Politics-as-usual strains sustainable future
Across the last fortnight at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) annual meeting, there have been all kinds of threads that I wanted to pick up for this blog but will have to leave un-picked up; time, for reasons that I will come to in a minutes, just vanished before my eyes.
So; reflections on a few big themes only.
Firstly, does the CSD have the power to do what it's supposed to?
It's a progeny of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, and is aimed at ensuring progress on the agenda that unifies the prime Rio concerns of the developed and developing worlds - the intersection between protecting the Earth's ecosystems and fostering economic progress in poorer societies.
That these twin aims have to be reconciled as a pre-condition for humanity's long-term good - never mind the Earth's other passenger species - seems remarkably obvious when you think about it.
It features long and loud in some of the world's global environmental treaties, notably the Kyoto Protocol - but where is it made explicit and acted upon in the economic and business framework?
Does the WTO encourage sustainable development? Do the World Bank and IMF stimulate only when environmental protection is guaranteed?
When Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy rescue financial institutions, do they insist on those institutions adopting sustainability criteria as preconditions for lending money?
There are bright spots; but overwhelmingly, the answer has to be a resounding "no". But if the concept of sustainable development and the need for it are not understood at this level, then what is the point of trying to forge non-binding agreements on sustainability through the CSD, a much less powerful institution?
This brings me to the second big theme; who knows about the CSD and its works?
Last time I went to a meeting at UN headquarters - the World Summit in 2005 - there were something like 4,000 journalists in attendance, and just getting through security on day one took almost two hours.
By contrast, hardly a news reporter came to the CSD's halls, and hardly a news report emerged.
In one sense, this is incredible. The CSD's agenda is humanity's future; so in the minds of news editors the world over, this is not a story?
Editors would argue it's not hard news because the text agreed at the end of the two-week meeting is not binding on governments, in contrast for example to the UN climate convention - and they're right.
But the absence of journalists (and many principal civil society groups) was unfortunate in that it allowed some pretty blatant political posturing to pass with little comment and little chance of governments being held accountable for their positions.
And this is the third big theme I would bring out: especially from the G77 bloc, positions were adopted that from any perspective other than that of narrow politics beggared belief.
So we had repeated deletion of the word "sustainable" from the draft text - especially when placed before the word "agriculture".
So G77 countries do not want their agricultural systems to be sustainable? They would rather have support for use-it-up, burn-it-out, fertilise-it-to-death farming of inappropriate crops that would seriously compromise the next generation's capacity to feed itself?
There were concerns wrapped up in this that the EU and other western blocs might use "sustainable agriculture" as a way of foisting development-hindering environmental regulations on developing countries.
But you could also surely argue that G77 nations ought to be concerned about Western nations foisting unsustainable, grow-as-much-as-you-can-and-sell-us-the-proceeds-as-cheaply-as-possible practices on societies that do not have the capacity to resist such advances.
We even saw bids to re-open discussions about what "sustainability" means - again, incredible from any standpoint except that of politics-as-usual.
The irony of coming together for discussions on sustainable development and then trying to remove the term "sustainable" seemed lost on many delegations - another indication, I would argue, of how little the importance of the concept has permeated into governments.
What conclusions should we draw? I'm not sure I have any profound thoughts, except the pretty obvious one that 22 years after the Brundtland Commission analysed the reasons why society ought to develop in such a way as "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs", we are a very long way from that ideal (see the UN's Geo-4 report for details), and many of the important players appear blissfully ignorant of the reasoning.
In the studio
By comparison, any feel-good news I could bring you from the CSD would be small beer.
However, it is nice to report on something that might help in its own small way to spread knowledge of the issues a bit further afield, and perhaps encourage more profound debate at public and political levels.
For the two weeks of the CSD meeting I shed the role of a web-based journalist and instead went back to radio days, running a project - Live at the CSD - that brought four journalists from developing and former Soviet-bloc countries for a fortnight's immersion in sustainable development issues.
Each day, Armando Canchanya (Peru,) Catherine Karong'o (Kenya), Madhyama Subramanian (India) and Mirim Tenev (Bulgaria) made three radio programmes about issues featured at the CSD - land rights, soil fertility, GMOs, biochar, pastoralism and climate change, ownership of water supplies, payment for ecosystem services... the list goes on and on.
With the support of New York-based students Brett Israel, Sharon Shattuck and Matt Boms, the incredible organisational energy of Emily Benson from Stakeholder Forum (one of the projects's parents - the other being the BBC World Service Trust) and the unfailingly calm and kind expertise of UN Radio's corps of sound engineers, we managed to produce 30 programmes that went to the heart of the issues and - I hope - leave Armando, Catherine, Madhyama and Mirim well placed to put the issues at the heart of their reporting in years to come.
So what did they make of it? Here are some of their highlights:
Armando: "I just needed only 15 minutes chatting to Lucy Mulenkei, an indigenous activist from Kenya and one of our Pioneers of the Planet, to find out how important is to encourage people to raise their voices on issues that affect them directly. 'Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights,' says a pretty old song."
Catherine: "An interview with Neth Dano of Third World Network and Wilfred Legg, Head of Policies and Environment Directorate at the OECD, on the discussion programme Earth Talk will remain my most memorable. The issue was food sovereignty v food security - they took on each other with divergent views, and the arguments extended another 10 minutes after the interview was over."
Madhyama: "I did not attend any of the sessions where the negotiating text was being discussed, but I sure am comfortable to stalk people on the streets in foreign countries and ask them if they know the meaning of 'sustainable development'. I am much enlightened about (the CSD's) major groups, biochar, green jobs and even granola!"
Mirim: "The interview that I will always remember and possibly will replay quite often when I am back at home is with Nicodemus Illauq, an indigenous person from the Arctic. His story (reported on Today at the CSD) about climate change really shocked me - the new species that are appearing, the igloo that can 'survive' just two months in the winter, etc. It was the real story by a person who still is close to 'the Nature' and knows unbelievable things, based on knowledge created thousands years by his ancestors."
And for me? Well, apart from remembering how much fun you can have with intelligent and creative people in a radio studio, I feel better informed than before on some of the issues that can slip past an environment journalist in the night - trade in agricultural products, land rights, the politics of aid, and so on.
"The global environment" does not exist in a vacuum - it is increasingly filled with people, and people have real concerns.
Environmental protection means understanding and addressing those concerns as much as it does mapping the rate of species loss or analysing the chemistry of ozone destruction.
The intertwining of environmental protection and economic development makes for a complex brew; but without acknowledging the links and getting rid of the narrow politics that prevent constructive progress, our common future may end up being considerably less sustainable than we might wish.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~40~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
There is a misconception about the ability of human beings to manage our existence. We have believed that we are smart and can think or invent our way around problems. This arrogance has lead to our current situation. The financial crisis did not " just happen." Supposedly smart people ran the world financial markets into the ground for reasons of individual greed and political expediency. If existing political ideas are not changed, if a significant shift does not occur in our political organizations, if people do not change from passive political activity, then nothing will change. The sword of global warming hangs over the head of the planet and all we see is political kow towing to industrial interest and consolidated wealth. The West has lost any moral higher ground it may have professed and is now fleesing the people to support the wealthly financial investors who are no better than common thieves. We have proven to be not as smart as we think we are and proceed with our march to a half step out of the cave. Maybe a more humble approach to environmental issues and sustainable development is in order.
Complain about this comment
As long as we are run by non-democratic and corrupt organisations such as the UN, the EC and most Governments, the power and money that the people at the top enjoy will ensure that what Richard describes as "pretty blatant political posturing to pass with little comment and little chance of governments being held accountable for their positions" will continue and nothing constructive will get done. We are powerless against these people. When are people's voices listened to? At the ballot box, nad then they're immediately ignored. This Government likes to hold consultations on everything, but takes not a blind bit of notice of any feedback that is against what it was going to do anyway.
Complain about this comment
"Supposedly smart people ran the financial markets "
........and that just proves what folly it is to base decisions wholly on computer models. GIGO
Complain about this comment
Please prove the inputs are garbage, Neil.
Paw, get a life. The UN was set up and agreed to just like any governing body. If you don't like it, secede.
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan #1.
if by "..more humble approach.." you mean fairer, more equitable, I agree.
PAWB46 #2.
unhappy that you perceive the UN to be more corrupt than the nation states which manipulate this organisation to further their own agenda(s).
I do agree that "We are powerless against these people" since they are armed, and we are not.
yeah_whatever #4.
"Please prove the inputs are garbage, Neil."
listen to latest installment of 'moreorless' on BBC, for example.
Complain about this comment
I don't think I've ever detected real anger in Richard Black until now.
I was afraid of this type of non-action, yet I am still shocked at the willful ignorance of those in positions of influence and power.
Lord Stern has a book out - "Global Deal", which I read enough of to convince myself utterly that James Lovelock is on the right track, and is a spokesman we should listen to.
James Lovelock's main theme, from my perspective, is that 'sustainable development' is no longer an option, rather it is time for a 'sustainable retreat.' And 'deals' are to be avoided like the plague.
I haven't thought of a better phrase yet, so for the time being I'll go with 'sustainable retreat.'
