St. Maarten Private Eye

I agree with this posting, but to answer the question of what you can do, I would say there is a lot you can do. Since small things can make a difference, we can do small things to contribute to less polution, less carbon and less global warming.

Think about it...
Maybe we should stop with using all those plastic bags from the shops. Even when I by a bread, they put it into two bags. Why? In Ireland the government introduces taxes on the use of plastic bags. It reduced the amount of bags with an incredible percentage. Use bags that you can use several times. Or by bags at: www.reusablebags.com

Maybe we should stop with the spoiling of energy. Turn the lights of when you are not in the room. Switch of the airconditioning when you leave home for a longer period. Switch of your computers at night. Do not leave you TV or stereo in stand-by mode. It will save energy, and it will save you money.

Maybe we should fly less. OK, that's sometimes difficult living on this small island. But you can also pay a little extra and then organisations will plant trees all over the world to compensate the emission of gases during the flight. Fly green (or as green as possible) Look at www.greenseat.com

Maybe government should start with collecting glass seperately. Is it too difficult to place bottle containers on the island. This is not new, or revolutionary; they do it on the French side!

And you can do all this without a big loss of joy of life. Sometimes it will cost you a little money, but if you can afford it, it's not a big deal. If you can't afford it, you could start with energy saving. And besides all of this, it will give you a good feeling as well.

So, start with the small things to achieve big results, hopefully!

There are many things that could be done, committments that could be made, but I think they will all fall flat on their face if the general population does not understand the reasons behind them. This is why I say education is the key, because the truth is an overwhelming majority of the island's population do not understand or comprehend what is happening in the world. Unless they understand the need for the radical actions and significant changes that are required, they will resist them.

It will cost millions of $'s, but it will cost much much more than money if we don't do it. With all the consequences of GW and population growth, the question of whether tourism as we know it today has any real future must be asked. When sea level rises will we have beaches? With stronger and more frequent hurricanes, will we have hotels, or even houses for ourselves, will insurance be possible anymore? With famine, droughts, wars and all the social upheaval these things entail, will St. Maarten be able to import just about everything as it does today?

And this is why I ask and challenge the Massoods, the Spadaro's, the Ramchandi's and all the other big business people on the island what kind of future they think their businesses have? Do they really just not think it's a problem to be concerned about or are in denial and pushing it from their thoughts? Or perhaps they really don't care, afterall, most of them have the means and ways to go elsewhere. I would like to know and I would like them to be asked and pressured to face reality, by the media and the population.

And I issue another challenge, to Sarah Wescott, to Roy, to William, to Frans, to Gracita, Theo and all the rest of these so called 'leaders'. Are you brave enough, smart enough and concerned enough to enter into this conversation? Are you afraid people will think you are wacko for speaking up about it? I mean, for some of you it has to be a difficult turn around to start caring about the environment eh? I know some of these people read this site, or their friends do, but if they are not brave enough to talk about this issue here then I doubt they are capable of the leadership that is needed. As with most other things, they will wait until things start going bad before they act.

Some of the proposals I have will be drastic and unpopular and the only way they have any chance is if people understand the need behind them and if adaption is made as painless as possible. Therefore I would say that a comprehensive community education program must be a central part of the program.

I will get back to you in the next few days when I have time to write something up.

Caribdude

I too am interested in seeing more discussion and awareness about this subject as it is evident, like you say, that people dig their heads in the sand or are more interested in Gas prices or alleged pedophiles.

BUT (and here's the hugely unpopular BIG BUT) - whatever happened to the idea that science usually goes about presenting 'proof' to substantiate it's theories (otherwise it wouldn't be science)? - proof that is lacking with Global Warming in regard ONLY to the aspect of CO2 emissions being responsible (notice I said ONLY, because the facts of global warming and pollution are real - but the cause is still speculation regardless of how many scientists 'agree' (you will remember my previous discussions on this).

Ok, so let's suppose science doesn't have 'proof' per se - what then - well they usually use the principle of 'Occam's Razor' (which I know you have written about) - BUT when all the hysteria and 'fluff' is sifted out and many more factors are thrown into the equation, the most likely explanation is NOT Co2 but the periodic cycles of the suns' electromagnetic activity and it's influence on not only Earth but the entire solar system.

