That's what I can't stand about opponents of global warming; even if there is human society isn't to blame, there is no down side to taking the steps to remedy the situation. If we do everything, we'll lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and we'll remove harmful carcinogens from our environment. Regardless, burning oil and gas and using nuclear power has a negative effect on our environment, contributes money to unsavory and violent organizations, and provide cover to develop weapons programs.

http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=9579

Norfolk, Va. — This morning, PETA sent a letter to former vice president Al Gore explaining to him that the best way to fight global warming is to go vegetarian and offering to cook him faux "fried chicken" as an introduction to meat-free meals. In its letter, PETA points out that Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth—which starkly outlines the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and just won the Academy Award for "Best Documentary"—has failed to address the fact that the meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.

In the letter, PETA points out the following:

· The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report "Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options," the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

· Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

PETA also reminds Gore that his critics love to question whether he practices what he preaches and suggests that by going vegetarian, he could cut down on his contribution to global warming and silence his critics at the same time.

"The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian," says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. "The best and easiest way for Mr. Gore to show his critics that he’s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately."

Failing that, we should not take the car every time we go to buy a steak. :)

PETA are a bunch of nutty vegetarians. That being said I think that if global warming turns out ot be true, humanity which is today headed to overpopulation, will not change and reverse the ecological trend. Humanity will have to adapt to the new conditions climate change will impose. We will not do anything about it because we are trapped in the two criminals classic example of game theory. Clean energies sources are less efficient than dirty sources so either we all adhere to clean energies or no one will. Russia has found that gas and petroleum can bring back its imperial glory, there's still a lot of petroleum (we can see the bottom of the barrell but there's still lots of it) and we are far far away from a gobal gover I guess the poorer countries are f..ed and the rich ones will more or less cope with climate change. That's my bet on global warming.

Max,

I agree with you to some extent, but I encourage you to reexamine your views of nuclear power. You are certainly correct that it gives money unsavory organizations, but environmentally speaking it's the best thing we have going on such a large scale and with such a massive output.

The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering.

Oh come on, "meat addiction"?

Hitchens didn't really shed that much light on the climate issue - despite his grand intellect and reputation, the environment is not his strong suit.

I heartily recommend this interview (mp3, 60mins) with Prof Chris Rapley, a global climate scientist who gives a pretty good summary of the research and evidence for global warming and its anthropogenic causes. He then goes on to discuss possible actions we can take to reduce the acceleration of warming. Worth an hours listening IMO...

Nuclear is not as eco friendly as some would have you believe. Aside from the nuclear waste disposal issue, not to mention the DOD's inability to resist the temptation to put that to military use, the fact is that nuclear emits almost as much CO2 as fossil fuels when you include the whole process of extraction, etc.

Did anyone else notice how Hitchens' phrasing of the global warming issue turned out to sound a whole lot just like Pascal's wager?

Not to mention that uranium is a finite resource as well. We're just replacing one limited supply fuel with an even more limited supply one, if we go with nuclear.

@ matriculated!

yes!!! that's the first thing that came to my mind. just exchange his "planet" for "life" and you have pascal's wager.

Did anyone else notice how Hitchens' phrasing of the global warming issue turned out to sound a whole lot just like Pascal's wager?

Exactly crossed my mind and I also tried in my head to counter it with the known rebuttals to the Pascal's wager but so far it seems to hold water.

Oh and thanks Richard for the link.

the fact is that nuclear emits almost as much CO2 as fossil fuels when you include the whole process of extraction, etc.

I'm going to have to see a citation for that.

You're correct that Uranium is a limited resource and is even rarer than coal or oil, however, it's not a fair comparison, as the processes of expending them are far different.

I would contend that the environmental impact of nuclear power is far better than many would have you believe.

The truth of the matter is that it really is the most efficient thing we currently have. That does not mean that we should not increase our use of solar, geothermal, an wind power. Nor does it mean that we should not look in to better waste disposal methods.

