Getting the message across

[HighPressure]

This thread is typical of the argument on the entire subject, human nature is that of greed therefore those that seek to gain the most in the short term by doing nothing such as USA / CHINA / RUSSIA will resist anything that effects their economic growth. While countries such as the UK see it as a handy tool to do nothing but talk the talk and stop short of walking the walk because that in order to do something tangible it will have an effect on our economy too. So the idea in this country is to pretend to be doing something when in reality you are not, that way you can raise taxes under the green banner. The idea of taxing air travellers an extra £5 or £10 is designed to what? especially while you are looking to expand your existing airports and build new ones? Cars are being taxed more yet I see no alternatives being put in place. Everything we buy from Argos is made in China, there are no import restrictions, sea traffic is a bigger polluter than air yet no extra taxiation was put on that. The reality is that no government is going to put airlines or Shipping lines out of business and suffer the loss of jobs for which it will get blamed. If the world does not buy Chinese goods then they won't make them will they so why has the UK friend to the GW argument not restricted the import of the goods? Why has it not adopted a policy on not allowing new cars on the road until one has been scrapped. Quite simply with the GW argument still arguable whichever side of the fence you sit on they would just get turfed out of office if they wern't lynched first. At least nations like USA / CHINA / RUSSIA have a more honest approach however unpalatable that is.

While there is a buck to be earnt a human being somewhere will grab it at whatever the cost to tomorrows children. Sad I know and that does not make the GW agument any less valid but in the real world GW is here its not going to be influenced by man in any positive way.

[Bobby]

Call me ignorant if you want. ( ) We are a very, very small isle in the whole of the world, therefore because of our small status we cause as much pollution as the "bigger countries"?. I'm sceptical about that.

If the US, China, Russia, Canada - vast nations in size compared to us - got their act together, fair enough.

So, really, and to be blunt, what's the point of the UK striving to be "clean" when the big countries clearly couldn't care less?

Sky News today was full of the "Green Britain" issue..doesn't really wash with me when the world neighbours can't be arsed to subscribe to it. I give you Dubya for starters..

..and don't get me started on the billions spent bombing the Doh a dumb swear filter got the better of met out of Iraq, whereby in truth, those billions could've been spent better educating the western world about pollution, ie the USA itself

Britain is a big producer of CO2 though. We may be small geographically but we have a high population and as a wealthy country we put out more than our fair share of CO2. Though yes, countries like China are now growing so ridiculously fast they will make our contribution to world CO2 production really small. Especially since they are using dirty coal for the vast majority of their power.

[Gray-Wolf]

There are reports that Blair has confirmed his American roots by suggesting we keep flying as science will pop up with an answer to GW...............................or does he know something we don't?

[Calrissian]

There are reports that Blair has confirmed his American roots by suggesting we keep flying as science will pop up with an answer to GW...............................or does he know something we don't?

I can just imagine a few of the corporate major players in the aviation industry who have been on the phone to Blair in the last few months, 'ordering' him to back off.

Blair has started to buckle back on the 'lets stop the mainstream' flying. I find it quite hilarious to see him starting to look so weak minded, even though his time in office is now coming to a close, a time when most PMs are more bold in what they do.

Calrissian: will try to fly as often as possible, if only to annoy Blair

[Thundery wintry showers]

I have one suggestion:

When discussing GW, a good idea to sound 'balanced' may be to stress that there is a lot of uncertainty over future climate change, and how much of it is being contributed to by human activity, but that there is much evidence to suggest that humans are playing a part. Because of the high probability that humans are contributing to climate change, and the high risks involved, it is therefore worth cutting down emissions.

I think many more people would take notice if it was presented in this sort of manner, rather than the "global warming is all down to humans, especially those evil motorists, and global temperatures will rise by up to 6C" type stuff.

The problem I see with cutting emissions is that we really need co-operation between the Government and the public. We need the public to take action to reduce their emissions and adopt greener lifestyles. The Government needs to contribute by helping develop and improve initiatives for cleaner alternatives to the pollutive things we do today- especially ones which don't require too many sacrifices- and invest in cleaner technologies. However, while some people would certainly react positively to some initiatives, it's quite possible that others would ignore them, hence the notion that we need a 'stick' as well in order to force change, with environmental taxes being the most obvious possibility. Hence the phrase 'carrot and stick policy'.