I won't go on here because I think only a one- on- one debate would be fruitful, but I will say that if you, as a self-professed concerned 'messenger to the people' accuse anyone who does not choose to follow the same party line as 'everyone else', "ignorant" and a "moron" then you are guilty of the exact same mentality as those who brought about the doctrine of 'if you're not with us you're against us' or, to be more curt - the Hegelian Dialectic - i.e the end justifies the means.

War in Iraq was just such a Dialectic except it didn't quite work out.

Dam

PS By the way - if they are so concerned about the possible water shortage they foretell, why is no-one collecting all that fresh-water ice that is melting? It would kill two birds with one stone - supply masses of much needed water AND help stop the desalination of the ocean.

Your "big but" is not so unpopular, I'm afraid.

When it comes to GW or the environment in general, people seem to try to use anything to place a cause or solution beyond the reach of their own actions.
"Technology will find a solution" (why wait for that?), "Industry is a much bigger polluter then consumers" (who is industry producing for?) ,"Nature itself produces much more CO2". That's true, see this quote from "A short history of nearly everything" from Bill Bryson (near the end of chapter 17)

"Unfortunately, human beings have a careless predilection for disrupting this [long-term carbon cycle] by putting lots of extra carbon into the atmosphere whether the foraminiferans [=tiny marine organisms] are ready for it or not. Since 1850, it has been estimated, we have lofted about a hundred billion tons of extra carbon into the air, a total that increases by about seven billion tons each year. Overall, that's not actually all that much. Nature mostly through the belchings of volcanoes and the decay of plants sends about 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, nearly thirty times as much as we do with our cars and factories. But you have only to look at the haze that hangs over our cities to see what a difference our contribution makes."

I think the "but" in the last sentence is more important than yours.

Haze over the cities and pollution is one thing - equating global warming with CO2 is another.
One argument does not prove the other in your quote.

Just because I have a zit on my BUTT, it doesn't mean my bedroom is contaminated!!

It's a shame you're trying to debate using leaps of logic and tangental reasoning.

Also you seem to be confusing my arguments about the origin of global warming with denial which is prevalent amongst the population and about which you base your last post.
Again - Global Warming is real. Over pollution is real. Over consumption and waste is real.
BUT - global warming 'caused' by CO2 emmissions? Now that's a different story.

Throwing evidence of mans' destruction, carelessness (ok CRIMINAL activities) and everything ever written about the subject at me does not change the fact that a fundamental 'assumption' has been made using the principles of Occams Razor specifically because there is NO 'proof' that co2 'causes' global warming.

In time I think it will be shown to be a ruse, a misdirection, a fallacy of facts or just a plain old mistake. No-one is talking about the MAJOR role of the Sun in Earth's climate.

Dam

Don't get me wrong: I was not debating with you or trying to prove something by "throwing evidence at you", just tried to place a remark about the "unpopularity" of the "but" you used. (Now you wrote "butt" I see "your but" sounds a bit funny :-) , sorry didn't mean that)

The quote I used in my "last post" (which was also my first btw) was meant as an illustration: it just shows that an argument people may use to deny that human CO2 emission has a negative effect on the environment is not questioned at all.

But then it ends with the "but" with the example about the haze which I think is more important than the "but" you wrote about equalling global warming with CO2.

Why do I think this is more important? As you said pollution is real. Whether or not part of that pollution (CO2) is causing global warming is not the most important issue for me. I would rather like to see us to be able to reduce pollution than a 100% proof (is that scientifically possible?) that human CO2 emission is or is not causing GW.

I am not confusing your arguments about the origin of global warming with denial. But I'm afraid that a lot of people might use them wrongly as another reason to not feel responsible for the impact of their behaviour on the environment.

Of course that's not a reason to not write about it, not at all. But I would have liked it if you had added a "but" or "ps" similar to the one in the Bill Bryson quote. That's why I placed my remark.

By the way, the ps you did write might be a nice suggestion for Roy Marlin? ;-)