Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Carbon Belch Day

Rate this topic


Seeker
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, that's precisely what this is, and I don't see any reason to either think or assume otherwise.

Then why is it called "Carbon Belch Day?" The very name of the "holiday" makes it sound like the point is to expend as much energy and put as much carbon into the air as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why is it called "Carbon Belch Day?" The very name of the "holiday" makes it sound like the point is to expend as much energy and put as much carbon into the air as possible.

Because the whole idea is to show how meaningless the whole concern over CO2 is. There should be ZERO guilt for this, so they're laughing in the face of environmentalists.

Grassfire.org president Steve Elliott, in a statement, said such theories are off the mark. "It's time for Americans to purge ourselves of the false guilt that Al Gore and the Climate Alarmists have placed on us," Elliott said.

...

"Carbon Belch Day will have at least as much impact on the so-called 'planetary emergency' of man-made global warming as the goofy save the earth mandates telling us to turn our lights off for an hour," said Elliott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether or not CO2 is going to cause a catastrophe for the planet earth, large amounts of it are bad for the air and it is nihilistic to combat the environmentalists by purposely polluting the air.

No that's not true. It is not even remotely possible for mankind to produce enough CO2 for it to be harmful from a breathing standpoint. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

Because the whole idea is to show how meaningless the whole concern over CO2 is. There should be ZERO guilt for this, so they're laughing in the face of environmentalists.

Yes, exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No that's not true. It is not even remotely possible for mankind to produce enough CO2 for it to be harmful from a breathing standpoint. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

Do you have some kind of scientific credentials I should know about? It drives me nuts when people on either side of this debate take such strong stances and utter statements of fact that they are unqualified to know with any degree of certainty. I don't generally get involved in debates about enviromentalism, because I know fully well that I am unqualified to participate in them. And so are you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize that one had to have "scientific credentials" to participate in a debate on a given subject. The above statement reminds me of when James Taggart challenged Dagny's ability to objectively determine the value of Rearden Steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have some kind of scientific credentials I should know about? It drives me nuts when people on either side of this debate take such strong stances and utter statements of fact that they are unqualified to know with any degree of certainty. I don't generally get involved in debates about enviromentalism, because I know fully well that I am unqualified to participate in them. And so are you.

This is not the sort of statement that requires strong scientific credentials. It requires a basic understanding of the properties of CO2, atmospheric composition, and the amount of CO2 produced by mankind.

It is not even remotely possible for CO2 produced by mankind to become harmful from a breathing standpoint. CO2 is basically harmless - the only concerns that anyone in the science community has raised is regarding the theoretical so-called "greenhouse effect" of CO2. There have been no - ZERO - concerns raised about CO2 production as having a negative effect on air quality or breathing or anything like that.

In fact you are the one who has made a scientific claim - that CO2 is "bad for the air" and constitutes "pollution," (apart from the "greenhouse effect") which is something no scientist I have ever seen - not even a Global Warming believer - claim.

By your own criteria I suggest you withdraw your claim.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have some kind of scientific credentials I should know about? It drives me nuts when people on either side of this debate take such strong stances and utter statements of fact that they are unqualified to know with any degree of certainty.

This is false. By following the evidence you can come to understand these issues in accordance with the degree of evidence and logical thought you employ. It's not magic. It's science.

I don't generally get involved in debates about enviromentalism, because I know fully well that I am unqualified to participate in them. And so are you.

I think that's foolish, because, I'm here to tell you, they use the prestige of science to scare people (Ayn Rand's words paraphrased). They are relying exactly on you not being an expert so that they can force their agenda down your throat.

You should educate yourself so that you know what you are up against.

As to your claim that it is "nihilistic", I don't regard it as nihilistic, because the purpose is to fight an anti-life idea. In fact, environmentalism is nihilistic, since its goal is the destruction of mankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not the sort of statement that requires strong scientific credentials. It requires a basic understanding of the properties of CO2, atmospheric composition, and the amount of CO2 produced by mankind.

It is not even remotely possible for CO2 produced by mankind to become harmful from a breathing standpoint. CO2 is basically harmless - the only concerns that anyone in the science community has raised is regarding the theoretical so-called "greenhouse effect" of CO2. There have been no - ZERO - concerns raised about CO2 production as having a negative effect on air quality or breathing or anything like that.

