Al Gore takes our sigantures to Bali

[Essex]

Just to put the carbon issue into perspective, it is buildings that produce approx 50% of our carbon emissions, with transport producing about 25%. The majority of transport is road transport and a significant amount of that (apart from our own car use) is food miles. So should we not be concentrating on what we can personally do given the lack of leadership. Our buildings, our road travel and sourcing local food, flying is small beer compared with these.

 

[MdB]

... and a significant amount of that (apart from our own car use) is food miles. ... and sourcing local food ...

Low impact food production is what is important. Measuring food miles is a poor indicator of this. The price of the food is a better indicator.

Example 1 - Spanish tomatoes have a lower impact than English tomatoes though the food miles is higher (and they are cheaper).

Example 2 - Shipping UK scampi to Bangkok to be shelled before being shipped back to the UK is better for the environment (supposedly - just taking their word for it) than shelling in the UK and is cheaper. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7150834.stm

It is important to take the total energy costs of food production into account and not just looking at a small part of it (such as food miles).

 

[Nemesis]

Let's not get as I said in another thread, too bogged down on the tomato issue. Spanish isn't better always.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1541268,00.html

 

[Flyfisher]

Of course Gore's lifestyle is irrelevant, as is that of Hollywood stars etc.

Only in the sense of his personal carbon impact. However, the issue is not his personal impact but the fact that his lifestyle is a hindrance to people changing their own lifestyle. You might not agree with the 'he won't change, why should I?' argument but it would be wise not to deny it.

Isn't one of the biggest challenges to persuade people that their own individually-insignificant lifestyles need to be changed? As someone said; if Gore's lifestyle is irrelevant, why isn't mine?

 

[Flyfisher]

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.

Very good points Biff. I think I've said before that the only practical and acceptable way out of the problem will be based on advancing our technology rather than reducing our lifestyles. There was an interesting article in New Scientist recently about the recent advances in PV technology, particularly those made in Germany following new government-led laws regarding guaranteed prices for selling PV-generated electricity, which changed the economics and got industry stuck in to solving the problems.

The one thing I would take issue with is your point about relying on Mr Average forcing politicians to act. I can't see this happening in the very few years you previously mentioned. We didn't 'force' the government to build a new Eurostar rail link or bid for the Olympics or go to war in Iraq, but the government decided these were good things to spend our taxes on anyway.

So what's stopping government(s) forging ahead with the initiatives you mentioned? It goes back to the lack of urgency I mentioned before. Pford75's point about an international R&D fund sounds good to me. Why is the EU messing around spending billions to develop a duplicate GPS system when it could be spending that (and more!) on helping to wean us off our high-carbon lifestyle?

 

[biffvernon]

You're right to say that Mr Average doesn't 'force' politicians to do anything. But politicians, at least in 'democracies' do have to be very mindful of public opinion, perhaps playing to the lowest common denominator. Their ability to lead is very much constrained. It's a bit sad that some people (sheeple) feel they need to be led. Al Gore certainly doesn't lead me - I was talking about climate change long before Gore did.

The reason that I think Gore's flying is irrelevant has been missed by some posters here. His personal life makes at least as much impact on climate change as any of us 6 billion. But his decision to fly, or indeed anyone else's decision to fly, has precisely zero impact on climate change. Oil burning is constrained by production capacity - the supply side. Demand exceeds supply to the extent that it costs $20 to produce a barrel but $90 to buy one. If someone stops flying then the oil will still be burnt but elsewhere in the economy.

The only way CO2 can be stopped from rising is by leaving the black stuff in the ground. That means addressing the supply side of the energy economy. Governments have got to forego production. The Depletion Protocol is an attempt in that direction.

All the very important efforts at energy saving and sustainable electricity production are about making the fossil fuel descent curve more palatable and therefore politically possible.

 

[Flyfisher]

But politicians, at least in 'democracies' do have to be very mindful of public opinion, perhaps playing to the lowest common denominator. Their ability to lead is very much constrained.

Mindful, yes, but I wouldn't say 'very much' constrained in this context. I can't imagine public opinion being particularly against new R&D to combat climate change; it would certainly be more popular than more tax on fossil fuel.

The government managed to pull tens of billions out of the hat to maintain Northern Rock's liquidity (although I'm sure we'll all be paying for that in the coming years) so why not a similar amount (at least) for renewable energy R&D? Or, even better perhaps, enact some new laws that alter the economics of, say, PV generation - as Germany has done - and get industry on-side? The markets can be a very powerful force, so why not get it working in our favour? The oil depletion protocol is all very laudable but it'll be much easier to wean ourselves off oil if there is an economic alternative, which is where government-led R&D can make the difference. Who wouldn't switch to electric heating and a hydrogen-powered car if they were available from a renewable source at an economically sensible price?

