Your comment here... + 
Some societies have chosen, for some issues, to make economics/ efficiency NOT the only measure. [e.g. for this reason in Israel] the privatization of prisons is illegal. A change in economic thinking--not technological per se, but away from the virtue of selfishness (reinforced worldwide by the economic crash of '08-09). Realization that Ayn Rand selfish absolutism doesn't/ won't work. MO: + 
In Denmark they charge for plastic bags, individual wealth is discouraged, there's a high minimum wage, social pressure to not be super-rich. JB: + 
Your comment here... + 
This is the logo for the New Jerusalem Talmud site. 
		  The New Jerusalem Talmud site is an innovative approach
		  to discourse about important issues. Examples are Population Control,
		  Abortion, Iran, Evolution, Economics, Meat Money. If you are interested in 
		  joining the discussion register and have your say.  
Climate Change

Bookmark and Share   Click here to register for the site.

  This is the logo for the New Jerusalem Talmud. More SEO info
		  should be included in this tag.
GW dramatizes our interconnectivity like nothing else, as both problem and solution, stimulating our imaginations. JS: + 
Even though some conservatives are finally beginning to accept the reality of climate change, there is still an alarming number, at least in America, who still refuse to accept it as a scientific fact. Particularly among our politicians, one often hears something along the lines of, "Well, I'm not a scientist, but I won't accept that humans are causing global warming until I see enough evidence." Meanwhile, virtually ALL of the scientific community has verified that global climate change is the reality with which we are faced, and that humans are having an immense impact on its almost unchecked progression. CH: + 
Identity can be defined as: when there's a crisis, who are you? DD: + 
We need to break this tendency to lump all together MM: + 
Your comment here... + 
Conservatives & liberals (right & left) break down across all issues: tend to be on opposites sides of religious/secular, abortion, terror war, Israel/Palestine, taxes, corporate power, etc; climate change really should transcend this simple polarity but in my experience, it doesn't. JS: + 
There are various levels of influence: Government, NGO, Corporation, Individual.  There also various scales upon which to look at the issue: nation, continent, bioregion, planet. MM: + 
We need a change in the economic paradigm- the current one's short-term values almost force corporations/ society to pollute. SJ: + 
We're using billion-year-old sunlight vs. everyday current 'democratic' sunlight  JS: + 
Capitalism is the only actor that has the scale, speed, & flexibility to make the global changes that are necessary. When they move beyond greenwashing it has huge effect.  JS: + 
Your comment here... + 
CH:Cory Howell, RS:Robert Schlumberger, JB:Jesse Berkowsky, YM:Yitzchok Marmelstein, EZ:Eliezer Zinn
Global Warming-- Human-caused. Is it happening and how fast? Is it bad and/or dangerous for human and other life on earth? How should we understand and deal with it scientifically, politically, and morally?
Add a comment to the disscussion... + 

What bothers each of us personally about climate change, global warming? Is it humans, or nature, suffering? What does climate change mean to you or me? SJ: + 
We need to break GW down into its separate sub-debates: science, politics, morals, economics, more? MM: + 
Is the planet ill? Is GW a symptom of which humans are a natural part/cause?  Like a fever raising your temperature to help you heal from infection. EZ: + 
330 million years of carbon burned up in decades. We SEE change happening in our lifetimes, causing our repentance? DD: + 
GW is a good paradigm to guide global envir. policy: Stopping GW & its associated pollution reinforces other inherently good values and positive changes. MO: + 
But it seems like to combat GW a top-down coercive world govt and less freedom is needed, in order to pursue the debatable goal of 'saving the planet' (which may not be in our power anyway.) Many seeming critics of GW justly fear this--and value more highly individual autonomy and more freedoms even if it means more anarchic policy, since power is almost always abused. MM: + 

That individual freedom &autonomy is like a birthright, the American dream--Founding Fathers' ideal was only the minimum gov't necessary.  The point where the individual has to meet the beyond is the key place to understand GW/ environmentalism/ protest in general and figure out how to act.

