Open Thread – Global Warming
An open thread for members of the Post-Carbon London group that wish to discuss the broad impacts of global warming, and their implications for London and the world. This thread is intended to continue the informative and free-wheeling debate between 'consensus' and 'contrarian' views of climate change and its role with regards to peak oil. Posters in this somewhat contentious discussion are encouraged to "Think Global, Act Local – and Play Nice!"
Post Carbon London (Ontario)
Want to join this group?
To get started, you'll need to create an account - or, if you already have an account on this website, login.
User login
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 275 guests online.
December 21st, 2006
What people think they need to do
This is very revealing, people themselves, obviously quite aware of the true hidden agenda of taxing green.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=P30&blog...
Especially the first one:
"It is not global warming we should worry about but the running out of resources to support any reasonable way of life. The real answer is to not to be profligate in our use of any materials. Simplfy one's life and defeat government scare campaigns and the need for higher taxation. Of course if the resources run out it will get colder if we are the supposed cause of all the problems ; billions will die either way and the problem will be solved."
Hmmmm, seems someone here has been trying to make that point too!
Richard
Komoka.
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
December 21st, 2006
Britain as a testing ground
I was pointed out to me in another post that Britain is an example we need to follow.
Better read this first:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/30/dl...
Including the comments afterwards.
Let's see if their "experiment" works first. I don't think it will. Taxation will be a disaster for them, just watch.
Richard
Komoka
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
December 21st, 2006
So much for "consensus"
For all of you who think the science is settled and AGW is a fact, you had better read the link that Shane posted. Thanks Shane!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/...
Seems there is an awful lot of deception going on to further a political hidden agenda!
AGW is pseudoscience.
Richard
Komoka
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
December 21st, 2006
reply to Richard re: carbon and climate
I am slightly ammused by your stance that issues of powering down are not achievable, our Victorian cities reflect an urban pattern that required significantly less power to drive the activities of those cities and this is not an unreasonable urban pattern to examine when considering future ways to power down. I presume it is fair of me to say that the issue of Peak Energy sources will hit us before we really know about how we should behave with climate change, but sometimes there is a gut reaction to information that would seem to over-ride pure science and verification. At this stage it is carbon that is seen as the culprit.... is there anything wrong with this - because most energy pathways seem to create so much of it, that control of carbon may assist in powering down our energy consumption.
The interesting thing is that both climate and power are connected on this issue of carbon and does it really matter if we as a population can not convince ourselves that perhaps carbon is a potential immpact to climate change... reducing our energy consumption will reduce carbon... we have to reduce energy consumption.... and only then can we see if there will be a change.
A couple of weeks ago The Sunday Telegraph Newspaper carried many reviews of the Stern Report, one of the opinions cast by a writer was that all road building should be stopped- that is if we want to start tackeling carbon emmissions. I for one support this idea, it is a strong idea, easily understandable and the impacts to society are fairly forecastable. I see no point in the Prov. Gov. road mission with the super highways and nor do I see any virtue in investing in an infrastructure that would seemed to be doomed to lower usage in the near future and yet we will be paying off these infrastructural costs for years to come.
I think that manners is required towards the hypothesis of carbon and climate change and this is something that is so lacking in the current Fed. Gov. approach to Canada's stewardship of our environment. This week, the new announcement for the use of ethanol is a clear example of the duplicitous nature of the current politicians- surely if clean air were important- stopping road building and developing a systematic withdrawl from other road systems would be a better approach than 2% ethanol requirement... to put this issue of how we think about roads we need only look at the context for London. The current draft document on how the City of London will spend her Gas Tax money, in part, will secure 21 million dollars for road works.... this does not seem to be a good investment.... nor a sustainable approach.
I attach a link to another Sunday Telegraph article in reply to the Stern Report by Christopher Monckton on his opinions on climate change- they are anti carbon but worth the read
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/...
