350 Day Spokane
October 15, 2009 
65 Comments
Today is worldwide Blog Action Day, an annual event held every October 15 that unites the world’s bloggers in posting about the same issue on the same day with the aim of sparking discussion around an issue of global importance. Blog Action Day 2009 will be one of the largest-ever social change events on the web.
In this spirit, we’d like to announce an environmental flash gathering taking place in Riverfront Park. Meet your friends at the blue Howard St. bridge at noon on Saturday, October 24th to have a group picture taken. This image will be sent to the 350 campaign headquarters and will be presented to local, state, national and world leaders with a message to set global goals of reducing carbon to 350ppm in the atmosphere.
350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.
Accelerating arctic warming and other early climate impacts have led scientists to conclude that we are already above the safe zone at our current 390ppm, and that unless we are able to rapidly return to 350 ppm this century, we risk reaching tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt.
To help volunteer, please contact Bea Lackaff at: 509-327-8303, beala[at]icehouse[dot]net
There will be a procession walking back to the Community Building Lobby where members of the Youth Sustainability Council will conduct a teach-in about locally generated climate solutions.
Just another exciting day for the environment in the Lilac City!
About the Author
Paul wrote,
“Measures by the Climate Corps—26 MBA students—will collectively save an estimated $54 million at 22 companies (and one university) which translates into 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases avoided annually.”
Nothing wrong with saving energy. That is only common sense. But if some kind of State coercion is required to force the changes, that tells you the changes proposed are not “market clearing,” i.e., that there are some unaccounted costs involved. Else the changes would be made voluntarily.
I guess when it comes to do what is right, I don’t believe in leaving it to the market. I shutter to imagine the “market-driven” world that you seem to crave Contrarian. Sounds like anarchy.
Riverlawyer wrote,
“I guess when it comes to do what is right, I don’t believe in leaving it to the market. I shutter to imagine the “market-driven” world that you seem to crave Contrarian. Sounds like anarchy.”
I guess you don’t understand what “market-driven” means. A free market is simply one in which each person is free to enter into a relationship with any other willing person, for any purpose and on any mutually agreeable terms, and enjoy the fruits of their labor and cooperation without interference from others, as long as they do not violate the rights of any third party. That last proviso distinguishes it from anarchy.
The only alternative is some form of slavery, where some persons — Il Duce, Der Fuerher, the Pope, the Czar, the Massa, or bureaucrats dictate to everyone else what relationships between whom are allowable, what their terms must be, and confiscate the fruits of others’ labor.
Those are your choices. Take your pick.
A free market is also one in which each person is free to do what she thinks is right, to the extent her own resources allow, as long as she violates no one else’s rights. Slavery is the condition where most persons are forced to do what someone else (the Massa, Der Fuerher, etc.) deems to be “right.”
Hope this helps.
Full week of reading and I still cannot find ANY scientific article or data that confirms CO2 correlates or determines any warming whatsoever. I’m beginning to think there is very little relationship except in opinion pieces. If one “wills” it to be fine. If one thinks buying into the green movement is good for the economy, fine.
Not one biologic marker has been discovered that indicates the overall minor warming in some climates harms anything. It would be nice to think fossil fuels or use of cars, busses, etc is causing the change we see might be stopped. Looks like it’s inexorable though. Might be that warming cycles are part of an evolutionary process.
Before the world spend trillions of changes aimed at conquering or even lessening warming, many people would like to see some firm evidence. CO2 350 as goal is mostly a nice opinion. What will happen when 300 or 350 is reached ( is it) or maintained isn’t known. Most of this is speculative. SO where’s the science? Where’s the standard error or the estimates? Where is the multivariate analyses?
These ideas appear to be mostly coffee house talk. I don’t expect the proponents to do anything but criticise. Before you do though, find some facts and not just everyone else’s opinion. It’s like an Al Gore movie…..it wins awards but it cannot be defended except in loose terms. No wonder he won’t debate the “facts”. There might not be any.
By the way River, “shutter” is best used for houses. “Shudder” is the nervous shakes one gets when uncertainty scares you.
God bless you Contrarian for laying this out so nicely. Remember what Dr. Economy says- “A healthy economy is based on voluntary co-operation between individuals exchanging goods and services.”
