Slashdot Mirror

This is excellent. I offset my current and future carbon emissions about 15 years ago buy buying a small forest property. There are also organizations like the Nature Conservancy that do something similar.

Your links don't substantiate your claims of misinformation.

Hurricanes will increase in number and intensity.

The article you link claims increases in intensity, but doesn't mention number. This page indicates that researchers are divided on the question of number, but strongly united on increasing intensity: http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-basic.htm . Do you see evidence indicating hurricane intensity is not increasing?

Tornadoes will increase in number and intensity.

Your link on tornadoes is of research modeling increases in warmth (energy) in the atmosphere producing higher likelihood of severe thunderstorms in the eastern U.S., and that tornadoes can be associated with severe thunderstorms. Not much of a claim that tornadoes will increase, more of a possible implication, but if you had some more evidence of such a claim, then again would come the question of whether those increases are truly happening. What evidence do you see for/against that?

New York will be under water.

"[...]projects a four foot rise in sea levels during storms[...]

(emphasis added). The article predicts increased likelihood of reaching 100-year flood levels. It also claims 3 feet of sea level rise by 2100. This is backed up by other reporting, like: http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/ . The evidence I see doesn't dispute that sea levels are rising, and might be on-pace to reach those claims, if the rates of increase are themselves increasing. Do you see evidence otherwise? I wonder if much of your notion of these claims comes from interpretation, possibly misinterpretation, of what researchers are actually finding?

Britain will never see snow again.

You didn't provide a link, but I would guess it would be something like this: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html . Researchers painting what is perhaps an exaggerated picture of a possible future isn't unusual, but tends to decrease people's confidence in their research when, some years later, they are not all commuting in flying cars. This might be a more informative and realistic picture, and less imagination-based: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/08/potential-impacts-climate-change-uk .

Record low Hurricanes, Tornadoes, New York still hasn't flooded, and Britain just had record snowfall this last winter.

If you are talking about storm-related flooding in New York, rather than slow sea level rise, I seem to recall something like that happening... :) http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/superstorm-floods-new-york-city/ . Keep in mind, also, that weather is a very complex system of (sometimes very large) chaotic fluctuations that occur atop a base of climate. No snow, some snow, lots of snow; in the short term, these stem much more from weather than climate. Over decades, climate will show trends, though.

Of course, I am no expert in such matters, just reading what I read and trying to come to reasoned conclusions, so I could be completely wrong. I haven't yet seen compelling evidence of that, though... :)

Just off the first page of a Google search.

Hurricanes will increase in number and intensity.

Tornadoes will increase in number and intensity.

New York will be under water.

  Britain will never see snow again.

Record low Hurricanes, Tornadoes, New York still hasn't flooded, and Britain just had record snowfall this last winter.

>> CO2 is not totally destroying the environment :) Neither is a small increase in global average temperature

Wow You REALLY need to check your facts. Here are just a few of the many sources that contraidct you:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...

http://www.nature.org/ouriniti...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

http://www.ifpri.org/publicati...

Growing rice is "perfectly sound" only if you ignore the downstream effects which even with "normal" water years have brought the Delta to the brink of ecologic collapse.
"The Delta is an ecosystem on the verge of collapse due to invasive species, pollution and the destruction of most of the area’s wetland and river habitat. Existing water-supply operations have also had profound impacts on the Delta. They have transformed the estuary into what is now essentially a freshwater lake and have reversed the natural direction of the rivers flowing out of the Delta. As a result of these and other issues, several native species are on the brink of extinction. Unless there is a sustainable path forward in the Delta, we will continue to see ecological collapse of the estuary with further reductions in water supply for cities and agriculture." - See more at: http://www.nature.org/ouriniti...

I logged in to ask the same question. Think of it like thinning out a forest in a responsible manner, which makes for smaller forest fires if a fire happens to start there.

Or think of it like an analogy spouted off by someone who knows nothing about earthquakes. Yeah, think about it like that.

I logged in to ask the same question. Think of it like thinning out a forest in a responsible manner, which makes for smaller forest fires if a fire happens to start there.