But, again, there is no apparent sense of urgency. The latest effort in Bali has merely resulted in all our 'leaders' agreeing that they really must agree something (yet to be decided) in two years time. Like it or not, I'm afraid the global population will follow this lead and, largely, conclude that yes, they probably ought to be doing something, but there's no great rush, so carry on as normal for the time being.

Still, it's good to know that flying is largely irrelevant . . . I must dust off those carribean holiday brochures :wink:

 

[Pford75]

His personal life makes at least as much impact on climate change as any of us 6 billion. But his decision to fly, or indeed anyone else's decision to fly, has precisely zero impact on climate change.

Ahhh...now I understand....he's 'worthy' and therefore exempt from the need to adjust his own lifestyle.

Well, I run Latin America, Africa & Middle East, Eastern Europe & Russia/CIS for the world's largest networking company with the world's largest share of video conferencing and electronic collaboration products...I actually sell the solutions, rather than just pointing at the problem...how much 'impact' do I personally need to have on climate change before I become exempt as well?

 

[Flyfisher]

Well, I run Latin America, Africa & Middle East, Eastern Europe & Russia/CIS for the world's largest networking company . . .

I always suspected those massive American technology companies were running the world using puppet governments as a front.
Brave of you to go public though :wink: :lol:

 

[biffvernon]

Still, it's good to know that flying is largely irrelevant . . . I must dust off those carribean holiday brochures :wink:

Irrelelvant to climate change, but that's not the only reason for not flying. Your use of oil stops a Senegalese switching on the electricity or a Zambian using a tractor. There's a finite amount of oil available each day and if one person uses it then another doesn't.

And then there are all those period properties that previous generations carelessly built just where new runways at Heathrow and Stansted need to be built

 

[Pford75]

I always suspected those massive American technology companies were running the world using puppet governments as a front

You're right....and the period house in Norfolk is just a front....my real home is a subterranean base in an extinct volcano.

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . . and you have a fluffy white cat ?

 

[Nemesis]

Oh cats. Yes,

We had to have our lovely old Polly 'euthanised' this morning. Sad burial in the garden. She will be hugely missed. Hope when my end comes it will be with as much love and regret, but maybe not.

Back to airports - Harmondswoth barn, all those historic buildings at Stanstead and Hatfield Forest. Part of the reasons not to fly without much reason!

But of course it's progress, innit?

 

[Flyfisher]

Irrelelvant to climate change, but that's not the only reason for not flying. Your use of oil stops a Senegalese switching on the electricity or a Zambian using a tractor. There's a finite amount of oil available each day and if one person uses it then another doesn't.

Now there's an uncomfortable truth if ever there was one. Puts things like our concern for old buildings in perspective. We are very priviledged indeed to be able to worry about such things.

 

[NT]

I do think there are some assumptions being made in this thread I would question. Rather than write all evening, here's something to think about:
http://icecap.us/


NT

 

[biffvernon]

Pity it's mostly lies.

Joseph (Joe) D'Aleo, is a retired meteorologist who is a well known climate change skeptic. On October 20, 2006 D'Aleo registered the domain name for ICECAP, a website challenging human-induced global warming

Sourcewatch[/url]"] Robert Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC

These guys would be a serious problem if anyone actually took them seriously.

 

[Moo]

But surely we need people like these, if only to keep their opponents on their toes?

My wise old grandfather (a lifelong leftie, one of whose dearest wishes was to live long enough to see the demise of the House of Lords) always took the Telegraph rather than the Guardian. He did this, he said, so that he wouldn't be tempted to take everything it said on trust.

 

[biffvernon]

The scientific method has, within itself, a very robust way of getting us ever closer to the truth. Those people at icecap.us are outside of the scientific method and are deliberately and dangerously trying to mislead people. Do you want teachers to tell their charges that yew berries are good to eat, just to keep parents on their toes?

 

[Nemesis]

I recall all those years of some scientists telling us smoking was positively good for us. So many kept on smoking, and dying.

 

[Flyfisher]

My wise old grandfather (a lifelong leftie, one of whose dearest wishes was to live long enough to see the demise of the House of Lords) always took the Telegraph rather than the Guardian. He did this, he said, so that he wouldn't be tempted to take everything it said on trust.

Very wise indeed. Only a closed mind refuses to engage in a debate by rubbishing the opposing side, or by only reading material that simply reinforces their own beliefs and discarding everything else.

As for the smoking point, what does that mean? If they were wrong about smoking perhaps they can be wrong about climate change?