.... my vote is still carbon impact on climate, but other viewpoints welcoome.
shane
December 21st, 2006
Power down and political hidden agendas
I'm not saying power down is not achievable. It is. What I'm saying is people are expecting us to adhear to Kyoto AND keep our standard of living. That is not achievable. You have 3 choices to power down. Reduce energy consumption by 80%, along with the consequences to life and the economy. You can reduce the population by 80%, but by what mechanism? Or a combination of the two (Oil depletion will do this). Regardless which one to force it on the population is deceptive if the known consequences are dramatic drop in standard of living. Go tell auto workers that their 9-5 $80K+ per year jobs will be eliminated and they must work for $10 per day 14 hours per day 7 days a week shoveling manure. Go ahead and tell them that is what they must do to adhear to Kyoto and then come and tell me how much support you will get for it. Zippo!
Yes, and peak oil will do that naturally, as a consequence of depletion. The economy will collapse, civilization will collapse, if past human history is any lesson, quite likely violently, then level off at some point as we were in the Dark Ages. But by then people won't care about global warming as their main concern will be surviving. they may actually need warmer winters to survive. Coastal cities flooded? No one will care by then.
Agreed. The money should be funneled into the items I noted on another thread. More railways, more horses, more local farming, and more greenhouses.
Agreed. No federal government, including the Liberals with their all mouth and no action, will do anything that will change the course of growth. No government, not even an NDP or a Green one will be able to pull off a power down. The public and business would rebel.
Will check it out. Bottom line for me is that
A) oil/gas depletion will occure first, which will trigger an economic collapse.
b) this will come before any effect of AGW will be a problem for "modern" society because that will have pasted
c) there is no way you can power down voluntarily and keep our standard of living, that is not achievable and is a lie to give the public the impression that they can.
d) no government of any stripe will invoke a massive power down, especially once the public sees what it does to their life style.
e) human nature what it is, will mean the collapse will most likley be violent, hopefully short lived.
f) the resulting Post Carbon Era will be akin to the dark ages at first, then rebound to something similar to the 1700's, but that's not for a 1,000 years or more. (pure speculation of course, no way we will know.)
Richard
Komoka
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
December 18th, 2006
What I think of Elizabeth May and David Suzuki
Rather than telling you what I think of Elizabeth May and David Suzuki, I will attach some letters that tell the story of why they are a couple of phony environmentalists just trying to earn a living and be politically correct.
Exhibit 1:
A letter written by a friend of mine complaining to a representative of the David Suzuki Foundation about their lack of a position on the problem of runaway population growth in Canada:
========================================================================
To: byourish@davidsuzuki.org
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:10 PM
Subject: climate change and population growth
Brian Yourish,
Let me ask you this question. What would be the point of cutting our per capita energy consumption in half if we were to then double our population? What is the point of telling me to reduce my "ecological footprint" if it is only to make room for more migrants? Why should I keep baling water out of a leaky boat when people like you won't even discuss plugging the leak?
It used to be, decades ago, that environmentalists agreed on the "I=PAT" formula. That is, in assessing the environmental impact ("I") of a given socio-economic arrangement, you took the population level ("P"), multiplied by the affluence of that society, that is its level of consumption ("A") times the sophistication of the technology ("T"). But in deference to political correctness, our modern crop of "environmentalists" have cast aside "P" altogether. Oh they might concede that Third World countries are over-populated but they choose instead to point the finger at our disproportionate consumption levels. They will applaud birth control and reproductive choice for women but will not even touch the issue of immigration, which fuels two-thirds of our population growth. In fact "Green" politicians like Jack Layton lobby for a Canada of 40 million people all the while arguing for windmills, retro-fitting houses and cutting green-house emissions. Green Party leader Elizabeth May threatened to change the name of Sierra Canada if her American sister organization adopted Paul Watson's plan to re-instate Sierra Club USA's policy to stabilize the US population through immigration reductions. Ms. May is apparently not in the least disturbed at the thought of there being 700 million Americans living south of the 49th by the end of the century, up from its current 300. For her, for Jack Layton, for David Suzuki, for the Green Party, for the Sierra Club north and south, for the NDP, for your foundation, for almost the entire "green" movement, runaway human population growth can happily co-exist with bio-diversity, zero-energy growth and a conserver society.
I say sir, that you are a fraud and a phoney. You are worse than Harper , worse than Bush, worse than the climate-change deniers because you siphon off the energy, time and money of people who want to do something but are being deflected away from the core of the problem.
