I subscribe to an Amazon Community discussion group on climate change.  Its activity waxes and wanes over the months.  This particular group has had 338 messages posted since it began in March of last year.

Today I saw a little message posted by lady who is interested in septic tank aerators, "sweet filters", green homes, and stopping global warming.  The post that caught my eye reads:

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will stop global warming. Turning off lights or denying yourself simple pleasures will not change much. Some things you can do at home will make a big difference are:

1. Paint your roof white.
2. Put Zeocarbon filters on all pluming and septic tank vents.
3. Aerate your septic tank using a solar powered system.
4. Tell your city fathers to convert all sewage lagoons into solar power aerated systems.

Here's my reply:

My impression is that all attempts to "stop" global warming would be like trying to stop the Mississippi River from flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

My main question is this: Is it not more sensible to direct our actions towards mitigating whatever effects there may be?  I say "may" in all confidence that no one knows what the effects WILL be.

Global warming isn't as predictable as the tide.  The fact that we've experienced some small rise in average temperatures over the last century would suggest to me that if, indeed, the prospects are for continual (small) increase, then we should start wearing lighter clothing, explore the possibilities of increasing crop planting in areas further north than before, do a bit more to control insect-borne diseases, etc. 

"Stopping" global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions strikes me as a counter-intuitive way to deal with the problem, if it *IS* a problem.

All of mankind's history has demonstrated that if people wish to live a certain way then they will live that way regardless of the risk.  Case in point: the people that live near active volcanoes.  The advantages of living there outweigh the very real risks.  Another case in point: people that live in areas regularly devastated by typhoons or hurricanes.  Same thing: the benefits or even merely their situations in life (those poor living in Bangladesh, for example) weigh against moving to a safer area.

All right.  Now we have global warming.  For those that live, say, in Canada or Finland or Russia, they're now to be told that they cannot heat their homes as they have been because global warming must be stopped.  People in Africa are to be told that they cannot use cheap oil to burn for energy to advance their standard of living because global warming must be stopped.  Everyone must turn to alternative energy, renewable energy, and make do with less.

Telling them that you care about the fate of the planet says nothing to them about whether you care about THEIR welfare.  Your compassion is so much more grand than that.

I'm sorry if I sound a sardonic.  My great hope is that the political machinery will become so damaged by the inevitable realization that governments will actually have to impose draconian measures to try to "stop" something that may not even be of our own making that nothing of any real substance will be done.  Oh, there'll be lots of sustainability measures and neighborhood drives and rich people putting "Zeocarbon filters on all pluming and septic tank vents"...but the huge, over-arching attempts to control greenhouse gas emissions will falter and stumble because governments will understand, finally, that they will kill their economies if they attempt to do so.

Then, 50 years from now, we will all wonder what all the hubbub was about.

Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI

2 comments so far...