Governments hate uncertainty, especially when it involves taking short term risks with the economy- our political system, veering towards the capitalist end of the political compass, will most likely introduce Draconian restrictions and environmental taxes, with 'carrots' consisting mostly of the odd tax break on non-pollutive technologies. I think recreational pursuits will be targeted, and work-related pursuits will be spared until the last minute, as if it's work related, it generally contributes most to profit margins.

We can do our bit- but unless there's co-operation (and this includes global co-operation, not just inter-British co-operation) our efforts are likely to scrape the surface.

[HighPressure]

I entirely agree Thundery, but as I have said in a few posts on here I do not think that the capitalist setup the world finds itself in makes any co-ordinated significant approach to cutting emissions unrealistic. This is where in my view the whole GW subject just fall apart, a % of people do not accept that man is significantly influencing climate change, a % do (I am undecided). So everyone is still arguing over who started the fire, while it continues to spread, yet the most important fact is that there is not enough fire engines to put the fire out! Then the argument comes well we have to try don't we, and yes we do but unilateral action is doomed to failure as it cannot make a difference. Surely you have to look at what we can do in the way of containment and plan for the future living alongside the fire?

I do get the impression similar to World War 1 sentiment when the generals sent the foot solders over the top, probably a very worthy cause but ultimately futile. Of course in this scenario only lower ranking people starting with the poorest are expected to make sacrifices, just like the Generals not going over the top in WW1 those more wealthy in society will keep their long haul foreign holidays, there 4X4's and remain unaffected by tax rises in fuel etc.

We simply would be better off spending any environmental taxes on flood defences, coastal erosion and adapting to a warmer climate. There are many measures that a government could bring in to cut emissions but its just not going to happen, even in this country a GW leader its unlikely that anywhere near enough cuts can be made to fulfil even the UK's commitments.

On measures that can be taken, you have to ask yourself why Electric cars can only be afforded by the well off? You cannot find one easily then there are hardly any charging points? There used to be a subsidy to convert your card to LPG but that was removed? And this is from a GW world leading government while in the US 5ltr cars are still standard oil is King. I think its about time a lot of people got real woke up smelt the coffee!

[Iceberg]

Thanks.

TWS, that's the approach I am hopefully going to be taking.

The title of the presentation will be "The death of fluffy bunny/feel better environmentalism and where we go from here"

Unfortunately alot of people have the idea that recycling christmas cards etc makes a difference, I am afraid it doesn't it's basically a sop to middle england to make them feel better. They can do these token things and still live there over inflated life styles.

A better approach would be to not send christmas cards in the first place.

I agree you have to explain that CO2 will continue to rise and will stablisize at 2020 level at best more likely 2040 levels and we have to live at that level.

BTW I will also be including some sneak previews into the 2007 IPCC report.

[SnowBear]

I agree with TWS, we can sit and blame and argue what caused, who why etc, but no amount of that will change what is now. Whether we are to blame or not (humans as a whole) is irrelevant, when we walk round with open eyes we see the destruction etc humans are causing, to the environment in pollution terms, destruction of the rain forests, needless waste (overinflated packaging, changing tv/mobile phone/car stereo/pc every 2 months to just "keep up with the joneses" only for the old one to be discarded in a few months time) etc. No matter which way that is looked at it is wrong. It taxes the Earths resources alone, which are limited without doubt.

The biggest problem I see it is that humans live for now when it comes to luxuries, while they can afford or have it, they will, regardless of whether its harmful or not elsewhere. Also humans can tend to have a "I am such a small part in this world, my waste/behaviour/green-ness has so little impact why should I change my attitudes and behaviour". Also to the consumer, the waste/damage/resources used to make an item they buy is hidden, they don't see the raw materials, processes etc which go into making their nice new little mobile phone, pc, car, whatever..all they see is the new item. Maybe if a "tag" was put on items people buy, which tells them how much in raw material terms was used to make the item, people will start to think. Their new car, cost x, y or z tons in material resource, the new mobile phone, x, y or z kg of material resources and x, y, z carbon into the atmosphere, an "environmental impact certificate" as it were. This would in some ways bring a competitiveness into the industries to find ways to cut their emissions, especially if their product brings a tax relief if it is below a certain target.

On the subject of taxes, its ok to raise taxes on those items which are damaging to the environment, but, equally the alternatives must become more affordable, green alternatives are for now, quite expensive in set up, if more people had access and were able to afford those systems, mass production would begin, and the systems become less expensive.

"Dirty coal" and other such older types of energy being used in China/Asia, remember that dirty coal makes a huge amount of our consumer products, toys, electronic gadgets, white goods, clothes etc. So we are in effect in with China on this, not separate. The products are now not being made here in the UK, under UK laws, but they may really just as well be still being made here with old coal fired power stations, etc etc.