What can be said of the Sierra Club, the Green Party and the NDP can be said of you: YOU ARE A CHICKEN-SHIT COWARDLY HEAD-IN-THE-SAND YUPPIE FEEL-GOOD ORGANIZATION not worth my time even less my money.
PS Does David Suzuki's pro-immigration stance flow from a visceral need to settle a score with Anglo-Canadian society for its war-time mistreatment of his family? I saw a TV interview where he delighted in the multiracial transformation of Canadian cities. Its ironic that this "cultural" diversity which he applauds will come at the expense of the "biological" diversity which he has championed. Does his social agenda trump his environmental integrity?
========================================================================
EXHIBIT 2 (A letter from www.npg.org urging a reform of Elizabeth May's corrupt Sierra Club which is accepting huge private donations in exchange for being pro population growth and pro immigration)
========================================================================
ATTENTION SIERRA CLUB MEMBERS!
NPG recommends Alan Kuper to be elected to the Board of The Sierra Club.
Alan Kuper, Ph.D, a physicist known as "Mr. Sierra Club" in Cleveland is retired from research and teaching (Bell Laboratories, Case Western Reserve Univ.) He joined the Club and became an active leader in 1973. He and his wife are Life Members, devoted to the Club. He has numerous environmental awards including two national Sierra Club awards. Beginning in 1990, Kuper organized population-environment committees in all seven Groups of the Ohio Sierra Club Chapter. He served on the Club's Population Committee from 1992-96. He is a long-time NPG member, well known for his advocacy of NPG goals. In 2000 he founded CUSP-Comprehensive (approach to) U.S. Sustainable Population to recognize the threat to the U.S. and global environment of runaway U.S. population growth and to deal with it comprehensively, i.e. growth from net natural increase but also net immigration, an approach that contrasts with that of the major environmental organizations which all maintain a conspiracy of silence on the subject of immigration.
We recommend Alan as one whose extensive Club experience will strengthen the Board. Also, we hope that he will be able to persuade the Board to implement its population policies, including most recently "The Sierra Club advocates reductions in the population of the United States and the world." (2003) and to lead the environmental movement in this.
We encourage you to sign the attached petition and return it to The Sierra Club offices using the information provided on the bottom of the form.
A copy of the petition in PDF is attached.
========================================================================
December 18th, 2006
Exposing social environementalism
NICE!!
As I suspected. Certainly makes one wonder at the motives of such people. Guess there was no reply from Suzuki.
Richard
Komoka
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
December 18th, 2006
Comparative Carbon Production Data
Here is a very interesting data-driven view of carbon and indistrial consumption across nations:
Energy Intensity: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002230.html
My take-away from this very well-researched essay and the comment threads is to note that there are countries with similar climates to Canada's that already produce much lower carbon-per-capita than we do. Getting from current levels to Swedish or Norwegian levels that are 50% of ours is clearly do-able.
Since not all economic production is equally carbon-intensive and substitution technologies exist in many fields that produce less carbon than we currently do, the path downwards to lower levels of carbon production, energy use, and reduction of unnecessary consumption does not have to be one of collapse, but can be one of adaptation.
Which, in my view, is what Post-Carbon London is about. To use Heinberg's metaphors, we are primarily engaged in community 'Powerdown', not in building 'Lifeboats'.
December 18th, 2006
Comparison of Energy usage
I read the link and all the comments. You can't compare Canada to Norway, much different country, much different population distribution. To make the claim that we use more energy than such-and-such country is a copout and tries to lay blame. We are gluttons, and energy hogs, and must reduce our energy use. Nonsence. There will be very ligitimate reasons why we use more, and any attempt to curb that usage to match some other nation would result in a severe economic shift that would put people out of work. Try explaining to them that they have to sacrifice their lives in order to have a perceived "level" playing field with some other country.
So this begs the question, assuming we are the gluttons we are made out to be, how do we change? What energy consumption gets curbed? It's one thing to blame us, it's another to give specific, workable, solutions, and understand the consequences of those solutions.