It does mean that people should not be so scared of a nuclear plant. If the decision is between a coal plant or a nuclear plant, you're far better off with the nuclear in every way.

What Hitchens was referring to was not Pascal's wager, but the precautionary principle. This is an ethical argument often used in addressing environmental and public health issues. It basically states that, when an action could plausibly cause irreversible damage to human health and/or the environment, the burden of proof falls on those who would take the action to prove that it is not dangerous. The reasoning behind the principle is basically what Hitchens said: We only have one planet with which to experiment, so caution would seem to be in order. For more info, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle.

Overpopulation is a lazy ass' reason for everything. Every problem in the world is amplified by the over population, but overpopulation was never the cause. If you're not a low life you can easily see that overpopulation could also be a fix for the problem, you have more people working on the job, more people researching solutions. Education is the problem . . . and rednecks like G. Dubya.

Thanks Sarah! I always enjoy when someone from the comments educates me on a particular issue. :)

Shouldn't we believe in God then, and live our lives accordingly, just to be on the safe side?

Penn & Teller "Bullshit" on PETA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY

My main objections to PETA:

1. Although the organization opposes medical testing on animals, several key members rely on the fruits of those labors (i.e. insulin shots) to survive.

2. PETA has openly supported ALF; a group which uses violence against civilians to achieve objectives. The word "terrorist" is overused today, but the ALF qualifies no matter which definition you use.

3. I love animals, specifically, my doggie. However, to suggest that a dog has the mental capacity required to obtain equal civil rights is absurd.

In the interest of fairness:

1. I am an avid meat-eater, but have been making a larger effort to eat less meat in my diet. I have come to accept the variety of health, environmental and ethical issues created by our meat-processing industries.

2. I have known several anemic vegetarians/vegans. This suggests to me that the human being was designed to get some nutrients (specifically: proteins and fats) from meat.

3. My dog is not a slave. She is free to run away whenever she wants. She chooses to stay with me because I offer her food, shelter and belly rubs. It would be far more cruel for me to toss my doggie out on the street than to continue to love and care for her. See point #3 above.

Quick clarification, point #2 above- I used the word "designed" in a general sense. Be it the result of God, Zeus, Evolution or a combination thereof, I am referring to the human being, as it exists today.

Dani,

This is a debatable point: Clean energies sources are less efficient than dirty sources

Assuming that by "efficient" you are refering to a benefit/cost ratio, I would submit that if one actually accounts for costs that producers and consumers do not internalize into the price of fossil fuel usage, wind power is alreadly cost competititive and will become more so as time moves on. (Of course, no one cares if wind power is or isn't more thermodynamically efficient because the wind itself is abundant and virtually free!) This is not to suggest that our sole sourc of energy (or even electricity) will ever be wind power, but reasonable analyses suggest it could supply as much as 30-50% of all electricity production.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_energy

and refrences therein.

Shouldn't we believe in God then, and live our lives accordingly, just to be on the safe side?

Sluglicker (man, what a moniker :),

You may have overlooked a wordin Sarah's post: plausibly

Hey am I missing something? He just said that the debate is over whether humans are the cause of it, but that we should act like it is. He's not making excuses for non-action, he's saying that we should act anyway, because if it turns out that it isn't caused by us, it's only a mistake in analysis, but if it is, it's gonna be a disaster. I think most of us will agree with that.

Now a day global warming controversy is very hype. NASA sciencetists completely work on global warming research. According the sciencetists after 30 year earth is completely effected by global warming.

Just follow the money folks. It will always lead you to the truth.

Taxes Rule!

You may have overlooked a word in Sarah's post: plausibly

From the wiki entry cited:

Since imposition of the precautionary principle involves assuming things not yet proven, it need not weigh risk versus benefit. By definition, the principle focuses on size of the consequences, rather than the chance of it happening.

Critics of the principle argue that it is impractical, since every implementation of a technology carries some risk of negative consequences.