One man's weeds, another man's area of natural beauty......

I have to give them credit for in this case, really putting their money where their mouth is (or wants to be). I like the Nature Conservancy for this reason too - basically having the attitude that if you care about something enough, pony up some money for it instead of the usual thing of throwing a tantrum and looking for attention.

And for those Lost diehards.. this is how you can a job there:

Greenpeace is to the environment and public safety as Pat Robertson is to Christianity.

This is a hugely important insight. Groups that are on the extreme in the environmental movement such as Greenpeace have unfortunately come to be the image that the general public thinks of when they think of environmentalism, despite the fact that many environmental groups are much more moderate; just one example (among many) is the Nature Conservancy, which makes a point of partnering with hunters, fisherman, loggers, ranchers and other groups that are typically viewed as "enemies" by the more extreme elements in the environmental movement.

Unfortunately the habit of stereotyping a group by its most extreme elements is common today. When people think of Republicans they think of Dick Cheney and John Boehner, not the Governator or John Warner; when they think of Democrats they think of Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi, not Jim Webb or Joe Biden.

Extremist make it much easier to discredit an entire movement, but just because a group like Greenpeace is making a huge racket about Apple as a publicity stunt (and that's what this is) doesn't mean that groups arguing for clean air, clean water, and open space are all fringe whackos. The same applies to politics, business, etc - despite the occasional extremist, on the whole the world contains much more of a nuanced mix than most people acknowledge, and taking the time to look past the fringe and towards the center can go a long way towards helping us all find some common ground.

This is an angle that the environmental movement has not yet come to terms with. The gorilla in the room is not the carbon production of the currently industrialized countries, it is the carbon production in the near future (20-50 years) of the currently inductrializing countries, which are far more populous.

Most of the rhetoric of the global warming movement has been centered about modest lifestyle changes in developing countries: smaller cars, power conservation, and subsidizing carbon neutral energy sources. These are easy changes to make for the average westerner: They don't strongly impact our quality of life. Too bad the the carbon withheld from the atmosphere due to these changes is so small compared to the quantities that will be released a generation from now from the populous countries that are currently industrializing.

For the global warming movement to address the gorilla in the room, they would have to ask people in China and India to forgo that first refrigerator, automobile, computer, tractor, or paved road. And that is not a morally defensable or politically feasable position. Until the global warming movement faces up to this fact their efforts in the developed world are just a sideshow.

The Nature Conservancy is a really nice organization that works that way. A friend who donates to it pointed it out to me. In short, they use donations to buy at-risk land, and also get conservation easements from private land owners who wish to protect their own land. Advocacy organizations can spend lots of money lobbying, and potentially fail anyway, while its extremely difficult to fight someone when they actually own the land.

You expect someone else to make the effort on a grand scale and you jump in defending you lifestyle when it has not been mentioned.

Huh? I'm honestly not sure how you got that out of my post. I don't expect a grand-scale effort on anyone's part; I expect a whole bunch of medium- and small-scale efforts, and I think that trying to get people to give up their lifestyles is a much grander effort than any alternative. And it's not my lifestyle specifically; it's the lifestyle of the civilized world.

You must be a kid?

Er ... no, unless you're eligible for AARP membership.

Face it, govt will not make the effort, it's down to us each to do a small part.

Agreed, but --

Big tax breaks work for solar. Germany and Japan give the biggest breaks, and by a remarkable coincdence, they also have by far the biggest uptake of solar.

You're contradicting yourself here. Which do you want, government encouragement of solar, or not? There are good arguments either way, but you're not making any of them.

Perhaps you should learn to read before spouting drivel. We live in the same size houses, we all have a pool, have similar size family.

None of which you (I'm assuming you're the same AC who made the original post) mentioned before. In your original post, it sounded like you were criticizing your neighbors simply for having pools. Perhaps you should learn to write before accusing others of not reading.

