To Globally Warm, Or Not to Globally Warm

An “interview” with an environmentalist (EN), a climatologist (CL), a Cosmologist (CO), a member of PETA(P) , a vegetarian (VEG), a Texas oil man (TEX), and an NRA member (NRA).

Q: Global Warming seems to dominate the news these days, yet no one seems to be able to agree on the root cause. What are your thoughts on the causes of global warming?

EN: Global Warming is being caused by our dependence on carbon based energy products, primarily the burning of coal for electricity, gasoline for our cars, and natural gas for heating.

VEG: Do not forget about methane gas emissions from our factory farms.

PETA: Or the conditions on those factory farms. These poor animals are packed together tightly, and are force fed with corn and antibiotics until they are slaughtered. Many are processed while still alive!

VEG: This is one of the many reasons I do not eat meat.

EN: The runoff from these farms kills both our waterways and ocean life by promoting algae blooms; just look at the dead zone in the Gulf Of Mexico.

VEG: Not to mention over fishing.

NRA: Don’t look at me; I shoot what I eat. No “factory farm” meat in my freezer.

TEX: Did you bring any?

NRA: Sure did…it is out in my truck.

EN: See, this is what I mean. Why do you have a truck when you live in the city, in an apartment, and work as a service station clerk?

TEX: Lay off, gas boy. What did you drive here in?

EN: In my Jetta.

TEX: What, were they sold out of Priei’s, or whatever the hell they call them?

EN: No, unlike your business, money just does not flow to us.

TEX: The public has spoken; they want big cars to haul all that fresh, factory farmed meat home. Can you imagine the NRA guy taking a deer home in that contraption you call a car?

PETA: You are all disgusting. Animals should be treated with love and respect. Raising them for slaughter to meet our food needs to stop, and stopping this practice is an essential part of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

TEX: So now cow farts are causing global warming? I’m ok with that; gets me off the hook. Shoot ‘em all and pack up my freezer!

VEG: You are missing the point; PETA said it was a part of the solution, not the whole solution.

NRA: And I am helping with that solution. I got me 3 bucks and a doe last week. That’s 4 fewer deer farting up our atmosphere.

TEX: I will give you a gas card for some of that venison you have.

PETA: How about we all take turns trying to hunt you? Would you like that, or your family?

VEG: Or maybe just cram them all into an overcrowded cage, shoving food in their mouths.

EN: You mean take them to McDonalds during the lunch rush?

(Combination of groans and snickering)

PETA: You people are so small minded. We should all plant gardens, bike or walk to our destinations, buy electric cars, and for crying out loud, put an end to factory farming animals!

VEG: I’m with you on that.

EN: I am with you for the most part, but electric cars are not that cut and dry. You need to have the proper infrastructure in place to support the additional electric loads that would be placed on the grid. More electric vehicles on the road would then lead to the need for greener electric power, as most of our power is generated by carbon based products. I believe this would need to be addressed first. Hybrids are a nice bridge in the meantime, though.

TEX: What about the cancer clusters that have been shown to be along many of those high voltage power lines that will charge your go-cart? Or is that not a concern?

NRA: Put the animals in those areas; cancer would make them easier to hunt.

PETA: PIG!

NRA: Now you’re talking! I have been craving a BLT all morning.

EN: Ok, everyone, let’s get back on track.

NRA: The animal and oil people said it best: animal farts and electric cars will kill us. Let’s all buy SUV’s and shoot our meals.

PETA AND VEG IN UNISON: We did not say that.

TEX: I’m with the NRA guy. Oil and gasoline cars are much better than shoving a nuclear reactor into the backseat. If we can eat the livestock as it is produced, we can equalize their farting. Hey, who brought that weatherman? He is quieter than a side of beef on my plate.

(PETA and VEG folks clench fists)

CL: Sorry, I seem to have given myself a concussion ramming my head against the wall over and over again.

NRA: Yeah, those greenie hippy types do that to me, too. Shooting things is a better way to reduce stress.

CL: Look, we need to make some serious changes in our lifestyles before it is too late. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and work towards long term solutions now.

EN: Amen

CO: You are all so narrow minded. This is much more complex than just “cows farting” or what we put into our cars. Droughts and extreme weather conditions have been proven to be affected by solar activity as well.

TEX: Who brought Spock?

