Al Gore takes our sigantures to Bali

[NT]

No-one even has a workable plan for solution of the hypothesised problem. Small steps toward cutting carbon output a little arent going to get there. So even if you do believe in the climate catastrophe hypothesis, this isnt solving it. Sure there can be some minor agreements for political purposes, such as mandating some CFL light bulbs, but that sort of thing just doesnt tackle the claimed problem.

Maybe some of you think that this is just the first step, and that yes, almost all countries wil voluntarily revert to 3rd world economies to cut carbon emissions some day soon. Forgive me but I really dont think so. However I'm sure the window dressing will go on, its politics after all.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

We're doomed then.

 

[Flyfisher]

If we carry on living beyond our means, then yes.

I read that Bali was going to be the meeting where the science predominated, which was initially encouraging. I've read loads of stuff about the scientific evidence that supports the global warming hypothesis but I've not yet seen a science-based solution to the problem, i.e. something along the lines that we need to reduce carbon emissions by x% within y years in order to prevent catastrophic climate change.

To my mind, the word 'catastrophe' should be accompanied by some pretty urgent and if necessary drastic action. I don't detect any great urgency and I don't see any drastic action. I find this rather odd. What's the point in shouting 'fire' but then behave in a relaxed manner in terms of actually putting it out? (I know, I'll just chuck a bucket of water on it, that'll help and is better than nothing).

What I do detect is a 'green' movement that proposes motherhood and apple pie stuff about reducing our carbon footprint and consuming less of the planet's resources (all laudable stuff with which I broadly agree) while at the same time completely failing to engage in any debate about what is really needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.

I agree with NT; I don't see a workable plan for solving the problem - and that's the really scary part of all this.

I repeat my analogy of personal expenditure. If you live beyond your means to the tune of £1000 each month, the only long term solution to avoid bankruptcy is to cut back your expenditure by £1000 per month. Cutting back by £500 and relaxing isn't going to solve the problem. In reality, the situation is even worse because I don't believe we even know the '£1000' figure - we just cut back to a level within our individual personal comfort zones and hope for the best.

Hardly the best way to head off a 'catastrophe'

 

[Nemesis]

Management mantra:

First identify the problem.

THEN find the solution.

Or a range of solutions. But first there does need to be some recognition that there is a problem.

Still, I am not at all convinced that the leaders of the world read PPUK and take much note.


OH - here's a smiley:

 

[Penners]

Management mantra:

First identify the problem.

THEN find the solution.

I think you missed out a stage:

Convince everyone (even the Americans) that the problem actually exists.

 

[skier-hughes]

Didn't Al Gore win a prize for identifying the problem, so now it's find a solution, or was the summit still for identifying?

 

[Pford75]

Management mantra:

First identify the problem.

THEN find the solution.

So far I haven't seen anything which is being claimed as a solution.

Furthermore, any management worth their salt will not simply suggest 'solutions' that might work. In fact, solutions which don't work...don't move us any closer to the desired result (negative proof isn't really helpful).

I'd be willing to listen to even the most tentative hypothesis....but I think that most people realise that the moment they suggest a solution, they will be expected to lead the way.

Al Gore lives in a huge mansion, flys around the globe (on many occassions in a private jet which is even worse than mass air transport for emissions) and uses privileged rock stars to do his 'marketing'. When those 'championing' the cause get real and show the sceptics amongst us that it is possible (and desirable) to make the changes they are asking....then they may have a chance of convincing others. But "Do as I say...not as I do" will never work.

BTW - Given the greenhouse gas emissions of cattle....do we have to give up eatin meat?

 

[Nemesis]

Meat is a difficult issue, - ye there is the cows farting stuff, and the cattle eating grain stuff.

That is of course offset with the farming issues, and the wider issues of the farmed landscape.

I gave up eating meat a very long time ago, and find my diet far more interesting and varied than when it revolved around a chunk of dead animal on the plate, but that is an individual choice.

Gore - I don't have any answers, like Biff I am simply sincere in my worry for the future. But maybe it won't be my problem. so why should I care?

 

[biffvernon]

Actually I do have answers. Lots of us do. But the answers are so unpalatable it is difficult to voice them. First people have to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem, enough people to make it politically possible for action to be taken. It means ordinary people like us saying, yes there is a serious problem and there will be disaster if we don't take very radical action very quickly. Instead we deny the problem, stick our heads in the sand and whinge about the size of Al Gore's house and whether he goes to conferences in a plane not on a pushbike. Mad. We just don't seem to be there yet and I'm not sure we will be in time but I have to live in hope. Otherwise there is just despair.

Even on this forum there are several people who do not see the seriousness of the situation, but welcome back NT. You've not been around for a while?

This article in the Independent is very important:
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3258007.ece

James Hanson may one day come to be regarded as one of humanity's greatest heroes, if only the world were to listen to him.

Hanson's position is basically this:

We must keep CO2 below 450ppm (and keep fingers crossed that poorly understood climate feedback systems don't operate in a way that makes even that level too high).

We are not going to be able to reduce the amount of oil that is burnt. Oil is too useful, we are too addicted to give it up, if one person doesn't use it then someone else will (which is why not flying achieves nothing for climate change). We will use all the oil just as fast as it can be pumped out of the ground.