In answer to your question on how to get across to your target audience to change their behaviour? I don't think you will unless it hits them where it hurts, their pocket by taxing highly environmentally damaging products. No amount of showing them, or presentations will take effect, its a case of lead by example, make alternatives more accessible, make damaging products out of reach via taxes, bring in an awareness of environmental impact through systems like the impact certificate.

Maybe, just maybe your target audience will take note of the raw material factor....you have just bought a 2 ton 4x4..its cost 10 tons in raw materials to make, 1 ton in carbon emissions, x acres of woodland, y of contaminated water, etc etc. and it will cost x,y or z to dispose of after its finished with.

Edited January 11, 2007 by SnowBear

[parmenides3]

Thanks.

TWS, that's the approach I am hopefully going to be taking.

The title of the presentation will be "The death of fluffy bunny/feel better environmentalism and where we go from here"

Unfortunately alot of people have the idea that recycling christmas cards etc makes a difference, I am afraid it doesn't it's basically a sop to middle england to make them feel better. They can do these token things and still live there over inflated life styles.

A better approach would be to not send christmas cards in the first place.

I agree you have to explain that CO2 will continue to rise and will stablisize at 2020 level at best more likely 2040 levels and we have to live at that level.

BTW I will also be including some sneak previews into the 2007 IPCC report.

Iceberg: My feeling is that it is important that we distinguish between environmental concerns [which are, of course, very important], and climate change concerns. Whilst it may be true that many of us [thanks, Discovery channel et. al.] pay most attention to GW when we see drowning polar bears and dead birds, these are only one part of the by-product of climate change. Here is a telling comparison to describe the potential (with strong emphasis on that word) impacts of climate change on the world in the 2050's, [for example]:

Take 'Live Aid'. This was a response to a human tragedy in Africa, affecting around 2 million people at the time. Remember the pictures? Dead babies. Despair. Multiply that by about 100. That's your baseline. Current model climate forecasts for the most vulnerable areas of the world suggest a human tragedy on a scale unimaginably vast in comparision to almost anything which has ever happened before - perhaps the Black Death is a comparable phenomenon. The Hadley Centre has and excellent free download on this and other issue on its 'publications' page.

This is, of course, an 'alarmist' scenario. It may never come to pass. But the more we procrastinate about action, the more likely it becomes. It may seem over-strong to approach the issue in this way, but if you are going to get people to listen, you will probably have to hit them hard, first.

A second point: where do you get the 2020 and 2040 figures from? There is [as yet] no indication that CO2 emissions will stabilise by 2020, or even by 2040, in the world as a whole. Even after this, temperatures will continue to rise for 150-200 years, though more slowly in the 22nd century.

Under NO circumstances should you give a 'sneak preview' of the IPCC AR4, assuming you have managed to gain access to it, which I have failed to do so far. The report is embargoed until February and should not be cited until the IPCC says so. There's plenty of alternative material around, anyway, so perhaps instead you might 'speculate' as to what the report might show, instead...

Good luck with the presentation.

:)P

[Devonian]

As part of Environment week (22 Jan) I am going to be doing a presentation where I work on GW and how best to combat it.

The audience is around 100 middle aged weathyish IT consultants, most of whom leave a very large carbon foot print.

They Fly to much, drive 4X4's or posh cars and basically don't include the environment in any of there thoughts.

TBH they are the very people who have to change there ways IF the UK is to try and cut it's CO2 emissions.

But the question is What's the best way of convincing these people to do something ?. and how should I go about doing it ?.

I am going to try and explode some of the myths around AGW and CC, probably use some of the google flood maps on here to show how there place of work and homes will be directly effected etc. But I don't think this will be enough.

I'd also be interested in hearing about the pro's and anti's so I can come up with some ideas and also possible responses to some of the more difficult questions.

i.e why should a small country like us do anything if China India etc are going to go there merry way ?.

Any help would be very appreciated. This will also take my mind of the crappy models atm.

Cheers

Matt Swift

Matt, one thing I've read and that I keep being reminded of is this post on a blog about 'residuals'. The whole sceptic argument is about residuals - nothing more. The residual being pushed is ever changing (who still goes on about satelite temperatures?) which, as each one is countered, just weakens the sceptic case.

It certainly helped me see what's happening.

ATB

PH

Edited January 11, 2007 by Devonian

[The Penguin]

Devonian, what Ms. Rabett’s rather trite little piece overlooks is that the sceptics are entitled to be so in cases where the residuals are as big as the theory.