PETA: No kidding, what kind of crap is that? I’d eat a steak before I could believe that the sun would affect greenhouse gases.

CO: The sun does not affect greenhouse gases, but rather the warming and cooling of the earth’s ion layers.

TEX: There’s lots of iron in steak.

VEG: Spock said ion, not iron.

CO: Damn it, my name is not Spock!

TEX: Testy little cuss.

MODERATOR: Ok, we are running out of time. So, in order of where you are sitting, please give a short statement on how to solve the climate change issue.

EN: A combined effort of reducing greenhouse emissions, waste by-products, and improving the electric infrastructure need to be obtained to succeed.

TEX: The what and the what?

CL: To add to the environmentalist’s statement, this would help to slow the warming trend to a point in which we could potentially see the warming trend reverse itself within the next century.

TEX: You want us to freeze our asses off again?

NRA: They do have a point; increasing snowfall would make it much easy to track game.

MODERATOR: Let’s stick to the question, please.

NRA: Fine. Like those salad eating folks said, if we shoot all of the animals so that they cannot fart, that would fix the problem.

PETA: Arrrrgggghhhhh! (runs screaming out the door).

CO: People, please pick up a book and read once in a while, something that preferably has nothing to do with vampires! (storms out of the room).

MODERATOR: Well, that went well.

TEX: I’m hungry. Is there a steak place nearby? I have plenty of room for all of you in my Escalade.

(EN and VEG leave the room shaking their heads).

The global warming, climate change and environmental discussions seem to all go that way. Isn’t it strange that those we depend on to make these decisions often have the mindset of those above? This is too complicated a problem for us to be closed to the other theories, causes, and solutions that may be outside of conventional wisdom. Everyone has a choice to make regarding this issue. All I ask is that you make an open minded, educated one.

Wind Power In Wisconsin

In my home state of Wisconsin, myself and other Wisconsinites often find themselves on the higher scale of energy costs when compared to rest of the nation. With the growing support of its citizens, Wisconsin is taking baby steps towards reversing this trend. Not only will this lower electrical, and eventually, heating costs state wide, but pollution would decrease as coal plants are relied on for power less and less.

What would this mean for the state directly?

I’ll start with the power numbers first. In July of 2005, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin approved plans to increase, by as much as 4 times, the amount of power generated by wind farms. This increase is expected to power over 72,000 homes in Wisconsin, reducing emissions by the following numbers: 700,000 tons of carbon dioxide, 12 pounds of Mercury, 240 tons of nitrogen oxide and 340 tons of sulfur dioxide.

Those are pretty large numbers of reduced pollutants for any state. For a state like Wisconsin, though, that relies heavily on tourism and environmentally dependant activities for those tourists, it could mean all the difference of growth vs. economic hardships.

Now, for the bad news. Studies have suggested that, due to the cost of building and maintaining wind farms, the average person’s electric bill would actually increase. Not many within the state are trained to run and maintain such facilities. Also, in regards to the proposed Horicon project, concerns have been raised about the blades interfering with large number of birds in the area (Horicon Marsh in particular). Also, those living near these farms have noted the annoyance of the constant whirr of the blades moving through the air.

I do see a point with the concerns about the Horicon area, as well as the noise factor. As much as we need a cleaner, more readily available power source, we do not want to cause more harm than good. An alternate site in this case should be found. Trading air pollution for noise pollution isn’t exactly the best either.

However, I believe there are plenty of areas within the state that could be used for wind farming. How many land fills and toxic dumps do we have that are well out of the way of both nature and people? There are a lot more than you would think. By using these “unusable” areas of land, we can preserve our environments, habitats, and peoples quality of life.

Those that bring up the cost issue do have a point. Will Wisconsinites be willing to have a higher electric bill for cleaner power? Maybe we’ll ask them this after they spend $5 a week charging their electric cars vs. the $40 a week in gas they are paying now.

Here is the list of sites I used for my facts. Please feel free to interject any thoughts or opinions you may have. Please, as always, present the data supporting your statement and the source of this data. Any posts without such will be immediately removed. I am also working on getting the archives back up for everyone to view.

http://www.renewwisconsin.org/windfarm/ProposedWIWindfarmsJan_24_06.pdf

http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-state.cfm?Id=823&yr=2005

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=307934

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/energy/wind/