The good news is that we've used half the oil already - the easy half - so burning the rest might not send CO2 above 450ppm. The bad news is that since oil supply is not going to meet demand we should expect the worst ever (yes ever) global economic recession.

Attempts to mitigate the energy shortage by mining coal and using the oil shales and tar sands is the worst possible thing to do since this will send CO2 levels into the dangerously high level. Don't kid yourself that it might be alright - think end-Permian event, the one that made 95% of lifeforms on the planet extinct. There is no chance we would be amongst the 5% survivors.

Hence Hanson's letter to Gordon Brown this week about UK plans to increase coal mining.

The choice is between major economic recession and extinction. It's a no-brainer (but a lot of folk act as though they have no brains)

So we're all doomed?

No, I don't think so. If we act quickly and decisively to build a sustainable energy infrastructure and an industrial and agricultural economy that is not dependant on fossil fuels there is still a chance of saving civilization, perhaps even a chance of building a better civilization. The next very few years are critical.


Now, let's see how many on this forum don't accept what I've just written. They, and the billions who haven't even thought about it yet, are the problem. They need to be won over so that the politicians are empowered to act.

 

[Pford75]

Instead we deny the problem, stick our heads in the sand and whinge about the size of Al Gore's house and whether he goes to conferences in a plane not on a pushbike

And there was me thinking that Al Gore was "whingeing" about me flying to business meetings and not having double glazing in my house.....

I'll take action when I see our leaders live the life they are asking of us

 

[skier-hughes]

I can see we have global warming. I have no idea - nor do I pretend to know - how bad it is, how quickly it may kill us off.

So, maybe I am Mr Average, ie knowing about it but not in say Biff's league of extra accumalated knolwedge.

What I don't like is people saying I shouldn't fly by people who fly to tell us this. I don't see this is as MAD, but as someone who says do as I say, not as I do. Now if he took a stance and made a point of staying at home and attending the conference whilst there, then people like me may actually take him a lot more seriously than we do now.

Then you have info like that which Nemesis posted saying that Nintendo Wii's will actually produce more Co2 than many many flights, but do you here anyone saying we shouldn't be using games consoles like they say we shouldn't fly - not on mainstream tv.

I don't see why we can't whinge about his house either. If he's telling me to turn down my heating by 1' or to turn off my lights when I leave a room, then why cant he show some sign of doing the same and downsizing, running a massive house is just not very green or Co2 friendly is it.

I watched the programme on global warning with the green family in America. Wow, they had a green car, produced only small amounts of Co2, yet they had an electric garage door???? What is that saying, if you can't be bothered to do without those sort of luxuries then you are just not green, however hard you try to show it with the type of car you drive.

I didn't run an electric cable up to our gates for this very reason. Yes it'd be nice on these cold nights to drive up to the gate and have it open for me but I love where I live, I want my future generations to enjoy it as well, so some things have to be done to protect it and that's one small concession I made.

I do what I can to help, so I recycle lots, I grow lots of my own food, I walk/cycle and buy from local shops, but I also use Sainsbury's delivery service, I use waste wood for heating my house, also some oil, but this year I've had two deliveries instead of four, and I could have just made it on one if I hadn't got our parents over for Xmas, they feel the cold so much more at their age.
I've planted trees and hedges and I've worked on making my house as economical to run as I can whilst conserving it's heritage. I've also bought locally made goods for it, rather than imports.

I'm not a disbeliever, but I'm not totally sure it's such a major diasaster waiting to happen tomorrow. I'm not sure it's just us humans and not the world evolving as it has in the past.

I really don't know, but if I'm to be convinced as Mr Average, then I need to be led by example, not told what to do.

I fought for a wind turbine by us, but it was rejected as an eyesore. They need to be put where there is wind. What is worse, a wind turbine and a disturbed view or no view, no life, no earth?

As Mr Average as well, I'm all for empowering our government to act, but again, they must lead us. When our PM gets driven round in a Ford Mondeo rather than a Jag or range rover then people like me will start to sit up and take notice and work together to save the world.

Graham

 

[Flyfisher]

Biff, if you are right that the very next few years are critical, it's not very comforting that all the world leaders have only just managed to agree that they'll need to agree something in 2 years time.

The sense of urgency you display is precisely the sort of thing I would expect world leaders to be sharing when faced with the stark choice of extinction or the worst ever global economic recesssion. But clearly they are not. I see no proposals or initiatives to close down global coal/shale production. On the contrary.

You say If we act quickly and decisively to build a sustainable energy infrastructure and an industrial and agricultural economy that is not dependant on fossil fuels there is still a chance of saving civilization, perhaps even a chance of building a better civilization, which sounds hopeful but how, exactly, do you think this can be achieved in practice, given the need to persuade upwards of 2 billion people to drastically reduce their current lifestyle within the next very few years?

