You bring up an interesting issue, Aaron. My wife and I are both in our mid-30's, and we discuss the issue of generational differences on a regular basis. I'm not old enough to say "those kids these days..." with any authority, but I am worried about the "I deserve it" mentality that you mention. We seem to require more and more stuff to be satisfied. As I mentioned earlier (before this thread ended up in left field), one of the things that I love about UL backpacking is the simplicity that it can encourage. When we think carefully about what we're carrying and why we're carrying it, we become more aware of what we really do need and what we can do without. I'm working hard to apply that principle to my life as a whole. Anytime I bring up this subject, I'm reminded of a passage from Peter Matthiessen's The Snow Leopard about the satisfaction that came with knowing that all of his earthly possessions were on his back. I still have a house full of possessions, but at least I'm not adding new possessions at the same pace as I used to (although I am guilty of adding quite a few new pieces of lightweight backpacking gear over the last few years).

Edited by EarthDweller on 01/01/2007 16:43:25 MST.

I think the concept of generational differences, while interesting, are unfair and over-simplifying. To say a certain generation is one particular way is a stereotype- a gross generalization, if you will.

A lot of the kids in my generation (generally raised in the 1990s) have a "give me now" attitude- but not all of them. I know that I certainly do not.

I personally believe that the sense of needing everything instantly has a lot to do with our environment (no trees and rivers, I'm talking society) and the way we were raised. Advertisers and corporations cater to our need to have things fast. Fast food, cable internet, charge credit cards, 0% APR, "Don't pay a dime until 2009!", faster cars, caffeine, and etc. are all examples of this need.

I haven't left the house yet but I already know firsthand how credit cards can quickly ruin your life. Credit cards caused my parents to get divorced and declare bankruptcy. I may have cried when the repo man dragged off my beloved piano, but my parents had it worse.

As for those in my generation who do demand everything now, they are only 99% to blame. Their parents constitute that other 1%. Why? Because the parents don't have the ability to say NO, YOU CANNOT HAVE THIS NOW, YOU DO NOT DESERVE IT. I believe that if their parents put their feet down and refused to budge, their attitudes would change.

But what parent wants to parent anymore? Why deal with your child's behavioral problem when you can just pump them with a few Adderall every morning. Why teach your child to cope with and solve his/her problems when you can get them some antidepressants and pretend everything is okay?

I think that my generations lack of respect for older generations has a lot to do with the education system. Our education system has moved from being vocational and purposeful to being all about numbers and statistics. Everything now revolves around Math, English, and Science. My generation can find the rate at which the two trains collide, tell you what the word "nihilism" means, explain the development of a human child but I'll be surprised if any of us know how to do taxes properly, fix a carburetor, or what true love is. The education system places emphasis on certain things and measures worth based solely off of those topics and thus my generation looks at older generations and thinks "what a bunch of idiots!"

There are those in my generation who understand a lot more than we're given credit for. At a lot of those people, myself included, are frustrated by the stereotype that is forced upon us. We don't really want to grow up (I don't think anyone really does), but we're already years and years ahead of most of our peers. I thank my parents for that, however. Although they are poor at handling money, they taught me to appreciate everyone because each person plays a vital role in reality.

How boring would it be if we were all the same always?

As a crusty 27 year-old who doesn't even own a cell phone, I'm not young enough to be an expert (though I do have a 13 year-old brother), but I don't see the fact that kids like high tech toys as a sign that they are going to do worse for the environment than the rest of us.

Wanting an array of high tech electronic toys (cell phone, iPod, gaming system, etc..) does not seem particularly different than wanting an array of high tech backpacking toys (that new 4oz thing with the super high tech fabric, etc...).

Which is better? The young person with all the tech gadgets, living in a condo in a walkable urban neighborhood? Or the older person in a huge rustic house in the suburbs, with a couple of old gas-guzzling cars, and none of the gadgets?

The important thing is environmental conciousness. That will impact both policy decisions and consumption decisions. It might be better if people didn't want stuff. But there aren't enough of them, young or old, to pin my hopes on. I'd settle for people thinking carefully about their stuff, where it comes from, and how we can make it in a better way.