In fact you are the one who has made a scientific claim - that CO2 is "bad for the air" and constitutes "pollution," (apart from the "greenhouse effect") which is something no scientist I have ever seen - not even a Global Warming believer - claim.

I'm not making a scientific claim. And I never said anything about CO2 affecting breathable air. But when the vast majority of the scientific community (read: practically all of it) thinks that large amounts of CO2 can have adverse effects on the atmosphere (whatever those effects may be), then I'm not being unreasonable in assuming that they are right and that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

This is false. By following the evidence you can come to understand these issues in accordance with the degree of evidence and logical thought you employ. It's not magic. It's science.

I think that's foolish, because, I'm here to tell you, they use the prestige of science to scare people (Ayn Rand's words paraphrased). They are relying exactly on you not being an expert so that they can force their agenda down your throat.

You should educate yourself so that you know what you are up against.

As to your claim that it is "nihilistic", I don't regard it as nihilistic, because the purpose is to fight an anti-life idea. In fact, environmentalism is nihilistic, since its goal is the destruction of mankind.

I'm no environmentalist...but saying that the goal of environmentalism is the destruction of mankind is a bit too far. Show me a mainstream environmentalist (i.e. someone like Al Gore, not the ELF) that wants the destruction of mankind.

I try to be consistent in my views. I generally shrug off the ridiculous claims of Creationists by pointing out that their ideas have been widely discredited among the scientific community and Evolution has been widely accepted. It would be hypocritical of me to do the exact opposite when it comes to environmentalism. Now, there is substantially more debate among the scientific community in this case than there is in the case of Evolution/Creationism. I recognize that it isn't as cut-and-dried as the political rhetoric makes it sound, and I don't think many politically disinterested scientists would claim that it is. But since this is a relatively new area of research that has yet to be fully decided, I find it incredibly nihilistic to suggest that we should set aside one day out of the year to use as much energy and put as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not even remotely possible for CO2 produced by mankind to become harmful from a breathing standpoint. CO2 is basically harmless

CO2 is biologically and chemical inert under most conditions. Any you breathe in you breathe right out. Human exhaled breath is about 4% CO2, with nitrogen and oxygen and argon making up most of the rest. That's why mouth-to-mouth breathing works without adverse side effects.

In crowded, small, closed, poorly ventilated rooms, though, the exhaled CO2 can build up enough to make the air seem thin (the air is not any thiner, but as the oxygen is used up, replaced by exhaled CO2, there's less oxygen to breathe and thus you'd feel as you would breathing thinner air). that's why vehicles such as submarines and space craft carry CO2 scrubbers. These are chemical canisters that absorb CO2 and store it.

So, yes, CO2 is harmless when it comes to breathing. Therefore it is not a pollutant any more than nitrogen or argon are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man (and other animals) naturally exhales CO2 with each breath. Is this "pollution"? Why does it become "pollution" when man emits CO2 in other ways that serve his need to survive as man should? This is a pre-scientific question that can be dealt with by any critical rational mind. If one that thinks like this, assuming that they have had some sort of a reasonable education why then can't they make scientific deductions that are just as valid as another's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no environmentalist...but saying that the goal of environmentalism is the destruction of mankind is a bit too far. Show me a mainstream environmentalist (i.e. someone like Al Gore, not the ELF) that wants the destruction of mankind.

First, the best place to look is not the "mainstream" to determine where an idea is going. I mean, it can help, but those in the "mainstream" are just followers. You look at the intellectuals spear heading a movement to determine where things are going, because these are the people putting the ideas into the mainstream of the culture. The universities are where you look.

Always look for the underlying premises. And, really, at the end of the day, it’s not any particular human being, but the ideas that must be fought.

As to Al Gore, he is anti-industry. His book "Earth in the Balance" is anti-industry. The Kyoto protocol, which is main stream, is anti-industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether or not CO2 is going to cause a catastrophe for the planet earth, large amounts of it are bad for the air and it is nihilistic to combat the environmentalists by purposely polluting the air.
(bold mine)

Moose, this is the claim you made. That even if CO2 is not causing global warming, it is still "bad for the air." To my knowledge no scientist or publication - not even global warming believers - has made the claim that CO2 is harmful apart from the so-called "greenhouse effect."

Yet you are claiming this.

1) You are wrong.

2) That is a scientific claim, which by your own criterion you should not be making.

