Letters to the Editor
-
really no different
This is really no different than what is happening in the United States. The only difference is that we had more money to build irrigation systems. That money is running out and we will be in the same situation. Religious America wanted the apocalypse and they are going to get it.
-
Unbearable
This is truly a sickening story. Why isn't there anything, as First World citizens, that we can DO? If there is, why doesn't this article mention it?
-
Rice? in a dusty drought-dried savannah?
I thought rice is sprouted in large, essentially underwater fields. My grower friends in CA claim rice is an extremely water-intensive crop. The author describes driving by rice fields; what's up here??
-
SO WHAT DO WE DO?
I think that this warming planet series is one of the best that Salon has published. I am frustrated, however, by the lack of solutions presented in the articles. If there is in fact, nothing we can do, please let me know. I'll be out smoking and eating a double bacon cheeseburger, before I go hang out in my car in the garage. I keep reading these articles and feeling sickened and depressed for the rest of the day. Either tell me what I can do, who I can call, who I can write, what movement I can join, what solutions are on the horizon, or give me permission to start smoking again.
-
ditto
what am i supposed to do? tell me. i'll do it.
-
response to SO WHAT DO WE DO?
Environmentalists don't want to outline the answer, it is not very appealing. First, if the only source of green house gases was us burning oil at current levels, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would plateau or increase very little from current levels. Because CO2 levels are so elevated the earth absorbs from the atmosphere about the equivalent of 3 billion tons of carbon a year (the same amount that is produced from the burning of oil) An inordinate amount of our green house gases comes from burning coal and natural gas, either for electricity or space heating. The easiest way to replace coal and natural gas is to generate all of our electricity from nuclear power (also wind energy for peak loading is useful) and to replace natural gas for space heating with electric powered heat pump. This is the French solution. The French generate 40% of the greenhouse gases per capita that we do even though they consume 2/3 as much oil per capita. The French also use NO fossil fuels to generate electricity, it is all made from hydroelectric or nuclear power.
The other option is to move rapidly to a hydrogen based electric generation scheme, where wind energy is used to make hydrogen gas (as well as some electricity directly) and the hydrogen gas is then used to generate electricity. This solution however is very expensive and would be more time consuming to implement.
-
realistic options
First, if you live in an area where it's possible, considering outfitting your house with clean energy generating alternatives and practice conservation on a daily basis:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060413/tc_usatoday/offthegridoronsolarandwindpowergain
Second, consider buying a hybrid car or start utilizing mass transit on a more frequent basis. There are federal tax incentives in place as of Jan 1 2006 for hybrid car purchases but they will be phased out eventually: http://www.hybridcars.com/cars.html
Third, write your government officials and demand tougher environmental laws.
Fourth, show up on election day and vote for candidates who take the environment seriously. (I recommend steps 1 & 2 first because I believe that change can begin at home with each one of us. I don't think we can afford to wait for the government to catch up fast enough. Especially under the current regime).
Finally, do your own research. If you're reading this article, then you have internet access and should be capable of finding out what more can be done on your own volition without someone having to point you in the right direction.
-Sarah B.
-
More on what you can do
There is a lot that you can do. Check with your local city on energy options. Globally, its tough to see an answer, but you can make commitments on a local level if your city is progressive.
For example, in my hometown, Austin, we have the option to choose "Green Choice" energy. If you choose green choice, most of the the power comes from wind turbines in Sweetwater Texas. Additionally, I believe they use a portion of your energy bill to research new methods of producing energy. Right now, green choice is actually CHEAPER per kilowatt hour than regular energy. Also, if your home is situated appropriately, you can purchase solar panels that feed back to the grid.
If your city isn't progressive, complain loudly to the right people. Send letters. Tell them you want to be more like Austin.
Finally, you can do small things in your daily life: replace your bulbs with halogen. Turn off your PC when you leave. Take the bus. Eat less meat and buy what you can locally. Make your home energy efficient by replacing carpet with tile in the south, and don't buy what you don't need. Most importantly, set an example for your friends, family and children. And for heaven's sake, don't eat cheeseburgers or smoke.
-
Do whatever you want to do
Just don't put a gun to my head and make me do it too, because nine times out of ten, the conclusions that humans arrive at are wrong.
Poco
-
What to do
It is difficult to provide answers to climate change because it might require questioning nearly every facet of our current lifestyles. If I remember correctly, Ross Gelbspan, who wrote "Boiling Point" (you can probably find the review somewhere on Salon) estimates that global carbon emissions will have to be cut by 70% just to stabilize these changes. In the US, we are 5% of the global population but consume 25% of global fossil fuels and emit 25% of global carbon emissions. Everything about the way we live -- the energy we use to get ready in the morning, to commute to work, to eat meals, to recreate -- is caught up in all of this.
The problem is thus a social problem. Scientists tend to stay clear of these discussions because they have realized that they risk being labelled as elements of the "liberal media" or as cookie doomsayers to the extent that they preach the need for change. So have they stuck to the empirical "what is" as opposed to the more controversial "what ought".
The best thing for any person to do in beginnig to tackle the problem of climate change would be to start observing how her everyday routine contributes to the problem. This will help her realize the scope of these challenges and the necessity for collective solutions at local, national, and international levels. Sorting your trash or making a compost heap aren't going to do much without much needed social and political pressure at every level of government.