open Democracy News Analysis - climate change - Comments

emil300 on "Can democracy save the planet?"

emil300 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:43:42 +0000

Climate change demands exactly such responsible, proactive use of
positive democratic freedoms, rather than simply the private enjoyment
of negative and constitutional ones. It is the sort of challenge to
which our prevailing civic culture is designed not to respond, or even
fully recognise. When our own interests begin to suffer, more of us may
wake up to the challenge, but the response may take counterproductive
forms

Not logged in on "The felling of bungalows, the building of Dhaka"

Not logged in — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:18:38 +0000

Prof Salauddin,

What is irony with your comment is that you are criticizing Bangladeshis for being rootless and "western". However, it is ridiculous that you yourself has quit Bangladesh to be western and became rootless.
That is the problem of our diaspora. They know how to advise very well. But not how to contribute to their homeland.

michaelbix on "After glaciers: a new climate world"

michaelbix — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:18:37 +0000

Dr. Paashe's article examines trends of prior eras in earth's warming and cooling - and the glacial cover, arctic snow pack, and summer ice pack in Arctic waters all affect solar albedo... the amount of dark v. reflective area struck by the sun during warm months when the arctic is turned toward the sun. While the global average temperature has risen "only" 1°C because of trapped greenhouse gases, the changing albedo and other factors, the greater solar exposure during the northern hemisphere "summer" means the temperature nearer the north pole have risen an average of 6°C during the same time period.

He is a paleoclimatologist - a person looking back in order to understand the likelihoods in our planet's climate future. He uses pragmatic and measurable means to do that. One can "look back" with considerable precision now - the Greenland and Vostok Antarctic ice cores provide analysis of atmospheric gas content, temperature, chemical signatures of catastrophic events such as strato-volcanic eruptions with world-circling clouds of tephra ash, or meteor strikes leaving small particles of unusual elements identified with extraterrestrial impacts. Similarly, sediment cores from the ocean bottoms and lake bottoms in Scandinavia, Canada and China allow us to see summer water and current temperatures on a year-by-year basis back almost 3000 years.

The global climate past is not unknown to us... and there were rare times when the world melted clean down of ice - no snow, no glaciers, no winter even.

Once, more than 200 million years ago, the oceans heated to the extent that most creatures could not survive, many lakes evaporated away, any animal not living in deep cooler ocean or adapted to survive in a cave became extinct. That one anomalous time provides much of our "fossil fuel" of today." We can choose to all become the "fossil fuel" for a similar culture 200 million years in the future... by triggering the same unfortunate scenario.

All we have to do is thaw the tundra. That's it folks. Look back 7800 years at the Storegga Event... when all the permafrost tundra of the Barents Plain (now underwater) and the Norwegian coastal plain (now underwater) were frozen permafrost, laden with methane clathrate. If you don't believe that thawing the tundra now will trigger an unstoppable global cycle of unliveable heat - study that time frame lasting 200 or so years. The climatic heating stopped then because the limited square kilometres involved "ran out" of sequestered methane.

And what about the current-day permafrost tundra of Siberia, Russian, northern Canada and Alaska? It is melting now... and releasing lots of methane (proportionately more each year). Don't just watch - put a stop to it.

Michael Cerulli Billingsley (not looking for a grant - looking for relief from idiotic thinking)

richard on "After glaciers: a new climate world"

richard — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:36:08 +0000

I just dropped back to see if the climate change deniers are still trolling about in their preferred habitat, oD. They are, I see.

Let's try them with Pascal's Wager:Which side would you bet on?

In the end, this is not an academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment. The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science) is that we should decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.

Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out that IPCC view is wrong? Well, we will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation, energy efficiency, low CO2 energy manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty. Not bad, but that's not all. We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas, and reduced the acidification of the oceans. And addressed our energy security problems. And increased prosperity in hot countries (through solar technologies). Not bad, not bad at all.

Say we go the way of the denialists/sceptics, and they turn out to be wrong? We will have problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, acified oceans, acid rain, fuel poverty, unemployment, poverty, civil unrest and finally, massive, catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. With massive migration caused by environmental collapse. Not good.

Now, which side of the argument would readers of oD put their money on, I wonder?