3) As to your, now additional, claim that Global Warming is real and therefore Carbon Belch Day is nihilistic, that is also incorrect - the entire day is premised on the idea that Global Warming is not real and therefore such activities a harmless and proper enjoyment of man's life. Even if it were real, which it is not, it would not be nihilistic for people to have a Carbon Belch Day if they didn't believe it were so. Nihilism is the deliberate destruction of values qua values. To be properly described as "nihilistic," they would have to both think that GW is real and harmful and that they should cause some on purpose.

Instead, the idea of this holiday is that GW is not real and man should not feel guilty for living his life - he should enjoy it. That is the very opposite of nihilism.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it were real, which it is not, it would not be nihilistic for people to

have a Carbon Belch Day if they didn't believe it were so. Nihilism is the deliberate destruction of values qua values. To be properly

described as "nihilistic," they would have to both think that GW is real and harmful and that they should cause some on purpose.

Instead, the idea of this holiday is that GW is not real and man should not feel guilty for living his life - he should enjoy it. That is the

very opposite of nihilism.

From a cursory glance at their website, the Carbon Belch Day campaign primarily focuses on encouraging all individuals to increase their carbon footprint. The website concretizes their instructions with a list of suggested activities. Essentially all of the suggested activities are rational forms of recreation as opposed to purposeless wasting of resources, which is promising.

However, I question the productivity of focusing on encouraging individuals to increase their resource usage. Encouraging individuals to use more resources, even for rational pursuits, will not be effective in combatting the irrationality of the Climate Change Alarmists. Instead, I think it is much more productive to have a campaign to educate readers on the crucial philosophical issues at stake in today's climate change debate. For example, consider The Objective Standard's Exploit the Earth Day campaign, which immediately and properly addresses the essential philosophical issues at hand.

In my perception, the Carbon Belch Day campaign is at best focusing on a non-essential since the amount of CO2 one is generates is not nearly as important as the level of life-advancing action one chooses to pursue in spite of the demands for sacrifice coming from the Greens. At worst, this campaign is focusing on a negative, since increasing one's energy usage is often a cost (e.g., through increased utility bills) associated with one's activities.

Anyway, the Carbon Belch Day campaign is could certainly be much worse. However, as intellectual activists, I think we can find a much better campaign to throw our weight behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, the Carbon Belch Day campaign is could certainly be much worse. However, as intellectual activists, I think we can find a much better campaign to throw our weight behind.

There may be better, but I think you are selling this short. Remember, the essential goal is to get rid of the guilt associated with enjoying things that create CO2. I see it as a promotion of individual freedom and happiness. That's very moral and very worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, the essential goal is to get rid of the guilt associated with enjoying things that create CO2.

From looking at the Carbon Belch Day website, one is lead to believe that their goal is to increase our carbon footprint. Granted, there is a small mention of Climate Alarmists making individuals feel guilty here. I have quoted the mention below.

Climate Alarmists have created dozens of websites to help you calculate your carbon footprint -- all as a basis for you feeling even more guilty about being a human being who is desecrating the planet in the 21st century (and maybe you’ll buy some carbon credits).

However, consider the pledge that the website encourages individuals to take:

Yes! I am joining people from all walks of life in taking the Carbon Belch Day Pledge! On June 12 I will do my best to increase my CO2 output and unleash a Carbon Belch on the planet. I do this with no fear or concern that I am destroying the planet. In fact, I think a good Carbon Belch can be healthy now and again.

I do not see a firm and proper statement of an individual's right to engage in life-advancing activities that result in increased carbon output. It is possible that the organizers of this campaign have something somewhat resembling Rational Egoism in mind with this campaign. It is also possible that their primary motivation is merely to infuriate the Climate Alarmists as opposed to seeking to make an important philosophical point. I cannot tell.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naturally one should use resources rationally. That is, within your means, trying to conserve them when there is a real scarcity (as in a draught), and otherwise knwoing that, with very few exceptions, whatever "harm" their extraction and use may do to "the planet," these resources enhance, prolong and better our lives. So rather than guilt we should use them with pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may be better, but I think you are selling this short. Remember, the essential goal is to get rid of the guilt associated with enjoying things that create CO2. I see it as a promotion of individual freedom and happiness. That's very moral and very worthwhile.

