We can't afford not to tackle AGW

[Iceberg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6093396.stm

One of my bug bears for the last 10 years has been the attitude that there is no point is trying to combat AGW and it's effects becuase the costs of doing so are too high.

Well I hope this provides a bit more proof that it is well worth it, even given the uncertainty of whether it's going to happen or not.

BTW these economic papers from the likes of the world bank have been coming out since 1995, I am not really sure how much convincing it will achieve on it's own, but it's another brick on the wall.

[Guest Daniel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6093396.stm

One of my bug bears for the last 10 years has been the attitude that there is no point is trying to combat AGW and it's effects becuase the costs of doing so are too high.

Well I hope this provides a bit more proof that it is well worth it, even given the uncertainty of whether it's going to happen or not.

BTW these economic papers from the likes of the world bank have been coming out since 1995, I am not really sure how much convincing it will achieve on it's own, but it's another brick on the wall.

Why should we. Global warming is a good thing. Warmth mskes our crops grow and that keeps starvation away. there enough food to feed every one on the planet. but because of wars Ext food does not get through. But back to climate. some are saying we are at the end of our warm period before the next ice age begins. I can tell you that the onset of another ice age is far more worse than any global warming. If the next iceage were to begin. then the most inmportant crop growing regions of Europe and North America will be whipped out. If we had a cold wave acroos these vital crop growing regions because of the onset of the next ice age then crops would fail big time. Simply because crops dont grow if its two cold and wet. Then we will see massive starvation on a Global scale. All it needs is a few long severe winters and a succession of bleak cold wet summers with frosts lasting to June and heavy rains turning fileds into mud baths then crops will not grow at all. History has clearly shown when ever Europe has been warm there was enough food to feed the people and that kept societys stable much like today. But in the little ice age period when there was periods of very severe arctic winters and cold rain swept summers. crops have failed stravation set in and that of course caused wars and unrest and a break down in civlised societys when people started to accuse certain groups for there problems and the whitch burnings of this time. Any major cold spell were crops fails will no doubt cause unrest again. So if global warming prevents the onset of cold periods and keeps crops growing then it has to be a good thing. In recent years the U.K has done very well mostly due to a stable warm period that we are now having. the lack of cold winters and summers have given us long growing seasons and some crops are now doing very well and the lack of any arctic severe winters have meant a free flow of transport in winter and less engery use.

[Devonian]

Why should we. Global warming is a good thing. Warmth mskes our crops grow and that keeps starvation away. there enough food to feed every one on the planet. but because of wars Ext food does not get through. But back to climate. some are saying we are at the end of our warm period before the next ice age begins. I can tell you that the onset of another ice age is far more worse than any global warming. If the next iceage were to begin. then the most inmportant crop growing regions of Europe and North America will be whipped out. If we had a cold wave acroos these vital crop growing regions because of the onset of the next ice age then crops would fail big time. Simply because crops dont grow if its two cold and wet. Then we will see massive starvation on a Global scale. All it needs is a few long severe winters and a succession of bleak cold wet summers with frosts lasting to June and heavy rains turning fileds into mud baths then crops will not grow at all. History has clearly shown when ever Europe has been warm there was enough food to feed the people and that kept societys stable much like today. But in the little ice age period when there was periods of very severe arctic winters and cold rain swept summers. crops have failed stravation set in and that of course caused wars and unrest and a break down in civlised societys when people started to accuse certain groups for there problems and the whitch burnings of this time. Any major cold spell were crops fails will no doubt cause unrest again. So if global warming prevents the onset of cold periods and keeps crops growing then it has to be a good thing. In recent years the U.K has done very well mostly due to a stable warm period that we are now having. the lack of cold winters and summers have given us long growing seasons and some crops are now doing very well and the lack of any arctic severe winters have meant a free flow of transport in winter and less engery use.

Wow, what a change. So you now accept AGW is happening

You obviously haven't tried growng crops like barley, or indeed, simple staple crops like grass, in recent summers!