SJ: + 
Your comment here... + 
We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere-- a pretty much closed system-- by over 50% (to 390ppm) since the industrial revolution. Bottom line is, this unquestionably makes the earth warmer. This is the scientific consensus--most 'debates' deal with specific ways the climate might change more or less or where or how, but don't challenge this. YM: + 

We're accelerating the natural rate of change, some species can't adapt.

Global Warming plus other pollution & impacts is leading to major extinction.

EM: + 
Can we regionalize climate change, and distinguish local, regional and global effects? MO: + 
The sets forth a whole lot of information in grafts and print that have never been addressed by the said scientific community that supports the myth of global warming being caused by man. All the propaganda against this .org site and its authors amounts to attacking the messenger thus leaving the data and information available unchallenged in a scientific way. And in part what this site has done is challenge the supposed data presented by the supposed scientific community that supports the myth the global warming is a product of Humans. While there is a \"Climate Gate\" that exposed the supposed scientist that present data to support human caused climate change, there is no such tarnish that can be placed on the scientist that present on the site or any other site that goes against the media propagated baloney that is presented as science. My first introduction to this subject presented itself in 1969 when I came across the fact that Albert Einstein and Maxwell had devoted time to the problem of the polar ice melting. This is to say that this is not a new subject to me. While Einstein might not be considered a climatologist Maxwell is possibly the first climatologist. Einstein had offered an explanation comparing the phenomenon to unplugging an icebox. He did not support this Human connection back then, But what the hell, What does he know? He is not a climatologist. rnOver the years I have come to realize that there are many out there who would \"rather believe a lie\". If you get a concordance and a bible you can lick up that verse. Having said that, enough evidence has been offered in the site first mention for any thinking person who can accurately sift through facts to come up with an informed decision. rnOut side of the above suggested reading would be \"Propaganda\" by Edward Bernays and \"Rules for Radicals\" by Saul Alinsky. These would help those who would care to understand wh RS: + 
4-11-81 Lubavich Rebbe Birkat ha Hama: Rabbinical encouragement of solar energy--how can we better receive the sun's 'shefa' (abundance). JS: + 
Your comment here... + 
Middle class uses far more resources than poor (compare CFC or general carbon emissions in western countries vs. developing countries). DD: + 
CC is a "silent killer" sea level rise  and drought/desertification occur gradually. Most deaths in the deadliest natural disasters are attributable to faulty policy YC: + 
Your comment here... + 

How to Read and Use The New Jerusalem Talmud

New Jerusalem Talmud pages are organized/ laid out as 'Dafs', or pages in a unique format guided by the structure of the ancient Jewish Talmud.

  • The middle column at the top starts with a list of the participants/ contributors ('Tanaim').
  • Then, near the top of the middle column in the biggest font, is the "Mishnah": a concise statement of the issue, problem, or controversy.
  • Below that is the "Gemara" or main discussion: distilled, brief phrases encapsulating the most outstanding points and central flow of the discussion.
    • This is not a simple article, summary, or standard text debate; rather, it is something that is probably new to you. The phrases have been chosen, through a lengthy editorial process, to be the essential bones of a deeper exploration of the issue. They require 'learning' rather than just reading: an engaged, often difficult, and ideally partnered ('hevruta') approach: two people sit with the 'daf' in front of them and attempt to understand why each piece was included, and to respond and reflect what they read. The discussion as printed is designed to be incomplete: it requires your participation, through this process of 'learning', to be fully fleshed out, hopefully in a way which provokes you as ''talmidim" to bring your own insights and depth to the issue.
  • To each side are columns- the second and fourth columns- in a slightly smaller font than the middle column.
    • These are 'Rashis' or background/ support/ documentation/ context.
    • They are loosely thematic, filled with the most salient side points, data, or well-established positions relating to the central topic.
    • There are often links to sources on the different sides or perspectives.
    • These can be essential to the discussion, yet are usually not 'chidushim' (original to this debate):
      • rather they are things-you-should-know to really grasp the full contextuality of the main discussion.
  • On the far right and far left are smaller columns with smaller font.
  • These are the 'tosefot' or tangents:
    • interesting and relevant side points,
    • directions for further exploration,
    • anecdotes,
    • and sources or noted thinkers or scholars whose work touches upon the main issue.
  • Once you have registered and logged in, you can join the discussion!
    • Click on 'add a comment to the discussion' in the central column if you want to respond directly to the main issue.
    • Click on 'your comment here' in any other column you would like to add your two cents.
    • Click on the '+' symbol at the end of any existing comment if you would like to respond to it directly.
    • Your comment will be moderated by our editorial staff and should appear shortly.
    • Rather than simply go down indefinitely in one text column like most blogs, your comment will appear where it is most relevant.