 

[biffvernon]

It's a very big ask, Flyfisher. We have to convince Mr Average, as exemplified by skier-hughes above, that we do have a problem. Al Gore has done more to bring the problem to people's attention than and one on the planet. His own personal lifestyle is utterly irrelevant. His ability to attend international conferences is very important and air travel is the only practical way to do that. As I've pointed out, catching a plane changes nothing as regards climate change - the oil is going to be burnt anyway. (There may be plenty of reasons for reducing air travel but reducing CO2 in the air is not one of them.)

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree that Al Gore's lifestyle, in isolation, is not going to make much difference to the planet one way or the other - but that's not really the issue. It's the effect he has on the population.

I accept that he might have raised more awareness than anyone else, but awareness is not going to solve the problem, there has to be some accompanying action.

I would suggest that awareness is quite high, but real action is pretty dismal at all levels. This might be because people don't really know what to do, so they just change their lightbulbs, buy local food and recycle more rubbish without really having a clue whether it will be enough to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Perhaps an economic-based approach might work. Explain to people that they have to learn to live on a percentage of their current income. People should be able to understand that - the only question is what the number should be: 75%, 50%, 25%, 10% ? I've seen figures that suggest the average 'westerner' has an 'eco-footprint' of 6x what the planet can sustain, this would suggest a target figure of around 16%. Any other suggestions?

 

[biffvernon]

You're probably not far out with that 16%, but such calculations are fraught with problems. It's not so much how much you do as what you do. Just suspending disbelief for a moment, imagine an electricity super-grid that brought electricity from Iceland, where there is an enormous potential for geothermal and hydro and wind generation, all the way to North Africa where there is a stupendous potential for solar generation, both pv and concentrated thermal. Add in an enormous expansion of wind power in Western Europe (sparing the views in the Upper Tyne Valleys to keep Nemesis on side). There is a great potential for deep rock geothermal over large areas of Europe and domestic pv could be adopted by more than just the Germans. The Severn will need a barrage, tidal stream power round Britain is as good as anywhere in the world and there are plenty of waves on the Atlantic coasts. Transport could be based on plug-in electric vehicles, which have the useful advantage of providing a massive distributed electricity storage system, and further power storage can be achieved by advanced battery technology, hydrogen production from water and pumped storage. Don't forget to lag the loft and change those light-bulbs and stop flying to Majorca.

A carbon free future? Can we do it? Yes. Will we do it? That depends on the attitude of Mr Average - will he force the politicians to act.

 

[Pford75]

His own personal lifestyle is utterly irrelevant

With respect (and I have no desire to engage in a heated argument), I disagree with the notion that Al Gore's lifestyle is irrelevant. I am sure that there are many other people who have observed Al Gore (and many others), preaching about the need for drastic action, but doing very little in terms of altering their own lifestyle (eg. Hollywood stars driving a Prius, but owning a private jet)

Saying one thing, but doing something completely different makes someone a hypocrite. It also somewhat undermines the case for urgency.

I don't disagree completely with all of your points Biff, but if I can reduce my own personal emissions by 20%, then I'd expect leaders such as Al Gore to do at least this.

Besides, the more I read and hear about the problem, the more convinced I become that reducing emissions will not solve the problem as quickly as required - we need to invest/incentivise business to innovate around the problem (just as mankind has done with every other problem it has faced). I'd like to see an international fund for R&D.

 

[Nemesis]

Of course Gore's lifestyle is irrelevant, as is that of Hollywood stars etc. I don't think Gore is 'preaching' either - he's simply stating what he believes to be true about an impending crisis, and the psychology of some of the arguments against him is interesting. Let's rebel against nanny - as it's inconvenient to believe.

It's the message that's important, sticking heads in sand and saying 'well I'm not cos he's not' is missing the point.

If he stayed home and walked everywhere, sending letters by carrier pigeon about the global problems, I wonder if the message would have got to anyone before it's too late?

 

[bower1]

I'm afraid I agree with Pford75.

If I take the approach that I think there is a real problem, and I'll tell everyone I can about it, but I'm still going to carry on the way I am because I'm special, then nothing will happen.

It doesn't make him wrong, but doesn't make him right either, just irrelevant.

 

[Nemesis]

just irrelevant.

His message isn't though. And he isn't the only one, it's just at the moment he's the one with the high profile.

 

[skier-hughes]

I'm all for his message, but answer this one.

If Al Gore's personal lifestyle is irrelevant, why is mine and the other 2 billion relevant?

Again, me as Mr Average, wants to do something but needs to be shown, follows his leader.

My leader lives a mansion, well has three houses, travels by luxury car and has personal flights....... why can't I?

I think Biff has made excellent points on the way forward for the production of energy and I wouldn't mind paying extra in taxes if I new that the money raised was going directly to finding a solution, in the same manner that I donate to charities. But for Biff to say that Al Gore's lifestyle is irrelevant sticks in my throat. Though I will bow down to the fact that to make a difference he has to attend conferences etc, but lets start seeing some action on this.

If he travelled standard class and others did as well, we'd have more effecient air travel as we'd get more people on each flight - removing the large area for first/business class - and that will reduce the number of flights made.

Time it so that all the world leaders arrive at the same time and bus them to the convention, like holidaymakers - okay npot that badly, but you get my point, although security would be an issue here, but even if you transported 2 or 3 at a time it'd save some.