Aubrey Meyer on "10:10 and the politics of climate change "

Aubrey Meyer — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:40:27 +0000

'Jamoboggins' said: -

"contraction and convergence is mentioned but constructive criticism from people like Oliver Tickell has not been addressed."

Can 'Jamoboggins' please point to some constructive criticism of C&C from Oliver Tickell [OT].

OT has said addressing consumption [emissions] is a waste of time, so production should be addressed.

That is a point directed against the entire UNFCCC process not just C&C.

Has OT a convincing means of achieving what he demands - pool all reserves of fossil fuel; auction these on a world market; redistribute the 'trillions of dollars annual rent from this to the world's deserving causes'?

Its just a bit OTT to me.

His father said that Richard Dawkins had argued so effectively to get rid of God, he had created a vacancy that only he himself could fill.

Maybe OT should apply instead.

Carole Edwards on "10:10 and the politics of climate change "

Carole Edwards — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:15:34 +0000

Like many millions of the public, I lack the means to reduce my "CO2 Footprint" further. I cannot afford to instal microgeneration. And it is hugely frustrating to see the almost total lack of any comprehensive policy coming from any party which would be practical or actually reduce dependence on fossil fuel.

I'll chuck a suggestion of my own into the mix.

Let's retrofit an old policy for a new situation, perhaps its time for:

Progressive Taxation on the Usage of basic Utilities (Gas, Electricity & Water)

As with Income Taxation, every person should have a "Personal Allowance", measured in KwH per annum for gas & electricity (divisible between the two as necessary) & cubic meters for water usage. Initially, allowances should be set such that they are likely to cover the usage of a modest family in a modest home. There should be higher allowances for elderly & disabled people. As the allowances would be per person, they would not be increased for second or further homes. Beyond this allowance, usage should be progressively taxed through several bands. The main householder(s) would be responsible for the payment of taxes due, & for making arrangements (or not) to collect from others living at the address. Utility companies would, as with VAT, be responsible for collecting payment from the bill payer. Householders unable to pay via DD or internet banking should not face discriminatory offers they are unable to take advantage of. Utility companies should also be required to apply their lowest per unit costs to usage within the Personal Allowance range. By so doing, we should see some (perhaps considerable) alleviation of fuel poverty - necessitating far less involvement of charity or special tariffs - & the principle that the "polluter pays" in that the more profligate among us would pay more for their sometimes excessive usage of finite resources. Government, through the use of Statutory Instruments, would gradually increase taxation on the upper bands, or gradually "tighten" them. The same means could be used in case of emergency shortage - ie interruption in fuel delivery, or even drought ( on regional basis?).

With the monies raised, we need a major public infrastructure program. with echoes of the piping of the country for North Sea gas nearly 40 years ago.

In the first instance, government should grant "roof rights" to power companies for the installation of photo-voltaic panels. Electricity produced from these (where roofs are deemed productively usable) should be metered, with excess production feeding into the grid. The starting point should perhaps be the roofs of Industrial, business, agricultural buildings, etc, followed by social housing. When the program reaches private householders, the program should be able to incorporate the installation of private generation capacity (ie belonging to householder & not passing through meters) at a reduced price on a portion of the remaining roof space. Power companies should be expected to match funding provided by government, even to repay over a period of time, & would retain ownership of their panels & responsibility for their general maintenance.replacement over time. See necessary job creation in hard times, as well as reduction in need for fossil fuels.

Some householders may apply to be exempted from the program, in which case they should be charged a premium rate for power used. They may choose to instal wholly private means of micro generation & opt out of the grid. They should not expect to be paid any feed-in tariff for over production.

This is just an idea - unfortunately I have no clue as to the logistics or practicality of implementation.

tomfrom66 on "10:10 and the politics of climate change "

tomfrom66 — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:58:46 +0000

tomfrom66

On the same day as this was published, New Labour's transport secretary, Lord Adonis, was telling an Aviation Club lunch:

"It is perfectly credible that we can have growth in passenger numbers at significant levels"

It seems as it is going to be "easier" for road vehicles to cut their emissions, it's going to be OK to expand flying to passenger numbers "to double in the UK to 465 million passengers per year by 2030".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/17/adonis-defends-aviation-emissions

This would seem to indicate the mountain that 10:10 campaigners have to climb, and also the double-think within the UK governing circles.