-Erin
www.groundtruthtrekking.org/WildCoast.html

Edited by mckittre on 01/02/2007 02:06:03 MST.

Generalizations can help us with the bigger picture, but you're absolutely right, Scott, in saying that they're often unfair and over-simplified. We definitely need to understand cultural trends so we can form a clear road map of where the future might be taking us, but we certainly can't lose sight of the fact that we can't sort people as if they were playing cards (a spade is a spade...).

Also, Erin, your point about environmental consciousness is well put. It might not be realistic to expect people to want less, but you're absolutely right that maybe we can make some progress toward getting people to think more about what they have, where it comes from, and how to make it in a way that's less costly to the environment we all share. James Martin (The Meaning of the 21st Century) argues that we need to work toward what he calls an "eco-affluent" lifestyle, one that allows us to preserve the good things that modern society has to offer without so severely stressing the natural resources upon which we (and everyone else in the world) depend.

Edited by EarthDweller on 01/02/2007 10:48:46 MST.

"I backpack to get away from people who tell me how to live my life." I empathise.

These are usually also the people who burn fuel in their efforts to save the world. Ironic.

I'm not sure how this making do with less stuff is supposed to work. Unfortunately, most of the world is already making do with "less".

Those who are already making do with less also happen to be the ones causing most of those pesky, supposedly climate-changing emissions so deplored - China alone will probably overtake the US in just a year or two (the world being what it is, nothing is certain).

China isn't buying into environmentalism. So, what will effectively change by making do with less or having a supposedly lighter footprint blah blah? If the world is in danger from emissions, what is going to done about China? India? And the rest of the third world? If what you believe is correct, these are the ramifications: We are destroying the earth and we are all going to die!

Oh, and before I forget, on the ozone hole:

"A stream of particles from the Sun, in combination with extreme weather conditions, caused an unprecedented thinning last year of the upper Arctic ozone layer.

Scientists have been puzzled by the chemical processes that destroyed up to 60% of ozone molecules in the lower mesosphere and upper stratosphere (the atmospheric layers that lie 30 to 40 kilometres above ground) in the first months of 2004. Reactions with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), the compounds responsible for ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere, could not explain the decline in higher layers.

Now an international team of atmosphere researchers, led by Cora Randall of the University of Colorado at Boulder, has suggested a natural cause for this ozone loss at high altitudes.

Strong solar storms in October 2003 carried energetic electrons and protons into the Earth's upper atmosphere, where they boosted production of nitrogen oxides by a factor of four. Such oxides are a known group of ozone killers. Very strong winds inside the polar stratospheric vortex, which was exceptionally powerful last winter, then transported the excess nitrogen gases further into the atmosphere. At around 40 kilometres' height, they mixed with, and attacked, the ozone layer."

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1614

So, ozone depletion without CFCs, all because of the sun. Who would have thought it possible? Those CFCs were also supposed to have scarey lifespans averaging a 100 years - so why is the ozone hole even doing so well? Please don't tell me it's because we cut back on CFCs. We shouldn't even be seeing results now - unless something else is afoot.

How to deal with growing demands on global resources from China and India is a major topic of discussion. I don't know that it's true that China isn't buying into environmentalism, but they are at least taking note of the fact that their growth might not be sustainable. They've taken voluntary measures to curb their CO2 emissions, even though the Kyoto Protocal (which they signed) doesn't require them to do so. China's congress recently passed a renewable energy law, and China has pioneered small wind turbines and biogas plants. That shows me that they're making an effort, even if its only a small one at this point. A heck of a lot more is required of them, just as a lot more is required of those of us the western world. The game's not over, though, and I for one am optimistic that solutions for these problems are not out of our reach. In many cases, the technology is already out there -- we just have to implement policies that will favor its continued development and distribution. Not an easy task, but not an insurmountable one either. It's amazing what capitalism can do when it's pointed in the right direction -- just look at the growing market for organic and sustainably produced goods here in the US.