I'm going to make one suggestion to rattle the cage. If the above is true, if we need to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, and if AGW is a major threat to our civilization, then why don't I hear calls to eliminate all the "excesses", eliminate everything we do not absolutely need for individual survival. Example. No more sports. Sports is a luxury. No more hobbies, no more trips to the mall for fun. No more movies. No more vacations, shut travel for pleasure down (especially air travel). Nothing should remain but what is abolutely neccessary. Where is the line crossed?
I have yet to see one viable solution, one viable alternative. It's all talk with no suggestions. Power down? HOW????? Give me one workable suggestion, and its consequences.
Richard
Komoka
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
December 19th, 2006
Perhaps we can heat the place by burning straw men?
Richard, I believe that you are tilting at something a lot less substantial than windmills here, pointing out selected barriers, and ignoring opportunities proposed by others.
My operational framework is that Canadians can and will consume far less than we do currently, can and will have reduced 'Standards of Living', can and will live in a world of diminished energy use and carbon production – by at least 60% – and can and will lose our jobs and adapt to new localized ones. (And yes, to hop onto your other topic, we can and will do this in a nation and a world of dwindling population, due to declining birth rates and lower life expectancies.)
This is no big trick... many people in the world have done so before.
As for the Scandinavian comparison, it is very valid and useful, while of course not translating across wholesale: keep in mind that Canadians do not actually live in 'Canada', instead we live in a 100-mile wide strip glued to the US border, so making a sweeping a 'we can't do that here' statement based on scalar differences would be a strawman.
As for eliminating sports, I certainly don't think we will be wasting energy making ice rinks in summer, but I've never yet heard of a society without sports, and doubt that we'll be the first to create one here in Canada! Here is to the new Canadian pastime: Mud Hockey!
And as for your rhetorical approach that those who disagree with you have to prepare a 600 page white paper showing complete EROIE and EMERGY accounting proving our point, I notice that you place yourself under no similar obligation to prove it impossible. The next 10 years will solve the argument decisively in the 'Court of Objective Reality', and in the interim, much of what you as a 'Lifeboater' propose and what I as a 'Powerdowner' propose will turn out to be very similar in actual application. Both strategies have potential validity, and I expect both will be applied widely.
December 19th, 2006
So when will you tell the public?
I won't ignore any viable suggestions, when I hear them. Every solution has it's own set of problems that must be at least considered, and if possible solved. But I don't see that when alternatives are proposed to the public. Windmills is a perfect example. We are told that they will supply some 1.2 Megawatts of power each, enough to power x number of homes. What they do not tell you is that this is ONLY at maximum wind speed of 50km/hr, and the TRUE ACTUAL output is 20% of that when they do operate, which will only be 2-3 days per week. If that were told to the public how much support would one get for them? Zero. Certainly those who make these windmills know this. So is the truth deliberately being kept secret? I think so, no other logical explanation.
So for every proposal for power down I would also like to hear about the drawbacks, the consequences, and the costs. Because if you don't then I reserve my right to point them out. Better you hear it from me than later when you try to implement these solutions and find the problems hit you in the face unprepared. Or when you start to get opposition from the public, which eventually you will. You will need to be prepared.
THANKYOU!!!
Finally, after deliberately being ridiculous, I get someone to admit that adhering to Kyoto will reduce the standard of living for every person. I knew that the first I learned of Kyoto. So why is this being kept secret? Simple. If you were to come clean, tell the truth, the public will utterly reject Kyoto when they find out that there will be no more vacations, no more trips to the mall, loose their jobs, and loose their homes. Imagine Layton, May or Dion telling the public what adhering to Kyoto will cost every person. But instead of coming clean with the public, you hide this, hoping to side step that issue and have governments invoke Kyoto and then when the shockwave hits, you hope it will be too late. Socialism at it's best. Keep the public in the dark. (So who has the REAL hidden agenda!) But you are sadly mistaken. The population will react, they will fight back.
However, if you come clean now, and let it sink into people's minds over time, then maybe, just maybe they will accept their fate. But I'm not holding my breath on that either. Peoples who sole purpose in life is to get rich (which is just about everyone) is going to be a major roadblock.