Do we live an uncomfortable life? Certainly not. For a ~2500 square foot house, it costs about $3800 to install solar for domestic water, now credit 30% tax break and maybe $500 rebate from the state. It costs ~$3400 for an 11,000 gallon pool with no breaks.

Fair enough, and this is all interesting and relevant information. But you could have provided it before, instead of spouting off like some Deep Ecology nutcase who thinks we should all give up the benefits of modern civilization and go live out in the woods somewhere. Sorry if that seems extreme, but whenever I hear people using words like "decadent," I've learned to brace myself for some kind of fanaticism to follow.

You claim you do care, so what exactly do you and your family do about it? Turn lights and fans off when not in a room? Power computer(s) off when not in use, totally power off TV/video/DVD/STB/stereo at night instead of leaving them in standy by mode? If your not doing at least these, you clearly don't give a fsck. If you are, great! The hard part is persuading others to make these tiny efforts too.

All of the above, actually; I also walk or take the bus instead of driving whenever practical, subscribe to my power company's wind program (I pay a fractionally higher electricity rate in return for a guarantee that a certain percentage of the power on their grid is wind-generated) and contribute generously out of my not-very-substantial income to environmental groups, focusing on those which are doing something direct and useful rather being primarily political in nature. And while I'm always happy to discuss these options with people and try to persuade them to my point of view, I think just doing these things is much more useful than insulting people who don't make the same choices I do.

But the thing is, it does not matter what the cause is. If the cycle continues it will certainly, without a doubt, lead to the death of us as a civilization, whether we were the cause or not.

I am fairly certain, given the existing data, that there has been and will continue to be some level of anthropogenic climate change in the past 150 years. The amount and direction of the change, and its root causes, are still far from clear (does recent warming have more to do with decreased particulate matter [soot] than with increased carbon dioxide? why have there been notable periods of cooling or stasis during this period?).

The problem I have is why this change (even if you take the higher estimates of a 4-6 degrees Celsius increase from 1950-2100) inevitably leads to the death of our civilization. It would undoubtedly be disruptive (especially in coastal areas and oceanic islands), but why would civilization collapse? Civilization blossomed during the Little Ice Age of 1550-1850, where some estimates place the global cooling at 3-6 degrees Celsius - a similarly disruptive and sudden climate change.

Higher global carbon dioxide and temperatures will likely increase crop yields. Lands lost to desertification will likely be offset by increasingly fertile areas of former tundra in Canada and Asia. Technology will undoubted advance (and at an ever increasing rate) - with 22nd century technology, power production surely be much more environmentally benign and, if needed, we'll probably have tech that will allow us to reverse the carbon trends (given real fusion power, carbon sequestration and environmental cleanup become a lot cheaper and easier).

I have no worries that climate change will wipe out our civilization. An escalating clash of civilizations, increasingly simple biotech that can be used for bad ends as well as good and nuclear proliferation are what keep me up at night. Climate change just requires some technology and willpower - once (if) it hurts enough, the willpower will be there, and I'm sure the tech will be. The important thing to do is to mitigate the damage that occurs between then and now - especially on various fragile ecosystems. We need massive biological assays (start gathering a LOT of DNA and seeds now and store them safely), protected eco-preserves and a host of other things are some things you can help do right now. I personally donate to The Nature Conservancy because they put money directly into those kinds of projects rather than activism, but there are plenty of other outlets. You could buy personal carbon offsets, invest in wind power, or buy sustainable electricity.

Stop waiting for politicians to do the right thing - do it yourself!

W.r.t. to the environmental community, with the caveat "provided it is built correctly", we support HSR as a way to guide and concentrate development away from farmland and natural areas. The only issue the environmental community is fighting the California High-Speed Rail Authority over is their insistance on running the train through the Henry Coe State Park and the San Jouquin Valley National Cementary. This particular area is also an area that The Nature Conservancy's Mount Hamilton work would be affected.

So if the rail line is built through parks then, yes there will be opposition. But if you google on the sierra club You will see that in general the environmental community supports HSR.

P.S. there are a lot of "environmentalists" who are just NIMBYs (Not-In-My-Backyard), and use environmental arguments as cover.