As for living with less, I'm well aware that citizens of third world countries (as well as a lot of impoverished Americans and Europeans) make do with a lot less for reasons that are completely beyond their control. I also know that all of the stuff that we consume here in the US doesn't come out of thin air. The resources that go into producing and distributing it certainly have an impact on everyone who inhabits this planet, and it's a step in the right direction if we can start cutting back on that consumption. Our consumption patterns aren't the only problems were facing, but they're certainly one of the easiest that we can fix at the individual level.

Finally, thanks for providing a reference for your claims about ozone depletion. As I indictated previously, though, I don't dispute that solar activity can have an effect on ozone levels. However, this article confirms my previous point: the effect of solar activiy is strongest in the upper layers of the stratosphere (in this case the upper stratosphere and lower mesosphere). Since most ozone is in the middle and lower stratosphere, though, solar activity can't account for losses there. This depletion of upper stratospheric ozone is certainly something that we need to understand, but it in no way replaces human activity as a significant role in overall ozone depletion.

Edited by EarthDweller on 01/02/2007 15:30:51 MST.

I need some education on a couple of points that I've often wondered about, but don't really understand very much about.


First, if CFC's are so much heavier than air and even ozone, how do they get 10-50 km up to damage the lowest ozone layer? Not saying it can't happen, but does convection really account for this [if convection is the postulated cause???]?


Second, it is rather well known, that the last global warming that current science can determine occurred circa 1000AD. What caused that global warming? Some have postulated volcanic activity. I, perhaps quite ignorantly, thought that extensive volcanic activity would have the opposite effect, like in 1816 (Tamora erupted the prev. Spring in Apr. 1815) when summer never came to New England (snow in June). There was also an earlier one in the 18th cent., but i'm having trouble recalling the specifics. Apparently, global warming is cyclical in nature with the last one (besides what we may currently be undergoing) occurring circa 1000AD. I still haven't read anything, besides volcanic activity, as being the cause for that, but i'm not sure that volcanic activity is an adequate first cause based upon its effects at other times. Any suggestions?


EDIT:
Just remembered, it wasn't a year w/o summer, nor was it in the 18th cent. It was in 1635 and it was thought to be a cat. 5 hurricane (though some say only a cat. 3, IIRC) that devastated early colonies in several colonies both within New England and further south.

Edited by pj on 01/02/2007 17:23:54 MST.

pj et al.,

I think the real issue, and in China for example the underlying issue is population (I speak of China having been there and being involved in China 'politics' as a young, far younger, radical student and then a China Trade lawyer). China is a good example of the problems facing the 'Third World' or underdeveloped countries (develop to feed and house the people, provide jobs and income v. harm the environment in some fashion). What you see in Somalia and other areas is a 'bad' example of what is happening.

But, much of the environmental problems follow on or are a product of unrestrained child birth and population explosion.

That said, global warming appears to be a real phenomenon -- for example, the inversion and heat/atmospheric layers over large cities and smog. An old friend and professor / chemist said to me that he never used to take it seriously but now does, because of his experiences in flying at high altitudes and coming into land at major urban areas, and because of changes in weather patterns. But, I think he was mostly empirically observing the smog and inversion layers over all major cities, even those with pro-environmental policies and laws.

The volcano issue is interesting because my step-daughter came back from UC Berkeley from the engineering program (and she is a young rock climber and nature nut) and said that more carbons and other junk were released by volvanoes in one incident than all the cities and people combined in years. So, pj, I also wonder about that. So I would also like to understand more. bd

Edited by bdavis on 01/02/2007 16:22:30 MST.

pj:

Here's an excerpt from a Wikipedia article on ozone depletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion):

"A frequent point made is that since CFC molecules are much heavier than nitrogen or oxygen, they cannot reach the stratosphere in significant quantities. But atmospheric gases are not sorted by weight; the forces of wind (turbulence) are strong enough to fully intermix gases in the atmosphere. CFCs are heavier than air, but just like argon, krypton and other heavy gases with a long lifetime they are uniformly distributed throughout the turbosphere and reach the upper atmosphere."

