My First Thought Was: This Must be Monty Python
October 12th, 2006
A few days ago I was flying back from a vacation in Austria. On the first leg of the journey home, from Vienna to London, I flew on British Airways and, walking on to the plane picked up a couple of British Sunday Newspapers. When reading “The Sunday Telegraphâ€, evidently a respected paper, I was floored by the advertisement on page 12 of the main news section. The ad was placed by SPURT, which is an advocacy group supporting “unlimited aviation growthâ€. It had a picture of the CEO, and obviously was lobbying for airport expansion. Some of the language of the ad, and I quote verbatim:
“According to the World Health Organisation, 150,000 people die each year due to climate change. That’s a risk we’re prepared to take. The uncomfortable truth is that aviation is good for the environment. I’m taking my cheap holiday and telling the climate whingers to get stuffedâ€
The ad went on to say:
“Environmentalists only worry about things that will happen in the future — but many of us won’t even be around then.
Nobody wants to hear about climate change, flooding and people dying in Africa, it’s depressing and doesn’t even affect most of us
Everyone wants a holiday in a hot place, so what’s the problem?â€
I looked back at the picture of the CEO to see if it was perhaps one of the Pythons, as my first reaction was “This Must be Monty Pythonâ€. The Institute of Funny Walks came to mind. Is this a real ad? Then a few pages on I read an editorial that challenged global warming. The editorial spoke of the lack of true scientific data concerning global warming, that same old tired argument that has now become worthy of the best Python programs.
As it turns out, when you go to the web site, it is humorous, so since the language is so absurd, the only conclusion is that this is an environmental group with a great sense of humor, and a lot of money to pay for a full page ad. They really do skewer the stupidity of the anti- global warming folks.
What absolutely hit me was that, this was in a mainstream London newspaper with a strong editorial challenging the science behind global warming. As an American I see the total absence of leadership coming out of Washington in the areas of environment and energy issues that are related to our survival. Somehow I assumed that the British perhaps we more advanced. Certainly not The Daily Telegraph.
The point here is that to question the science around global warming is ridiculous and ultimately ostrich stupid. The conversation should be, whether global warming is or is not real, we have to assume that it might be, and what are we going to do. If humanity does nothing and it proves to be real, then we might well be done here on Earth, or at least life as we know it will radically change. If it is not real, then at least we will be addressing the urgent issue of finding alternatives to petroleum. Since we are passing through Peak Oil right now, it is quite possible that our children will see the end of oil, at least oil that is globally available. If we do not use intelligence, leadership, economic incentives, science and innovation to wean ourselves from petroleum in the next twenty years, humanity, and Americans in particular will be in deep trouble, trouble that could tear society apart.
If anyone is challenging the science behind global warming they have some vested interest in petroleum either directly or indirectly. They also have some misguided perception that supporting global warming is not supporting economic growth. As I have stated here before, the economic opportunity of green technologies and alternative fuel is the greatest economic opportunity in the history of humanity.
[I apologize for the absence of posts these past ten days. I decided to actually take a complete break from work while in Europe on a special vacation. I appreciate those of you who emailed me to see if I was ok and to those who let me know that you were missing posts on this blog.. Loyal regular readers like you are all I could ask for. Thank you!]
October 12th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Monty Python, not sure. The Onion, absolutely. It was definitely a double take. What tipped me off was the “be grateful that you live so close to an airport.” It’s a very clever way to get their message across.
October 12th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Hope you had a great vacation, and that it was a TRUE vacation!
On global warming, I suppose I’m still on the fence on this one.
On one hand, you have scientific evidence that we are seeing a slow warmup in our natural climate. Fine.
On the other hand, a natural swing in our climate is nothing new. Looking long term, and by long term I mean hundreds of years, we’ve always had slow climate changes that run in cycles.
I suppose time will tell.
The problem then becomes, in forty years when the climate starts cooling off again, can we attribute the climate change to initiatives we’re taking today to “go green”, or just the natural swing of mother nature?
I have the same approach to the “peak oil” theory. How do you know if you’re at peak oil if you don’t know how much oil is out there? (And I can tell for a fact that unless we’ve done 3D seismic on the entire planet, we have no clue…)
We’re also sitting on reserves that contain more oil than we know what to do with but can’t touch it due to environmental reasons. Look at the major find in the Gulf Coast recently. Chevron is looking to produce 700,000 barrels per day from their new discovery in 6 years. Yes, that’s per day, and that’s a very significant development in U.S. oil reserves.
What does the price of gasoline have to go to for the environmentalists to allow for drilling on the North slope in Alaska? How about the mountains in Colorado?
After all, everything has it’s price.
-Grant
TheCornerOfficeBlog.com
October 12th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Grant-
The issue is not to wonder about global warming. The issue is to operate from the assumption that all the global warming concerns MIGHT be true. If they might be true and we do nothing, shame on us and please explain that to your children and grandchildren. If they might be true and we do something then we keep the price of oil lower than it might otherwise be, we slow the warming, and we protect the flora and fauna that are now dying off.
Just because you believe that you will win the lottery before you retire doesn’t mean it is a bad idea to save money in case you don’t.
David
October 13th, 2006 at 10:57 am
That’s a fine point, David, and after thinking about it a little while longer, I agree.
I guess my real issue about global warming is that it’s being thrown into political agends on both sides of the isle, not as a means to solve the problem, but to trash the other party. My rationale also spreads to issues other than global warming as well.
For instance, democrats are accusing the republicans and the current administration of not doing enough to combat global warming, but can’t really tell anyone what the administration SHOULD be doing. From the other side, republicans counter that if democrats want to escalate the battle to help out mother nature, why didn’t they lobby for Clinton to start the reform when HE had the chance…
My big fear is that we’re going to beat the issue of global warming back and forth so much in the government that eventually people will get tired of hearing about it but not seeing any progress towards any real goals. At that point, they’ll forget about it, just like they forgot about how terrible $3 gas was right after Katrina, but now that we’ve ramped up gas prices over a longer period of time, it’s not that big of deal any more. On top of that, while politicians complain about record profits from “big oil”, normal everyday joes really don’t care anymore…
There’s obviously a lot to be said about global warming, and this may be one area where the private sector could accomplish so much more than the government ever could.
Thanks for your alternative line of logic.
-Grant
TheCornerOfficeBlog.com
October 13th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
I think you’re right that the global warming debate has moved on to mainstream acceptance, but now we face the daunting task of convincing millions that they need to drastically change their lifestyles or face more devastating consequences. It’s a long road ahead.
October 14th, 2006 at 8:39 am
You’re right, PeakEngineer, and I think the most effective way to change lifestyles is through the wallet.
-Grant
TheCornerOfficeBlog.com
October 14th, 2006 at 8:49 am
The real issue is leadership followed by education. Leadership needs to set direction and education needs to give people specifics things to do and then show then how to, where to, how much to pay, when to etc.
The problem I had with “An Inconvenient Truth” was that it delivered this truth to the audience in a frontal assault, but then let suggested actions to be taken dropped into the ending credits in a cute, scrabble type of way. I challenge most people who saw the movie to list then things in the credits that they can do to help fight global warming.