Sports Illustrated tackles global warming; points to athletes making a difference
A recent issue of Sports Illustrated examined how global warming is affecting sports and athletes. The TV show Living on Earth this week interviewed the story's co-author, David Epstein, and features a transcript on its website.Some of the more obvious concerns involve heat exhaustion or Nordic skiers not having any snow. But Epstein also looked at auto racing and how the sport is changing.
"There's not a cohesive movement right now. Well in some sports there are. Let's say in some of the driving sports, which maybe can make a big difference. In the clean air act of 1970 which said, you know, new consumer cars would have to run on unleaded fuel, race cars were actually exempt so they don't have to comply with that. But NASCAR is now going to comply with it anyway and they're mixing in ethanol into their fuels. And Indy Car is going to 100 percent ethanol, and F-1 is introducing hybrids and ethanol, things like that. And obviously their emissions are a drop in the bucket but how far is it from a NASCAR driver to a NASCAR fan in terms of being conscious about ethanol," said Epstein.
He also pointed to athletes that are making environmentalism a personal issue, the way other athletes are philanthropic in their off-field activities. He noted that Steve Gleason of the New Orleans Saints drives a biodiesel truck and started a foundation called One Sweet World that's devoted to sustainability.
[Source: Steve Curwood/Living on Earth]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dirk Dundenburg 11:04AM (3/18/2007)
What hypocrisy. I'm sure all those athletes do is think about climate change while they drive thier H2's, planes and boats and live in 20 000 sq. ft. mansions.
Reply
larry Lubell 3:22PM (3/28/2007)
People do listen to sports stars.
“Scientific consensus?”
Monday, March 19th, 2007
http://urbaninsuranceagency.com/blog.php?content=displayPost&id=88
In response to My posting on Global Warming Robert Rosenberg wrote the following reply. I must say that there is a great deal of Validity to his informed comments.
I am more convinced than ever that no trumpeting of “scientific consensus,” no UN press release and no press conference can obscure the fact that the theories on anthropogenic (human caused) climatic forcing are far from proved. Neither is the opposing case proved, however. The documentary to which you linked does a good job, not necessary illustrating a scientific case against global warming, but showing the case for uncertainty.
Here’s the problem: all the ethanol generation has increased competition for corn supplies. The price of corn has more than doubled in the last year. This is not a huge factor in American food prices (little corn is actually eaten here; it is mostly used as animal feed, and constitutes a relatively small, but not inconsiderable factor in the cost of raising livestock). The price of corn meal throughout Latin America has skyrocketed, however. Corn meal is a staple food from Mexico south. People are starving right now as a consequence of our concern with carbon budgeting. I’ve read estimates that as many as 5,000 – 15,000 additional people will starve this year alone in Latin America as a consequence of increased corn prices. And for what? So we can feel self-righteous and pure? I call this the Prius effect.
The question is what should we do. By ”We” I mean the average consumer, as well as The US. and UN lawmakers and policy makers? Do we do nothing till we have super computers capable of creating valid models. Do we just cross our fingers and wait? Does complexity mandate inaction?
Is there anything we can or should do that fits with my concept that people come first?
http://urbaninsuranceagency.com/quote.htm
Urban Insurance Agency Blog
http://urbaninsuranceagency.com
Reply