One 'learns' a 'daf' of the New Jerusalem Talmud by sitting down and facing the issue, with the page in front of you and a learning partner across from you.

  • The goal is to get beyond the simple polarizations and platitudes that so often define and limit our relationship with major issues.
  • Any real engagement with a major controversy requires nuance, context, and depth; if it was so simple, there would not be a debate at all.
  • There may be more than two sides.
  • There may be several levels of a controversy, levels of understanding it, levels of its impact on individuals, societies, and the planet.
  • Even when one side is outright WRONG about something, the simple fact that they exist necessitates an attempt to understand their perspective and priorities, in order to have a hope for conversation, communication, or accomodation or compromise (or better, ultimately: consensus).
Lost Password 17 Tiberias Street, Jerusalem, 94543, Israel            IL: (972) 546-214-658, US: 914-417-4478                         4 Directions Blog

So today, we wanted to look at the subject of climate change. I would like to have a chance to have everyone really properly introduce yourselves but b’kitzur I want to just say ‚?? I want everyone to say their name ‚?? but I want to introduce Yedidya Sinclair. He’s from the Jewish Climate Initiative, and… does a lot of work in this field. Yaakov Justin Consor is a climatologist, [&] meteorologist, [with] considerable graduate & study experience, & work, in that field. Micha Odenheimer and Shaul Judelman are established educators in the field of Jewish Environmental Education… with some really impressive projects that are… out there in the world.

I’m Matthew Mausner, I’ve been working on this for a couple of years. And it’s a labor of love, and I’ve come to understand how the original Talmud took several hundred years to be created… So I appreciate your participation and your patience.

EM I’m Elan, and I study trees.
YM I’m Yitzhak and I study Rav Kook.
DD I’m David Drapkin ….social work…
SA I’m Sarah Warner.
GG I’m Gershon I study, practice, & teach architecture.
JR I’m Jesse, [study labor relations]
MR Michelle Raz.

MM So this is a big topic. And not all of us necessarily know every one of the details. I’ve included here a scholarly conference [Monk Debates-ed.] where they presented what they considered the two sides of the discussion. Whether it’s a proper representation of that…it’s decent. It’s a good place to start. So… you have a chance to peek through that…and… open up the floor.

MM Global Warming! Is it happening, is it good, is it bad, are we…at fault? What do you guys have to say?

EM To open it up, there are patterns on the planet that change over time, that is seen throughout our glacial record and moving through times of – I think we’re now in a great time of glacial-less? A pretty ice-less planet. However with that being said, my understanding from the sources I’ve seen and the learning I’ve done is that what we’re doing isn’t necessarily ‚?? what we’re doing is accelerating the natural rate of change that would be happening. And the problem is that the world’s ecosystems aren’t able to adjust at the rate we’ve accelerated it to. So you have species that can’t move this fast. So you have coral reefs that can’t move this fast…enough. And are subsequently perishing…. under this pressure. And that coupled with many other environmental pressures of pollution and overfishing and overharvesting are converging in a global extinction, a major global extinction. Which to me is davka the point, why we’re consciously …stopping climate change is to.. protect species. For me that’s one of the things… [where] I’m coming from.