Mr. Lovelock writes extremely well, and forcefully, and to the commons. He appears to have that rarest of gifts, a feel for the truth. In his opinion, for example, nothing will change until a clear and present danger manifests itself in unmistakeable terms to the commons, and I for one think he is right.
When I left mainstream society to climb mountains for seven years, I had already been a member of several environmental groups, and found them inadequate to the task at hand, largely because they try to deal at high levels with those in positions of influence and power. There are some exceptions - Greenpeace springs to mind, but always the result is effectually the same - some increased awareness amongst the already converted, and then - to quote James Hansen - "business as usual."
I am altogether sick of this gross display of stupididty on the part of our leaders - so - time for new leaders and a peoples' movement.
It might be as simple as that - the problems are still fixable - but the will is not yet here.
- Disgusted in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
To ghostofsichuan #1:
I couldn't agree more! Well said - every point - every single point.
You ended with:
"Maybe a more humble approach to environmental issues and sustainable development is in order."
What do you think of James Lovelock's "The Revenge of Gaia"? I'm reading it now, and he makes sense. He makes more sense than anyone I've read to date. I had some reservations, with his advocacy of nuclear, and his "Lifeboat UK" thinking - and quite frankly, I still do, but he still makes more sense than anyone I can think of.
His main 'sense', and the part that bowled me over, was his 'retreat' strategy.
This is of course anathema to "The West", which may be partly why wise men have proverbially come from "The East."
You know, something just occurred to me. As a mountaineer, I have often explained to others the necessity of being willing to retreat when cirumstance so dictates. If you are unable to accept this completely, you are a danger to yourself and your party, at the least.
Maybe we need to look at this 'sustainable retreat' in this light, as a learning experience, so that we can come back another day - so that future generations can come back another day.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
In the movie "Forest Gump", there is a line which seems entirely appropriate to this situation:
Stupid is as stupid does
This inaction on the part of our leaders is intolerable, and constitutes true 'stupidity', despite the suits and ties and money and power. These people have children and grandchildren - what else would you call this inaction, despite being privy to the best information in the world?
John Fitzgerald Kennedy wrote a book as a young man, "Profiles in Courage", which discussed at length the obligations towards self of the honorable politician, or statesman, or man. An obligation to one's conscience, which he thought transcended political considerations.
This is such a time. Only the morally bankrupt politician would sit on his or her hands at this time. The evidence is entirely sufficient - entirely and more than entirely.
This lack of moral compass on the part of those in the know constitutes gross negligence and dereliction of duty - what else would you call it?
And I speak not just of global warming, but of that vast and unconscionable slurry of evils which comprise the global environmental crisis. It is all encompassing, evident to the blind, and it is time for change.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Noam Chomsky laid this all out in "Hegemony or Survival".
Al Gore laid it out in his "Assault on Reason".
What do these books have in common?
They are virtually and practically inaccessible to the majority of the people on Earth, because of outright illiteracy, or because even the literate seldom read or think, such is the power of modern life in a modern civilization.
So what - we wait for the four horsemen to ride? No, they are already riding, and have been for some time. Part of the power of our modern way of life is that it blunts our perceptive abilities - it must be so or we would already have been in the streets years ago, or have taken to the hills, like some of us. I don't see many people in the hills or in the streets these days.
Anybody have anything to add to this?
- Manysummits - having some more of Underacanoe's chili - Cloudrunner is after the corn on the cob -
Complain about this comment
Richard says:
"And for me? Well, apart from remembering how much fun you can have with intelligent and creative people in a radio studio..."
I'm a radio-holic. I just love the BBC podcasts of 'Science Now', Start the Week', 'In Our Time', 'All Things Considered' etc. etc. and NPR (National Public Radio) here in the US does a good job as well. I rarely listen to the TV, only for predetermined and specific events. I've heard Richard on some of these programs and IMO these discussions are much more alive and interesting. So, a big vote from me to promote this work.
As for the rest of the subject its pretty much business as usual thank goodness. The last thing we need is for these organizations to start getting real traction. As long as they keep talking away in the background we can get on with our lives. A little tongue in cheek of course but a serious note as well.
In my career I have seen a change from knowledgeable management to business management and knowledgeable politics to business politics. Both sides have their strengths but we seem to go from one extreme to the other. Right now businesses are run by business managers who do not understand the business they run and politicians who do not understand the issues. In my job I help to bridge some of this. It's not that anyone is at fault, it's just the way it is and I'm happy to find work to help out.
Cheers........
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #9 says:
"Anybody have anything to add to this?"
I will predict that the sun will come up tomorrow. If it doesnt then all of this will not matter.
It's late and hoping you will be here to read this in the morning and then we can rejoice!!
Cheers......
Complain about this comment
Wow. Elected politicians are not willing to endorse back to the dark ages plans from the 'environmentalists.' That's a surprise.
Here's a radical idea....
Instead of coming up with mediaeval solutions that would end in millions of people starved, why don't the 'environmentalists' start coming up with some more realistic alternatives?
In England 60-70 million people, mostly in cities, living on 'organic' food grown within twenty mile ox-cart range is not an example of realistic. It is a recipe for Zimbabwe style mass famine.
If the 'environmentalists' can make suggestions that are more geared to realistic change (rather than aimed at ending the capitalist system) then politicians will back them and ordinary people will just take them up willingly - without the need for ever increasing levels of oppression.
I won't hold my breath.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever:
The UN is corrupt; food for oil scandal etc.
The EC is corrupt; accounts not audited for years.
UK politicians; no need to say anything here.
jr412: Couldn't agree more. Always listen to moreorless. The misuse of data and statistics that they find is truly amazing.
Complain about this comment
Richard Black points to the complexity of intertwining environmental protection and economic development; this is the nub of it all. The UN's first ever international conference on global issues, the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment set out how this complexity would be handled and it's not changed since. To paraphrase, the conference declared, "Uh oh, complex problems - better sort them out. Let's make governments responsible for planning what to do with environmental problems and let's plan separately for essential economic development which of course we mustn't obstruct". You may have spotted that the role of markets wasn't mentioned? The opportunity of giving markets responsibility for reversing the problems they had previously caused was not raised then or since. Instead we have had accelerating unsustainability masked by futile ineffectual planning and tinkering.
My sense of James Lovelock's work is that he's trying to point out how accelerating unsustainability is no longer one problem requiring sustainable development(SD) ; we now have to do SD and also deal with the numerous 'stacked up problems' such as accumulated concentrations of GHG, weapons, wealth, resentments, overpopulation, mistrust, debt, etc. I reckon that doing SD is neither complex nor difficult. Please see my draft presentation for a Middle East summit 'From credit crunch to planet crunch - or revival?' at http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/6cde9add775de8a2ead56e6234d9ec7a/section/main , comments welcome. Sorting out the stock problems is more tricky and does mean a retreat for civilisation. We will take an unavoidable hit for neglecting SD for so long and the hit will be harder the longer we wait before doing SD and unstacking the problems.
If you'd like to hear something hopeful, the comments above about us 'not being as smart as we think' are on the right track. My work in the NATO Science Programme looks at our collective 'intelligence' and how to take Einstein's advice that "today's problems cannot be solved with the same thinking that caused them". We can get smart as a society by thinking about our thinking before we start thinking about 'solutions'.
Complain about this comment
precycled #14.
well, I read the abstract and stopped right there. reason is that while I can whole-heartedly agree that "Systemic global problems require systemic global solutions designed with creativity and engagement rather than by reinforcing predetermined right answers", the statement that "A global society of generally well-meaning and intelligent individuals has collectively not made a meaningful or intelligent response" is so preposterous, it put me off.
for the last 2000 years or so, key decisions were taken by a (relatively) small number of individuals, the overwhelming majority of people being mere pawns in the greater scheme of things; we've had little else but wars, the wholesale extermination of all cultures different from "our" Christian perspective. I don't know why, but your abstract, while reading good superficially, does not point to any of the culprits behind our current predicament(s).
you speak of collective intelligence -- I answer from a perspective of collective enslavement; you want change? then you must address the deliberate and artificial fragmentation of humankind.
Complain about this comment
precycled #14.
"We can get smart as a society by thinking about our thinking before we start thinking about 'solutions'."
smart thinking? ok.
global problems require global solutions require global society requires a single planetary state/society.
the notions of nation state and religious beliefs are the de-facto stumbling blocks.
but, we're all human (including politicians, CEOs and the Pope), therefore, no chance of change for the better ;-(
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #11:
Good morning to San Francisco from Calgary - yes, the sun is expected to rise soon, even here! But you know - unwilling to put sustainable in front of agriculture at a United Nations conference on sustainable development - it's a liitle much. In my handbook on the UN, I can see why the author suggests that the most credible parts of the UN are UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and only one or two others. The rest are hamstrung, or conjoined in what jr4412 would call 'collective enslavement.'
To jon112UK #12:
I've run a business, a successful one - a real corportion, where quality mattered. And I've been a stockbroker. In case you hadn't noticed, the 2008 global financial collapse, and the various executives now in jail, from past excesses - none of them were green!