Here are a couple of addresses that the writer points to for more information:

http://www.so.wustl.edu/science_outreach/curriculum/ozone/info/stratosphere/myths/heavier.html

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/intro/

Thanks to its in depth treatment of the ozone layer and ozone depletement, I've found the latter to be very helpful.

Ernie, Many thanks for the reply and links. I haven't checked the links yet. I supposed convection was going to be postulated for the depletion of the Ozone layer. I'll have to check your links to see if they explain why it would be more selective, targeting the south pole in particular (IIRC)? The quote you gave mentioned "uniformly distributed". If so, why are the poles more susceptible (wondering if they will postulate something to do w/the earth's axial rotation???).

Hopefully, the links will explain this to me. I'm typically skeptical if i don't understand the theory, or if some of the theory doesn't make sense.

One thing that quote fr/Wiki doesn't explain is since the CFC's can be so "uniformly distributed", why isn't ozone so similarly "uniformly distributed"? I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?! I learned in philosophy classes that the ancient Greek Philosophers taught that one inherent property of truth is that it is consistent. Unless there is another mechanism that selectively causes uniform distribution of all gases but ozone, then this seems highly inconsistent to me. Yes, i know how ozone is formed, and i guess one might expect a higher concentration in the upper atmosphere, but below that why isn't there are a more uniform mixture of ozone? After all, we have convection working to mix gasses, so why not mix the ozone more uniformly? Hope those links can explain that in terms that a dummy like me can understand.

Well, at least your links will give me enough reading to keep me out of trouble for some evenings.

I'm stumped by your question about the distribution of ozone, pj. Does anyone else know anything about it? As for why the ozone hole appeared over Antarctica, my understanding is that it comes about as a result of somewhat unique high-altitude weather conditions. Here's yet another address for further reading -- it's part three of the ozone depletion FAQ that I referenced above:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/antarctic/

Sorry, for the 'poser' Ernie. My Profs always hated my questions in class - particularly when they couldn't answer them. They could always tell that one was coming when they smelled the wood in me noggin' smoldering. They thought i should do less thinkin' and more "parroting" back what they were teaching. Maybe that's why i never did real good in school?

Hopefully, those links you provided will have an answer to my question. Guess i'll have to read them sooner rather than later (was just hoping that you would give me the "Reader's Digest Condensed Version", so to speak).

Anyways, thanks again for the add'l URL.

Edited by pj on 01/02/2007 17:36:32 MST.

As far as volcanoes and global warming go, here's a really interesting article on what massive, sustained eruptions might do to the global climate:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24732-2005Jan20.html

And here's an article that I stumbled upon that makes some interesting points, including one that echoes what pj said above about the potential for volcanoes to bring about a cooling event:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282246.html

Finally, here's a brief discussion about the warming trend that you mention occuring around 1000 AD, pj:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

I'm pretty sure that the current consensus is that this warming was localized phenomenon that primarily affected the North Atlantic region and was related to changes in ocean current circulation.

Edited by EarthDweller on 01/02/2007 18:10:04 MST.

Going back to your comments on population, bd, that really is the crux of the matter, and China's global impact in the coming decades extends far beyond air quality, global warming, etc. I recently read a truly fascinating book by James Martin entitled The Meaning of the 21st Century: Transformation and Survival, in which the author suggests that climate change and China's growing population could work in tandem to cause a big jump in the price of grain, putting it even further out of reach of the world's poorest nations. I highly recommend the book, which has a truly vast scope -- climate change, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and the list goes on...

And while I'm on the subject of recommended reading, anyone interested in a very accessible treatment of global warming should take a look at Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers. Flannery is a biologist and former global warming skeptic.

Edited by EarthDweller on 01/02/2007 20:25:46 MST.

Very interesting discussion here. It's funny why the discussions in the forums often tend be more involved than during the summer... I guess there is just more "sitting around the fire" at this time of year.

