IPCC Synthesis Report

[biffvernon]

The IPCC Synthesis Report will be launched at 11 this morning. Live feed from Valencia from here.

Looks like they're spelling things out a bit more clearly this time.

But Oh Dear! Look what the Grauniad has found:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/17/climatechange.carbonemissions1

 

[Penners]

I can't believe my luck. I clicked on the link to watch the conference live, and got it just as the Chairman of the IPCC formally handed over a copy of the Sythesis Report to Ban Ki-Moon.

 

[biffvernon]

Yes, I should have pointed out that it was 11 Valencia time, not Suffolk time.

Now that the IPCC Synthesis Report has driven home the last nail in the Sceptic’s coffin, it’s time to get on with saving the planet’s ability to support human civilization. Gordon Brown said it was a wake up call – we’ve got to make sure he does wake up, and stays awake.

Let’s get the priorities straight. Most of what’s left of the fossil fuels has got to stay underground. It’s no good changing a light bulb if the money we save gets spent on other stuff that uses fossil fuels. And changing the behaviour of six billion people is tricky. No, the carbon has got to stay in the ground and there are about 30 key nations that can make that happen. These nations have got to agree just to leave the stuff in the ground. Not easy but persuading 30 national leaders ought to be easier than persuading the six billion.

With a large part of the coal and oil left in situ, the price of fuels will sky-rocket and the market will sort out efficiency savings and sustainable energy sources. Governments that like the idea of equable distribution may choose rationing other than by price amongst their populations but that’s up to them. The main thing is that 30 nations agree to limit supply. That’s just what they are not doing at present, all the talk being on the demand side.

If we are going to have any hope of surviving global warming we have to focus on supply side economics not demand side. Time to wake up.

And if you're wondering what this has to do with Period Properties, just check how many Period Properties get a damp problem that no amount of breathability will cure when the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets slip seawards.

 

[Flyfisher]

You make it sound so easy Biff. I wish it were

Have you ever thought of helping to sort out the Middle East problems? The changes of behaviour needed for that don't even require a change in standards of living, but there doesn't seem to have been much progress in 2000 years.

One interesting model, though, is Cuba. I've been reading recently how they have, uniquely, achieved a sustainable ecological footprint. What are the chances of the G8 leaders (and others) convincing their populations to 'downshift' to Cuba's standard of living? More info here.

 

[biffvernon]

It's not easy. That's the whole point. We can't persuade 6 billion people to change their attitude. So let's concentrate on the 30 or so nations that can make the difference, and concentrate on their leadership. If we can stop the supply then the consumption has no choice.

 

[Flyfisher]

If we can stop the supply . . . .

Any ideas how the Middle East oil-producing countries can sustain their standard of living after shutting down their oilfields?

You admit that the population at large can't be persuaded but seem to advocate that 30 or so leaders will be an easier target. Even assuming that the leaders agree, how can they maintain their leadership without persuading their populations?

 

[biffvernon]

I don't know. But all we hear is demand side stuff - change your lightbulb, insulate you knickers etc etc. None of this is any good unless it actually results in fossil fuel staying underground. Maybe it would be easier to address the supply side.

Easier does not mean easy. But nobody who cares for old buildings gives up on a project just because it's not easy.

 

[Penners]

Well I'm sorry to sound like Private Frazer, but if the future of the planet depends on 30 oil-producing countries voluntarily ceasing production (and thereby decimating their economies) then we're all doomed.

I can't hep feeling that, if there is any hope of our cutting our dependence on oil, the initiative has to come from the main consuming nations, rather than the producers.

If the consumers simply stop consuming, then the rest will fall into place.

Did I really say "simply"?

 

[Flyfisher]

"Simply" is fine in this context, it's the 'if' that might be a tad presumptious. Lennon could have written another verse for 'Imagine' on the subject :wink:

 

[Penners]

Ah, yes - a new verse along the lines of "Imagine no possessions" (as imagined by one of the richest musicians of all time).

Imagine no combustion,
It's not easy but please try.
No vehicles on the roadways,
No aircraft in the sky.
Imagine all the people
Walking everywhere... you-hoooo....

You may say that I'm a madman
But we can't afford to quit,
'Cos unless we make it happen
Then we'll all be in the sh*t.

Copyright Lennon & Penners

 

[Flyfisher]

Excellent stuff! But, sadly, as likely to change things as the original.

 

[Nemesis]

So - no point in stopping flying then? Just carry on as before, as others will so it's pointless people doing anything about it?

Merely pondering...

Good stuff Penners. A wasted life, clearly you were cut out for rock musicianship and eco stardom.

 

[biffvernon]

It's an awkward truth but you are kinda right Nemesis. If the consumers simply stop consuming the price drops and then a whole lot of new users, previously out-priced, move into the market. Oil not used by an English women's air travel will be used by an Indian's air travel, or whatever.

That's why we've got to go for the supply side. It's our only hope no matter how slim that hope.