What part of this are you missing?
To precycled #14:
You quoted Einstein: "today's problems cannot be solved with the same thinking that caused them".
I like that. and your own : "We can get smart as a society by thinking about our thinking before we start thinking about 'solutions'."
I agree - but we need an actual way of doing this.
To jr4412: You wrote: "you speak of collective intelligence -- I answer from a perspective of collective enslavement; you want change? then you must address the deliberate and artificial fragmentation of humankind."
Here here JR! Wasn't it Julius Caesar who said "Divide and conquer"?
Some thoughts the morning after:
I'm going to suggest that we all start engaging in risk-sports. Not Bunji jumping or free thrill rides at amusement parks, and not outdoor programs which are led by professional guides.
I'm talking of the real thing. You personally go out and you be the guide. Jump out of an airplane, canoe down a river, climb a mountain, sail on the sea, explore a desert - whatever - just do it!
We in the West are collectively subdued and as jr4412 puts it, collectively enslaved. End that. Turn off your virtual reality show in favor of the real thing. Get youself "into a desert place, and rest awhile."
There is sufficient psychological evidence to support this view. The cure for our collective depression of the spirit is collectively to reengage with nature on a one to one basis.
Sigmund Freud wrote: "Life is impoverished, it loses its interest, when the highest stake in the game of living, life itsef itself, may not be risked."
Marlon Brando wrote:
"A successful society produces happy people. We produce (in the USA) more miserable people than almost anywhere on Earth. We have plenty, but we have nothing, and we always want more. In the pursuit of material success as our culture measures it, we have given up everything. We have lost the capacity to produce people who are joyful. The pursuit of the material has become the reason for living, not enjoyment of living itself."
- in his autobiography, written when he was some 70 years old.
It has long been my contention that our problems are psychological, and that we should pay more attention to our artists, who see the truth immediately, for they are free spirits.
And yet as I write this - I feel I speak to deaf ears, to the blind who will not see.
- Manysummits - city beside the shining mountains -
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #15 Yes there are culprits and had you read on you'd have seen ideas that address this. However we can't address it by seeking culprits (out there) rather that new habits of thought (in here with us all). The assumption that we need a hierarchical planetary state is another self-disempowering stumbling block.
To manysummits #17 For a way to do this please see part 3 of the Middle East paper. There is more on thinking in the NATO paper (follow my profile to my files on wiserearth)
james greyson
Complain about this comment
re 13: Prove the UN is corrupt. That they uncovered and undid an illegal act shows that some people in the UN were corrupt. the problem was sorted out and those people no longer have that authority.
Prove that the UN is corrupt.
Complain about this comment
re 12. I take it you have watched that, then? So I don't have a TV, please explain what it says.
PS why so many complaints that the BBC is biased against anything not supporting AGW yet you point to a BBC program you say isn't supporting AGW.
Bipolar disorder?
Complain about this comment
Very strange. An earlier post of mine has been removed after being there yesterday; and yet the comments about it remain. A second post has also gone. Can you tell us Richard what this rewriting of history is all about?
Complain about this comment
Paw, same has happened to me.
I'd quite like to know too.
Apparently ASKING questions about what is defaming is defaming.
Complain about this comment
re 12, here's an idea, please state where the environmentalists have said that we should return to a medieval way of life and millions of people will starve if taken.
Instead of making stuff up, that is.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if the problem is that you can't name someone why you say something not nice.
But that can't be it since some poster had a posting that said that Mann couldn't rebut the HockeyStick rebuttal since he'd written the paper the rebuttal was about. Which is kind of important when it comes to professional opinion and standing: someone who will not take criticism of their own work is no scientist.
And THAT wasn't deemed defamatory, despite managing all four (rather redundant, admittedly) bullet points for what counds as defamatory:
* Exposing the individual or organisation to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
(A scientist who will not listen to criticisms or respond soundly is not a scientist)
* Causing the individual or organisation to be shunned or avoided;
(If you can't read his paper in response, you're avoiding his work)
* Lowering the individual or organisation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society; or
(See point 1)
* Disparaging the individual in their office, profession or trade or the organisation's office, profession or trade.
(See point 1 again)
Complain about this comment
What's weird as well is that the copyright moderation removal one was used against a list of citations of papers as requested by one person in the topic thread.
Despite copyright being on expressive works and so not applying to citations.
Complain about this comment
Re: Richard's report.
Looking at the final press release from CSD-17...
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2009/envdev1052.doc.htm
...they seemed to be pretty pleased with themselves. To quote the chairperson...
------
The dream has come true! We have found consensus and adopted a final outcome document and finalized a Shared vision - two documents [that] can set the scene for change, said Gerda Verburg, Chairperson of the Commission and the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, who prepared both texts. In her closing remarks, she said the Commission, which had been meeting in New York since 5 May, had just completed two tough, remarkable weeks of work.
-------
There is also a link on their website...
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/csd/csd_csd17.shtml
... to a pdf file; the "Final Adopted Text"; and scanning through that I don't see any obvious issues relating to the problems which Richard describes.
I'm no expert with such Commission reports; so I guess Richard benefited from being "on the spot" and seeing how the contributors behaved.
But to really understand what happened and to see how the results have been "compromised" it would be good to have some concrete examples, from the Final Adopted Text.
As I said, on a quick scan, I haven't spotted much wrong. (The word sustainability crops up often at least.) Can anyone wiser and more in the "know" help?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits #9, #17.
"..even the literate seldom read or think, such is the power of modern life in a modern civilization"
read this while PlanetRock played Pink Floyd's 'Comfortably Numb' -- very apt!
re. Caesar. don't know, thought he's quoted for 'veni, vidi, vici' while the 'Divide & Conquer' is usually ascribed to Macciavelli. still, thanks ;)
I think you put your finger onto something when you describe the benefits of solitude in the mountains, for me it's sitting on the beach looking at the horizon. in any case, being able to contemplate nature in all her glory without any man-made artifacts intruding is of benefit, I believe.
precycled #18.
downloaded and speed-read your paper, I agree, in essence, with many of the points, especially the section on waste.
I could, however, not find any mention/critique of the role played by organised religion. given that the modern nation state (as a concept) was given life under the guidance of the Catholic Church, I find this omission surprising.
you write "The assumption that we need a hierarchical planetary state is another self-disempowering stumbling block."
I disagree. given that many resources required by society are very limited (eg. rare earths, hydrocarbons, etc), there is a need to have a single administration that concerns itself with the best use of those resources; furthermore, in case of disaster (eg. Tsunami hitting Ache province in 2006(?)), co-ordination is required to facilitate appropriate responses.
on the downside, a single planetary administration is, potentially, open to misuse (ie some kind of fascist scenario). I don't pretend to have all the answers (or any, even) but think that there's no way we can (a) carry on as many individual nations, each with their own agenda, and (b) do it all without some kind of overseeing "authority".
PAWB46 #21.
you're right, v strange. to best of my recollection there was nothing offensive in either of those posts; I too would like to hear from the "duty moderator" what prompted the removal.
Complain about this comment
It is my contention that if we could reduce building heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems electrical and fossil fuel use by over 90%, we could develop sustainable buildings, communities and cities.
When the temperature rises above 100ºF in the summer, air conditioning systems stretch the electrical grids beyond their limits while cars and trucks choke the air in towns and cities. Hot, humid days are the worst time to have high electricity use and pollution from vehicles, enhancing poor climatic conditions with man-made pollution. Directly connecting air conditioning electrical demand with the electric grid brown-outs and black-outs is no stretch of science, but no one has connected them and presented a comprehensive solution. Politicians and energy companies want to build a more robust electrical grid and safe nuclear and clean coal power plants with the economic stimulus plan, costing trillions of dollars and creating more greenhouse gasses and a worse situation long-term.
Now let us envision a world 20 years in the future when most homes and buildings are electricity generators rather than users, and most public and private transport run on clean electricity. The electrical grid redistributes surplus electricity from sustainable buildings to public transport during the day, and recharges electric cars and trucks at night. Energy intensive buildings, communities and cities are supplemented with energy generated in outlying renewable energy plants.
This vision has buildings using 90% less electricity for heating and cooling, and most buildings producing more electricity than they use during hot weather. Electric utilities use a few efficient generating plants and transportation uses little gasoline. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by over 80%. This vision may seem a fools paradise, but such a vision is the kind we need: Better to aim for a 90% reduction and fall short by a few percent than aim for 50% and achieve our goal.
Can we create this sustainable energy future now? The truth is: Yes We Can!
We have the technology to achieve this vision today. We can make efficient electric vehicles. Sustainable buildings could be built except that current air conditioning systems use too much electricity, particularly at high outside temperatures. Amory Lovins, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, presented a report in 1988 revealing that newer air conditioning systems performed poorer than older ones, they were less energy-efficient, cost more to install and maintain, and provided poorer comfort. Unfortunately, this trend continues to this day and agencies and institutions are currently recommending some of the worst air conditioning solutions: all-electric solutions such as geothermal heat pumps.
