Will we allow environmentalists to redefine our industry?
A new report issued last week by The Conference Board shows just how whacked out debate is growing over the “global warming” issue – and how that debate could have negative consequences for the RV industry.
“Regulation of GHG emissions could significantly increase costs and reduce competitiveness, especially if not applied evenly and equitably around the world. The long-term sustainability of some businesses could be at significant risk,” the report read. “Political pressure for curbing emissions may evolve rapidly and result in a dramatic and disruptive change.”
Charles Bennett, a senior research associate who authored the report, said “Companies must objectively assess their exposure to these risks and realistically consider alternative fuels, materials, technologies, and business processes that will enable them to adapt to changes. Companies need also to seriously consider participating in public policy discussions to be part of whatever ‘solutions’ or ‘rules of the road’ are being designed now.”
It appears the doomsday gnats may be in a position to ruin our picnic.
Let me explain where I’m coming from regarding this myth of global warming. Shortly before I was born, a generation of Americans grew up practicing “duck and cover” drills in preparation for the approaching nuclear holocaust. When I was in high school just 28 years ago, the doomsayers were all a twitter over the devastating impact global cooling would have on our planet. In fact, my debate team spent an entire year debunking that pending crisis. In the late 1990s, everyone got caught up in the approaching Y2K apocalypse. Okay, I took some extra cash out of the ATM and stocked up on Fruit Loops before Dec. 31, 1999. But, as long as I have been alive, our planet has been on the verge of destruction from some man-made calamity. Yet, somehow, we’ve survived. It’s as though a truth rules the universe that transcends all understanding.
Here are a few facts that I think the world needs to keep in mind before engaging doomsayers:
First, the planet is not overpopulated. Believe it or not, we can fit earth’s entire population within the borders of Texas at the density of New York City and still use the rest of the planet to feed them.
Second, the sun causes global warming – not man. Up here in God’s armpit of Wisconsin, the glaciers have been retreating for somewhere around 12,000 years, long before evil gas-sucking SUVs were invented.
Third, exactly how many years was Alaska going to be negatively impacted by the Exxon Valdez disaster? Was it 100 or 1,000? I can’t remember. But the event was 16 years ago and you really have to dig up evidence of the crime – a testimony to the resiliency of nature.
Finally, even if man had the intelligence to destroy the planet, another man (probably an American) would figure out a way to profit by saving it.
If you really want to see how silly this global warming debate has become, check out the image at: http://rofl.wheresthebeef.co.uk/Sun%20vs%20Earth.jpg. Located 92.9 million miles away, the sun’s volume is 1.3 million times the size of earth. In other words, if the earth is a grain of sand, the sun is a softball 30 feet away; Or, if the earth were an inch in diameter, the sun would be 800,000 miles in diameter. You could fit 1.3 million earths into the diameter of the sun.
Events on the sun, be they sunspots or solar flares, have far more impact on our little tiny planet’s ecosystem than all the cars, tractors and lawn mowers ever invented – and flatulating cows ever conceived.
According to researchers at the University of Hawaii and University of North Dakota, volcanoes release 1.1 trillion pounds of carbon into the atmosphere annually. Oceans and land mass (forests, crops and grass) release 4.84 quadrillion pounds of carbon into the atmosphere annually. The evil automobile releases 0.22 pounds per mile driven. At an average annual use of 12,000 miles, a car will emit 2,660 pounds of “greenhouse gasses” annually.
In other words, it will require the emission of 1.819 trillion automobiles to equal the annual emission of naturally occurring polluters like volcanoes and oceans. In case you’re wondering, that would be require 303 automobiles – or 101 gas-sucking Type A motorhomes – to be driven annually by every man, woman and child on earth.
The Conference Board report suggested that some people or companies which were previously skeptical are becoming increasingly engaged in the discussion of how best to address the issue to assure fairness and ongoing economic prosperity. This sounds strikingly similar to how corporations must play the political game by donating campaign money to candidates from both parties simply to ensure protection regardless of which candidate wins.