Proponents counter that the principle is not an absolute rule, it is a conceptual tool to clarify arguments, and especially an issue of where the burden of proof lies. Someone in a debate regarding a proposal can say, I oppose this proposal on the grounds of the precautionary principle, without necessarily invoking the precautionary principle for other proposals.

However, such selectivity in its use is in itself criticised, because it leaves open the possibility that it will only be used in the context of technologies that advocates of the principle typically oppose - such as nuclear fission or genetically modified organisms. Indeed, selective application of principles in government are considered a fundamental form of injustice, which is why selective enforcement is considered an abuse of power. Acting on a scientific conjecture can also be socially unfair, costly, and detrimental when applied to complex environmental choices

One of the main problems I have regarding proposed solutions to environmental problems is that they widen the gap between rich and poor. Vehicles that spit out toxic fumes are cheap. Hybrids are expensive. Solar panels are expensive. Wind Turbines are expensive. When the solutions increase poverty...the flip-side is increasing the wealth of those who already have an amount of wealth...the BS light starts blinking for me. As Syngas said above,"Just follow the money folks. It will always lead you to the truth."

Sorry for the delayed response. I always forget to check back regularly. Andy you wanted a citation. Try this one: http://www.stormsmith.nl/

The Pascals Wager arguement does not stand to analogy to these statements by Hitchens. We know the exact amount of CO2 given off by a pound of coal, we know the CO2 given off by burning a gallon of gasoline. We know that an increase of CO2 will increase the amount of light that does not escape our biosphere. There are several other elements of pollution that increase the amount of heat we retain from our sun. We have studies proving such things. Even if not for global warning, what about pollution on it's own? Think burning coal and gas is good to breathe in? Go smoke a bowl of gas soaked coal and tell me how you feel afterwords.

Then, take pascals wager. Out of infinite possibilities, infinite gods, infinite universes, you must believe in MY god to get eternal life, without any proof of MY god in any sort whatsoever. With no proof of which god is right, out of infinite possibilities, the chance that you will choose the right god is 1/infinity, which i think is a slightly worse probability than whether or not Global warming is real.

There is something else dishonest about calling this pascal's wager, but i can't quite put my finger on it.

zaphod2016 says:

I have known several anemic vegetarians/vegans.

This comment is plain ignorance and zaphod2016 seems not aware of the very well balanced vegetarian diets of India. I am a vegetarian myself and can easily play better and longer in tennis games than my partners who are meat eating.

When I took my son to enroll for his preschool, the equally ignorant teacher at Kinder Care commented that without eating meat, my son will not have the energy to focus on his studies. Like zaphod2016, she was unaware of the Indians in large numbers at Microsoft, Oracle, etc. and most of whom are vegetarians and very smart.

In India over 40% of the population is purely vegetarian and the rest has a predominantly vegetarian diet. Indians may not win Olympic medals but the world needs smart guys and not freakish American Football players.

(As an aside, I consider all "environmentalists", who are either meat eaters or golf lovers as hypocrites. Yes, golf is the most environmentally damaging sport there is!)

shriprem - what about meat eaters who raise their own meat? Or buy their meat from small local farms? I can understand considering someone a hypocrite for eating factory farmed meat yet calling him or her self an environmentalist, but I'm not convinced that applies to all meat.

I do agree about golf though, what a waste.

We should stop eating "meat" and start eating insects and rodents (only wild ones, of course - no breeding allowed). That would solve a lot of the world's problems and cut down on the overpopulation problem as well, most likely.

Any meat-eater who can't kill an animal personally (or at the very least watch) is a hypocrite.

Any vegan who wears leather or wool, has a down comforter, or owns a pet is a hypocrite...

Any "environmentalist" who buys "green", drinks bottled water, drives a car, uses bleach, eats chocolate, drinks coffee, uses any nonrenewable energy, builds a campfire or has a woodstove, uses anything made of artificial materials, or petroleum products, or metal, or rubber or ceramics with any sort of glaze, or wood for that matter, has an air conditioner, owns a house, or exhales is a hypocrite.