We need air conditioning systems that use little electricity during hot weather and buildings that generate more electricity than they use during hot weather. Sustainable buildings should produce more electricity than they use, repaying the energy used for construction and ongoing maintenance. These concepts should be the primary requirements for defining a sustainable building or community. The overall solution lies in developing an Energy Master Plan for every building, community, town and city. The Energy Master Plan is a comprehensive life cycle plan toward sustainable, high performance end goals: a zero carbon footprint, minimum, easy maintenance, and maximum occupant comfort and productivity. Energy Master Plans integrate Facility Master Plans and Transport Master Plans into a comprehensive Climate Neutral Plan.
New and existing buildings should be developed to be as sustainable as possible, beginning with passive strategies and then integrating passive strategies with active strategies. Three active strategies can help reduce electrical use in air conditioning systems by 90%: utilizing ground source heat exchangers for cooling and warming, eliminating electric refrigeration; using desiccant systems for year round humidity control; and using radiant ceiling systems for both cooling and warming.
First, it should be understood that these strategies work in sympathy with the energy flows of the building and climate rather than against them, unlike most active systems that impose their brute force against the energy flows of both the building and the climate. Radiant ceilings create a most comfortable thermal environment while utilizing water very close to the required room temperature and easiest to be obtained from renewable sources. These systems require only 60°F water for cooling in the hottest regions and 100°F water for heating in the coldest regions. Ground source heat exchange is simply using the average deep ground or well temperature of the area to temper the building, requiring little additional warming in the winter for cold regions and little additional cooling in the summer for hot regions. This will also work with a river or lake exchanging energy. A desiccant system is a salt solution similar to the little bags of silica gel placed in shoes and vitamin bottles that absorb moisture from the air and can be regenerated by heating them, utilizing heat in the summer, something readily available. The desiccant can also provide humidification in the winter by adding water to the solution.
To achieve a zero carbon footprint, buildings should be able to make full use of renewable sources such as ground source, solar thermal, solar PV, wind and water. Cities as large and concentrated as New York can have an Energy Master Plan that will move the entire city toward a sustainable future. Cities such as New York are as able to become as sustainable as suburban communities because they have a more efficient transport system and food and energy distribution system.
It takes vision and commitment from city, state and federal leaders, something that the US, UK and EU and all the world is still waiting for.
We are at the tipping point on many global issues including over population, climate change, pollution and the world economy. Must we wait for a catastrophic meltdown far worse than the financial system meltdown or should we use this economic recession to redirect our ideas to develop a truly sustainable green economy?
We are running out of time to act; it has been estimated that we have only 8 years in which to take positive action toward a sustainable future if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change by the end of this century. We currently have perfect conditions to change the way we do business and commit to a sustainable future, all we need is a change in government action at all levels to enact the change.
It is hope, not despair, which makes successful revolutions.
Complain about this comment
re 27: "you're right, v strange. to best of my recollection there was nothing offensive in either of those posts;"
Well, nothing different than several other posts of mine that went AWOL recently and all in a rush.
Complain about this comment
Re 28: I disagree with this:
"It is hope, not despair, which makes successful revolutions."
Unless you mean successful revolutions that haven't yet occurred.
It is when those with the least power realise how little power they have and that there IS NO RECOURSE to abuse of power. If a general election is not called this year (and the date set before recess) then we could well head there ourselves.
The French Revolution occurred when cronyism became SO obvious and the law so twisted to keep the powerful powerful that the ordinary people had nothing to lose AND KNEW IT.
And so losing their life in revolution was no loss at all.
The Romanov's did the same thing with the law and the people in power. And bloody revolution resulted.
Between the two, the US war of independence occurred because the law was being changed to the detriment of everyone in the colony and there was NOTHING that could be done about it within the legal framework.
Revolution.
Cuba? Same thing. Rich landowners raped the work of the poor and there was no way to stop this. The US in this case even helped.
And a similar problem in the North/South Vietnam (pretty sure it wasn't Korea, but could have been). They wanted out of French control. Asked the US government for support in their independence. The US said no way and offered France support to keep their colony. USSR was the only state that could counter the US support.
If there had been legal international recourse, they would not have had to.
And a revolution occurred.
When the laws only keep the general populace down, when those in power are unhindered by law and take what they want without a legal process for redress, people will revolt.
Hope doesn't start a revolution.
Hopelessness does.
Complain about this comment
Re #5:
"yeah_whatever #4.
"Please prove the inputs are garbage, Neil."
listen to latest installment of 'moreorless' on BBC, for example."
Please tell me what it said about there being garbage placed in the climate models.
I do not have a television so have not seen that show.
Proof, not "oh, it's over there somewhere".
Complain about this comment
I know that energy is a complex issue, but coal is critical not only in securing affordable, reliable and domestic energy, but also in creating steady jobs across the country.
My team went to the Harriman Dispatching Center in Omaha, Neb., where 800 employees work around the clock to ensure the smooth operation of Union Pacifics entire rail operationwhich helps move coal to produce nearly half of the countrys electricity.
They went behind the scenes of this operation for the 2009 Factuality Tourtake a look to see photos, videos and interviews from our stop in Omaha. I hope it will enlighten you on what it takes to produce America's power. http://sn.im/factuality
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever.
#31. 'moreorless' is on Radio4, mp3 available for download.
#30. well put.
Complain about this comment
I would disagree that SD crieria have not been taken on board by the international lending institutions. We can criticise them for being too conservative but the WB and IMF have adopted SD principles in their decision making process. These institutions really have changed over the past decade or so. And in Europe SD is at the centre of the EIB's lending decisions - impressively so.
I also find the remark about redefining sustainability off the mark. For a start "sustainability" is not SD. It is one thing to "sustain" what we already have, but SD if anything is about the governance of change towards a shared vision of how the World could develop. And it means far more than environmental sustainability which is how this blog seems to define it. Yes we need to protect the environment, but we also need to feed mankind, protect human rights, provide education, fight discrimination, halt war and crime and the causes, ...
I wonder if Mr Black has actually read more than the first few pages of Brundtland as all he seems to know about it is that worn out phrase about future generations.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
re 32: But if it was on the latest, it isn't on R4 any more, is it.
So again I ask, where is the proof that there is garbage going in to the climate models.
Complain about this comment
ps to 36, that means if there's a download link, please supply.
I hoofed about myself but the nearest I could see was a statistics piece but that had no proof of garbage in, just had proofs that garbage in made garbage out.
Which does nothing to prove there's garbage in for the climate models.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #31, #36, #37.
where do you get the "climate models" bit from?
posts #5 and #33 were based on:
"3. At 5:11pm on 19 May 2009, toughNeilHyde wrote:
"Supposedly smart people ran the financial markets "
........and that just proves what folly it is to base decisions wholly on computer models. GIGO
4. At 5:48pm on 19 May 2009, yeah_whatever wrote:
Please prove the inputs are garbage, Neil."
Complain about this comment
"Business as usual" would be a three word summary of this CSD conference.
Richard Black was there, on the scene, and he is an expert reporter.
Knowing who to believe does not only apply to climate science.
UN CSD New York - insufficient
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
re 38, but this is about climate change. Paw is on about climate change. Niel whinges constantly about how AGW is wrong because it's all computer models.
In the original post
"........and that just proves what folly it is to base decisions wholly on computer models. GIGO"
But that says that you CANNOT rely on computer models. EVER. It insinuates that any computer model is untrustworthy for informing decision making because GIGO.
Not "If you put garbage in, you get garbage out, so you have to make sure your computer models have good input". Just "it's folly...GIGO". As if it proves something.
On your reading, the statement is a null one.
Like saying "you can't base your decisions on the passing wind of a black cat".
Hardly adding anything to the sum of human knowledge.
IF you put garbage in, you get garbage out.
Now, if you want to stop decision making by blaming it on "computer models", you need to prove garbage is going in.
Showing another computer model (which, oddly enough, WASN'T a computer model, it was statistics WITHOUT a computer model: statisticians alone, so why again is it pertinent???) which had garbage in isn't good enough.
And that programme didn't even have a computer model in it. Just humans.
Complain about this comment
"I know that energy is a complex issue, but coal is critical not only in securing affordable, reliable and domestic energy, but also in creating steady jobs across the country."
How?
You don't need many people to mine coal. Machines do most of the work. And the work is deadly.
You employ people in building wind turbines, making solar panels, installing devices, looking after geothermal plants or hydroelectric stations. There's employment there too.
And coal seams that can be dug out is localised. The sun falls everywhere. The wind blows everywhere. No need for California to rely on Australian coal, they have plenty of sunshine.
Why, then, is coal so uniquely able to employ?
Complain about this comment
manysummits #39.
I re-read Richard Black's piece, listened to his interview with Achim Steiner, and read over the documents attached to 'Rio Earth Summit' link.
given that he wrote "What conclusions should we draw? ... many of the important players appear blissfully ignorant of the reasoning" I've come to think that, first and foremost, the media have to take much of the blame.
as an example, look at his employer, the BBC: we get Eastenders, The Apprentice and real mediocre [politest not-four-letters-long word I could think of] news programming and, occasionally we get to watch Richard Attenborough watching lions having sex; what we do not get is serious, educational programming that is repeated often enough to drive the message home. of course, other media corporations (in the UK) are no better.
you say "Business as usual", Richard says "..our common future may end up being considerably less sustainable than we might wish", I say (with apologies to the Sex Pistols) "no future for me".