Edited October 29, 2006 by Devonian

[Guest Daniel]

Wow, what a change. So you now accept AGW is happening

You obviously haven't tried growng crops like barley, or indeed, simple staple crops like grass, in recent summers!

No I did not say I accept global warming is happing. All I said is that Global warming would be a better option than the onset of another iceage. which will whipe out the main crops growing regions of the world.

[Gray-Wolf]

No I did not say I accept global warming is happing. All I said is that Global warming would be a better option than the onset of another iceage. which will whipe out the main crops growing regions of the world.

Because of water shortages many of the worlds productive areas have to resort to watering/irrigation of the growing areas. Not only does the water used carry a load of dissolved minerals and salts which form evaporites as the water is evaporated from the surface but any water that is drawn up from depth brings with it dissolved minerals/salts which are also deposited in the upper soil horizons.

The end result of this is salt panning of the growing areas rendering them as useful as the lands surrounding Carthage after the Romans had finished with it!

The 'pillars of salt' ending of Sodom and Gomorrah may be a 'folk history' of just what over watering/irrigation caused to the lands in the tale.

The recent droughts in the earths most productive region (Amazonian) shows the real face of AGW and not some fairy tale 'Mediterranean for all' state of play.

[parmenides3]

No, Global Warming isn't a good thing. And more Global Warming, brought on by refusing to curb GHG emissions, is worse than some GW. If a third of the planet is drought-stricken, and that third includes the most productive agricultural areas in the world at the moment, then the consequences would be just as disastrous as an ice age. Except that ice ages take thousands of years to develop; with GW, we are talking in terms of decades, which makes adaptation much more difficult.

Then there is the simple fact that one of these two is a likelihood, bordering on a certainty, and the other is not, even remotely, on the cards; there is no ice age around the corner.

More seriously, there is an issue here about what sort of reasons we need to act on Climate Change. Does everything come down to money? Are we so obsessed with our own wealth and status that we refuse to change our behaviour until it is proven that by not doing so we will be worse off? The economic view of the world is not unimportant, but neither is it the only way in which we can measure our futures, or our status. By refusing to act except in our own financial interest, we effectively condemn the most vulnerable people in the world, perhaps as many as a billion human beings, to starvation, forced migration, despair and insecurity, not to mention the political and military action which are likely consequences of extreme competition for scarce resources.

If our sense of values and moral decency is so corrupted by capitalism that we cannot see the need for action on behalf of all our brothers and sisters, rather than for our own family or tribe, then we might as admit now that we don't care if millions will die because of our inaction. To paraphrase Kennedy: ask not what your world can do for you, ask what you can do for your world. It's time to wake up to our collective moral responsibility, people.

:)P

[Devonian]

No I did not say I accept global warming is happing. All I said is that Global warming would be a better option than the onset of another iceage. which will whipe out the main crops growing regions of the world.

Well, I thought so . And I'm not sure you are right. As I said, that agricultural staple, grass, all but disappeared across my part of Devon for several months this year.

No, Global Warming isn't a good thing. And more Global Warming, brought on by refusing to curb GHG emissions, is worse than some GW. If a third of the planet is drought-stricken, and that third includes the most productive agricultural areas in the world at the moment, then the consequences would be just as disastrous as an ice age. Except that ice ages take thousands of years to develop; with GW, we are talking in terms of decades, which makes adaptation much more difficult.

Then there is the simple fact that one of these two is a likelihood, bordering on a certainty, and the other is not, even remotely, on the cards; there is no ice age around the corner.

More seriously, there is an issue here about what sort of reasons we need to act on Climate Change. Does everything come down to money? Are we so obsessed with our own wealth and status that we refuse to change our behaviour until it is proven that by not doing so we will be worse off? The economic view of the world is not unimportant, but neither is it the only way in which we can measure our futures, or our status. By refusing to act except in our own financial interest, we effectively condemn the most vulnerable people in the world, perhaps as many as a billion human beings, to starvation, forced migration, despair and insecurity, not to mention the political and military action which are likely consequences of extreme competition for scarce resources.

