The Deathly Silence

[biffvernon]

It's been a while since we've discussed global warming, far and away the biggest threat to our built heritage. Yesterday saw the publication by Kofi Annan et. al. at the Global Humanitarian Forum, of the very important ‘Human Impact Report: Climate Change – The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis’, the first ever comprehensive report looking at the human impact of climate change.

Summary of the Report:

Climate Change is here. It has a human face. This report details the silent crisis occurring around the world today as a result of a global climate change. It is a comprehensive account of the key impacts of climate change on human society. Long regarded as a distant, environmental or future problem, climate change is already today a major constraint on all human efforts. I has been creeping up on the world for years, doing its deadly work in the dark by aggravating a host of other major problems affection society, such as malnutrition, malaria and poverty. This report aims at breaking the silent suffering of millions. Its findings indicate that the impacts of climate change are each year responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths with hundreds of millions of lives affected. Climate change is a serious threat to close to three quarters of the world population. Half a billion people are at extreme risk. Worst affected are the world´s poorest groups, who lack any responsibility for causing climate change.

This thread's title are Kofi Annan's words from the beginning of his introduction to the report.

 

[Lime]

Much more to do with the deathly silence of population explosion.

 

[CHRIS]

It's been a while since we've discussed global warming, far and away the biggest threat to our built heritage. Yesterday saw the publication by Kofi Annan et. al. at the Global Humanitarian Forum,

No he did not he was at the FA cup final!

 

[Pford75]

The report also says....

That the average temperature has risen by 0.75 degrees since 1906


As for the 'half a million people' at 'extreme risk' which you quote.....you also forgot to include the following excerpt from the report....

These figures represent averages based on projected trends over many years and carry a significant margin of error. The real numbers could be lower or higher

 

[robgil]

its the 'or higher' bit i am worried about.

 

[biffvernon]

As for the 'half a million people' at 'extreme risk' which you quote...

Not my words but Kofi Annan's, except that you mis-quote. It's half a billion not million.

Indeed, robgil, the errors tend to be on the wrong side.

 

[DaveBrigg]

A few easy steps that all governments should take:

• Maximum 56 mph speed limit on all roads that are currently higher, to ensure best fuel economy.
  
  Financial and / or legal penalties for eating meat. Meat consumption is an unnecessary luxury which causes more energy use than arable farming. Poor quality arable crops that are curently fed to animals to be burnt in local biomass heat / electricity generation plants.
  
  Extend penalties / incentives for shared car use to cover property use as well. Much more efficient to have two people in a heated house than two individuals in two heated houses.
  
  Introduce petrol rationing, including for airlines. This was done in wartime, when the nation was under threat; there is now a 'serious threat to close to three quarters of the world population'.

Anyone fancy starting a petition?

 

[Lime]

If people are serious about conservation an annual mileage limit on powered travel would be a good equitable start.
I get fed up with some people who think because they own a car that does 50 mpg they can drive 30,000 miles or more a year as if their consumption doesn't matter.

 

[Flyfisher]

A few easy steps that all governments should take:
There are no easy steps to take, that's why governments are (largely) doing nothing.

Maximum 56 mph speed limit on all roads that are currently higher, to ensure best fuel economy.
Surely better to mandate speed limiters on all vehicles? Or just limit all car engines to a maximum of 1000cc?

Financial and / or legal penalties for eating meat. Meat consumption is an unnecessary luxury which causes more energy use than arable farming.
There are already financial penalties for eating meat - it's expensive and most of the world's population already can't afford it. As for banning it as an "unnecessary luxury", where would that lead us all? Alcoholic drinks are unnecessary, so are televisions and most other consumer electronics, so why not ban them all as well. Then there's cinema, theatre and all other arts - all unnecessary luxuries. Most of the things that give people a decent quality of life are "unnecessary luxuries".

Much more efficient to have two people in a heated house than two individuals in two heated houses.
Of course it is, but why stop at two? Why not enforce a minimum occupancy of 4 for a 3-bed house? Or even more, like it used to be in "the good old days" when 3 or 4 kids shared a single bed?

Introduce petrol rationing, including for airlines.
Why not just ban all recreational flying as an "unnecessary luxury"?

Anyone fancy starting a petition?
Why bother? No one will sign it.

And therein lies the problem, which is presumably why the very comprehensive report that Biff has mentioned deals almost entirely with 'the problem' rather than give any real lead regarding a solution, apart from concluding that we need to reduce global emissions to 20% of what they are today within 40 years, a timespan over which the global population is projected to increase by over 50%. Let's be honest - no-one has a clue how to practically achieve this.

Unfortunately, I don't believe climate change is going to be the 'world uniting' cause that Kofi and his pals seems to be advocating. Far from it. And it won't be pretty.

 

[robgil]

A few easy steps that all governments should take:

• Maximum 56 mph speed limit on all roads that are currently higher, to ensure best fuel economy.
  
  Financial and / or legal penalties for eating meat. Meat consumption is an unnecessary luxury which causes more energy use than arable farming. Poor quality arable crops that are curently fed to animals to be burnt in local biomass heat / electricity generation plants.
  
  Extend penalties / incentives for shared car use to cover property use as well. Much more efficient to have two people in a heated house than two individuals in two heated houses.
  
  Introduce petrol rationing, including for airlines. This was done in wartime, when the nation was under threat; there is now a 'serious threat to close to three quarters of the world population'.