Current climate minister Ed Milband has offered similar support for the exapansion of aviation, as have previous ministers Jim Fitzpatrick and Ruth Kelly.

I have listed links to their comments at:

http://www.dystopiaofindividualism.co.uk/

Stephen Quilley on "10:10 and the politics of climate change "

Stephen Quilley — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:35:13 +0000

I very much agree with Andy Dobson on this. But I think I would go a little further. The focus on individual choices obscures the enormous structural transformations required. And the narrow emphasis on climate change and carbon emissions obscures the more intractable issue of ecological footprints more generally. What this is really about is (dare I say it) limits to growth and the SCALE of the economy relative to the biosphere. 10:10 gives the impression that if only we would all try a little bit harder, we can have our cake (the continually expanding consumer society -- more and different products, continual innovation, change) and eat it. But this is not true. So perhaps instead of focusing public attention on guilt ridden individual consumption choices, those politicians and opinion formers might commit themselves to large scale experiments (on the scale of small towns or even city regions) in eco-cyclical, non-growth forms of economy and society. If the rest of us could see the steady-state economy and culture in action, we might be persuaded to accept absolute caps in the amount of energy and materials flowing through national, local and household economies; we might begin to understand that SCALE and NOT EFFICIENCY is the principal issue -- and we might generate sufficient political support for a wider transformation of the economy and society. So not 10:10 in relation to disembedded consumer citizens, but 80: 50: 20: in relation to a specific and identifiable place and designated as an 'ecological innovation zone': i.e. 80 % reduction in energy throughput: 50 % reduction in material throughput: by 2020 -- i.e. an experiment lasting a decade. Now that would make for a socially relevant reality TV project.

BY the way Gordon Brown in particular might ponder the fact that on Monday I saw a and cyclist thown off a Virgin Rail train on Birmingham New Street - making a mockery of any Labour Party reference to 'integrated' public transport.

John Rhys on "10:10 and the politics of climate change "

John Rhys — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:57:35 +0000

This is a good article, but I have another worry about the effectiveness of 10:10.

First, though, there should be no doubt about the importance of seeking to gather the low hanging fruit, and to start immediately. Since CO2 is essentially cumulative, the benefit of a tonne of emissions saved now is worth much more than a tonne saved in 20 years time (contrary to the impression sometimes given that the social costs will rise over time and the incentives to save will get bigger).

My worries start with the percentage of households who will both subscribe to 10:10 and have the discipline or ability to achieve it. I suspect we should be lucky if all-party, Guardian editorial, plus "all the great and the good", support were to translate into as much as 10% of households, and not all of those will manage to achieve 10% reductions. So an actual 1% is probably a much more realistic target.

In my own family, for example, since we already have a condensing boiler, an efficient freezer, energy efficient lighting, a diesel car that does 70 mpg, and winter household temperatures that freeze most of our friends, we will not make a 10 % reduction over 2009 without significant lifestyle change.

That is when the choices get harder in what is a classic synthesis of "free rider" and public good issues. I, and no doubt many others, would make personal lifestyle changes, forego my leisure air travel, and so on, if I felt it would make one ounce of difference to the climate my grandchildren will inherit. But unless policies are there to ensure that everyone else follows suit, it will achieve nothing but to reduce my own personal enjoyment.

The irony is that globally we could probably achieve a lot more, even in terms of short term progress with the "low hanging fruit", if we were willing to adopt some simple sensible policies. The big "no brainer" in this context is to allow energy prices to rise substantially to reflect more closely the huge long term societal and economic costs of CO2 emissions. Imagine the effect on travel of taxes on aviation fuel that equated to the levels imposed on road transport fuel for example. (A quick estimate suggests it would double short haul fares.)

But there are also other smaller measures: enforcement of lower speed limits, much greater use of congestion charging in towns, and so on, all demonstrably effective, but requiring political will and not necessarily popular.

Overall this is a classic instance where we cannot rely on mass voluntary action, however well intentioned, as a substitute for effective supply and demand side policies, of which happily there is, at least in the medium and longer term, no shortage.

