[Coral-List] New York Times op-ed piece - thoughts for Phase II
br_czm at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 23 15:39:16 EDT 2012
I very rarely contribute to the discussions that occur on the list, but feel I need to throw my 2 cents in on this particular topic. While both Ove & Alina have very valid points, the concept of tipping point where non-fossil fuel suddenly becomes attractive and everything will rapidly shift to the new fuel sources is optimistic at best. This is primarily due to the fact that the GHG which are emitted by the fossil fuels are not factored into any of the costs of producing/consuming energy from these fuel sources. Even if GHG are ultimately taxed, that will mean all the material and equipment needed to produce the non-fossil fuel energy will also go up somewhat in price. Couple that with the inability of the renewable energy resources to easily tap into the nation's electrical grid (30 miles offshore is not near the grid, nor are windmills in the Great Plains region very close to Chicago and other mid-western and southern users) and the price for
renewable energy goes even higher. Ultimately, what will probably occur, at least in the U.S., is that individual regions within states will shift as it makes economic sense for them to do so. Gradually, and only when enough systems are shifted over, will a tipping point be reached.
As far as large, nation-wide outreach campaigns, in my mind they are primarily a waste of money. Recent research has shown that there are fewer children (%-wise) than ever in the U.S. that have never camped out or been involved with any kind of sustained outdoor experience. What is need is somehow getting people at the local level, block by block involved with outdoor or environmental issues that affect them, even if it doesn't immediately hit our objectives, that we will be able to actually bring about the change that is needed. One example, helping lower income neighborhoods reduce the effects of climate change by reducing or eliminating the areas that invasive mosquitoes and other insects prefer, thus reducing the threat of new diseases. Once that kind of rapport is created, then the teaching of larger issues, problems, and possible solutions can be discussed.
From: Steve Mussman <sealab at earthlink.net>
To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:42 PM
Subject: [Coral-List] New York Times op-ed piece - thoughts for Phase II
It is with great interest that we should consider the exchange between Alina
because therein lies our salvation.
I believe that Ove is spot on to point out that "seemingly immovable
will fall away if only because it will become increasingly uneconomic not to
shift towards renewable energy sources. In this regard, individuals and
organisations that are pumping
money into gas and coal infrastructure today are probably doing so at great
risk to their
But Alina counters by pointing out "The truth is that the human species
to a problem until after a disaster happens, seldomly as a preventative".
So can we patiently wait until the economic realities ultimately tip the
balance in favor of renewables or will such moderation doom our coral reefs
along with other vulnerable ecosystems?
Alina reminds us that it is critical to "educate sufficient people about
this and get our leaders to make wise choices and that it will take more
than a panel of experts at a meeting attended by a couple thousand
people". Ove's solution is to suggest to his fellow scientists that "not
only should we continue to expand our interaction with the mainstream media
but we must also focus on capturing hearts and minds of hundreds of millions
through effective social media campaigns and other mechanisms. Only then
will we have the chance to speed up the transition that desperately needs to
I say to that . . . . please listen.
Thank you both and . . . amen.
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml..noaa.gov
More information about the Coral-List