I am/was a member of the Sierra Club, but I agree that they have become WAY too politicized. Sure, George Bush is a "bad, bad man", but every Sierra Club newsletter blows endless hot air about Bush this, Bush that.

I also don't like how the Sierra Club is so focused on promoting government regulation. My new favorites are the Nature Conservancy, which works quietly but effectively, and the Rainforest Action Network, which works directly with polluting corporations without relying on (much?) government strong arming.

• The ACLU Foundation is the arm of the American Civil Liberties Union that conducts its litigation and communication efforts. ACLU Foundation is tax-deductible, but the ACLU is NOT tax-deductible.
  
  
• The American Red Cross offers domestic disaster relief; community services that help the needy; support and comfort for military members and their families; the collection, processing and distribution of lifesaving blood and blood products; educational programs that promote health and safety; and international relief and development programs.
  
  
• The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) provides effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals through national programs in humane education, public awareness, government advocacy, shelter support, and animal medical services and placement.
  
  
• Amnesty International undertakes research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination.
  
  
• The Cato Institute seeks to broaden public policy debate to include the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace.
  
  
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation works to protect fundamental rights regardless of technology; to educate the press, policymakers and the general public about civil liberties issues related to technology; and to act as a defender of those liberties.
  
  
• The Nature Conservancy preserves the plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive through land acquisition and conservation easements.
  
  
• The Rainforest Action Network campaigns for the forests, their inhabitants, and the natural systems that sustain life by transforming the global marketplace through grassroots organizing, education, and non-violent direct action.
  
  
• Trickle Up helps the lowest income people worldwide take the first step up out of poverty, by providing conditional seed capital and business training essential to the launch of a microenterprise.
  

Liar is not a word that can applied to this man. There's not a lying bone in his body, nor a lying mind in his head.

He speaks the painful truth, and authoritarian leftists like yourself have a hard time with the truth, often dismissing it by calling it "lying."

If you had given some specifics, I'd be more likely to listen to you, but just saying:

You think he will protect the environment? No way! He will leave it to the free market to decide. That means cutting down all our trees and using all the resources available.

Clearly, you haven't heard of the Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, and other private organizations that actually work to preserve the Environment rather than "managing" it or polluting it to death, as government almost always does.

But you're right when you say

Free market might be efficient but will never be able to provide everyone with happiness.

I have lived in countries where the median income is almost certainly an order of magnitude lower than your income, but my motivation has never come from looking down on poorer people, but instead, I've been motivated by looking up to those who have worked hard to provide what only a Free Market can provide: a longer, less painful and much more fulfilling life.

I'd invite you to consider the positive benefits of looking to countries like Hong Kong (whose per-capita GNP now exceeds that of their "mother" country, Great Britain), where the Free Market is just about as unbridled as it is possible to get.

But of course, if you prefer a highly-regulated, authoritarian leftist country, I recommend Ethiopia, Cuba, or perhaps North Korea, all wonderful examples of how various versions of anti-Free Market authoritarianism "work."

Like the Nature Conservancy?

Get a grip. Yes, some would be auctioned off for their natural resources. How is this different from today? Montana has been the bitch of the mining industry since day 1, and now we're talking about drilling in ANWR. Oh, how the gov't protected us there!

-Charles

You troll:
http://nature.org/wherewework/asiapacific/palmyra/

As seen here the Palmyra Atoll is nothing more then an inhabited ring of island a thousand miles south of Hawaii. There is no population, no government, no money, and very likely no eProvisia. The site is a complete farce, and is probably run by spammers collecting email addresses and names.

Of course this presumes that the sponge has not since declared the GPL invalid, and relicensed itself with an EULA similar to the SCO NDA.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Once a genetically diverse herd of Wooly Mammoths has been developed, we can allow them to roam freely over their former territory. This may cause some slight inconvenience for commuters in Saskatchewan.