People have made good points on both sides of the environmental crisis question, and the tone of the discussion, with people showing one another respect for their opinions, is something that politicians and others who supposedly are taking up the reins for protecting our global home, could learn a lot from. My one concern is that we are all spending so much time discussing the problems, and in so many cases getting overly concerned about the differences in opinions, that nothing is being done about a potentially civilization-threatening situation. Whether or not there really is global warming or the end of our species, it just makes good sense to look at the way we are doing things and try to make our lifestyles more efficient and sustainable..."economical" in other words. Just looking at a well-run household will give you an idea of what smart practices will do to ensure a touble-free existence. You don't wait for your household to fall apart before adopting sensible measures.

While China certainly has a lot of environmental problems, to say that China does not think about environmental problems reveals quite a lack of knowledge about China. China has been battling environmental problems for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The logistics of making any of it work are enormous; just trying to deal with the gigantic erosion problem of the Yang Tze River alone has always stymied Chinese governments, They are attempting to do things about their problems, though. And there is probably no country on earth more committed to curbing the population problem than China... so much so that they have taken what westerners consider Draconian measures to control the population: since the 1970's every family (with a few exceptions in the countryside where bigger families are needed for the farm work) has been limited to one child (six months ago when a new Chinese student entered my class and I asked her and the other Japanese students to talk about their brothers and sisters, I was at first taken aback when my Chinese student told me she and no one else she knew had any brothers and sisters... it then occurred to me that the entire country was made up of single child families...I still haven't been able to get my head around this. But it did strengthen my amazement at the Chinese ability to make big sweeping changes a lot more easily than in the west.). Westerners might consider this a violation of human rights, but from the Chinese perspective it is a realistic solution to a very real and dangerous problem. The Chinese have to be concerned with environmental problems because they see the worst of it around them every day. I don't think most Americans are truly aware of this reality yet. Intellectually, yes, but viscerally, no. Global warming is still seen in America as an intellectual exercise (though I doubt northern Alaskans would agree. And Katrina has made a first, lasting impression... but not enough yet). Therefore these rhetorical discussions.

I'm curious, too, about why the ozone holes concentrate at the poles. I wonder if it has to do with the atmosphere being thinner at the poles and with such things as the lack of the Coriolis Force and the axes of the global electromagnetc field there. It might also have to do with the concentration and angle of the sun at these latitudes and with the albedo effect of the ice and snow caps, and with the year long temperatures there.

Or it could just be that finally the years of accumulated National Geographics in people's homes have reached their critical mass and their combined weight has compressed the shape of the earth's crust enough to lift the North and South Poles high enough out of the atmosphere to poke holes into the sky? So many high school science class movies showed the candy cane striped poles that it's a wonder to me that scientists never noticed them before.

Edited by butuki on 01/02/2007 23:17:55 MST.

Again, Ernie, many thanks for the reply and URLs (more to read - haven't done so yet, but will).

Wonder how much will be left alive to die of the warming after the, potentially, many years, of "volcanic winters" which will affect the food chain.

The 1000AD warming apparently had an effect in Europe also based up some reading i had done a few months ago, so this could agree with the point on the No. Atlantic region.

I think I remember something about grapes in England during the medieval warming period that we're talking about, pj, as you may have read as well. That lines up in an interesting way with a recent news story that I saw -- apparently, changing weather conditions in the UK are once again making grape-growing a worthwhile endeavor.

Also, thanks Miguel for your historical insights on China. Your point on losing sight of solutions because we're so wrapped up in arguing about the problems is very well put. That's really where things get interesting -- from an optimist's perspective, global warming offers some great opportunities for the world as a whole. It's a problem that has the potential to unite nations and spur fascinating technologocal advances. For example, there are scientists out there right now pioneering technologies that actually pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. That's pretty cool, if you ask me, and it shows that dedicated people are already working hard to fix a problem that many people (including our dear president) dismiss as hocus-pocus. And if scientists are wrong, and global warming is just a naturally occuring event? Or if global warming doesn't progress as expected? What have we lost by making the changes that scientists recommend? Well, the coal industry will have lost some money, as will the petroleum industry (although BP has already positioned itself as a major provider of solar energy). And I'm sure there are other costs that will need to be addressed. What have we gained? Cleaner, more efficient technologies, a cleaner environment, and the knowledge that we don't have to pollute the planet to prosper. That, to me, is well worth the effort. If scientists are correct, we'll have gained all of those things PLUS done our best to address a problem that could have dire implications for millions if not billions of our fellow citizens.