[The PIT]

A very good post there Snowbear.

Alternatives won't be made cheaper while the Government see's GW as a way of raising more taxes. Until we get our MP's out of that mind trap the better.

[Devonian]

Devonian, what Ms. Rabett’s rather trite little piece overlooks is that the sceptics are entitled to be so in cases where the residuals are as big as the theory.

Indeed, it's been Sooooo cold across the planet as a whole recently, and the concentration of ghg's isn't rising like mad......

[Gray-Wolf]

If I was a christian I'd be calling this the 'end time'. All of the prophesies of the collapse of our current climate and the imposition of the human induced climate are now there to be seen. The 'counter prophets' are singing in the globally warmed wind.

[Devonian]

If I was a christian I'd be calling this the 'end time'. All of the prophesies of the collapse of our current climate and the imposition of the human induced climate are now there to be seen. The 'counter prophets' are singing in the globally warmed wind.

Not sure which of two possibilities your post is.

One, warmers are a bunch of clerics, the other side similar but of another faith

Two, we really are in trouble.

[Gray-Wolf]

Not sure which of two possibilities your post is.

One, warmers are a bunch of clerics, the other side similar but of another faith

Two, we really are in trouble.

LOL. I grew up on a diet of documentories that always seemed to end on a dire warnings for the planet (through the 70's) so in some ways I was 'primed' to see the relevant changes occuring and now, in accord with the scientists, I am constantly surprised by the speed that change is occuring.

I get the feeling that the next 5 years will show us some terrible aspects of this warming trend and it's true impacts on the planet.

I am currently in discussion with U.S. scientists down at McMurdo Sound (Antarctica) regarding the imminent collapse and breakup of the Ross Ice shelf and the implications for the WAIS should this occur. These questions should have been delayed until post 2060 if I was to 'believe' the information given out by them in the 70's but things have changed. The break up of the WAIS would raise sea levels between 16 and 50ft and could well occur over the next 15yrs.

[Devonian]

LOL. I grew up on a diet of documentories that always seemed to end on a dire warnings for the planet (through the 70's) so in some ways I was 'primed' to see the relevant changes occuring and now, in accord with the scientists, I am constantly surprised by the speed that change is occuring.

I get the feeling that the next 5 years will show us some terrible aspects of this warming trend and it's true impacts on the planet.

I am currently in discussion with U.S. scientists down at McMurdo Sound (Antarctica) regarding the imminent collapse and breakup of the Ross Ice shelf and the implications for the WAIS should this occur. These questions should have been delayed until post 2060 if I was to 'believe' the information given out by them in the 70's but things have changed. The break up of the WAIS would raise sea levels between 16 and 50ft and could well occur over the next 15yrs.

Humm, the second one then I think

[The Penguin]

Christ, is it being so cheerful that keeps you two going? Don’t you realise you’re in a lose / lose situation? If you’re right you lose and if you’re wrong you lose. In the meantime neither you, me, nor anybody else is currently in the position to make any accurate prediction of what our climate will be like in 10, 100, 1000 or 10,000 years (the latter two being completely academic in any case,) because there is still insufficient understanding of how the global environmental system works, and therefore will deal with the slightly warmer weather we’ve been experiencing over the past century.

One drop of rain on the windowpane doesn’t mean to say that Armageddon is a-coming.

[Devonian]

Christ, is it being so cheerful that keeps you two going? Don’t you realise you’re in a lose / lose situation? If you’re right you lose and if you’re wrong you lose. In the meantime neither you, me, nor anybody else is currently in the position to make any accurate prediction of what our climate will be like in 10, 100, 1000 or 10,000 years (the latter two being completely academic in any case,) because there is still insufficient understanding of how the global environmental system works, and therefore will deal with the slightly warmer weather we’ve been experiencing over the past century.

One drop of rain on the windowpane doesn’t mean to say that Armageddon is a-coming.

Well, you would have me write what I think to be wrong would you so I can 'win'?

I do actually think there a practical and workable solutions to the anthropic problems of this world - though I do think it will be some time before (if) we adopt them.

[The Penguin]

Devonian, I'd have thought an Eco Hero like you would jump at the chance to write a wrong.

[Devonian]

Devonian, I'd have thought an Eco Hero like you would jump at the chance to write a wrong.

Very clever!

But, though you may like to think in stereotypes, I can assue you I'm no swampy.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Devonian

[Iceberg]

Thanks for the link Peter I'll have a look.