“Many of these trends have been in play for some time,” said Bennett. “But their frequency, pace and profile today are creating an unprecedented convergence and this is transforming the landscape for the issue in the United States.”
RV industry veterans know what happened when government portrayed recreation vehicles as un-American gas guzzlers in the 1970s. The industry collapsed. Left unchallenged, history appears on the brink of repeating itself as environmentalists lay the foundation for portraying RVs as an unnecessary and dangerous threat to our planet’s very survival.
It’s poppycock and it’s time business and industry stopped rolling over and started fighting back. The facts are on our side. Remember, it was roughly 187,975 days ago many of the world’s most brilliant people were convinced Christopher Columbus would fall off the edge of a very flat earth during his attempt to discover a new country.
It takes courage and effort to keep from being sucked into the vortex of negativity that always precedes whatever apocalyptic prediction is being advocated. But can anyone recall an instance where a wide-spread prediction of calamity has ever really come true?
March 8th, 2007 at 11:08 am
More bad news today for the global warming advocates. A report released by the National Climatic and Data Center, a U.S. federal agency, noted that February temperatures were the 34th coolest in 113 years.
But, environmentalists should not despair — yet. The same report also noted that temperatures continue to rise an average of 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit per year!
At this rate, the temperatures here in Wisconsin should equal those currently enjoyed by residents of Tampa Bay within 1,767 years.
The release can be found here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
March 4th, 2007 at 9:22 am
You have to chuckle at this one:
CANCELLED: Global Warming: The Home Front A Public Insight Forum moderated by Cathy Wurzer
This forum scheduled in Minneapolis, MN last week was canceled due to cold weather and snow! Ask the people in Minnesota what they think about global warming!
The form was sponsored by Minnesota Public Radio - gee, what a surprise!
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:49 am
For those “ostriches” with their heads in the sand thinking that man is causing “global warming,” how might you spin this new information that Mars is warming, too?
Check out the story at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
It just doesn’t seem plausible that SUVs could be causing a reduction in polar ice caps in a planet that is 34.65 MILLION miles from Earth.
Unless, the greenhouse gasses escaped from the hole in the ozone that was going to destroy Earth a few years ago — and made a beeline to Mars.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
The earth’s temperature actually gets cooler with increased volcanic activity. Remember the year without a summer in the 19th century when the volcano Krakatoa (sp?)in Indonesia erupted and dropped the world temperature enough for it to snow in the U.S. in summertime. For every “center” on global warming there is another with valid data supporting the other view. Has anyone remembered when the ozone was going to kill us all? The “hole” that varies in size and location. Those who have views different then the doomsayers are accused of not listening and ignoring the “facts”.
I am glad I didn’t go to a business school that emphasizes the use of incomplete data. Having been a governmental & private sector environmental scientist, I never wanted to use incomplete data, it only leads to the WRONG conclusion.
More common sense with some cranial rectumectomy of the spokes people for global warming will go along way to getting the right result.
Greg right on!
February 28th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Greg
Excellent article.
It appears that the global warming debate centers on the “why” not so much the “if”. The temperature of this planet has fluctuated throughout it’s life as evidenced by the appearance and dissapearance of the Ice Ages. The Earth’s change of attitude in it’s relation to the sun,the tilt on it’s axis, changes in a 41,000 year cycle. The wobble on it’s axis, changes in a 22,000 year cycle which changes the time of year that the seasons reach peak. The orbital eccentricity of our path around the sun also changes in a 92,000 year cycle and at one point becomes almost circular. That event coincides with the time of the Ice Ages. These well known facts seem to be an inconvenient truth to the Gore/Hollywood types. The media is reluctant to declare that “things are normal” it does not sell.
