Greening up 25 million homes

[biffvernon]

The only* people I am quick to judge are those who don't understand science yet are quick to say the science is wrong.

I've a lot of patience for those who don't understand the science but are willing to learn.

*and people in favour of plastic windows.

 

[Pford75]

Not really helping the impression that some us have that Copenhagen is an unneccessary CO2 generating junket for many 'hangers-on'...I thought you might be interested in the article below....

"Artist Angela Palmer's 'Ghost Forest' - ten enormous tree stumps displayed last week in Trafalgar Square - was intended to "raise public awareness of the connections between deforestation and climate change". But as M&S would have it, these aren't just any tree stumps.

Palmer made what she describes as 'several field trips' by air to the rainforests of Ghana - a 6000 mile round trip - to select the right bits of timber, "most of which", she assures visitors "fell naturally in adverse weather conditions". They were then transported more than 200 miles by road to the port, where nine of them were loaded onto one cargo ship and one onto a different ship. Both boats then made the 7000+ mile journey to Tilbury docks and the stumps were brought to London by road.

The stumps remained in Trafalgar Square for 7 days and are now on their way to Copenhagen (600 miles), where they will be displayed in Thorvaldsens Plads for the benefit of the UN Climate Conference.

Palmer consulted those well known planet savers, JP Morgan and as a result of their report has offset 25 tonnes of CO2....apx as much as is produced in a year by 2.5 people in the UK going about their daily life"

It is this sort of pompous, self-congratulatory b@ll@x which really gets to me. Preaching to the rest of us about the need to drastically change our lifestyles...whilst transporting tree roots across the world to display as art! Note that she also doesn't say that all of the trees fell down of their own accord....implying she actually chopped down some trees to make a point about deforestation!!! Truly mad.

 

[biffvernon]

Some folk never do understand art, but do I have to explain about both science and art?

Back to Flyfisher's comments on 350.org, this came about after Jim Hansen, Director of NASA GISS, the lead climate monitoring entity, came out with the 350ppmv figure as the maximum safe CO2 level. He has a timely piece in the Guradian this morning:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/02/copenhagen-climate-change-james-hansen

The scientist who convinced the world to take notice of the looming danger of global warming says it would be better for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ended in collapse.

In an interview with the Guardian, James Hansen, the world's pre-eminent climate scientist, said any agreement likely to emerge from the negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.

"I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right track because it's a disaster track," said Hansen, who heads the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to reassess the situation. If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing then [people] will spend years trying to determine exactly what that means." He was speaking as progress towards a deal in Copenhagen received a boost today, with India revealing a target to curb its carbon emissions. All four of the major emitters – the US, China, EU and India – have now tabled offers on emissions, although the equally vexed issue of funding for developing nations to deal with global warming remains deadlocked.

Hansen, in repeated appearances before Congress beginning in 1989, has done more than any other scientist to educate politicians about the causes of global warming and to prod them into action to avoid its most catastrophic consequences. But he is vehemently opposed to the carbon market schemes – in which permits to pollute are bought and sold – which are seen by the EU and other governments as the most efficient way to cut emissions and move to a new clean energy economy.

Hansen is also fiercely critical of Barack Obama – and even Al Gore, who won a Nobel peace prize for his efforts to get the world to act on climate change – saying politicians have failed to meet what he regards as the moral challenge of our age.

In Hansen's view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the compromises that rule the world of elected politics. "This is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill," he said. "On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can't say let's reduce slavery, let's find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%."

more

 

[biffvernon]

Art?

Go to the Royal Academy:

Earth: Art of a changing world 3 December 2009 - 31 January 2010 at 6 Burlington Gardens, London.

Tracey Emmin's piece is called 'Global Warming'.

http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/gsk-contemporary-season-2009/#photos=gallery_null

 

[Pford75]

Biff....you've rather neatly avoided addressing the issue of an 'environmentalist' travelling halfway around the world to chop some trees down in the name of 'halting deforestation'.

What you (and most environmental campaigners) don't get....is that it is challenging to persuade the masses to give up their cars, flights and imported goods on the basis of a future doom scenario, whilst other environmentalists feel able to do things like this.

How many people in Copenhagen? Have they not heard of the internet/telephone?