Anyone fancy starting a petition?

how about doing away with the 100's of thousands of 1000/600 watt hps street lamps that we dont really need.
a 1000 watt high pressure sodium lamp must use a lot of juice.

and how about switching your engine off in traffic jams , compulsory in some countries i believe.

and how many time have you watched telly , even though there is nothing interesting on?

i believe its the small things that will make a difference , however i did read once about a chemical plant up in scotland that uses three huge gas turbines to generate its required power , the same power requirements as liverpool. :shock:
disposable lifestyles , paper towels instead of cloths , plastic throw away cups etc etc.

 

[Flyfisher]

a 1000 watt high pressure sodium lamp must use a lot of juice.

Yes, 1000 watts in fact :wink: .

Seriously though, I don't think streetlights are anywhere near 1000W. Sodium lamps are very efficient and I doubt streetlights are much more than 150W.

 

[Lime]

The very yellow sodium lamps (low pressure) are extremely efficient and usually low wattage (40 watts is common) but have a monchromatic output so are a very poor quality light.
The high pressure variations use more current but give better light.
I have often thought it a waste of energy seeing street after street lit throughout the night with virtually no traffic or people to make use of the light.
However, when considering greenhouse gases, it is also a fact that the energy consumed during the night is the most global warming-friendly because the energy is almost all nuclear power.

 

[yamin]

The report also says....

That the average temperature has risen by 0.75 degrees since 1906

Yes, what was hapening before 1906? (Sorry, edit to say this is yamins comment, not Pfords)


As for the 'half a million people' at 'extreme risk' which you quote.....you also forgot to include the following excerpt from the report....

These figures represent averages based on projected trends over many years and carry a significant margin of error. The real numbers could be lower or higher

Interesting point and just what I picked up. I realise it could go either way, and it in know way negates the fact of a problem, but the figures are so variable and brings to mind the phrase 'pi**ing in the wind'.

And I like DaveBriggs list of suggestions on the whole - they may have flaws, but its good to see some practical suggestions, that as someone else says, don't just focus on the problem, but look towards some amelioration of the damage. And yes, I realise it won't be enough, but its a start.

 

[Flyfisher]

The very yellow sodium lamps (low pressure) are extremely efficient and usually low wattage (40 watts is common) but have a monchromatic output so are a very poor quality light.

The 'quality' thing is interesting. I've read that the human eye is quite sensitive to orange light (with green being its highest sensitivity), therefore sodium lighting works pretty well for us. Conversely, dogs' eyes are, apparently, far less sensitive to this wavelength so they probably wonder (as far as dogs wonder about anything) how their owners manage to take them out for a walk at night without bumping into things.

I realise it won't be enough, but its a start.

Also an interesting dilemma. Is it better to live a luxurious and fulfilling lifestyle in the full knowledge that things will get really, really bad as a consequence or to lead a much less luxurious life knowing that things will only get really bad? H. Sapiens doesn't seem to have a particularly good track record when it comes to altruism, so why should we expect our behaviour to suddenly change in the next few years (90 months, if you believe some pundits)?

 

[yamin]

Also an interesting dilemma. Is it better to live a luxurious and fulfilling lifestyle in the full knowledge that things will get really, really bad as a consequence or to lead a much less luxurious life knowing that things will only get really bad? H. Sapiens doesn't seem to have a particularly good track record when it comes to altruism, so why should we expect our behaviour to suddenly change in the next few years (90 months, if you believe some pundits)?

Good point. Maybe this is where mass ignorance could help. Maybe people WOULD take this slightly less affluent lifestyle, if they believed they really were helping, even if there was some evidence that it won't be enough. I agree that people aren't altruistic in general though (if at all), although one could argue that the populations general 'selfishness' extends to trying to protect for ONES OWN future relations......?

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree that the 'selfish gene' should perhaps encourage protection of one's progeny, but it's interesting that, in general, populations with the highest living standards seem to have the lowest birth rate. Of course, genes don't really respond to conscious behaviours and concepts of luxurious living so, in a genetic sense, a first-world multi-millionaire with only one child is a 'genetic failure' compared with a third-world person living in dire poverty with a dozen offspring.

As for accepting a slightly less affluent lifestyle, I don't believe it will work for a small, affluent, proportion of the global population to reduce their own lifestyle (= energy consumption) while the large, poorer, proportion of the population aspires to that very same affluence. It's a bit like 'super-taxing' the very rich; it makes precious little practical difference to anyone although it might make the poor majority feel better.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Britain's railways are currently operating close to capacity in some areas, while the distance after which it becomes more economical to send freight by rail is decreasing (currently about 150 miles). The 'fast' lane of the motorway, and central reservation is over 4 metres, wide enough to have track laid along it to create a new rail system. Unlike current railways, there would be enough headroom for most lorries to drive on, Eurotunnel style, and let the drivers kip for a couple of hours. At a pre-arranged spot the train would stop, the lorry drive off, straight onto the motorway again, and complete the final part of the journey. Cars could be loaded onto double decker transporters, giving the drivers the added bonus of being able to gloat at those stuck in traffic jams on the two lane motorway below. I'd love to be able to drive onto a train on the M180 and wake up the next morning in Cornwall, still with a full tank of petrol.

 

[Lime]

Trains going up and down hill?
I don't think so.

 

[worms]

Financial and / or legal penalties for eating meat.

Can I just throw in some support for the grass-fed meat sector, which is a totally different ball-game, in energy terms, than grain-fed meat (or even worse soya-fed, rain-forest beef).

These figures represent averages based on projected trends over many years and carry a significant margin of error. The real numbers could be lower or higher

To those who question the statistics, you should download the talk by Nicholas Stern which is available on iTunes-U, at the Oxford University page, entitled The Economics of climate change.

 

[Lime]

It is the ever-increasing titanic size of the world's population that needs to be addressed, not where the deckchairs go!