You also do realize that power down, lowering the standard of living, will make the ecomomy collapse. My pension will be gone, my RRSP's will be gone (which is why I'm in the process of cashing them in to build my lifeboat). Unemployment will skyrocket and governments will not have the revenue to feed and house them. Will government then plunder the banks? Don't count on it, they will be just as broke as everyone else.
"dwindling population"? by what mechanism? War, starvation, freezing? Sounds like you're admitting to what my feelings about this are.
If the two contries have the same standard of living, but we consume more energy per person there must be a valid reason for that. If reducing our energy consumption to that of Norway, but it reduces our standard of living, then the comparison was wrong, period. It's only your OPINION that we should be compared. Show me the evidence to back it up.
I'm refering to commercial sports. People flying, driving to professional sports events, or any such activity, if it uses energy that should otherwise be used to heat people's homes. Don't think people will be too happy freezing in their homes while NHL players fly around the continent.
That's not how science works. I do not have to disprove anything. The person who gives the position must provide the evidence. That is how it works. You must prove your proposals work. Those of us who question, point out flaws, is what keeps the system honest.
Difference is I can show people what I have done to power down myself as an example. If not people will just sluff you off with "what are you doing. Nothing? Then why should I listen." Most people think I'm nuts. Fine, I consider myself a contrarian. Do the opposite of what the masses do. Thus I take such comments to mean I'm on the right track. As you note, time will tell.
Richard
Komoka
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
December 15th, 2006
global warming
Thanks Bev for suggested reading. My first GL fiction definitely reads like a war novel.
Richard - I have had my hopes up given Elizabeth May's results with the Sierra Club.
December 16th, 2006
Sierra vs politics
Running the Sierra Club and running government are two completely different things. There is no way the general public is going to accept what the Green Party advocates, nor the NDP, once they see what it will cost to adhere to Kyoto. Every person, every buisness, every store would have to reduce their CO2 by 60%, in a growing economy no less. Has anyone actually thought about what one must do to achieve that? You would have to shut your home down 60% of the time. No heat, no power, no driving, no food consumption. Impossible. If I'm wrong please show me specifically how one can reduce their CO2 footprint by 60%.
Richard
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
December 16th, 2006
global warming
Yes I realize no one is going to be popular by promoting actions that are impossible. London's footprint is 6.97x more than what it should be right up there with Canada's and how does that change.
Suzuki recommends GGE releases be cut 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050 and the only way to reduce Co2 with any impact is to stop burning fossil fuels.
The public from my experience relates more to exposure to particular air pollution than GW although the younger generation is very aware. I explain air quality issues first locally and then GW as well as practical conservation steps, sometimes with small incentives but education at best represents 20% of the steps toward individual solutions and it is a long process. The other 80% or more must come from policy that redirects behaviours and we have 3 governments to tackle in this regard. There seems to be so much to do but then we see Stern's report and now this British proposal to issue personal carbon allowances, so they are starting to respond to his concerns and this may influence other countries. What is your thought on that?
December 17th, 2006
Suzuki Not honest
Compared to what? What calculation gives 6.97x?
Since CO2 levels are 30% higher now than 1990, and by the time 2020 arrives the economy will have grown, including more people, that means more than a 25% reduction by then, much higher. This also applies to 2050. 80% of 1990 levels by then will be a whopping 99% by then. That virtually means a complete shut down. Since we have to heat our homes, transport to work, eat, then the only way we are going to get to a 99% reduction in CO2 is to remove, perminantly, 99% of the world's population. Since mass genocide is not on the agenda, then we can safely assume that this target is impossible to achieve. And Suzuki knows it. So him making this kind of statement is grossly misleading and dishonest. I used to respect the man as a scientist (I was once interviewed by him for a Star article long ago, but that is another story), but not today.
How? How do we wean society off fossil fuels without pushing us into the dark ages? Back to squabbling over the scraps of the day's kill? If I'm wrong explain to me how we can keep this party going? Or will you, all of your reading this, come to grips with the situtation and abandon any notion of "sustainable growth", because it's an oxymoron.
Richard
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
December 17th, 2006
global warming
Richard
The stats on footprints comes from respected NGO agencies who work with municipalities. You are welcome to explore the issue further through internet searches and discuss it with various sources promoting footprints.
