cause rises in sea level and also extensive droughts in many locations. E.g.

• Sea level rise in Bangledish. India is building a 3 meter wall the whole 4000 km length of its border with that country.
• Drough in Mexico and Central American. The US is building a wall across its border with Mexico -- timely I should say.
• Droughts also in sub-Saharan Africa. Boat loads of refugees arrive daily across the Mediterrean; Eurpean countries are steping up naval patrols to intercept and turn back these refugees.

Happy scenarios, eh? And they are happening already.

...
One other point: I just don't see how this is liberal thinking. Why is worrying about the environment a liberal thing? It affects our health, our homes, our jobs, our access to water, energy, food, and air. What is liberal about caring about those things?

Apparently so. Denial of unpleasant facts seems to be an important marker of Conservative ideology.

[Auricauricle]

Don't the words denial and conservative seem strangely akin?

Oooh, I didn't say that!

[nightflier]

Auric, Gould looked at isolated populations, but isn't it true that the climate changes scientists are most worried about and studying most intently are also isolated geographically? The hole in the ozone layer, the depletion of ice in Greenland, the population growth of tree-borers in Alaska are not global in scale, but rather outlying events/populations.

Likewise, the dying off of pale people won't happen everywhere, but in some places faster than others. Out of these isolated events/populations, new populations with tougher skin will rise, and some of these will perhaps develop 3rd belly buttons if this somehow helps them survive the climatic changes. This would be a dramatic and rapid change. Now let's extrapolate that model to climatic change. The entire disappearance of the North Pole has been suggested. The elimination of fresh water in extensive areas like the US Midwest is also a very real possibility. Massive storms such as we've never seen in human history. What if Katrina had been twice as large? Look out Houston!

Then there is the issue of those areas/populations that will not be immediately changed because they are not isolated events/populations. They will not have the benefit of forced mutation and could very well simply die off. That is, the changes we are witnessing in isolated cases could just as well signal a mass dying off of life in places not experiencing them because of peripheral effects. Considering how plagues and pollution have been such efficacious killers, one could also argue that humans aren't as resilient as we may think. Climate change could very well be disastrous, not because we won't be able to take a 1 or 2 degree rise in temperature, but because of all the other events and mutations that could be put into motion as a result.

So yes, direct exposure to UV radiation will force mutations and kill off some populations (frogs are particularly susceptible, it seems). But what will that do to our food chain, our fresh water supply, and the air we breathe, never mind our sources of energy? Take those frogs, for example, the tadpoles are a primary source of food for fish, some of which we eat. It doesn't take much for all this to come back to bite us in the collective a$$. And all this because a few of us what to be richer? What is that wealth really worth if the majority of us are going to die from it?

[Auricauricle]

Interesting and thoughtful arguments, nightflier et al., and thank you for the stimulating repartee! Still (to play the DA, here) in spite of these very possible scenarios, is there any possibility that they may be cyclical or that the various extant species are more hardy than we suppose? Is all of this as precipitous as the popular pundits sayi it is, or are we reaching a million-year tipping point that has been edging towards its zenith and is now ready to tumble? Are we so proud that such a die-off spells disaster for the species or would such an occurrence actually help facilitate the introduction of a sturdier gene pool? I ask these questions not to be a butt-head, but as one who has not seen the movie (it's in the queue) and who needs to know lot more about this stuff. Do I need to start being nicer to my pet cockroach?

[nightflier]

DA = District Attorney?

Definitely be nicer to your pet cockroach. The roach is a much maligned insect that is actually responsible for some major cleanup duties we humans tend to forget about. But I digress.

The most troubling part about global warming is what has been happening in just the last few years. There are still people who would like to believe that this is cyclical, but it varies too much from the straight-line that average temperature has been charting (also up, BTW). The other data that is so troubling is how the temperature chart mirrors the pollution chart. Al Gore doesn't do a very good job of explaining it, but it's actually quite striking. If you then also correlate this data with other environmental charts such as average sea temperature, the strength of ocean currents, the rate of ice reduction, the increase in pollutants in the atmosphere, the rate of growth of organisms that would normally be checked by falling temperatures (jelly fish, borer beetles, algae), and also the increasing resistance of bacteria and viruses against natural and man-made responses, and you then superimpose all these charts over each other, you see a strikingly similar trend emerging. They all point to:

- significant temperature fluctuation (highs as well as lows)
- significant animal population changes
- significant increase in sea water levels
- significant drought conditions
- significant increase in diseases
- significant changes to our food supply

And many other factors, I'll leave out for now. These are all occurring right now. What is of concern to scientists is the fact that they are all closely linked to each other and if one of these does reach a tipping point, it could send the other ones into extremely dangerous levels as well, and perhaps a few of these would send the whole thing into a spiral.