Complain about this comment
#42 '...read...Rio Earth Summit'
#39 'Business as usual'
Did you read the CSD-17 latest press release and 'Final Adopted Text' as I asked in #26?
I'd still like to know what's wrong with it.
The Commissions final 'work' will surely stand or fall on it's own merits not on Richard's on-the-spot view (good as it may be).
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
re 42:
"as an example, look at his employer, the BBC: we get Eastenders,"
But that's because the BBC have been told to "appeal to a wider audience".
It was one of the complaints that the BBC had through the 70's and 80's (and earlier, though the BBC in the 50's really was quite elitist): they were all things that "the people who pay your license" weren't interested in.
They were supposed to prove they were worth it and the only metric they could use were viewing figures.
So they had to drop all the high-brow stuff. After all, something above someone is not watchable, something dumbed down below your level is at least watchable, if not actually as good.
They even turned Tomorrows World into an "artists impression" and threw out all the weird and interesting stuff (along with the demonstrations that usually went wrong!).
It isn't a fault of the BBC, entirely (in so far as the change in the BBC now making the bad deicsions were the result of external forces). It's the fault of demanding that the BBC prove its worth by chasing ratings.
If it were all science, then art students just as smart would be complaining. If it were all symphonies, ballet and so on, science buffs would be complaining. And if it were a mix of both, those who love soaps (and there are a LOT MORE of them) would be complaining.
"We pay the license fee too! Yet we only watch Sky One because it's got Eastenders on it!"
Rock.
BBC.
Hard Place.
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #43.
downloaded this, 52 (!) pages but I *will* read it in full. you say "I'd still like to know what's wrong with it." -- a first glance shows that Monsanto's concerns (in Agriculture section) are placed well before, say, "knowledge sharing" ;-(
yeah_whatever #44.
can't argue with your summary, doesn't make it right though.
Complain about this comment
"can't argue with your summary, doesn't make it right though."
Never said it did.
It explains what may well be going on and is supported by evidence.
Now, given that, how can we solve this? Saying the BBC is dumbed down isn't going to help, since the dumbing down is required because all the other stations are doing so and getting audiences.
With the ONLY metric being "are people watching" and noting that still there are MANY people out there complaining that they watch only Sky so why should they pay the BBC, and going highbrow or niche (which, IMO, they MUST) will make that situation even worse, what can be done?
Drop the metric, you get people complaining why they pay the BBC. Drop the TV license compulsory payments and you can't afford niche programs. Demand high audiences to justify general license payments and you can't show niche programs.
The ONLY way to get niche stuff back is to keep the compulsory license and drop the requirement for high ratings on AT LEAST one BBC TV channel and at least two or three BBC radio channels.
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #43:
Yes I did. This communique was boring and self-congratulatory. The part I remember was the Cameroon's delegat's comment: "documents, documents, more documents", or something like that, acuurately and I preume honestly reflecting Richard's overwhelming impression.
Maybe this CSD is only a clearing house for the supposedly more important round of summits taking place this year on climate change. Fair enough, but then again Richard is right - this is just that, and nothing to get excited about - reflected in the decision not to send reporters.
Conclusion: Perhaps useful to the UN's ways and means - but for the public - Limbo.
For me - frustration.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To yeah_whatever # 44 re Rock; BBC; Hard Place:
Well put!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #45:
re Monsanto:
"Against the Grain: How Agriculture has hijacked civilization", by Richard Manning, 2005.
An excellent read - Monsanto prominent in this book - if the CSD is listening to Monsanto, we're all in trouble.
But then we already know that - why doesn't the CSD know that????????
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Re: #26, #43, #45: CSD-17'Final Adopted Text'.
It's the raw text not yet formed into a tidy document. As such it has no contents, references, etc.
If it helps, here is a breakdown of the 52 pages.
It starts...
"The Commission on Sustainable Development..."
...then follows 6 pages of paragraphs...
"Mindful of..."
"Recognizing..."
"Convinced of..."
"Appreciating that..."
"Taking note of..."
...and many similar statements culminating in...
"Decides to call upon governments, and the United
Nations system, within existing resources and through
voluntary contributions, and invites international financial
institutions and other international organizations, as
appropriate, working in partnership with major groups and
other stakeholders to take action as follows:"
Then follows 7 chapters...
Page
.7: A. Agriculture
14: B. Rural development
21: C. Land
27: D. Drought
32: E. Desertification
37: F. Africa
44: G. Interlinkages, cross-cutting issues, including means of
implementation
51: ...then G closes with 3 subsections...
Follow up on agriculture and rural development
Follow up on land, drought and desertification
Follow up on Africa
So around 6 or 7 pages each on some topics, little less on Drought and Desertification.
I haven't yet identified the "...means of implementation" which they say are included.
All the best: davblo2
Complain about this comment
Still reading Lovelock's "Revenge of Gaia".
He still spurs my thinking. I have his former book, "The Ages of Gaia", and this is even better.
If I can summarize:
James Lovelock has put into modern form the "web of life" thinking of many of our planet's aboriginal groups - an holistic approach, which sees the earth and us as part of the same universe, as part of nature, not separate from it. We have 'fouled our nest', and it is time to move and build anew - Lovelock would say, 'stage a sustainable retreat'.
In essence - I agree - it's 'in essence', what our Mayday Declaration says. Too much CO2, too many people - correct both - manage an orderly retreat (fix the United Nations), avoid an unorderly retreat (draconian measures). Tell the tribe the real situation, and leave it up to the survival instinct present in all of humanity.
'In essence', to quote Abraham Lincoln:
"Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?"
To return briefly to my favorite analogy - mountaineering, which 'in essence', is all about balance - both physical and psychological. One purifies oneself before a climb, packs the rucksack as per Gaston Rebuffat's admonition: "pefection is reached not when there is nothing more to add, but nothing more to take away," or perhaps to Reinhold Messner's specification: "Take as little as possible, but two of everything essential."
And most importantly, for me, and the reason I get frustrated, you actually make decisions in real time. You look at a problem, and decide on a course of action, and you accept the consequences.
If the United Nations, by chance, does not reform itself, and become in fact the people's democracy, and the advocate for the Earth System - to put into technical terms Gaia thinking, then we the people are going to have to do it ourselves.
This wasting of time is not conscionable.
Myself, Underacanoe and Cloudrunner have adopted spiritual names for this blogosphere. When you think about it, all us bloggers have adopted spititual names - isn't that interesting?
Maybe all we have to do is put into action what we talk about ourselves (walk the talk - I see yeah_whatever doesn't watch TV, nor do we), and then spread the word via the internet, our only truly global drum!
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #46.
again, can't really argue with this, but I think it is a fallacy to describe issues relating to species survival as "niche", so perhaps we need to begin by getting Auntie and others to re-assess their use/perception of language.
manysummits #49.
Monsanto -- yes, big money, big trouble.
"..why doesn't the CSD know that?"
I'm sure they do. it's a little like the MPs expenses scandal here; notionally they represent us, in reality they are private citizens with affiliations and business interests (one MP apparently has 10!). which leads me to think that either we need to have "saints" in the committees (not likely) or they need to be chosen by lottery and rotated frequently enough to prevent vested interests getting a hold.
Complain about this comment
#50 continued.
On a critical note; I notice the general theme of the document is "more", "better", "efficient", "expand". "increase" etc, with the odd "sustainable" added here and there.
Out of interest I searched for the word "reduce" and in most occurrences it was related to "reduce" loss or waste. So not much call for cutting back on anything.
Oh, and some sections seem to specifically call on provision for "women" being involved.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
The response to the starter article is great....well chosen topic Richard that gets the juices flowing.
Sustainability is really the key to all..(as Doug Adams wrote) "Life, the Universe and Everything".
Somewhere in there was a computer model ;-))
Was the answer 42 or 43? HMMMM....
If we do not do something about moving in sustainable direction, we are cooked...in more ways than one. Food/water/air/civility...the list is overwhelming.
Maybe all is not lost though since we are the ultimate customers to which all business hopes to please. As consumers we do have some influence on business in that we vote with our wallets. (look at organically grown product popularity) If we do not support their practices....monetarily...they must move in a more acceptable direction. The business managers make it happen for profit reasons, if not moral conviction.
Those of influence are too much in their "comfort zone" to have realized the need for change to sustain the future for all of us connected in the web of life. The isolation from the masses, allowed by their affluence, really decouples their decisions from reality and promotes the illusion that they outside the web of life. We all are connected when the complexities are broken down to common denominators...as we all need water/food/air of good and sustainable quality. For various reasons listed, the web of life is in disrepair...we need to mend it...rapidly.
As Many_Summits proposed, people (those of affluence also) should also be involved in risk taking...including the extreme sports...and "extreme socialization" where they move in true connection with the rest of the masses. That requires some transformational thinking...but would be a good step toward a shift in consciousness and conscience.