These efforts to clean up our hydrocarbon emissions , while needed and well intentioned, are only pit stops on the road to Hydrogen as THE fuel. A hundred years ago , we ran on coal. A hundred years from now, we will run on Hydrogen. Here again, it’s not “if” it’s “when” Government prodding should be directed to achieving that goal.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Greg,
I read your comments every day. Thanks for the brain teasers. I have needed them since I retired the family RV business in late 2005. I still travel with my Airstream trailer. It’s the way to go. The most important comment I see here is from Eric Nill. “The Japanese automakers fought with engineers. Who’s winning.” He’s right on. We can do better. We must do better. I do believe every concern like this needs our full attention and our full action. Let’s keep it going, even though I do believe we are not yet doomed.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
It seems as if Greg sees the RV industry on one side and people who care about their environment and future on the other. I would think that people who enjoy nature (RVers & campers) would want to respect and preserve it. Don’t be the Rush Limbaugh of the RV industry. Hate and furry won’t help anything. Eric made a very good point: we need to fight for greater effeciences and more responsible use of natural resources. Actually, Eric made a lot good points.
Pressuring US automakers to come out with more fuel efficient, cleaner vehicles won’t affect the RV industry negatively. I don’t see why we are trying to protect the US auto industry from spending money to make their products less harmful. In the long run, it will be better for everyone, even the auto industry.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Thanks for displaying some common sense when the rest of the world seems to be caught up in a Gore frenzy. As a mid-west, Ozark common sense person myself, I continue to be amazed that while most of my friends and acquaintances show similar common sense, the rest of the world seems to continue to bow to the wisdom of the drive-by media. Thanks to you again.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Did anyone on this planet think that somebody other than Al Gore, the self-annointed expert on global warming, was going to walk off with an Oscar last night. The show was orchestrated and maniupulated to present the global warming message in many different ways and it isn’t getting any attention here.
If the best spokesperson they can get is a guy who didn’t do a damn thing about this issue when he was Vice President for eight years, then they get no respect from me. If we all believed the inaccuracies he presented in “An Inconvenient Truth”, then we would be moving to the heartland to avoid California and New York City being washed into the ocean.
If we had believed these very same scientists when they said hell was freezing over twenty years ago; where would we be now?
Having said all that, do I think we should sit idly by and do nothing? Not at all. We should drill in Alaska, we should fund alternative fuel research, we should build more nuclear power plants, and we should allow those opposing the global warming viewpoint to be heard.
Let’s check back in next year when the situations is reversed and the nation is buried in snow from November to April and see what they say about global warming then!
February 26th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Yeah, come on, Greg. Get with it.
The scientific community is filled with brilliant climateologists who know for 100 percent certainty that the world is getting warmer to the point of planetary breakdown, but can’t tell me with 50 percent certainty whether it will rain 48 hours from now.
No logical thinking person would get worked up about a 0.6 degree Celsius rise in temperatures worldwide since 1850. That might explain why satellites can’t detect any evidence of “global warming” over the past 18 years.
Science claims the world is billions of years old. The world’s first thermometer was developed in 1612. Now, 395 years later, we are being led to believe the world is warmer than it has ever been.
You are right on target. This latest “disaster” is just another attempt by governments to extort money from corporations.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
C’mon Greg, Do you really want to enter the global warming discussion (it is no longer a debate) on the side of the ostriches with their heads in the sand? According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change (and hundreds of other climatoligists), “The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation.”
Let’s be grateful we have skilled scientist that are capable of providing us the warning that they have. Don’t shoot the messangers because you don’t like the message.
In business school, I was taught that, if you have data, however incomplete, use it. Some knowledge will undoubtedly bring you closer to the truth than complete denial of the data. As an industry, our fight should not be against the scientific community that knows a whole lot more about the climate issue than we do. We need to fight for greater efficiencies and more responsible use of natural resources in order to better serve even more RV enthusiast with ever greater value for their spending on leisure pursuits. The Detroit automakers have historically fought the demand for greater economy with armies of lawyers. The Japanese automakers fought with engineers. Who’s winning?