SJ Can I ask [the?] question… why do you care about climate change? What bothers YOU about climate change? That’s a different conversation than … this discussion?

MM As in it’s — an emotional issue for people, not just a scientific issue?

SJ OK because personally, a lot the different [parts of] climate change are… slowly affecting us. Is it for future generations? Is it about species? From what stems my… ….where are all my motivations…?

YM …SOMEthing’s happening. Just the amount of… All this stuff we’ve been spewing [into the atmosphere] all these years… it’s like a… semi-closed system. Can’t help but have some…impact. Pshat…And there’s species dying. There’s species dying around us.

MO What I would… What Elan said…I’m not a climatologist and there’s so much information out there … If to stop climate change you had to…pollute the ocean, let’s say. And I might say wait, let’s… think a bit and, look at this… [but] The Stopping climate change seems to actually be taking actions that will be important and HELPFUL and significant in the broader range of things that ARE [capital?] that we KNOW are [desirable?] whether or not climate change is [harmful?] over a long period of time, the data… … the system that’s been created now, it’s you know, Russia is going to fish out the Indian Ocean of all its fish in order to sell it to Mexico, it’s part of the tikun we have to do for climate change will also make us look better— look more closely at that. So I… It’s part of a larger issue of having to, start to begin to understand that we can’t just do anything, but what we do has many many effects…

MM So in a sense you’re saying that having global warming be the driving motivator of changing our life patterns positively reinforces other positive changes.

MO Yes, exactly.

YC I tend to agree with Micha … it’s not necessarily so clear exactly to what degree humans… for instance our greenhouse gases are.. causing global warming but… it is clear that humans have a very strong impact on the environment. And it is clear that by changing our practices, making them more environmentally friendly, we could have an impact on many, wide areas of healthier… reverse environmental damage.

You know it’s not just about greenhouse gases. There’s many other areas where humans are affecting the climate. In fact There are studies which suggest that land surface changes such as cutting down forests, changing land from agricultural to urban, sprawl growth etc. may be more responsible for climate change than greenhouse gases. And it’s certainly more responsible for other problems esp. flooding in certain areas, droughts in other areas.

MM Before we get too far into the general human impact on the environment, I think it’s important to make a distinction here. Between Climate Change as THE issue, or where does climate change fit in all these other issues of overfishing, deforestation, different kinds of pollution, and all these sorts of things.

Also because, in terms of, “well, it’s a win-win situation to fight climate change,” there’s certainly opinions that it’s NOT [win-win], in the sense that we do have a finite amount of resources and… policy capital to move towards environmental change. And there are people who say that if we do everything that environmentalists dream… of what the Kyoto Protocols, and if we did all this other stuff just geared towards carbon offsets and climate change, we still might have complete collapse of fisheries, complete collapse of soils, genetically engineered organisms might cause massive unpredictable die-offs in the environment… and that’s if it becomes much colder in the next ten years!

So there’s a question of resource allocation as well. Is this the, the paradigm that we want to guide our, trying to shift our collective human policy towards the environment.

MO I think one of the reasons that it COULD be a good paradigm is that it’s not… you can’t regionalize it. Like [unclear]…. it kind of blows up in this kind of intensified globalization, borders… if that’s…relevant.

YM the act of working together to fix this would be part of the tikun.

SJ It’s a real Tragedy of the Commons issue. What it brings with it is that whole idea of – Commons. Which is – [CC/GW] causes a fantastic sense of global unity, and the globe as a whole, and a global identity. He’s [MO] right that it’s abstracted from the regional. But for me that’s why it’s this whole slew of things that take us farther and farther away… because my [connection to] them is based on me being a global citizen. Which is a very interesting idea, of how much we actually live…the more we get our minds focused on…being a global citizen. How much can we live there? How much do we live there? As opposed to…most of that list of environmental problems, What seems more real for me [than] deforestation and global warming and extinctions is… really for me at the core of the problem is, we, for *me, am living a life that I’m spewing out all these pollutants into my surroundings

SJ … for me I’d really like the…fundaments of…an anthro-centric, or me-centric, ME, I’m the one who’s doing this, the problem for me is as an individual, and every other human being as individual, and going from there as opposed to going from the global problem and trying to track it down…

MO You prefer the individual?