I am afraid I really can make a prediction for the weather in 10 years time warmer, maybe much warmer.

The next EL NINO like 98 will really convince people of the problem.

Anymore info on the Ross Ice Sheet ?.

[Gray-Wolf]

Anymore info on the Ross Ice Sheet ?.

Still awaiting a reply from the second chap I E-mailed but this 'link' lets me ask Penguin about such things and how he allays his fears over such matters.

It is one thing watching the thermometer creep up and predicting the effects but wholly another watching a physical entity (like the Ross Ice Shelf) disappearing over a small number of years when you know that the mechanisms to reinstate it do not exist within our current climate.

The geography of the WAIS is well understood and the first studies of it's paleo climatic demise do not make for comfortable reading. Whether the final stages of de-glaciation or the impact of global warming it's (Ross and WAIS) demise will bring about the same results and its demise is imminent (and not a thing of 50 years hence).

[The Penguin]

The question I ask myself on this is “Will this harm me, or my children, or my childrens’ children; and if so, to what extent and when”?

So, in the case of a one degree rise in global temperatures over the past thousand years I tend to feel that no harm has been done, and even if global temperatures rise by a further two or three degrees over the next hundred years none of my objects of concern will be harmed to any appreciable extent.

In the case of the Antarctic ice sheets, this is not the first time they have come and gone and I don’t think that the estimated fifty-year timescale to complete disappearance is even close to being proven. It seems to me just as likely that the situation that existed fifty years ago will be reinstated in fifty years from now. But even if Antarctica becomes completely ice free, and sea levels rise by twenty metres, there is no reason for me to believe that my family (I’ll be well dead by then) as First World, upland living, educated and intelligent Scots that they are (/ will be) would face imminent harm.

I don’t deny that things may be different in the short to medium term weather wise, but I don’t feel that leads inexorably to climatic melt down.

I do know that there is a small chance that I will be the subject of a fatal accident tomorrow, yet I carry on regardless, happy and contented. If I knew that I would definitely die tomorrow I would probably feel less chipper – but that’s not the case, and I honestly think that acting as if it were is completely counter productive. And the same with climate change.

[Gray-Wolf]

The question I ask myself on this is “Will this harm me, or my children, or my children's’ children; and if so, to what extent and when”?

In the case of the Antarctic ice sheets, this is not the first time they have come and gone and I don’t think that the estimated fifty-year timescale to complete disappearance is even close to being proven. It seems to me just as likely that the situation that existed fifty years ago will be reinstated in fifty years from now. But even if Antarctica becomes completely ice free, and sea levels rise by twenty metres, there is no reason for me to believe that my family (I’ll be well dead by then) as First World, upland living, educated and intelligent Scots that they are (/ will be) would face imminent harm.

So far as the Antarctic/Greenland ice sheets are concerned we must constantly re-appraise our positions it would seem. Since the 2002 collapse of Larson B and the 2004 report on the collapses effects on ice transportation from the interior science has seemed to been playing 'catchup'. This is not 'proving the science as wrong' but that timescales/rates of change were drastically underestimated (so as not to be decryed 'alarmists' by the media?)

Deep penetration radar studies of the WAIS (2005) showed a 'ruck' within the body of the West Antarctic ice sheet suggesting a 'piling up' of ice movement when the ice shelfs re-established themselves and halted the ice sheets advances. The melting of the ice shelves (all the Antarctic ice shelves are in rapid ablation) would lead to the reanimation of this 'ice flow' into the oceans. Seeing as much of the WAIS lies below sea level any erosion of the Ross Ice shelf would lead to sea water 'floating off' the majority of this sheet and it's eventual destruction in the southern oceans. This would occur over a few seasons (no 50yr time period, that is the 'conservative, lets not appear too scary' timescale).

Most of the worlds financial centres would be inundated by such an event leading to a partial collapse of the worlds monetary institutions so even if your feet were dry your boat would still be sunk.

In the first world the majority rely upon others for their day to day continuance so any interruption to the 'business as usual' status quo spells doom for the many (remember the first 'petrol crisis'?).

To solve any problem first you must define the problem. Surviving the next 15yrs will require a good grasp of all the eventualities (even if you never need act upon this knowledge). To not do so is to leave yourself and loved ones at the mercy of others, even if only in the very short term. It does not take long without a clean water supply or access to food to leave any man and family in dire straights. If that situation was a 10% probability would you gamble with your loved ones or take steps to mitigate ANY eventuality?