How we interact and the "energy" we share is ultimately the critical key to unlock the bind in which we find ourselves. When we realize and admit that we are all connected...we move constructively/with mutual respect...we transform our views of "us and them". That is a good first step in repairing the web of life and we have a chance of being connected once more.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
"I think it is a fallacy to describe issues relating to species survival as "niche""
I didn't mean discussions like this, but this *style* of programme. One that isn't Eastenders, more "De Bono's thinking course".
And that IS a niche market.
Complain about this comment
Richard
Great article! As an ecologist I understand how you probably feel. Sustainability really is the heart of the environmental issues we all face. I dont need to spell them out but I think politicians, economists and such like dont realise that these issues are fundamental to the continuing existence of all species on this planet. Economists still continue to argue that economic growth can continue with finite resources. So to do our politicians when there is a wealth of evidence that both economic growth and population growth cannot continue along the current global trajectory.
This isnt just about climate change which is caused by these factors either but also about the fundamental ecology of the planet that we all depend on and i find it amazing that we can give billions to banks and car manufacturers and yet do nothing about the environment that supports our very existence. They spend more time squabbling about moats and duck islands than sorting out the real issues.
None of the main parties in parliment understand these critical issues and still think economic growth is feasible by renaming it economic development! I saw a party political broadcast yesterday by an unnamed party talking about resurrecting the coal and steel industries...unbelievable! I feel sick when i see the thousands of cars parked alongside the railway line all to support a large workforce with complete disregard for the impact on the environment. I don't disagree with the generation of jobs but promoting an unsustainable economy is crazy!
The only way that we can sort the economy and ecology of this planet out for all species is to change our politics and economics. That means economists working with ecologists such as with the development of ecosystem services, research into large scale steady-state economies, transition towns and local development. Without sounding arrogant, I would argue that we need scientists and engineers at the helm that have a fundamental understanding of the major issues we and our children face.
Complain about this comment
seasambo #56: "The only way that we can sort the economy and ecology of this planet out for all species is to change our politics and economics"
Agreed; and it's a heck of a change to expect in the short time envisioned. I wonder how it could ever come about.
Re: #26...#50: CSD-17 'Final Adopted Text'.
No further comments on the "content" of the CSD output.
How about the call for action...
"Decides to call upon governments, and the United
Nations system, within existing resources and through
voluntary contributions, and invites international financial
institutions and other international organizations, as
appropriate, working in partnership with major groups and
other stakeholders to take action as follows:"
It seems to me to be rather like a "feather duster" in it's tone; and "other stakeholders" are presumably those we would best like to see kept out of the proceedings.
Agreed?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Could someone point me to where there were attempts 'to re-open discussions about what "sustainability" means'. I would be interested to see the context and know who was involved here.
Complain about this comment
What is the story behind the statement made by the German delegate on behalf of the EU:
'But unfortunately the text does not offer any solution to the pressing challenges I just mentioned. We think that by agreeing to this text we would send the wrong signal to the world.
We can only regret that the outcome of this session of the CSD falls short of our expectations and even threatens the commitments taken by the international community in Johannesburg, not even five years ago. It does neither meet the challenges nor the expectations of the outside world, and therefore the EU has to reject this tabled text.
In the face of the challenges confronting us, the EU came to New York with an ambitious agenda. We were also ready to find compromise. Not all did seem ready or willing to take this path yet.'
and why was it made by Germany rather than the Czech EU Presidency?
Complain about this comment
To Burghermeister # 54: You wrote:
"When we realize and admit that we are all connected...we move constructively/with mutual respect...we transform our views of "us and them". That is a good first step in repairing the web of life and we have a chance of being connected once more."
I agree totally, of course. I am wondering if this talking back and forth on the internet is a significant step in that direction? There is some reason I do this - it seems important.
------------
To seasambo # 56:
As you are an ecologist, I was wondering if you would venture an opinion on James Lovelock's 2006 book, "The Revenge of Gaia?" I am reading it now - and I am learning by leaps and bounds - yet again!
I also have on order from the library one of our (University of Alberta) ecologists recent book, "The Algal Bowl", by David Schindler. Are you perhaps familiar with his thinking?
----------
To davblo2 # 57: You wrote:
"It seems to me to be rather like a "feather duster" in it's tone; and "other stakeholders" are presumably those we would best like to see kept out of the proceedings.
Agreed?"
I think so, but that's part of the problem as I see it. The language of the CSD didn't jive with me, and when Richard Black's expertise and instincts are amplifying that 'nebulous' feeling - I have to say again - what was this conference really all about?
Just thinking out loud here, but it seems we need a voice and a personality to whom we can all relate - someone with the UN who can cut through the you know what and tell us what's going down, or not going down. I'd think the Secretary General could do it - but my beaurocratic instincts are not up to the task of figuring outwho could do this job.
James Lovelock springs to mind, but that's a flyer for sure.
-------
To MrSkipp #59:
That's quite the comment you quoted from the German delegation. Indeed, again, what was the purpose of this CSD conference, and why was there such a lack of media turnout - surely somebody can answer this. Is it, as Richard has suggested, because this body has no swat, and is totally overshadowed by the IMF, World Band, and WTO?
Having just read about the UN - that makes sense - those are the players with the swat - and there is no semblance of a United Nations there, or of a people's congress - just a few countries, dominating all.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Burghermeister #54.
"The isolation from the masses, allowed by their affluence, really decouples their decisions from reality and promotes the illusion that they outside the web of life."
true, like the rest of your post.
how can one reach "Those of influence"? I mean, imagine you're living on your own, private little island, somewhere in the Caribbean, or Mid-Pacific, comfortable, isolated, etc.
the UN is probably the most tangible body "of influence" we can have access to.
manysummits #60.
"The language of the CSD didn't jive with me" and "there is no semblance of a United Nations there ... just a few countries, dominating all".
which is why the appeal for root and branch reform has to come first, no?
fear I'm not v helpful here, having a particularly pessimistic day ;-(
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 # 61:
Not at all - in fact Iwas thinking that your section on the UN should probably precede the sections on climate change and population growth.
More later!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
MrSkipp #59 "...statement made by the German delegate on behalf of the EU:"
Can you guide me to that statement on the CSD-17 website?
When I first looked there (http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/csd/csd_csd17.shtml) I found a section with summing up comments from many of the deligates; which made interesting reading. But now I can't find it.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
There is very good, detailed and insightful reporting from each day of CSD-17 from 4-14 May, as well as a summary overview report on the 15th May. This reporting includes comments by particular delegations as well as by specific themes. It puts these in the context of the oevrall negotiations.
Have a look at this web-site: http://www.iisd.ca/csd/csd17/
The team that provide these reports, do so also for a wide range of other environmental fora too. The service is provided by the International Institute for Sustainable Development Reporting Services Division. It provides a variety of multimedia informational resources for environment and sustainable development policymakers, including daily coverage of international negotiations, analyses and photos. As the publisher of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, is well regarded also by official delegates and other participants for its objectivity and issue expertise in the field of international environment and sustainable development policy. The reports are intended as a quality source of information for government officials, policy and decision makers, UN staff, non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, business, industry and academia.
And no, I don't work for them - just read them quite often!
Complain about this comment
#41 Yeah...
"You don't need many people to mine coal. Machines do most of the work. And the work is deadly.
You employ people in building wind turbines, making solar panels, installing devices, looking after geothermal plants or hydroelectric stations. There's employment there too.
And coal seams that can be dug out is localised. The sun falls everywhere. The wind blows everywhere. No need for California to rely on Australian coal, they have plenty of sunshine."
I just read in SHOCK on BBC news that the US Energy Secretary caved in. New coal plants to be built with no CCS requirements!!!!??!??! I guess this should help keep all the coal mines and rail/shipping interests in the game of obstructing productive change moving forward.
Also mentioned was that China is spending double the US stimulus money on greening their economy. If the US does not follow the sustainability path, we will be drowning when demand exceeds supply for all the poison we are addicted to. This is like putting a drug addict through withdrawal..denial that things will be better longterm...so why change?
Demand reduction through building retrofits hopefully at least minimizes the number of new coal plants.
We MUST DO BETTER or the world will use this as an excuse in Copenhagen to make no change.
I guess the political connections of the corporate lobbyists rule over the long term interests of future generations. Wonder if the answer is to let the whole thing collapse/rebuild from the ashes...or revolution. Remove the influence of the well connected...Obama said something of reducing lobbyist influence. Obviously, the corruption/influence machine won again. How else would the big interests get approval to do the wrong thing and continue poisoning our planet?
When the cheerleaders started up about reducing our dependence on foreign oil....I guess the focus was really around money...not the real focus of sustainability. I am DISGUSTED AND ASHAMED OF OUR "LEADERS".
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #63
RE: statement made by the German delegate on behalf of the EU
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#60 and 61 Many_summits and JR4412
I have vented in #65 and know that if ever there was a time for a roots and branches call to action to send the "declaration" up with the concerned voices to the "powers that be"...this is it. Me being disgusted and letting this fester brings no positive influence for change.
