Will winning the war on global climate change require slaughtering some of environmentalism's sacred cows?

To answer the question, yes, I think environmentalists are going to have to accept that GW should be absolutely the number one environmental priority. Here's an example. Solar energy developments in California are being slowed due to concerns about certain species of squirrel and turtles. Now I am not saying we shouldn't be concerned about those species, but I believe GW is a much more pressing issue, and we can't afford to waste any time. http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_solar15.48dbdb9.html The 10 points made in your link are interesting. I particularly agree with the first one. I am lucky that right now I live in the city where I work, and I am able to ride my bike every day. It is unfortunate that most of us in the U.S. don't have the option to walk, ride a bike, or even use public transportation because our population is so spread out. It's too bad they don't provide scientific backing for all of those statements, because they truly are some interesting ideas and I'd like to know more.

That article was full of misinformation! It was definitely prepared by the nuke industry. Some of the "10" sound like something a jellohead would say. Especially the statements that 'climate change' is inevitable, or the 'old growth forests' cause greenhouse gases. Nuke power is not the answer. All energy on the Earth,originally came from the Sun. Even nukes. We need to get our energy from the SOURCE! Solar and bio-fuels will be the answer. Yes,we will have to make some sacrifices in our life styles, but we don't have to give up our ideals!

Unfortunately, life is full of dilemmas and yes we need to compromise to find the best solutions. I also want to say that as serious as global warming might be, fighting it to ANY price is not an option. Here's my comments: 1. Yes, unfortunately this is true. It's better for the environment if humans tried to live more compact. 2. I don't get the point? They are not used at the same time are they? Why not try to use less of both? 3. Yes, sometimes. 4. Yes, sometimes, but most of the time it's the other way around. 5. Yes, and NO. 6. Maybe 7. False. Carbon trading needs to be adjusted, but if we want to keep our free market economies, then it can be a good tool to help. 8. Until we find a way to deal with the waste in a way that don't leave a growing problem for our future generations I hope not. How much waste would it produce if we started to use nuclear everywhere? 9. This can definitely be true! Producing new cars demands energy. However, when it's time to produce and buy a new car, make sure it's a climate friendly one. 10. True! We just need to do what we can to prevent it from getting too bad in the future.

i'm with ray; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/wired-magazines-incoherent-truths/ anyway, what sacred cows? i get so fed up with all green thinking people being lumped together and told what we believe. doh! sorry ken you got it in first.

RealClimate took this article to task: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/wired-magazines-incoherent-truths/ And I think EcoGeek struck a much better balance. http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1647/ My take: 1) Live in cities - sure, that's a valid point. Suburban sprawl requires goods to be transported further. 2) A/C is okay - RealClimate took them to task on this one. Totally bogus argument on every level. 3) Organics aren't the answer - I'm still not sure what they're supposed to be the answer to. There are serious benefits to organic farming. If WIRED is proposing eliminating organic farming, I certainly don't agree. There has to be a balance. 4) Farm the forests - Dumb argument, I agree with EcoGeek on this one. 5) China is the solution - that would be great. 6) Accept Genetic Engineering - on some level, I agree, but it's something we have to be careful about. 7) Carbon Trading Doesn't Work - BS. EcoGeek won this argument too. 8) Embrace Nuclear Power - disagree. Nuclear power needs to play a role, but renewable energy is where we need to focus. 9) Used Cars — Not Hybrids - disagree. The more fuel efficient cars are on the road, the better. There is a fixed number of cars on the road, and the higher their fuel efficiency, the better. Yes it takes slightly more energy to manufacture a new hybrid, but it more than makes up for that extra energy production over its lifetimes of fuel efficiency. 10) Prepare for the Worst - sure, we have to both prevent as much climate change as we can and adapt to the change which will occur. I don't agree that this is "one of the great green taboos". That's BS.

right on let get some style back into the issue Sacrificial altar stones in the public squares, And every full moon off with their heads (the cows of course) And a barbecue for the poor after This is what you meant ? i presume I great idea killing several birds (cows) with one stone (the alter) it has religious value feeds the needy less methane less stress on the land competes with McDonald's sounds better by the minute Bush says what he thinks people want to hear ,It has nothing to do with reality,the Corporations and governments that are publicly huge on helping Humanity and the Environment are at the same time,often the biggest offenders. Sorry to be flippant but which ever way we look at it ,Humanity is a recipe for disaster ,We are breeding ourselves into conflict. Knowing the solutions still does not mean that enough of the globe will comply in time .And the text here is not from a global perspective ,rather American society. I now believe we are into a negative momentum ,to far gone into our addictions to what has in essence been the wrong road from the beginning. We asked Bill Mollison (a Prophet on sustainability ) How he envisioned saving our civilization ,He said ---I wish it could all just stop.Pull the switch ,stop industry,mono agriculture ,transport,our unsustainable behavior ,Stop everything Just for a while to regroup, re-plan , redesign society and all of its behavior and how we address our needs And that CAN NEVER happen.Money dictates too many. And they tend to be the powerful ones. To maintain HOPE we have to try and create as many positive concepts as possible ,to buy time ,to improve our quality of life,In the country and suburbs,as individuals or in groups or communities. To set the pace for a sustainable human existance ,outposts of sense for what come after. Society as a whole is hampered by bureaucracy and cannot agree to changes fast enough. Perhaps we need eco Hitlers to make it happen.Which means that somebody is gonna get hurt, And Environmentalism will be loved even more than it already is (this is a joke) But it will be a slow process ,most of us wont be involved in the climax anyway. Being neither prophetical nor negative ,but merely statistical, we Perhaps need to come to terms with the fact that All experiments of human society have had their limits. why should we be different PS Ingela --compromise is luxury for situations of choice. what if there is no alternative???? Global Warming is not the ONLY snake in the grass.It is merely a component in a list of many. Have to agree a lot with what JS says

Change is great(ie; adaptation)...we just don't have to mislead the public. It's easy to find conflicting testimonials in science along with everything else. It is a common sense approach more so then a "Meta Theory" of demand and encroachment.

Nuclear energy is definitely not the answer. This is one of those issues that makes me doubt the true goals of AGW proponets. And I don't think it's "sacred cows," I think it's self-preservation. http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0316-24.htm Nice to have the nuclear interests here as usual. :P

Throughout the billions of years that the world existed , there have been many ice ages and warm spells . The Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania have tons of coral fossils , and fossils of tropical shells . We are seeing evidence of a warming spell , but is it human caused , or just one more warm spell ? There are those who are sure , who have no way of being sure . Pointing at various pieces of evidence doesn't really prove anything . I'm sure there was evidence in all of the other periods also , much of which was false .