So good on you, 10-10, but don't let the campaign become an easy substitute for the larger and more difficult collective choices we have to make.

jamoboggins on "10:10 and the politics of climate change "

jamoboggins — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:25:31 +0000

I think this is a good article, but I think the author has failed to truly address the issues to which he alludes. Namely, you say that 10:10 is apolitical, but fail to identify any political policies or parties which could be support instead/in addition to the campaign.

Climate Camp for example is very "anti" things (e.g. carbon trading) but doesn't offer a whiff of a credible manifesto. Similarly the 'smaller parties' which are mentioned do not have tangible policies in respect of the economic instruments required to delivered the reductions.

A quick search on the Green Party policy website mentions an outdated per annum 9% cut beginning in 2007 but does not allude to how this could be acheived (contraction and convergence is mentioned but constructive criticism from people like Oliver Tickell has not been addressed). http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsscc.html

So I am supportive of 10:10 because it is practical and tangible. And whilst it is not as political as it could be (or may yet be) I am still at a loss as to other alternative, despite the recommendations in the final paragraph of the article - please tell me which party/politicians I should be supporting...

stefrigotti on "After glaciers: a new climate world"

stefrigotti — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:06:35 +0000

It is hard to understand if this scientist has exercised his full scientific method and understanding to arrive at implications and conclusions made here.

precycled on "After glaciers: a new climate world"

precycled — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:35:08 +0000

If the ice could speak it might be saying something about GHGs already being too high. The article didn't mention that the ice acts as a climate buffer to regulate heat long-term. Lost buffers means lost regulation and a cross-your-fingers and hope-to-die strategy for civilisation. Listen out for the ice once more and you might hear a far-away giggle at the whimsical hope that the IPCC's incremental tweaking of business as usual could possibly intervene in time to avoid run-away positive feedbacks and humanity scratching its collective head in surprise at the speed of all the entwined collapse dynamics.

The IPCC can't help because the solutions do not lie amidst the symptoms, but instead in the mechanics of dysfunctional global systems. Changing these means defining paradigms that elude media attention and seeking leverage points that are barely ever discussed. For those interested in a future that could work, here is one attempt: http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/2f007297ce994215d709c47f4c9230a1

Bill Bezdek on "After glaciers: a new climate world"

Bill Bezdek — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:17:06 +0000

The article is fair and informed. There is a certain brand of pseudo economics that is really an ideology, whose adherents would have us believe that 'natural prices' can solve all human problems. What church do you bozos attend to be so naive. I think you read articles like this for the opportunity to repeat your private mantra, not to learn about climate change, a perfectly reasonable concept of which global warming is but one of many manifestations. I generally read without comment but neanderthals always set me off..Sorry, but it does not appear coiincidental that the only two comments before mine use the same stale attack argument.

TugOgren

Frank S on "After glaciers: a new climate world"

Frank S — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:58:38 +0000

It has been a while since I've seen such an emotive grant application - I had thought they were becoming more nuanced in recent years. For example, it has become more fashionable to refer to the more robust 'climate change', rather than the embarassingly directional 'global warming'. Adding in 'poverty' as well, as in 'we know how to fix it', is also a weakness of this application, since it reveals the applicant as hopelessly naive and ill-informed. We have established that giving money to the poor doesn't work (e.g. see UK welfare dependency). We have established that giving money to their rich politicians doesn't work (e.g. see most of Africa). We have established that socialism doesn't work (e.g. see 20th century). So, free enterprise it is. Don't screw it up. Don't, in particular, burden it with absurd CO2 taxes. But the applicant wants to save the glaciers in this way. The naivety is that he will just confuse the grant panel with this, and reduce his chances of that juicy grant.

robert philbin on "After glaciers: a new climate world"

robert philbin — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:31:36 +0000

the warming of the earth follows increases in C)2, and is not a cause of thoses increases. I'm a bit taken back by the statement:

In this sense, global warming and poverty are not so different: we know how to eliminate it, but it's not on our list of priorities.

There is too much out there that counters the claims of man-made global warming/climate change/whatever the phrase is this week. To equate poverty and 'global warming' is a red herring. And if we did know how to eliminate poverty, we sould have already done so, eh?

So I ask the author of the above, how DO we eliminate poverty?