Britain
You may choose to read up on it and ask them how they see it working. They plan to give everyone the same allowance for how much carbon dioxide they emit each year and carbon points are to be deducted when emissions occur. It is on the verge of becoming British government policy and the Environment Secretary hopes to have a pilot underway very soon before national rationing is organized.
I have read considerable discussion that has already taken place on our London elist on GW and others are not adding to this dialogue.
Unfortunately, I dont have time to write further comments as my time is generally spent with folks in London's environmental community on a host of issues or with environmental projects to engage citizens to make behaviour changes. In addition, Shane and I are working to establish a community energy plan which we hope will make some impacts as cities are a large cause of GW. London presently does not have one but many other cities do and therefore have targets and monitor their energy use.
ds
December 18th, 2006
Curbing CO2 Emissions
This does not mean it will work to reduce CO2 without economic impact. If someone goes over their quota does that mean they pay more to heat their homes? What happens on an exceptionally cold winter and everyone MUST go over their quotas to keep warm? What happens to the money collected from this? What happens to people who go over their quota but cannot pay? Before you try to implement some form of this here in London, you'd better have all the bases covered.
I'd most definitely like to see this. Any chance we can meet together to discuss?
Richard
Komoka
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
December 18th, 2006
global warming
Summary comments
No thoughts to bring London England's project to London Ontario. Dont know where you got that idea.
You need to do your homework about London - The City is linked at least in the core to a district heating system that produces steam, cogeneration and chilled water.
A solar plant has promoted their products locally for years and now there are other businesses. Solar seems to be of much interest to the public.
A community energy plan for London would not differ greatly from other cities. Once one is put together and printed anyone is welcome to read it.
One of my friends has a windmill on her farm not far away and has no problem with it continually winding back as it sends back to the grid.
As mentioned I do not have time to continue to add comments. Good luck with implementing your ideas as you seem to have a lot of them.
ds
December 15th, 2006
Post Carbon fiction
"Hotter Than Hell" by Mark Tushingham was a real disappointment. If anyone wants to read it, I'll give it to you. It's a first novel, and it shows. Tushingham's main love is not social observation, but war tactics and war history. Essentially, this is a monotonous recitation of one battle after another, full of minutia about what armies get sent where. The main character is a high-ranking general, a wooden character with no emotional response to his "job" to secure Canadian water resources as North American society crumbles around him. I could not persuade myself to care what happened to this guy, and I just can't understand why a character with such intelligence would be completely incapable of thinking or commenting the social upheaval the world is undergoing. Perhaps that was the point-- his is a military mind, and nothing more.
If you want to read some good post-carbon fiction, wait for the results of the short story contest sponsored by PowerSwitch (UK). Info here: http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130
Jan Lundburg's writings include post-carbon fiction: http://www.culturechange.org/e-letter-6cont.html . Her vision is quite positive-- people in the post-collapse world survive because they cooperate and absolutely refuse to adopt "the old ways"-- no feudal war-lords in sight.
Or you can read John Michael Greer's trilogy. The third one is here: http://www.energybulletin.net/23653.html .
Bev Wagar
December 15th, 2006
John Michael Greer's Fiction and Non-Fiction
I found these vignettes by John Michael Greer incredibly moving. Brought me to tears, with the combination of loss and hope in a diminished world – or a rebalancing natural world, depending on your lenses.
John Michael Greer is also the author of the non-peer-reviewed scientific samizdat "How Civilizations Fall: A Theory of Catabolic Collapse", which has been very influential recently.
URL: http://www.xs4all.nl/~wtv/powerdown/greer.htm
December 15th, 2006
Effects from Global Warming
So I'll start. This subject is important to me because if we spend too much time and money on this effort then we will not have the resources to put into changing for a Post Carbon Era.
I've spent the last couple of days reading www.realclimate.org. A pro-AGW site run by scientists who research climate. I have to admit the site is very good and the authors allow a ballanced approach. The evidence is compelling indeed. However, they do use a lot of "may be", "might", "suggests", etc in making jumps from GW to AGW and it's effects. The document on Hurricanes is a prime example. They fully admit that they really are not sure how it works and how GW affects hurricanes. Thus these guys are not dogmatic, certainly not fear mongering on the effects of GW. They stear away from it, and rightly so.
