"Me and My Ozone"

With temperatures set to push 100 degrees today, it’s good timing for a press release I received from The Bear Deluxe, a local quarterly magazine devoted to exploring environmental issues through the creative arts and published by Orlo.

The magazine is seeking contributions for a special feature called “Me and My Ozone”, featuring readers’ personal experiences with global warming.

Although there’s no doubt global warming exists and that its effects can be seen in melting polar ice caps and ominous climate-change data, it’s difficult to quantify an actual personal experience resulting from the warming itself. Catastrophic as it may be for the planet, we’re talking about maybe a one-degree change.

On the other hand, Portland has certainly responded to global warming better than any other city. As reported earlier this summer, ours is the first city to lower its combined emissions to 1990 levels.

I’m curious: How many of you out there have actually changed your behavior significantly in response to global warming? Are you riding the bus or MAX more, for example, or would you be doing it anyway? Or has global warming actually affected you personally? And how so?

Comments

[Philippe]

On the issue of global warming i'm not convinced of the evidence put forth by science that the activities of humans affects greatly whether or not polar ice melts. Our modern statistics compared to geologic time seems impossible to compare. So. . . i guess i haven't changed my transit behavior.

[Brian]

But Philippe, surely an intelligent guy like yourself isn't suggesting that global warming doesn't exist??!!

[Nathan Koren]

My own transit behaviour (selling my car, moving downtown, advocating for transit, et cetera) is frankly more motivated by selfish quality-of-life concerns than anything else. Though I suppose that concern over global warming could provide a nice altruistic gloss in a pinch.

Oh, and I must admit cringing a bit at the title of the piece, because ozone thinning and global warming don't have the SLIGHTEST thing to do with one another, aside from both having something vaguely to do with the atmosphere. But the processes are different (buildup of CO2 & CH4 vs depletion of O3), the causes are different (cars, coal, and cows vs. aerosol propellants & air conditioners) , and the consequences are different (heat buildup leading to global climate change vs. UV radiation increasing leading to more skin cancers). And one other major difference: the Ozone issue is largely behind us, thanks to the banning of CFCs and PFCs (although there is a 20-year lag time until we'll start seeing real improvement, thanks to the persistance of chlorine in the upper atmosphere), while the global warming issue is still almost entirely ahead of us. So listen up people, and stop conflating these things already!

(Okay, I'm getting off the soapbox now...)

[brett]

> Although there’s no doubt global warming exists

Actually, there's a lot of doubt. There's doubt that things are getting warmer. If things are getting warmer, there's doubt about whether it's anthropogenic. If it's anthropogenic, there is serious doubt about what to do about it. And, btw, it's nowhere near one degree.

[Brian]

Brett, Brett, Brett. (Sigh.) You'll have to forgive me, but I'm going to side with the overwhelming majority of the world's mainstream, respected scientists on this one.

[Gene]

The public has been decieved to believe that there is no major consensus in the scientific community conerning global warming. Major political players and powerful interests groups have been very successful at making a real, honest issue sound like a crackpot theory even though it isn't. There IS a major consensus on global warming and that is that it is currently devastating the planet and that something must be done before more irresplacable ecology and medical opportunities dissapear. Those who doubt such findings and their data are ignorant. I'm sorry but the world is not flat, nor are you the center of it.

[Justin]

Economic reasons here - I'm a student, and my car broke down. Parked it in a barn, and carpool with friends, or take the bus/streetcar/max. I also live close in to downtown and have a bike (and am fearless of traffic! Yea, watch me get killed next week...), so I make do. Several of my friends have cars that live in NW portland, but they only drive about 2 miles per week on average - since they work downtown, they find it easier to walk/bike/streetcar it instead.

However, I'd say the best incentive for ANYTHING is economic. In the UK, all freeways are being planned on becoming toll/congestion charged soon - as a way to reduce traffic, not necessarily raise money (but will do both).

[Gene Johnson]

The problem with economic reasons alone is that contemporary economics as of yet disregards the cost-benefit analysis of ecological impact because there is not enough research in that area nor is there enough cooperation between businesses and environmental scientists. In other words, ecological reasons ARE economic reasons, but will only be proven as such when the environment becomes a commodity (nearly irradicated). Don't let it become a commodity if you wish to not have ecological reasons.