BTW - The article came from this month's Private Eye.

 

[TimM]

Is there an alternative way of getting global political agreement to reducing C02 emissions than having a meeting? Hmmm. It's not perfect, but 'CO2 junket'? We are facing mass extinction here, Facebook petitions just aren't going to have the same impact...

 

[judrop]

The only* people I am quick to judge are those who don't understand science yet are quick to say the science is wrong.

I've a lot of patience for those who don't understand the science but are willing to learn.

*and people in favour of plastic windows.

:roll: There you go again, making statements about my knowledge/understanding when you have NO idea what I know or understand,( incidentally ,I worked in a scientific environment for over 40 years).
There was a time when the " scientific community" were sure the earth was flat, and those who believed otherwise were heritics!
What concerns me most is the almost evangelical fervour with which you "preach" your beliefs , it does your cause a great disservice,
the basic message being muddied by personal attacks, If someone is obviously at odds with your opinion why try to "convert" them ?
More in sadness than anger Ju

 

[Flyfisher]

The tree stumps thing does seem ironic, I agree, but it's a bit like locking up animals in zoos; bringing the beauty of, say, a tiger to millions of people makes it more likely to raise support to help save their wild cousins and justifies the imprisonment of a few examples. And yes, I admit that is rather simplistic! Emin's stuff probably has a lower carbon footprint than all those tree stumps, except if it gets sold for millions . . . (back to the money = energy hypothesis).

As for Copenhagen, I'm waiting to read some reaction to Hanson's comments; scientists often don't come off well in clashes with politicians and it's be interesting to see how the Copenhagen delegates deal with such damning comments from a generally respected scientist.

I've been looking for some more info on what action Hanson proposes. I guess it would be in line with 350.org but even they seem light on how to actually achieve 350ppm. He's quoted as saying it would be better to abandon Copenhagen and start again from scratch, which is a bit idealistic and, therefore, completely impractical. Might as well say we should have never started burning coal in the first place.

I suspect scientists see things in fairly simple mechanistic terms whereas the politicians have to deal with the messy world of real people, real lives and real economies. Nigel Lawson might doubt AGW but at least he seems to take the wider issues into account. The more purist scientists are going to start losing public credibility as the impact of actions to achieve 350ppm increases.

It may transpire that Hanson has just found his personal credibility 'tipping point' by dismissing the largest concerted action by world leaders in favour of advocating something that can no longer be achieved in practice.

 

[Pford75]

Is there an alternative way of getting global political agreement to reducing C02 emissions than having a meeting?

Errr...yes.

I confess to a vested interest, but we have a little product called Telepresence which could enable all the decision makers to meet virtually.

http://www.climatebiz.com/news/2009/11/02/cisco-put-telepresence-work-reducing-copenhagens-emissions

What I challenge, is the notion that 15,000 people are really needed to meet in person to acheive this.

 

[biffvernon]

:roll: There you go again, making statements about my knowledge...

Er, remind me when I attacked you. Did you defend the use of plastic windows or what was it that brought my ire?

 

[biffvernon]

Biff....you've rather neatly avoided addressing the issue of an 'environmentalist' travelling halfway around the world to chop some trees down in the name of 'halting deforestation'

The arguement about environmentalists flying around the world is rather weak. The test might be, does the action (flying to a conference, putting a tree stump in Trafalgar square or whatever) cause more carbon emission than it prevents. If the action causes millions of people to use less fossil fuel then there is a net benefit and the action could be justified. I have absolutely no idea what the balance is on the tree stump thing, but I know that sitting at home wingeing will not save our plight. I think it is better to do something with good intentions than to do nothing except criticise those that do.

Here's our latest little effort. http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk/ULR.html

 

[TimM]

From personal experience of products like telepresence (although I haven't used that one) there's no way you could get agreement on something like this! Even assuming that the technology was flawless, the added pressure of face to face meetings and the world's expectation must help.

Its true that some scientists can tend towards the idealistic, whilst we all know how messy politicians can be. What surprises (and depresses) me is the extent of climate change denial in this forum, normally so concerned with preserving the good. Perhaps there really is no hope?