If our sense of values and moral decency is so corrupted by capitalism that we cannot see the need for action on behalf of all our brothers and sisters, rather than for our own family or tribe, then we might as admit now that we don't care if millions will die because of our inaction. To paraphrase Kennedy: ask not what your world can do for you, ask what you can do for your world. It's time to wake up to our collective moral responsibility, people.

:)P

Blimey, you are a kindred spirit

Edited October 29, 2006 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

More seriously, there is an issue here about what sort of reasons we need to act on Climate Change. Does everything come down to money? Are we so obsessed with our own wealth and status that we refuse to change our behaviour until it is proven that by not doing so we will be worse off? The economic view of the world is not unimportant, but neither is it the only way in which we can measure our futures, or our status. By refusing to act except in our own financial interest, we effectively condemn the most vulnerable people in the world, perhaps as many as a billion human beings, to starvation, forced migration, despair and insecurity, not to mention the political and military action which are likely consequences of extreme competition for scarce resources.

If our sense of values and moral decency is so corrupted by capitalism that we cannot see the need for action on behalf of all our brothers and sisters, rather than for our own family or tribe, then we might as admit now that we don't care if millions will die because of our inaction. To paraphrase Kennedy: ask not what your world can do for you, ask what you can do for your world. It's time to wake up to our collective moral responsibility, people.

P

Sadly the notion that we should all act more like our grannies in their day is never going to be adopted by people who feel it a right to express their 'wealth'.

Do you really expect the swathe of Americans who insist on the use of air con. (unlike granny) or populating areas that necessitate the use of air con.(unlike granny) or fly 3 or 4 times a year (unlike granny) or need a car for each family member (unlike granny) to give up these things? These people didn't know a time without these 'rights' and so any change in a direction away from these things will be a step backward (in terms of material evolution) and will never be adopted (unless draconianly enforced).

Though they may be personally responsible for carbon emissions far in excess of granny but they will still blame that generation for the planets ills when change is irrefutable!

[parmenides3]

The Stern Report won't be available till tomorrow, but if anyone is interested, here are a couple of relevant links to some of the recommendations/input. One is from the Tyndall Centre and is well worth a read. The other is from the Cambridge climate mitigation wotsit thingy group.

If you google 'The Stern Report', you'll find other submissions, from organisations such as the WWF and others; pick your poison. I also came across a comment from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, that well-known hard-right denialist group, from last November, saying that they thought the Stern report was a good idea and the Americans should do the same thing. I wonder what they'll be saying next week.

The submissions are quite long, but are readable and worth the effort; there is a lot to think about in them.

:)P

4CMR_ICEPT_Stern_Review_submission_Dec_05.pdf

stern_reviewtyndall.pdf

[Iceberg]

Yep Capitalism rules the world and the only way that we will tackle AGW is if we make if more profitable for governments, businesses and inderviduals to do it, hence the success of carrot and stick approaches such as taxation and subsides.

Unfortunately all the people I mentioned above have a very ST view on things and we will only take action if it postively effects the bottom line in a 4-5 year cycle.

[Nick H]

This is obviously of such importance that it needed a very environmentally unfriendly 700 pages to produce this report.

[parmenides3]

Yep Capitalism rules the world and the only way that we will tackle AGW is if we make if more profitable for governments, businesses and inderviduals to do it, hence the success of carrot and stick approaches such as taxation and subsides.

Unfortunately all the people I mentioned above have a very ST view on things and we will only take action if it postively effects the bottom line in a 4-5 year cycle.

Why? Why does it have to be about profit and loss? Why does policy or action depend on cost-benefit analysis? By taking, or even accepting, this attitude, we are effectively saying that we don't give a hoot about our neighbours dying, just so long as we don't have to pay for the funeral. Let us not measure the cost in dollars, but in lives, misery, loss, tragedy.

The cost of inaction over climate change is possibly 200 million lives lost, hundreds of millions displaced or impoverished, and whole generations of children suffering unnecesarily. Stuff the money. Stuff the votes, Do the right thing, or fail to act and be damned.