On the positive front, if this is a product of our own doing, then we can actually do something about it. But this isn't going to be where we can do one thing and everything will be all right. We actually need to do a number of things from conservation to alternatives to a shift in culture. These need to be coordinated to do enough to reverse the trends the scientists are now recording. This is why it is so difficult, because all the things we can do need to be done, and more than that has to be done too, just to reverse the trends. It's going to have to be a global undertaking of massive proportions.

This is why we can't keep driving SUVs, altering and falsifying research, increasing oil dependency, continuing wars indefinitely, and continuing to grow economies of scale in some selfish attempt to get rich at the expense of so many others who won't. The Bush & McCain policies just aren't sustainable, it's as simple as that. The American dream, not the one about owning a basic home and a basic car, but the one about that fantasy that everyone can and should strive to own 3+ cars, two houses, a trophy wife, 3+ kids, a purebred pair of hounds, three acres of land, a ride-on lawnmower, a stock portfolio, a yacht, and yes, even a dedicated home theater room, is absolute lunacy.

Our economy and our very way of life is predicated on continued economic growth. The American auto industry is a perfect example of that: unless it can show a reasonable level of growth, measured by continually increasing production, increasing jobs, increasing product lines, increasing factories, and increasing sales, it is considered insolvent. I mean think about this for a minute. If our economy is not continually growing, then it is considered flat or failing. Our economic system has no way of coping effectively with retraction. Sure it can weather corrections, because the expectation is that after every bear there is a bull. But if the economy does not have a sure way of reversing a negative trend, then all bets are off. Hence the current state.

The thought that the American auto industry has to retract by combining product lines, firing thousands of employees, closing factories, and losing sales, is abhorrent to everything we have come to define ourselves as. Nonetheless, this industry is the pariah of the investor because there is no hope for growth and so the investor looks elsewhere. The same with insurance, banking and real estate. How many of these have to reach a tipping point before we all throw in the towel and start jumping off buildings? What Americans can't accept or deal with is that this economy and consequently their wealth and lifestyle was a bubble, an inflated price, an unrealistic and unsustainable artifice.

For the environment, Americans have increasingly treated nature as an economic commodity. Water, energy, flora, food, animal life, even human life all have been monetized. If pollution continues unabated, then one day we may even have to pay for clean air to breathe. And all this because a few people, a very few people, want to be obscenely rich. And while it's easy to point fingers and maybe even have an off-with-their-heads fantasy about it, they don't maintain the system, the rest of us mid-level schmucks do. We aspire to that same wealth and we covet the crumbs that fall off that table. We are so focused on that lofty state of being, that we forget to look at who's neck we are stepping on to be there. It's really a sickly perpetuating cycle that somehow sustains appalling injustice.

Ghandi said, if you want to measure the civilization of a society, see how they treat their animals. And extension of that is if you want to see how civilized we are, take a look at how we treat those who can't fend for themselves, such as the disabled, the elderly, our veterans, the homeless, orphans, the terminally ill, the incarcerated, etc. By that measure we're pretty friggin' uncivilized. If you also consider how we treat our animals and plants, we're friggin' cro-magnons. And the worst of it is that it's affecting us directly and we still won't do anything about it. That's the persistence of a system that cannot continue to sustain itself. Sooner or later it will reach a tipping point.

Having said all that, I'm still hopeful. I still have a stock portfolio, I still have a job, I still own my home, my family is still healthy, and I'm still expecting things to recover. However, my stocks are now focused on green industries, I am downsizing my own job, I am cutting costs everywhere I can, I am installing a whole-house fan, dual zone climate controls, and if I can swing it, solar panels on my home. We are eating out far less often, reducing and combining trips, we also buy more vegetables and fruit, organic when we can, recycling everything, downsizing electronics and possessions, and we are generally living healthier lives. In short, we are retracting our own lifestyle as much as possible and encouraging others to do the same. The hope is that if enough people participate in every way they can, not just one or two, it might actually make a difference.

[Feanor]

..
For the environment, Americans have increasingly treated nature as an economic commodity. Water, energy, flora, food, animal life, even human life all have been monetized....

Perhaps the opposite is the actual truth. We haven't ascribed a monetary value to water, energy, flora, food, animal life, human life. In the sense that if we knew their monetary value, we'd know what their loss would cost us.

[nightflier]

Perhaps, but considering what Aquafina costs for what it is, it sure makes you wonder.