Movie Time: The Age of Stupid

[Flyfisher]

I've read about the bio-char idea and have been puzzled why it hasn't seem to have caught on. Perhaps there is confusion with 'carbon sequestration', which seems to be largely discredited as a practical solution, although in practice bio-char is just one method of carbon sequestration. I think this, and many other examples of possible or part-solutions are just serving to confuse rather than galvanise.

Biff says bio-char is "win, win, win" but it can't be if no-one believes in it. Again, where is the 'grand plan'? If Crutzen is correct that we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 70% by 2015 to be safe then we need a similar, quantitative, proposal on how to actually achieve this, not just a qualitative "bio-char could be the answer" statement.

In many respects I think this whole issue is being misrepresented as a scientific problem awaiting a scientific solution whereas, in practice, it's really a sociological problem . . . you can lead a horse to water, etc etc.

 

[Penners]

I want to see the place before you pour Penners' muck all over the floors

I eschew all ownership of the muck. I am but a guardian of it, for the future generations of muck-spreaders.

Anyway, which muck are you talking about, Hughes? Do you disagree with the suggestions?

Out with it, man. I can take it.

 

[biffvernon]

Nothing wrong with carbon sequestration. That's the general term for locking up carbon instead of putting it in the air. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the discredited not-ready-yet technology that coalminers and owners of coal-fired powerstations like to promote.

Of course it's all part-solutions. There is so magic bullet and we need to learn how not to be confused. Don't look for grand plans - there aren't any, but if quantitative is what you want it's all in the links I posted earlier.

Yes, it's certainly a sociological problem. The science is way ahead of political policy and the social acceptance of the required policy.

What to do? Keep blogging, talking, telling folk to go see the film The Age of Stupid.

 

[Schoolmarm]

I have booked two tickets to see this at blackburn. I will combine the 8 mile trip with a shopping trip to food place next to cinema. If it is a week day I may combine it with dropping my land rover off for mot.

Thus making my visit quite green.


Failing all the above I will have to cycle :roll:

 

[another_richard]

If you were all that serious about saving the planet (more like prolonging the life of the planet so we can continue exploiting it) you would not have children.

The rest is just hot air.

 

[Penners]

Failing all the above I will have to cycle

And then, to get home again, you'll have to recycle.


:roll:

 

[yamin]

But of course the cycling makes you breathless, which increases your release of C02, which is just adding to the problem isn't it??? Suggest rentaghost type 'nose-hold transmogrification' ( come on pedants, bring it on! My choice of the word 'transmogrification' for a start!!)

 

[skier-hughes]

Just testing replying

 

[DaveBrigg]

The required reading for the AQA English 'B' exam is a series of articles detailing the effects of global warming - starving polar bears, crumbling Alpine mountains etc. There's also a news report of the first person to swim a kilometre at the geographic North Pole. Last year the subject matter was cycling, and the year before was Glastonbury Festival. I think there is a theme developing.

 

[biffvernon]

The Making of The Age of Stupid

In this documentary, 'Team Stupid' reveal the lengths they went to - from kidnap threats in Nigeria to 'crowd-funding' in London - to make this year's most talked-about climate change film starring Pete Postlethwaite

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/mar/02/age-of-stupid-making-of

 

[Flyfisher]

If you were all that serious about saving the planet (more like prolonging the life of the planet so we can continue exploiting it) you would not have children.

Hear hear - except it's a taboo subject. Even poor Jonathon Porritt got short shrift when he recently put his head above this particular parapet - and he was only proposing a limit of two children per family: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/feb/01/population-environment-porritt

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html

Perhaps "green fatigue" is kicking in. I'm sure this new film will get its 15-minutes of fame, but will it have any more effect that "An Inconvenient Truth"?

 

[Pford75]

I think it's worth sharing what members of my organisation at Cisco are doing. I'm much more supportive of practical steps to increase our understanding and develop solutions and I can vouch for the fact that there is no 'oil giant funding' or 'political lobbyist' involvement.

NASA, Cisco Partnership on Climate Change Monitoring Platform
WASHINGTON - March 3, 2009 - NASA and Cisco Inc. announced Tuesday a partnership to develop an online collaborative global monitoring platform called the "Planetary Skin" to capture, collect, analyze and report data on environmental conditions around the world.

Under the terms of a Space Act Agreement, NASA and Cisco will work together to develop the Planetary Skin as an online collaborative platform to capture and analyze data from satellite, airborne, sea- and land-based sensors across the globe. This data will be made available for the general public, governments and businesses to measure, report and verify environmental data in near-real-time to help detect and adapt to global climate change.

"In the past 50 years, NASA's expertise has been applied to solving humanity's challenges, including playing a part in discovering global climate change," said S. Pete Worden, director of NASA's Ames Research Center. "The NASA-Cisco partnership brings together two world-class organizations that are well equipped with the technologies and skills to develop and prototype the Planetary Skin infrastructure."

Cisco and NASA will kick off Planetary Skin with a series of pilot projects, including "Rainforest Skin," which will be prototyped during the next year. Rainforest Skin will focus on the deforestation of rainforests around the world and explore how to integrate a comprehensive sensor network. It also will examine how to capture, analyze and present information about the changes in the amount of carbon in rainforests in a transparent and useable way. According to scientists, the destruction of rainforests causes more carbon to be added to the atmosphere and remain there. That contributes significantly to global warming.