By the way; I think the government's plans to tax us, the public, for the emissions produced by the energy companies is both immoral and ineffective.

Rant over. :)P

[Iceberg]

Yer but we have to live in the real world P3.

If we are serious about tackling AGW we have to play by the worlds rules or we don't have a chance.

[parmenides3]

History shows us that when we, collectively, flex our muscles, the powers jump. This is because we live in a democracy, and we have the power of the consumer. We don't have to accept the world view peddled to us by accountants and lawyers (aka politicians), We don't have to accept that realpolitik always wins. All we need to do is tell the government what rules we want to play by. How do we do this?

1. email your mp & tell him/her that you aren't content about their CC policy. Tell them you want to see effective curbs placed on the energy industry, rather than taxes placed on us.

2. Buy more locally-produced food more often; avoid produce which has flown thousands of miles unnecesarily just because it isn't in season here. Refuse to buy environmentally unfriendly products simply because of the label appeal.

3. Get out of the consumer rat-race; don't replace your car every three years, don't spend money on things you don't need, but only want, like a new TV when the old one works perfectly well. Ride a bike to work now and again, if you can.

4. Write to your local authority and ask them what their recycling facilities are and what investments they are making. Tell them you will vote for the party which offers the best environmental solution.

5. Make your money and your lifestyle talk for you.

6. Learn as much as you can about Climate Change and don't be fooled by the guff in the media or the drivel spouted by politicians.

7. Go on a protest, if you care about an issue.

8. Donate £10 to a charity that will do something useful to help the people who can't do it otherwise.

There are loads of things we can do. When enough of us are doing enough of them frequently enough to cause a change in the economics, the both business and government will respond.

I've just turned green. It must have been the creme-de-Menthe.

:)P

[Dawlish]

History shows us that when we, collectively, flex our muscles, the powers jump. This is because we live in a democracy, and we have the power of the consumer. We don't have to accept the world view peddled to us by accountants and lawyers (aka politicians), We don't have to accept that realpolitik always wins. All we need to do is tell the government what rules we want to play by. How do we do this?

1. email your mp & tell him/her that you aren't content about their CC policy. Tell them you want to see effective curbs placed on the energy industry, rather than taxes placed on us.

2. Buy more locally-produced food more often; avoid produce which has flown thousands of miles unnecesarily just because it isn't in season here. Refuse to buy environmentally unfriendly products simply because of the label appeal.

3. Get out of the consumer rat-race; don't replace your car every three years, don't spend money on things you don't need, but only want, like a new TV when the old one works perfectly well. Ride a bike to work now and again, if you can.

4. Write to your local authority and ask them what their recycling facilities are and what investments they are making. Tell them you will vote for the party which offers the best environmental solution.

5. Make your money and your lifestyle talk for you.

6. Learn as much as you can about Climate Change and don't be fooled by the guff in the media or the drivel spouted by politicians.

7. Go on a protest, if you care about an issue.

8. Donate £10 to a charity that will do something useful to help the people who can't do it otherwise.

There are loads of things we can do. When enough of us are doing enough of them frequently enough to cause a change in the economics, the both business and government will respond.

I've just turned green. It must have been the creme-de-Menthe.

:)P

9. Go onto petitiononline and sign up for one of the environment petitions to do with climate change........and check out any that involve sending the Alliance and Leicester's customer service division for an early bath, while you are at it!

http://www.petitiononline.com/petition.html

Paul

[Devonian]

Sadly the notion that we should all act more like our grannies in their day is never going to be adopted by people who feel it a right to express their 'wealth'.

Do you really expect the swathe of Americans who insist on the use of air con. (unlike granny) or populating areas that necessitate the use of air con.(unlike granny) or fly 3 or 4 times a year (unlike granny) or need a car for each family member (unlike granny) to give up these things? These people didn't know a time without these 'rights' and so any change in a direction away from these things will be a step backward (in terms of material evolution) and will never be adopted (unless draconianly enforced).

......