Yes, this is pretty much exactly my thoughts as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, some have voiced concern about the negative non-greenhouse effects of CO2. Whether this is another crackpot attempt at industrial collapse is beyond me. At the moment, I am not concerned.

Well, that's a new one on me. Still, even so their objection it isn't a matter of CO2 being air pollution. And of course I share your lack of concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, there is a small mention of Climate Alarmists making individuals feel guilty here.

And also in the statement you quoted later as evidence against that being their focus:

"I do this with no fear or concern that I am destroying the planet."

This is the primary message as far as I can see - go ahead and produce carbon because there is nothing to be guilty about. That is a healthy enough message.

It is also possible that their primary motivation is merely to infuriate the Climate Alarmists as opposed to seeking to make an important philosophical point. I cannot tell.

That wouldn't be such a bad thing, either. A message needs to be sent to the Greens that not everyone will consent to their man-hating agenda. That alone is a worthwhile message. That there are also other, deeper messages is beside the point. It is not incorrect or so inessential that it would detract from other necessary statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And also in the statement you quoted later as evidence against that being their focus:

"I do this with no fear or concern that I am destroying the planet."

I suspected that someone would bring up that part of the pledge. If a random guy on the street came up to me and proudly announced that he was going to engage in activity to intentionally increase his carbon footprint without "fear or concern that he is destroying the planet", I would not have enough information to conclude that he is going to subsequently engage in life-advancing action. However, we have the additional context of the list of suggested activities that I linked earlier. This suggests that the campaign does not intend for anyone to engage in anything too reckless.

Otherwise, I think I am just going leave this discussion in disagreement. We are not disagreeing over anything fundamental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, some have voiced concern about the negative non-greenhouse effects of CO2. Whether this is another crackpot attempt at industrial collapse is beyond me. At the moment, I am not concerned.

I was looking at my recent posts when I noticed this statement of mine requires clarification.

First a caveat: I haven't given this issue as much of my attention as I have global warming.

I think that it is likely true that humans have control over ocean surface acidity and therefore ocean ecology. I can't conclude, however, that this ecological impact entails anything significant for humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I read this thread, the more ridiculous I find it to be. Firstly, because so many people in here seem to think they know something about atmospheric sciences.

I don't know what I think about mankind's impact on the environment. There's substantially more debate on the topic than Al Gore and his ilk would like us to believe, but I think it's clear that the majority of scientists think that we are having an effect on the climate. The debate is mostly over how severe this effect is and whether or not it will have an adverse impact on this planet. Whether or not government regulations should be emplaced or whether we should just wait for the market to find solutions is a decision that I leave to you.

It is beyond asinine for a non-scientist (i.e. Inspector) to sit here and claim that it isn't even "remotely possible" for man to produce enough CO2 to have adverse effects on the atmosphere. Whether that adverse effect is the depletion of ozone, enhancing the greenhouse effect, causing acid rain, creating toxic CO2 levels, etc. are not questions that you are qualified to answer. Obviously, most scientists think that it is well within our capability to create this much CO2.

What Inspector is doing is no better than what Al Gore does. Both are scientifically untrained and both make blanket statements that they profess to know as fact, when they couldn't possibly know. The debate is still open whether you and Al Gore want to admit it or not. And you are not qualified to participate in the debate since you are not trained in atmospheric sciences. Sure, you can read the articles and hold your own opinions. You can even discuss them and try to convince people that you're on the right side of the debate. But don't sit here and act like you have some sort of inside knowledge that has somehow evaded large chunks of the scientific community.

Carbon Belch Day is nihilistic for reasons already mentioned. As Darkwaters pointed out, the website doesn't say "live your life the way you want without guilt." It actually promotes increasing your consumption of energy. If you want to grill, grill. If you want to drive a Hummer, drive a Hummer. If you get scared of the dark, turn on all the lights in your house. But don't go buy a Hummer, turn on all the lights, and start grilling for 3 meals a day just so you can piss off the viros. Do what you want, but don't increase your energy consumption just for the sake of increasing energy consumption.

As to the accusation that environmentalists want to destroy mankind: put that strawman away. Al Gore--crazy though he may be--thinks he is saving mankind from Manbearpig. Most environmentalists come from this viewpoint. Only the lunatic fringe like the ELF actually want to destroy mankind...and I'm pretty sure you're not gonna catch Al Gore fraternizing with that bunch.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...