Addendum: I should also add that modern, market-driven economies put remarkable power in the hands of individual consumers. To quote Tim Flannery, the author of The Weather Makers that I mentioned above, "if enough of us buy green power, solar panels, solar hot water systems, and hybrid vehicles, the cost of these items will plummet" (306). Not to mention energy-efficient appliances, recycled building materials, better home insulation, etc. As costs plummet, sales will grow, not just in California, Maine, or Quebec, but also in China, India, and other developing nations where affordable, sustainable energy is a pressing need. So global warming isn't just about doomsday pronouncements (thanks again, Miguel, for bringing that into focus) -- it's about an opportunity for us to make important changes in our own personal lives whose ramifications are potentially global in scope.

Edited by EarthDweller on 01/03/2007 09:04:20 MST.

The late winter ozone degradation that occurs over Antarctica seems to result from a unique set of meteorological conditions. A basic but understandable
explanation (for me) can be found at:

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html

The Meteorology tab reveals a menu subset of contributing factors.

As for general climate information, I’ve found the following site helpful in separating hype from fact from probability:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

(Yes, it’s a strong reliance on NASA, but NASA does have a record of accomplishment. I regard a successful thirty-five year old lunar landing conspiracy as more of an achievement than the actual return of men from the moon).

Edited by skots on 01/05/2007 16:24:09 MST.

Thanks for the links, skots. The NASA site really has a lot to offer -- I've just brushed the surface at this point. I did find a point, though, in the article on the current warming trend that offers a good object lesson in how climate change can affect the places that hikers and backpackers know and love:

"Global warming is already beginning to have noticeable effects in nature. Plants and animals can survive only within certain climatic zones, so with the warming of recent decades many of them are beginning to migrate poleward."

Here in the southeast, we've already witnessed serious damage to spruce and fir forests in our higher elevations (over 4500 ft) due to acid rain, ozone pollution, and invasive insect species that were imported (accidentally, of course) from Europe. Although air quality legislation has improved the odds of survival for the spruce population, which is hardest hit by air pollution, it's unlikely that the firs are going to make a comeback anytime soon.

As if these issues weren't enough, now we have to add the additional threat of climate change -- warmer, drier conditions could have a major impact on the spruce and fir populations. This, of course, is growing threat on a global scale. Mountaintop ecosystems throughout the world harbor incredibly diverse populations of plant and animal species, and, as temperatures rise and weather patterns change, those species simply have nowhere to go. Here in NC, some of the species in question are holdovers from the last ice age, persisting in small, delicately balanced micro-climates. If these micro-climates disappear, so will the species who inhabit them.

So, having said all of that, my point is that global warming does threaten to change the places that I, as a backpacker, know and love. The NC spruce and fir forests had already suffered from local environmental issues when I first encountered them 17 years ago, and now I have to worry that they will completely vanish if global warming accelerates. That's something that I'd really hate to see come top pass.

Edited by EarthDweller on 01/03/2007 12:32:59 MST.

CO2 levels are up. It is easily measured, anywhere. I have
yet to hear an argument stating otherwise.

Even if the earth's temperature isn't effected by this, plants will be. Those that thrive with increased co2 will take over.

Look for more cheat grass taking over the native's grasses on the prairies.

If you look at the industries that could be negatively effected by global warming, you see where they are putting
their support. The ski areas around here are WAY into green
energy etc. They are otherwise pretty traditionally conservative businesses.

Oh, just on the news
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_bi_ge/exxonmobil_global_warming

Edited by oware on 01/03/2007 18:59:07 MST.