I don't. Most people are as selfish unthinking and careless as he** (those who deny said mostly - look how religious America claims to be, but what does christianity stand for? materialism? Compassion? Looking after your neighbour?4*4'S?). Otoh, do you think economic growth can continue to go on at an every increasing rate for ever? What gives? The planet. We better hope it can stand the kicking.

Will I be dragged down with the rest of the unthinking, selfish masses? Probably, but I'm not going quietly.

[Dawlish]

I don't. Most people are as selfish unthinking and careless as he** (those who deny said mostly - look how religious America claims to be, but what does christianity stand for? materialism? Compassion? Looking after your neighbour?4*4'S?). Otoh, do you think economic growth can continue to go on at an every increasing rate for ever? What gives? The planet. We better hope it can stand the kicking.

Will I be dragged down with the rest of the unthinking, selfish masses? Probably, but I'm not going quietly.

Nice one Devonian! How about the Hollywood celebs who have bought those little hybrid cars (Honda prions??) to be seen to be oh so green and then hire a private jet, all to themselves, to go see their girlfriend/boyfriend/pet monkey on another continent, for a couple of days, burning tens of thousands of gallons of fuel in the process?

Makes me gip.

Paul

PS I think you are allowed to say "hell"

[Iceberg]

But Peter we have to do something about AGW and it has to be something that works ergo, we have to use capitalism.

Matt

[Devonian]

But Peter we have to do something about AGW and it has to be something that works ergo, we have to use capitalism.

Matt

Humm, 'there is no alternative' you mean

[Iceberg]

Humm, 'there is no alternative' you mean

I can't think of one that will realistically work

[Devonian]

I can't think of one that will realistically work

I know but,

They said that about bleeding people when they were ill, about sending chuldren up chimneys, about ...

Keep thinking.

[Gray-Wolf]

Capitalism is a fiend thast preys on the human condition. Until you give people an education in self they will continue to 'measure' themselves by their trinkets.

People power is the only way forward but the people must adjust their expectations and find pleasure in putting others first (and as a positive emotional expression not one bourne out of emotional damage).

Sadly I feel that the first great dying will sow the seeds for this change (see my motto below).

[lukenmudge]

Im all for doing something about the pollution worldwide, whether it is actually affecting our climate, is another matter, but why should we the tax payers pay for changes? Yes the changes are good and i agree with their implementation, but increasing the costs of fuel and other green taxes is pointless. Will it stop people from using their cars if tax on petrol/litre goes up say 20p? Nope. People will put up with it because for many it is essential to their lives.

What should be tackled is air travel. if you fly to Australia you might as well leave your car running for 30years. Thats how much pollution is created!!! However taxing air travel will push up the price of travel, imports, exports and affect the gloabl economy too much so it would never get the backing required to reduce emissions.

One final point. Why should i pay to save the world when the country with the largest army cant be bothered, and the country with the highest use of fossil fuels can be bothered either (China and USA)!!!???

LM

[Gray-Wolf]

One final point. Why should i pay to save the world when the country with the largest army cant be bothered, and the country with the highest use of fossil fuels can be bothered either (China and USA)!!!???

LM

Shall we all adopt that fine attitude you have no shame in posting and see where it leads us????

My parents taught me that you lead by example, it is slovenly to refuse to act because no one else is bothered or am I/my parents sadly mistaken?

[lukenmudge]

Shall we all adopt that fine attitude you have no shame in posting and see where it leads us????

My parents taught me that you lead by example, it is slovenly to refuse to act because no one else is bothered or am I/my parents sadly mistaken?

I was pointing out that we are not contributing to climate as much as other people, yet we seem to be the only ones thinking about acting on it. USA opted out from the Kyoto agreement, USA takes on a selfish attitude, USA is the world largest consumer of fossil fuels, and USA is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases. They pay less than half the price for a liter of fuel than we do. They aren't paying for their waste, so why should we when we already suffer heavy fuel duty!

Dont get me wrong, i'm all for doing something about it, but why tax us more than we already are being taxed when others aren't and theyre the main contributors.

LM