SJ I prefer the individual. I do…in a lot of ways… as against the abstract. It’s always a real challenge to bring it back to the person. It’s too [easy] to feel…disenfranchised.

GG With what Shaul’s saying, starting with that, that’s also what I was thinking, that…they all speak about what’s going to happen to the planet…and I think the basic idea of health of the body..

SW: Another question which I think sounds the same but I think is extremely different is what is Israel‚??s role? I‚??ve been thinking about it ‚?? Israel, geographically is maybe one of the only places in the world, surely the only place this small, that is perfectly suited for every kind of alternative energy ‚?? wind (Golan), sun (Negev). I‚??m really into the wave energy ‚?? I think wave energy‚??s really exciting. Have any of you guys seen this technology ‚?? go on and type “wave energy.”

We have algae, we have the sea. In other words, we have the framework as Israelis that very few countries have to do everything, with every alternative source [of energy]. It sort of reinforces what you were saying that Israel is a place which sees prophecy, and therefore, it‚??s understood that we should be set up for that‚?¶.
Solar in Israel is going to be big.

YM: There‚??s also the electric car.

YC: The government in Israel has been very obstructionist regarding wave energy, unfortunately. This guy who‚??s done most of the research, he‚??s had to go out to Africa and other places to find consumers for his products.

?: Why?

YC: Yes, there‚??s certain political reasons.

MO: The solar lobby?

YC: Yes, I‚??m not sure exactly why.

SW: So you float a pontoon on water, and the way it comes, it makes the [water] go up and down like wind would do. And it‚??s really cool. The question is, how do you get the owners of oil to be interested In the change. Because, from the Wall Street point of view, if you can get them on board, we can all play Frisbee.

MM: Right. That points to a big thing which is, how do the economics of all this work together. Because, in the policy making world today, economics is still God, so to speak. Even if something is considered an inherent good, it has to, not necessarily be justified, but it has to work with the economics of the people involved. So, all these projects to encourage stopping of deforestation, or use of alternative energy ‚?? there have to be reasons for the individual. Individual people make choices about where to purchase their this or where to build their this or where to do their that, and everybody has economic pressure in their decisions.

A friend of mine who‚??s here in spirit (he‚??s in Jakarta in body), works for the Nature Conservancy. The past few years. They tasked him out to go save Borneo, to save all the rain forests there. They said, go make a $100 million project happen, to give incentive to all these businesses in Borneo to use carbon offsets from other places to not cut down the rain forests. Now, they didn‚??t give him $100 million; that would have made his life a lot easier. But, what he did was he tried to coordinate a tremendous amount of companies in the West to buy carbon offsets, and specific companies in Indonesia who have a specific economic incentive to sell their willingness not to cut down certain forests in exchange for a certain [amount of] money. So, this economic incentive for carbon offsets is one of the main languages that the world is talking about for climate change policy. I don‚??t know if it‚??s the best way to go about it, I don‚??t know if it‚??s the only way to go about it, but how does economics play into all this?

MO: A couple of days ago, there was a big victory in my mind for Israeli society, which is that the Supreme Court decided that the privatization of prisons is illegal, despite that the Knesset passed a law allowing it. One of the things that the justices said was that economics and efficiency are not the only method for things. I think that they‚??ll find a way to own the sun, unless there‚??s a shift in the economic thinking. I don‚??t think globalization is about technology. It also is, but it‚??s about victory for a certain period of time. There may have started a shift about a year ago which the Supreme Court decision is a part of. I think part of the reason that they were able to make that decision is because I don‚??t think that anyone can argue after last year‚??s crash that capitalism is somehow superficial.