Meanwhile, we can open up the gates of Oklahoma's Tallgrass Prairie Preserve and allow the buffalo to run free across the vast North American prairie. Note that the cities of Bartlesville, Tulsa, and Wichita will be the first scheduled for "redevelopment" as prairie, with their residents relocated to a biodome in the Gulf of Mexico.

And yes, I know the North American "buffalo" is more properly termed a "bison", but when you're sitting by the campfire eating Braised Buffalo Tongue with Mushroom Sauce, who cares?

Much of this has to do with CS researchers forcing the conference publishers to allow distribution of papers via personal webpages. Once you have that, the rest follows.

But in fairness, Nature is only $160/year ($100 students), which covers 52 issues. Of course, you have to put up with advertising and pay a subscription...

Here in CA, the main impact of the Sierra Club is in organizing many fine hikes and local trips.

This is why I support the Sierra Club. It does political lobbying but also puts together some really fun outreach.

While many of the above comments are interesting the query was for favorable charitable organizations.

The Sierra Club is the most effective Conservation Group politically. This is the first group I joined when W became President. Note that they will call you every month to squeeze more $$$ out of you. You can ask to be taken off their call list and still contribute annually which is what I do.

The Nature Conservancy is another particularly effective outfit whose tact is to purchase land outright ensuring that it is permanently set aside for conservation.

The World Wildlife Fund is another conservation group worthy of your time and money.

Finally for balance I support the Blue Ribbon Coalition as they keep trails open that might be closed by my other contributions.

Another poster made a great point that Green Peace's brand of violent activism is not worthy of support.

Cheers,

Bill

The Nature Conservancy is one of the best environmental groups to donate money to. They do a really good job with their money and always work with communities and businesses rather than causing trouble. Information on fiscal year 2001 can be found here and here. More about their goals and methods can be found here. And press releases can be found here. The Yahoo category can be found here.

The Nature Conservancy is one of the best environmental groups to donate money to. They do a really good job with their money and always work with communities and businesses rather than causing trouble. Information on fiscal year 2001 can be found here and here. More about their goals and methods can be found here. And press releases can be found here. The Yahoo category can be found here.

The Nature Conservancy is one of the best environmental groups to donate money to. They do a really good job with their money and always work with communities and businesses rather than causing trouble. Information on fiscal year 2001 can be found here and here. More about their goals and methods can be found here. And press releases can be found here. The Yahoo category can be found here.

The Nature Conservancy is one of the best environmental groups to donate money to. They do a really good job with their money and always work with communities and businesses rather than causing trouble. Information on fiscal year 2001 can be found here and here. More about their goals and methods can be found here. And press releases can be found here. The Yahoo category can be found here.

The Nature Conservancy is one of the best environmental groups to donate money to. They do a really good job with their money and always work with communities and businesses rather than causing trouble. Information on fiscal year 2001 can be found here and here. More about their goals and methods can be found here. And press releases can be found here. The Yahoo category can be found here.

Audobon Society

Ducks Unlimited

Nature Conservancy

Pheasants Forever

• Conservation International
• Defenders of Wildlife
• Earthjustice
• National Audubon Society
• National Wildlife Federation
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• The Nature Conservancy
• The Ocean Conservancy
• The Trust for Public Land
• World Resources Institute
• World Wildlife Fund

No one here really seems to care about the invasion of the frogs. Hawaii is a lovely environment and is home to more than 10,000 species of plant and animal life found nowhere else in the world. It is blessed with having virtually every major ecological zone (the only one missing is permafrost-tundra, like think Antarctica) and was virtually isolated from everywhere else in the world, as the islands are at least two thousand miles away from any other large land mass.

That is, until we started to really live there, and now invasive species threaten many of the plants and wildlife that are unique to Hawaii.

Obligatory linkage for the karma-whoring:

Nature Conservancy

Google directory

Carnivorous Caterpillars!

There's a great deal to know and understand about the endangered species in Hawaii and the invasive species that threaten them. We have no snakes, or many other reptiles, for that matter. There are no scorpions, no tarantulas, none of that really vile stuff you find in other rainforests.