FYI – here is some peer-reviewed science for everybody.
Jon….define “Peer” in this context.
Peer reviewed means that the work has been vetted by other experts in the same field. Wikipedia, in as much as it can be called a source, has an extensive article on the IPCC AR4 report, contributed to by 620 authors, alongside criticisms that have been made of it – both in terms of it overstating the dangers and understating the dangers of climate change.
Here is an article in the journal Science speaking to the report and to the peer review process the report went through.
Dazzetrader – Your participation is lazy.
You keep coming back telling everyone else to fetch you scientific research – and at the current pace we’ll be at 200 comments and you won’t be satisfied. Take a nice day off, hunker down in the library, and start taking notes. Then come back here and tell us what you learned.
And at the very least, please use Google before commenting. We’re over 300 and 350 ppm.
Bart…i’ts not your blog. Mariah is about the only one who should be saying what you said. She has what we call “standing”. You don’t. To the point though…I have read everything I can get my little hands on. Sorry if you’re irritated. I’m very informed now. I cannot seem to find the objective research that might convince a science person that CO2 matters much. Nothing yet….
The reason I asked for Jon to define “Peer” is because of this: we need a definition of the terms bandied about before we can intelligently discuss these issues. Sorry if that bothers you. Not remembering that I’ve ever in my life having been called “lazy”…..I work 80 hrs/week.
SO when I ask questions, it’s not because I haven’t done the work to be informed old chum. No… it’s that I’m not sure the definitions in a given field are unclear. One thing I haave discovered since OCT 16th is that CO2 is related to nothing causing health problems and very little to do with warming directly. Seems to be an accompaniment (as many things are) but not causative of much as it sits right now. I ask for data to achieve a complete picture.
“Peer” is an elusive term. For example when half of the 750 alleged experts who at one time supported all the propaganda have retracted their support, are they still “peers”? How are they thought of? Are they still “experts” now that they cannot make up their minds? If they’re not experts anymore, do they still review manuscripts?….and do they do that chore objectively.
AMong the biggest flaw in this whole field is that the so-called “peers” quote each other but don’t do their own research. This leads to a “rah-rah” group but not critical thinking or valid criticisms of their friends who are “true believers”. Bart…if you’ve ever sat on a scientific editorial board or referred manuscipts, you’d know what I mean. I used to do some of that before I was kicked upstairs….and subsequestly changed fields. I know from which I speak.
Lots of what I’ve found is just sloppy science in a culture of cheerleaders. Lots of it ( the preponderance) is garbage masquerading as science. SO I ask details because it’s severly important to know who knows what. It might be a “world-changer”. Because it’s so important o know, I will continue to look and continue to ask. You should do the same. Best wishes. D
Anyone interested in this issue should certainly read IPCC AR4, Jon. They should also read the works of some of the scientists listed here (among other works):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Then they should evaluate the competing claims, and not rely on any *ad veracundiam* arguments.
The pro-global warming data has been doctored. Human caused global warming debate has been suspended. (Besides, it has been cooling for the last 11 years anyway)
Apparently it is not science but a political agenda looking for science to legitimatize it.
Global warming as I stated before is a hoax. Upon further research since my last post, it is costing the City of Spokane millions of tax dollars unnecessarily. (The extra cost on the new STA Hybrids alone makes the case.) Wait and see how the global warming hoax pans out before wasting another dime of tax money.
Al Gore should be paraded as the very fool he actually is. The very Internet the “fathered” was the author of his human caused global warming downfall. He should give back his Nobel Prize if he had any integrity.
Let’s hope the liberal community who swallowed the pack of lies about human caused global warming will have the courage and conviction to except the fact they have been mislead and act accordingly.
Thank you for all your hard work, it was a great to be able to participate in this incredible event. We all owe a great deal to so many people. I hope there will be a wide diversity of efforts made to keep up the momentum. It is hard to feel confident that one’s choice of action is the best one, the right one, the one that rings true for oneself and for the greater cause. We all have a lot to give of our own gifts and uncertainty is apparently part of the mystery. Great line by Paul Hawken in a recent interview: we should not underestimate the seriousness of our situation, but we also should not underestimate what we can do.