What I wanted to say is that I think the shift is going to have to be more than just technological. If the same people that control oil companies will end up also controlling the wave technology, they‚??ll find a way to screw that up. If there isn‚??t a strong kavanah that things have to be done for the common good, even if you‚??re trying to make some profit (and everyone wants to make parnasah, and that‚??s legitimate), they‚??ll find a way to screw it up. So I think there‚??s a big shift that has to take place from the idea that selfishness is the actually the most efficient and the best thing that‚??s going to drive the economy and create growth. If there‚??s not a major shift in all that, then I don‚??t think the whole thing will work. But I think that shift is definitely possible.

JB: I completely agree with what you‚??re saying. [I was talking to Matthew], I lived in Denmark for a while. They‚??re on the cutting edge of that. It‚??s all about policy. Their taxes are through the roof ‚?? a packet of [?] costs 25 cents. It‚??s unbelievable ‚?? they tax everything.

They give out plastic bags [in Israel] like they‚??re candy. I go to 5 different guys to get 5 different vegetables, and I get 5, maybe 6, plastic bags. [In Denmark], you have to pay about half a dollar for one plastic bag. So it‚??s unbelievable, but it really does work. And, I‚??m sure you know, Denmark‚??s really with it. They on Project Better Place; they‚??re at the cutting edge of all that stuff.

SW: Any of you guys see the movie ‚??Who Killed the Electric Car?‚?Ě It‚??s a documentary, and it‚??s hard to find; you can find the trailer on It‚??s basically a story about how GM only developed electric cars as a joke, to please the government to get funds.

What I was saying is that there‚??s a documentary, that‚??s absolutely right on ‚?? it‚??s called ‚??Who Killed the Electric Car?‚?Ě It documents that GM went right into electric cars back in the late 1980s and early 1990s assuming (and they have documents from internally) that it would never work. But they gained a lot of publicity and a lot of tax dollars. So they went to it assuming it ain‚??t gonna work, and no one‚??s going to want it anyway. Well guess what ‚?? it worked really well, and people wanted it. So they started doing shredding of whole fleet of electric cars. And this undercover reporter actually goes to the car shredding line and asks the manager, a Hispanic man, ‚??Hey, what‚??s up man? Why are you shredding the cars?‚?Ě He‚??s basically got orders from GM to shred thousands of brand new working electric cars. Because the moment they realized the technology works, and people would buy them, they had to kill the electric car, and that‚??s what they did. We would have been here 20 years ago had GM not done that. It‚??s a really important documentary, it‚??s hard to find; it‚??s called ‚??Who Killed the Electric Car.‚?Ě


MM: Which really confirms Micha‚??s point, which is that the people with the power, a lot of these things that improve the common good, improve democratic values and access to sustainable technologies, they have incentive for their own profit margins to really work against the common good. Thomas Friedman‚??s idea that oil is definitely connected to repressive regimes, there‚??s a certain truth to that. There‚??s a political undercurrent to this whole discussion, and to the whole discussion that‚??s happening in the world, and you see that with the Obama type people. People who believe in some sort of revolution are very much in favor of using this argument‚?¶ it‚??s part of their whole thrust towards creating some sort of worldwide combination of incentives and disincentives (coercion) against companies to act more responsibly.

And there‚??s another angle of that the revolution is towards individual action to the shefa that comes down from the sun, like we‚??re saying ‚?? that each one of us can actually be present in enjoying the shefa of being alive on god‚??s earth and not be dependent and not be coerced. So, this tension between freedom and top-down, for you own good central planning‚?¶ Maybe what we‚??re really talking about when we talk about this is what kind of world do we want, what kind of freedom do we want.

Maybe we want a totally anarchic kind of world where we each can do our own thing and charge up all of our own stuff with little solar panels, and nobody can tell us what to do. But that means we can‚??t tell somebody else not to do something that we disagree with. And, the other side of that is ‚?? we have a perfectly regulated world (Denmark writ large), where there‚??s tremendous disincentive against anyone being rich, but there might also be tremendous disincentive against anyone growing a beard. You know, there‚??s two sides to this.