"Mitigating the impacts of climate change is critical to the world's economic and social stability," said John Chambers, Cisco chief executive officer. "This unique partnership taps the power and innovation of the market and harnesses it for the public good. Cisco is proud to work with NASA on this initiative and hopes others from the public, private and not-for-profit sectors will join us in this exciting endeavor."

NASA provides continuous global observations of our home planet using a constellation of spacecraft, as well as airborne and in situ ground observations to monitor the health and well-being of Earth. NASA's investment in Earth observations and climate change research is greater than that of all other nations combined.

Cisco will bring its experience and expertise in networking technologies and advanced innovation to the project. Cisco's Internet Business Solutions Group has a unique combination of business acumen, scientific, economics and policy understanding. Its experts will conduct complex data analysis and modeling, and share an in-depth knowledge of the next generation Internet Protocol architectures to determine how to best prototype, replicate and scale a Planetary Skin to millions of participants.

Cisco is also working on the Planetary Skin program with the United Nations, multi-lateral development banks, businesses, international government agencies, universities, think tanks, non-governmental agencies and foundations. Planetary Skin participants will pool their unique skills, assets and technologies to develop the decision support capabilities to effectively manage natural resources such as biomass, water, land and energy; climate change-related risks such as a rise in sea level, droughts and disease proliferation; and new environmental markets for carbon, water and biodiversity.

For more information about Planetary Skin and how to partner with this project, visit: http://www.planetaryskin.org/

For more information about NASA and its programs, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/

For more information about Cisco Inc., visit: http://www.cisco.com/

 

[biffvernon]

Pity the sattelite crashed last week. My son was hoping to use the data in his Phd.

 

[Pford75]

Pity the sattelite crashed last week.

This project does not rely upon a single satellite - in fact, the skin intends to pull data in real time from multiple sources

satellite, airborne, sea- and land-based sensors across the globe

. The satellite to which you refer does not impact this project currently, but obviously the more data sources the better. I agree that the loss is a regrettable set-back - I wonder if any of the environmental lobby groups will be contributing towards a new launch or is their money better spent on making films? :wink:

I hope that one of the positive conclusions that will be drawn from the project is that it is intended to be constructed as a open platform with the data available to anyone in near real-time. I would hope that everyone can see the benefit of a single, timely data source when assessing the facts and planning responses.

 

[biffvernon]

I wonder if any of the environmental lobby groups will be contributing towards a new launch or is their money better spent on making films? :wink:

I suppose the wink means you're not being serious, though your cynicism about the film is not called for in my opinion. That satellite would have made a very real difference to our understanding of the carbon sources and sinks. We spend more on downloading ringtones. Time to get priorities adjusted.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Even poor Jonathon Porritt got short shrift when he recently put his head above this particular parapet - and he was only proposing a limit of two children per family

The comparisons listed earlier in this thread suggest that the World's population does not have to reduce quite so dramatically.

8 British people for 1 year
* 4 American people for 1 year
* 1000 Tanzanians people for 1 year

If the American population halves, Tanzania's could increase by a factor of 250 before negative impact was felt. Assuming that Tanzania is not atypical, a Chernobyl style accident at Dungeness, with the wind blowing towards London, would produce a reduction in demand for resources roughly equivalent to the loss of the total population of Africa.

 

[Flyfisher]

If the American population halves, Tanzania's could increase by a factor of 250 before negative impact was felt.

That, I think, is a very good illustration of the impact of population and living standards when resources are finite - you can have a small population living to a very high standard or a large population living to a much lower standard.

Or, we can all live the high-life for a short period of time before the brown stuff makes contact with the rotary ventilator.

 

[DaveBrigg]

maths is not my strong point
If the US population is just over 300 million, halving it would produce a reduction of just over 150 million consumers, who would have used the equivalent resources of 37 978 080 000 Tanzanians. Since the 2002 estimate of African population is 843 705 143, it could become 45 times larger and still produce a net reduction in demand. As long as the extra population did not want cars, televisions, fast food outlets, air-conditioning, holidays abroad etc.

Here's one way of starting

 

[Flyfisher]

As long as the extra population did not want cars, televisions, fast food outlets, air-conditioning, holidays abroad etc.

And therein lies the problem, unless the global population only aspires to the living standard of the average Tanzanian.

But there's no need to ban having children. The global population could easily be halved before the end of the century if couples limited themselves to just one child. It's simple maths, rather like the simple maths supporting the notion that climate change can be avoided by reducing/reversing our CO2 output. Scientifically simple in theory, sociologically impossible in practice.

 

[biffvernon]

Actually the maths is not as simple as you think. A remarkably large proportion of the world's population are very young - they are yet to have even one child. The population will grow if these girls have just one child each since they will be having babies faster than the relatively few old folk are dieing. You have to take into account the shape of the population pyramid and the life expectancy at each age. The maths is a bit tricky.

China, with it's one child policy, has done a great deal to limit population growth, yet their population is increasing at about 12 million per year.