There is definitely no evidence to suggest that elevated CO2 will "cook the planet" as the Star claimed, or that we will "smother" from CO2 poisoning, or that sea levels will rise hundreds of feet in a few decades. None of that is substantiateable.
So, did I change my view on AGW. after reading the site? To some extent yes, the evidence for us causing or adding to warming trends is compelling, but NOT PROVEN. Thus I keep my mind open that it can be and just might be shown to be wrong.
So this then begs the question. Can we do anything to curb CO2 emissions? Interesting that question was actually asked of Harper yesterday during a media conference. His answer was right on. They are not going to do anything to jepardise the economy. Cutting energy use by 1/3 is essentually impossible, unrealistic. He's right.
Bottom line is that CO2 emissions will continue to increase, there is no substantial method to curb it short of putting scrubbers on all vehicles, all aircraft, all homes, all factories. As long as the economy grows, CO2 emissions will grow. And the economy has to grow, because if it does not then it will collapse, making 1929 look like a picnick. Taking us off fossil fuels by force will kill millions through starvation and freezing. And there is no viable alternative to oil and keeping the population size we have. There is no such thing as a sustainable growing population, that's an oxymoron.
All of this will end soon enough with PO. AGW will be a short lived phenomenom, once the human population crashes over the next century, AGW will deminish.
Thus we need to focus on what we need to do here, in London, to come up with alternatives to fuel once it becomes scarce. How are people going to get through the winters? How are we going to feed our selves. Stop fretting over AGW as there is nothing anyone can do about it. Prepair for PO.
Richard
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
December 15th, 2006
Global Warming
Hi Richard
On another note, I am just reading Mark Tushingham's science fiction "Hotter than Hell". Available at library. You may recall Harper early in office refusing to allow him to carry through with a media launch on this new novel given he is a scientist for the federal government so his publisher had to do all the promotion.
It is an interesting read and certainly gives one something to think about regarding the worst than can happen. A copy should be made available to our national political leaders for reflection. It is set in the future when temperatures have risen, wars are common regarding water and oil and there are food shortages. It is written from the perspective of a US military commander. At one point he is assigned to scout Canada which eventually creats a crisis between the 2 countries. And so it goes.
Locally, Shane and I have just been appointed back on to the City's Advisory Committee on the Environment. We hope to look at what other communities are doing and identify some opportunities for the City to move forward with regarding climate change and energy planning in the near future. We also plan to focus on some useful steps for community through the delivery of some workshops in each of the new wards as a starting point.
Many excellent suggestions came out of our Nov 4 PCL workshop and someone helped us with typing out the notes. Toban is presently editing the text and it will soon be posted. I think this list provides an excellent start of actions to address locally issues on GW. It will need the help of all PCL supporters to get people to take action.
Hopefully Stephane Dion and the other party leaders will make this happen quickly on a national level. They seem to be making some progress at the moment.
ds
December 15th, 2006
Liberals on the Envionment
If the Liberals were serious they would have acted over the previous 13 years, but instead CO2 levels rose, a lot. Why? Because it has to rise when the population and economy grows, and the Liberals know it. The Liberals are all mouth and no action. They tell the public exactly what they want to hear, then do the opposite (or nothing at all). At least the Conservatives are honest in their approach saying Kyoto is unachievable, because it is unachievable.
Bottom line is it does not matter who is running the country, no one is going to do anything that will disrupt the economy. Just look at the auto sector. Serious problems with layoffs. If you force people to take transit (an many simply cannot), that would mean cars lasting longer, fewer repairs, fewer sales of new cars, more layoffs. This will happen with any major change in how we use oil. People's lives will be economically destroyed.
Thus no politican, not even the Green or NDP, will do anything to disrupt the economy.
Interesting about the book, I'm just about done mine. Economic collapse due to natural gas disruption in North America during a cold winter. This allows an invader to attempt to take over our timber, tar sands, and prairies. Two ordinary people go to help defend the country. Along the way they encounter the effects of oil and gas depletion.
Richard
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.