Doing all the energy saving stuff is, of course, terribly important and for two reasons. It gets us used to doing with less and it allows the fuel to be used for more useful purposes elsewhere in the global economy.

Just don't go thinking that your personal efforts at demand reduction are going to result directly in less CO2 going into the air.

 

[Nemesis]

I dropped out of a great deal of 'mainstream' stuff years ago Biff - not as much as I would like, really, and if only I was several decades younger... but more than many I think.

I just feel that it's no use whining about things if we don't make some small effort each. I don't sleep well nights as it is, really, about the state of the world, but it's no reason not to rage against the dying of the light.

 

[Flyfisher]

So - no point in stopping flying then? Just carry on as before,

What's the real problem with air travel? Indeed, what's the real common factor in a whole range of problems the world is facing? Fossil fuel consumption.

So, how about researching carbon-neutral technologies for flying instead?

What really bothers me about 'eco-bandwagon' debates such as trying to stop people flying or driving (witness "4x4 mum's" near-hysteria in some media reports) is that it's both divisive and broadly pointless yet gives the impression that something is being done to avert the problems staring us all in the face.

How about accepting that people want to fly and want to drive (yes, even in mostly pointless 4x4s) and want to live luxurious lives such as we are currently priviledged to lead, then start researching solutions that could achieve all this without destroying the ecosystem?

I'd bet people would rather pay higher taxes to fund such research rather than pay punitive taxes designed to bully people into reducing their standard of living (and since when did fuel taxes reduce demand anyway?).

At least there would be more chance of getting everyone pulling in the same direction rather than chasing our tails in 'micro-management' debates about kids walking to school and low-energy lightbulbs.

 

[biffvernon]

BBC News is now carrying this:

Bangladesh's Red Crescent society says up to 10,000 may have died and Red Cross officials say almost one million families have been affected.
Cyclone Sidr, which struck late on Thursday, brought winds of up to 240km/h (150mph) and a tidal surge of several metres.

But it's not on the front page - you have to dig a long way past soooo much trivia to find it.
And of course it has nothing to do with climate change, after all one can't ascribe a single weather event to global warming.

 

[Nemesis]

There's a major article in the Observer.

I wonder - what is a 'luxurious' life?

 

[biffvernon]

As in:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2210342,00.html

With claims that we've passed the peak of oil production, it's not enough just to say no to plastic bags, warns Lucy Siegle

Sunday November 18, 2007
The Observer

We aren't very good at envisaging a post-fossil fuel lifestyle. Although we happily talk about the price of organic vegetables or even the true cost of fish, the soaring price of oil remains anathema in lifestyle circles. Odd because there's nothing that threatens our hydrocarbon-dependent lifestyles more.

Unnervingly, many commentators claim we've passed the peak of oil production. According to Richard Heinberg, we sailed passed it in May 2005 (Heinberg will give the Soil Association's lecture on 22 November: What will we eat when the oil runs out? soilassociation.org). He suggests, in his new book Peak Everything: Waking up to the Century of Declines, that we need to wean ourselves off it. Fast.

It would, however, be dispiriting to wake up to this decline alone, concentrating only on your own petro-calories. Because while you can decide to say no to plastic bags (some 5 trillion are used globally annually and it takes 430,000 gallons of oil to produce 100m) or decide to run your car on biofuel to 'future proof' your own life (although Heinberg says biofuel production also peaked last year), cutting dependency on the black stuff needs to be a community-based project. For that reason, you can sign up to the burgeoning Transition Town movement (transitiontowns.org), the epicentre of which is Totnes, south Devon, which just happens to be my home town. You will join 176 UK communities signing up to the challenge of life after oil.

There is a blueprint: the Kinsale Energy Descent Action Plan (transitionculture.org). Through the prism of transition thinking, everyone is invited to take a fresh look at modern life in the light of peak oil. And it's refreshing. The relocalisation of energy, food supplies, building materials and even clothing is central, crushing the 'monoculture of the supermarkets', placing the emphasis on local food partnerships and procurement, and cutting down on all forms of food miles. A 7 per cent rise in urban transport last year was recently attributed by Defra to the need to shop increasingly far afield - distinctly non-transition behaviour.

To enable low-impact living on this scale requires a low-input but high-yield agricultural system, provided by permaculture - a design system that works in harmony with nature. Ultimately, the community is 'reskilled', learning to grow produce and fend for itself to increase its resilience.

Everyone's a winner in a town that loses its dependency on oil. Apart from those who proudly tend a lawn, however. Transitioners will view that manicured patch as a potential allotment - and don't even get them started on the fact you use a petrol-powered mower.

lucy.siegle@observer.co.uk

 

[Flyfisher]

The Cuban experience (http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index.php) has already shown it can be done; the question is how acceptable will such a radical change in lifestyle will be for the majority of the 'western' population (at least) that has come to expect an extraordinarily high standard of living.

 

[Nemesis]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2212901,00.html