 

[bower1]

Its true that some scientists can tend towards the idealistic, whilst we all know how messy politicians can be. What surprises (and depresses) me is the extent of climate change denial in this forum, normally so concerned with preserving the good. Perhaps there really is no hope?

It seems rather similar to comments on another forum:
http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=4906&page=5

I think you have to be wary of the use of climate change denial. I think the general mood in the posts is more unconvinced at the extent of the problem than complete denial.

 

[JoceAndChris]

What surprises (and depresses) me is the extent of climate change denial in this forum, normally so concerned with preserving the good. Perhaps there really is no hope?

Hmmmm, some of us (me) just have nothing positive to add to the discussion. It doesn't mean I'm not reading the posts or am in a huge state of denial over climate change.

Actually, this thread has seen me going round turning off the lights - and that's quite something for me!

 

[Lime]

climate change denial

How readily the warmer warners confuse the issue.

To clarify, there are three distinct aspects to consider.
First, is global warming taking place?
Second, assuming the first aspect is true, does man have much to do with it?
Third, assuming the second aspect is true, can it be reversed or altered in any way?

In general most people I speak to agree that the first aspect is true.
However the second aspect for many people proves much more difficult to accept.
The third is totally unproven.

 

[Pford75]

Totally agree with Lime's points above....and frankly the ease with which the eco-lobby resorts to shouting 'denier' at people rather demonstrates the challenge in presenting a compelling case.

The arguement about environmentalists flying around the world is rather weak. The test might be, does the action (flying to a conference, putting a tree stump in Trafalgar square or whatever) cause more carbon emission than it prevents. If the action causes millions of people to use less fossil fuel then there is a net benefit and the action could be justified

Putting aside the obvious irony in chopping down a tree to prevent deforestation (were there not enough trees already fallen elsewhere...or was this a 'special' tree?) I don't buy that argument...it's a bit like saying that it's okay for doctors to kill a few patients if their experiments result in saved lives. I can't imagine most of the eco-lobby supporting animal experimentation.

But....following this argument, I can be forgiven my flights, trips to the airport and general lifestyle if my work results in more people using the internet and thus reducing their reliance upon fossil fuels. Having just been involved in the launch of one of the largest Telepresence deployments in the developing world, resulting in considerable calculated CO2 reductions I assume that I should be exempt from preaching by the eco-lobby....but that's not quite how it works is it?

I could argue that perhaps my own impact on global CO2 reductions is far greater (in practical terms) than any amount of linking to 'scientific' papers or blogging or installation of tree stumps. Perhaps I am a member of the 'eco-lobby'??

 

[Flyfisher]

Point 3 might be unproven but it's looking increasingly unlikely given that (if you believe the science) we're already a fair way over the 'safe limit' and there is nothing going on in Copenhagen to address reducing atmospheric CO2 levels, only reduce its rate of increase.

The greens are going to have to change their position fairly soon from prevention to mitigation and adaptation. Hansen is seemingly still holding out for prevention.

 

[biffvernon]

To clarify, there are three distinct aspects to consider.
First, is global warming taking place?
Second, assuming the first aspect is true, does man have much to do with it?
Third, assuming the second aspect is true, can it be reversed or altered in any way?

At the risk of conjouring up Groundhog Day, yes, yes and yes.

The third yes represents the triumph of hope over reason, but, as Dan Dare said, where there's life there's hope.

 

[biffvernon]

Totally agree with Lime's points above....and frankly the ease with which the eco-lobby resorts to shouting 'denier' at people rather demonstrates the challenge in presenting a compelling case.

And just how would you have us demonstarte the case? Perhaps we should build the biggest scientic research effort ever conducted, employ more scientists than in any other field, publish more scientific papers than on any other topic, hold more international conferences, gather the leaders of 192 nation states together... Oh we've done all that.

Think I'll go and shout "Denier" at the Saudi Arabians, who, it would seem, would like to protect their market for a large fossil carbon sink.

 

[biffvernon]

I can be forgiven my flights, trips to the airport and general lifestyle if my work results in more people using the internet and thus reducing their reliance upon fossil fuels. Having just been involved in the launch of one of the largest Telepresence deployments in the developing world, resulting in considerable calculated CO2 reductions I assume that I should be exempt from preaching by the eco-lobby

You are forgiven. Keep up the good work.