We must give a nudge to the UN and other climate change bodies in advance of the Copenhagen meetings this year. Let truth speak loud and clear.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
MrSkipp #66 "Unsuitable/Broken URL"
Thanks for trying. I guess it's a link to a pdf file of the like.
If you could just show the link to the nearest webpage (html) and mention which part of the text leads to the statement then it should be posted and I should be able to follow it.
Thanks.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Everyone!
I just read the report on Steven Chu, US Energy Secretary, and the decision to compromise. Yet he sounds sincere in his belief in the urgency as regards climate change and coal being left in the ground, and in the compromise. He's in politics now, remember.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8061929.stm
Justin Rowlatt, BBC "Ethical Man", is roaming America, and just talked to James Hansen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/05/is_coal_the_number_one_enemy.html
Here is progress - my reading - the BBC is taking a stand
Naieve - I don't think so. The truth will out, eventually, and this is the biggest story of our lives. Remember Thomas Jefferson's dictum - that he would prefer, given the choice, a country without a government, to a country without newspapers (BBC).
We are obviously lacking government leadership right now, as they are awaiting word from the people. Without people support, there is no hope.
Remember Abraham Lincoln: "Public sentiment is everything; with it, nothing can fail, without it, nothing can succeed." (close anyway)
Our task is therefore to provide people support, and send messages to our governments in any way we can, preferably with our own lifestyle changes.
1) Park your vehicle - rub elbows with the walkers, the cyclists, the mass transit crowd. (We do)
2) Become a part of the natural world again - do risk sports - you can even take your vehicle for this on weekends. (We do - without our own vehicle, which we do not have)
3) Blog and read. (We do)
4) Trust your instincts (i.e., Steven Chu is OK; James Hansen is OK; James Lovelock is OK; Richard Alley is OK...)
5) Remember the adage: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", and read "The Revenge of Gaia", by James Lovelock, please.
6) Let's become a tribe again, and stick together, a world tribe. (straight from the heart)
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #68 "Unsuitable/Broken URL"
It seems I lost my way in the UNCSD navigation system. The statement was actually made in 2007. The menu bar on the left has a tab "Statements & Presentations" and this then links also to previous CSD sessions. I don't see any strong statements for the 2009 session.
Complain about this comment
#60 many summits
Yes I have read the Revenge of Gaia as well as a number of papers and books by James Lovelock. I do agree with alot of his thinking and I hope that this book is read by more people. It certainly makes you think about the issues of climate and environmental change and the connection between humans and ecosystems that we cant escape from as much as we try with our technology. I think he is probably right about sustainable retreat as we probably have gone too far already. He may well be right about nuclear power too although there is a good case for energy efficiency and renewables instead of expansion of the nuclear industry.
I love the idea of generating your own power at home and getting a cheque from the government when you supply the grid. That is the sort of changes we need but with the current obsession with economic growth, power and capitalism it will never happen and would depend on building designs that governments would be unwilling to support.
If we accept that there are environmental limits, that the human population cannot cross, just as ecology tells us that any population of a species has limits, then you realise that human economic and population growth must eventually come to an end. We need another 2 planets to support the current population. If we were all American we would need another 5! We all know that trees eventually reach a steady-state after a growth phase. I think we have come to the end of our infant growth phase and must now focus on moving to a steady-state economy. There is a good article about this in New Scientist. Of course the MPs and business folk wont like this which makes it unlikely to happen soon. But i think its a revolution worth fighting for and with the current economic, climatic and Parlimentary crises, now is the time to make it happen.
Complain about this comment
MrSkipp #70 "...I lost my way..."
Thanks for trying. I guess I must have done the same.
seasambo #71 "...all..." Well said!
Re: "steady-state economy"
That's another interesting line of thought for exploration and reading.
A quick goolgle (couldn't find/access the NS article) revealed...
http://www.steadystate.org/
...and Herman Daly seems to be one of it's proponents...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Daly
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits #69 "...and read "The Revenge of Gaia", by James Lovelock, please"
I see he has a newer book "The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning"
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
To seasambo #71, and to all:
The 'sustainable retreat' seems right. In "The Revenge of Gaia" James even mentions that the true test of a commander in the field is an orderly and well executed retreat. What really struck home is that this man should have thought this and put it into words just as I have done and I am sure many others have thought. This is uncanny, and speaks to our true tribal identity in times of extremis, I believe.
I'm not sure about nuclear either. James makes a persuasive case, as does James Hansen, and still I am leery. Isn't it another form of leverage? High tech leverage. I am all for high tech, by the way, lest anyone think otherwise, but I am equally for low tech. I think we need both - perhaps to live partly low tech - to reconnect with , well, lets say it, Gaia, and high tech, because that is certainly who we are too. And there is no winning a fight against yourself.
A steady-state economy is unimaginable to me, for several reasons. First, it's not who we are, and I think it may not be natural. It is a null point, which we may have to endure for awhile, but better to go for space, or retreat to the caves and live again off the land, than to live in a place with no future save more of the same. Realize please I speak from the heart here, because I no longer believe in rational thinking except in some circumstances.
Which brings me to another point in James' book. He believes in metaphor in relating to the natural world and to people. So do I. We are a symbolic people, and reason has only tool-like value. For life, give me something else. In this, James is like Robert Pirsig, who mentioned often the 'church of reason', and its false promise. ("Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance")
I think we can do this. A sustainable retreat while we gather our wits, and a push into space for resources and for the open road, the true 'home of the soul.'
- Manysummits - home at last -
Complain about this comment
I don't imagine I'm alone in this. All this discussion about the end of the world is hard on a person.
Maybe each of us has simply to do what seems right, and not lose our sense of wonder.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #75:
"Maybe each of us has simply to do what seems right, and not lose our sense of wonder".
Amen to that Manysummits. Amen indeed.
When the sun comes up tomorrow rejoice again with underacanoe and cloudrunner.
It's holiday weekend (Memorial Day) in the US and adventures have been planned.
A memorable weekend to you all.
Cheers...
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #73; to jr4412; to all:
You wrote:
"I see he has a newer book "The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning"
------------
I was just at the bookstore, and I see that this book has just arrived, hardcover.
The introduction is by Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, Great Britain, who remarks that James Lovelock is to him a "hero."
Curiously, or not, I have a 2004 Scientific American (July) 'Insight' by Sir Martin, which discusses his book "Our Final Hour" (in the UK "Our Final Century"), about the state of the planet. The title of the article was "Doom and Gloom by 2100."
We appear to have considerable company in the general tenor of our Mayday Declaration: Sir Martin Rees, James Lovelock, George Monbiot, James Hansen, Jacques Cousteau, Carl Sagan... I'm sure there are others from many other coutries whom I am not familiar with.
Now what? "Sustainable Retreat"?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To timjenvy #76:
Adventures sound good, and Happy Memorial Day!
Hope you and yours have a good one(s).
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To simon-swede #79:
Excellent summary - I read it with particular interest to see if my impressions, quickly made, and those of Richard Black, not so quickly made, were consistent with this report.
I think the answer is a resounding yes.
And I think the reason is the sheer magnitude of the planetary crisis, which is literally coming home to roost for an increasing number of people at all levels of society.
See, for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8058080.stm (Chile )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8063000/8063392.stm (USA - Yosemite)
As such, the confusion, yet the obvious concern, of most of the delegations at this conference realistically reflect the confusion and concern worldwide.
I am seeing an exponential growth in the number of books and popular magazine articles on the bookstore shelves dealing with the global environmental crisis, and this too is a sounding board - at least in the first world. What is happening in the second and third worlds I do not know.
This CSD is thus in my mind an accurate and useful 'sounding board.'
But now what?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #79 "adapted from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, http://www.iisd.ca/vol05/enb05281e.html"
Sorry to quibble Simon, but that text looks like a pure cut and paste from the bulletin.
In the interests of keeping this blog readable, wouldn't it be better just to present the link and give a brief summary; and acknowledge what is a copy (quotation marks) as distinct from a personal statement?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits #74
I agree with much of what you write; but one point stuck out.
You say "A steady-state economy is unimaginable to me, for several reasons. First, it's not who we are, and I think it may not be natural."
I begin from the point of view that we are a highly skilled and adaptable animal species with a great aptitude for learning (as young) from our parents and peers, and with a very goal/achievement/satisfaction oriented nature. We have also been "steered" by those who saw fit to take power, into an expansionist economy, which to a greater of lesser extent provides us, as individuals, with the goals achievements and satisfaction we need to enjoy life. *We* are not that expansionist economy; it is purely a construct. Consider also that many of the goals it provides are not at all natural, but appeal (via advertising and media etc) to our natural instincts in a perverse way; eg. changing fashions in clothing, making status symbols of cars, houses etc.
I see no reason a steady-state economy could not provided just as well the possibilities for goals, achievements and satisfaction that we crave. Also; if the new economy allows a change in those goals from the many artificial ones we have now that that would be a bonus.
Steady state doesn't have to mean stagnation. Progress can go on within the prescribed "envelope".
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #79 and my #81.
I see your post has been removed by the moderators anyway.
Here is the link you provided to the bulletin since it is a good one...