India is not the best country for espousing the virtues of vegetarianism considering their life expectancy is so low... I think it's natural for humans to eat a certain amount of meat - there's an ethical dilemma there perhaps, but I wouldn't call every "environmentalist" who eats meat a hypocrite, if they only it eat occasionally.

You can't even eat fish anymore without feeling guilty or worrying about mercury poisoning! Most of the crops we grow are poisoning the rivers with pesticides and fertilizers, so basically you can't even feel 100% good about being a vegetarian, unless you grow all your own food organically, which we obviously can't all do. And it's not very "organic" if it's flown in from Peru.

Dying is about the only thing you can do without being some sort of hypocrite these days...

shriprem - what about meat eaters who raise their own meat? Or buy their meat from small local farms? I can understand considering someone a hypocrite for eating factory farmed meat yet calling him or her self an environmentalist, but I'm not convinced that applies to all meat.

I do agree about golf though, what a waste.

@ Scott

Not sure if you're being sarcastic but that is a pessimist point of view, and is totally ignorant. There are radicals of every topic. Screw them. I support animal rights, but I love to eat meat regularly. I am an environmentalist, but I love to drive fast sports cars. Hell, you could drive a hummer if it's environmentally friendly.

Props to you all who can give up everything they enjoy, thinking it will impact the world. But I find that foolish, I would rather be dead, it would save a lot more resources. There is no need to compromise here. Power your computers with wind power, and your cars with renewable and safe energy, grow organic food, and stop using hormones in our meats. Recycle.

We can still live regular lives and protect the earth. For instance, My neighbor owns a 4,500 sq ft house. He owns 5 computers, one of which uses a 1kw power supply for gaming, and has a 43 inch plasma . . . all powered by his wind turbine. Z-E-R-O pollution. He also drives a ford escape hybrid, and I'm sure if they built one that uses hydrogen he would buy it.

This is what amazes me, nothing needs to change in our lives to stop pollution. Replace your garbage can with a recycle bin, and a waste disposal with a compost container. Buy organic (can't stress this enough, food tastes 10 times better.)

@ Dan,

I was being facetious for the most part. I thought it was obvious - the part about eating wild insects and rodents might have been a clue. - though there's often truth in sarcasm .

I was trying to stress a point similar to the one you made, i.e. anyone who considers themselves to be an "environemntalist" could be called a hypocrite.

Still I have to disagree with you on a couple of points - buying into the whole consumerist ideology is not going to help the environment, no matter how environmentally friendly your Hummer is. What I'm saying is, at the moment, the production of most products is polluting, so buying more, means polluting more.

Buying "organic" isn't enough, it has to be locally grown, otherwise the transporation used caused more damage to the environment than if you had bought locally grown food that wasn't organic.

I think our lifestyles do need to change. We Americans as a whole are very wasteful and we'll have to come to terms with that sooner or later.

And... I really do think that any meat-eater who can't kill an animal personally (or at the very least watch) is a hypocrite, to me that's just common sense.

^^ I'll second that

I suppose in that way it's more complicated, but if we hadn't have done it wrong to begin with it wouldn't be as hard to change.

I just think there is hope there, we can transport and manufacture goods in an environmentally friendly way, and live a lifestyle without compromise.

But I'm unwavering on the point to buy organic food. There needs to be higher demands of it to get the price down, and to get name brands in the business. We will find better ways to transport them in the future, but until then the pesticides are doing a lot more damage than the truck that's shipping them. If you don't care about that, just do it because it tastes way better than regular produce.

Meat is not the cause of global warming. This is silly.

I am an animal lover, but Peta is nuts.

Penn and Teller do a great video on the bible too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E

I guess you're right, Dan. Without the demand for organic produce, it'll never happen. good point.

I guess you're right, Dan. Without the demand for organic produce, it'll never happen. Good point.