From simon-swede: http://www.iisd.ca/vol05/enb05281e.html
Approx 2/3rd through the page; find "A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF CSD 17"
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
1) I don't see why the post by simon-swede #79 should have been removed, and I would like to see that policy changed.
2) To davblo2 #82: re 'steady-state equals stagnation??'
I see and understand that you are for progress - agreed. Then it is the title which is inappropriate. Steady-state is just that, and negates progress, which is never steady-state, except in some rhetorical philosophical sense. Dr. Wernher von Braun described such a state in his illuminating book "Project Mars: A Technical Tale", 1949.
He described a hypothetical advanced Martian civilization living without adventure below ground on a largely sterile Mars, and happy to see full- of-life adventurous human explorers arrive. A must read for Burghermeister and yourself, I would suggest.
Well intentioned people the world over are no substitute for the ability to win. In his latest book, James Lovelock gives us an instantaneous picture, worth the proverbial ten thousand words, in his title:
The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning
It just occurred to me that this man may be the "Great Communicator" James Hansen has been seeking. In "The Revenge of Gaia", it was with no little surprise and joy that I saw in the first pages James Lovelock's glowing admiration of James Hansen.
And in James Lovelock's hot off the press new book, Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal United Kingdom, gives a glowing tribute and introduction to James Lovelock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees,_Baron_Rees_of_Ludlow
I imagine that I will be buying this book today. Technically and rationally, we could wait for the library to get this book. But spiritually, we can't afford to 'wait.'
So we will be engaging in a sacrifice, i.e., we will "make sacred" our link to the world, and recognize the truth of the artist:
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main."
- John Donne, 1573-1631 (Devotions xii)
-----------
A personal Note:
Cloudrunner was watching a video yesterday and saw a baby in a crib. His remark was: "Momma, that's funny - there's a baby in a cage."
So I think we will home school, maybe with a small group. Cloudrunner has never slept in a crib, or ever been alone at night, and nursed for three and a half years. The thought of turning him over to the institutional mercies of school is more than I can bear, having travelled that road myself. Luckily, seven years in the mountains has given me a perspective unique I think for a civilized man, for I now know what it is to be free.
I am reminded again of the summation of Ronald Wright in his "A Short History of Progress":
"Civilizations are a specific kind of culture: large, complex societies based on the domestication of plants, animal, and human beings."
- Manysummits, Underacanoe, Cloudrunner -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #84 "...then it is the title which is inappropriate. Steady-state is just that and negates progress"
But it's steady state "Economy", not steady state "everything".
There is more to life than just economics as you well know.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits #84: "The thought of turning him over to the institutional mercies of school..."
We all have to face the real world at some point.
Sooner rather than later would be my view.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Hi davblo2!
For me life is flux. I saw so many people in the mountains who brought the city with them, I'll never get over it. Nature is always changing - always. Being in truth a part of nature, which we all are, steady-state anything is to me a Utopian concept. That's all. I'm sure some of the ideas are useful, but it is still my opinion that a better label be found, one which is in keeping with the natural world.
-----------
I've just bought "The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning", by James Lovelock, and I'm thinking of inscribing it to my son, as follows:
"To Cloudrunner. Posterity may view James Lovelock as one of the chief 'alarmists' of the twenty-first century. We all hope that this is so. But with high confidence, posterity may well view him as 'Ecologist-in-Chief', and immortalize both his prescience and his roots-based metaphorical theory, Gaia."
I hope you and your family are enjoying the weekend, as are we!
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #86:
And what is the real world, I wonder?
- Alive and well in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #86:
"Real"; from the Indo-European base *rei-, property, whence the Sanskrit, rai, 'wealth, property'; sense 2)authentic, genuine;
Therefore:
"To get genuine, authentic wealth."
- Manysummits
So, what is real?
How about a tribal carnivore, designed to work in groups no larger than a hundred or so, who loves to travel on the land or on the sea, as he is insatiably curious, because he knows, and can imagine, how mortal he is, and how transient is all that he can see and intuit.
Is not life in a high civilization, for all its advantage, and for all its ills, not in a sense contrived and artificial?
Are not all in a high civilization neurotic, and secretely longing for the genuine and the authentic?
Liza Minnelli once said:
"Reality is something you rise above."
She was undoubtedly speaking from this neurotic space I referred to above.
How differemt in the mountains, or in the fabulous immensity of a great desert, where you, alone, sense not your littleness, but rather your power, and your absolute faith in yourself - your being - in the heart of Nature.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #87 & #88
Good that you found the book. I checked here yesterday, but our book shops are sadly lacking in that area.
It's time to sign off for the day. It's been a good day here, and these discussions have given me much to think about. It's ironic that after many years we've finally found our "ideal" home and yet so soon, have to question our whole way of life. And our's is such a small part of the whole (gaia).
Wishing you all well; davblo2 - Dalarna - Sweden
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 at #81 and #83
I removed all the links embedded in the text of the report, and - as you note - it was the final third or so of a longer more detailed report - hence I described what I posted as "adapted from" and gave the actual link. Thanks for reposting the link.
Complain about this comment
Further to #91, ENB expressly allows for excerpts to be re-used in non-commercial publications provided the source is given.
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #91 & #92
Good morning!
For me it would have been fine if you had put quotation marks around the quoted text.
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #90:
You wrote:
"It's ironic that after many years we've finally found our "ideal" home and yet so soon, have to question our whole way of life. And our's is such a small part of the whole (gaia)."
Immediately I thought: But you and yours are like an island universe, and not a small part at all - from one perspective. This is I think, why the Greek Protagoras said, "Man is the measure of all things."
But of course it is equally true that one is a part of the whole, and dependent upon the whole.
Which is another example of why rational reductionism is only a tool, not an answer.
I was just studying David Schindler's "The Algal Bowl", and he was delving into the physics and chemistry of lakes, which is his speciality.
And in dwelling on the immense complexities of the real world, as opposed to a modelled world, I came again to that place called 'the field,' i.e., my belief in field observation and study.
So I will put this book down, return it to the library, and return to climate change. I have printed off James Hansen's 36 page 2008 treatise "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?"
- "The Open Atmospheric Science Journal," 2008,2, 217-231.(Open Access)
But I like that 'island universe' concept so much. Think of it, every one of our cells is itself an island universe - then you move to astronomy, and contemplate the clusters and superclusters of galaxies, other island universes, and you are brought panting to a fractal view of nature, or to Darwin's romantic observation: "...endless forms most beautiful..."
Thoughts on a Sunday morning,
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Another climate feedback loop, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLAW_hypothesis
Excerpt:
"In a recent book, The Revenge of Gaia, Lovelock has proposed that instead of providing negative feedback in the climate system, the components of the CLAW hypothesis may act to create a positive feedback loop[7].
Under future global warming, increasing temperature may stratify the world ocean, decreasing the supply of nutrients from the deep ocean to its productive euphotic zone. Consequently, phytoplankton activity will decline with a concommitant fall in the production of DMS. In a reverse of the CLAW hypothesis, this decline in DMS production will lead to a decrease in cloud condensation nuclei and a fall in cloud albedo. The consequence of this will be further climate warming which may lead to even less DMS production (and further climate warming ...). The figure to the right shows a summarising schematic diagram.
Evidence for the anti-CLAW hypothesis is constrained by similar uncertainties as those of the sulfur cycle feedback loop of the CLAW hypothesis. However, researchers simulating future oceanic primary production have found evidence of declining production with increasing ocean stratification[8]."
Here is one possible working mechanism for "greenhouse extinctions," a typical topic of Dr. Peter Ward, of the University of Washington.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Supplement to # 95:
I can't find 'greenhouse extinction' on Wikipedia, so here is a close second - they're called 'anoxic events':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Burghermeister #67.
"We must give a nudge to the UN and other climate change bodies in advance of the Copenhagen meetings this year."
spot on. perhaps you could find time to contribute to the 'A Planet United' effort? "many hands make light work" and all that..
manysummits #69 and others.
not sure I agree with your optimism re. BBC taking a stand but the notion of coming together as a "world tribe", well, I think that perhaps we can (and should!) work on that. the interweb is the tool and, as you point out when quoting Abraham Lincoln, "Public sentiment is everything" -- ie. if there is a real ground swell of opinion in favour of the nations uniting, in favour of dispensing with unworkable, unfair systems, then there may still be a chance; on the downside, with that much industrial automation in place, the powers that be could kill off 95% of the population tomorrow and still carry on with "business as usual".
re. steady-state economy. agree, cannot conceive of such a thing either. but in terms of society it seems that we've been in a steady-state for centuries now, no significant progress has been made in terms of liberating humanity (as opposed to individuals). the same, unchanged (hierarchical) thinking underpins "the system".
(for an example look at the UK, some families and companies have gone about their business for hundreds of years, the state has operated with only v minor modifications since the Magna Carta.)
"Are not all in a high civilization neurotic, and secretely longing for the genuine and the authentic?"
going to stick my neck out and say that "neurotic" is perhaps not the problem. I was raised and have lived in cities all my life (and am neurotic without question ;)); I've met many people who can function (after a fashion) but wouldn't or couldn't hack life in a natural, rural, "bucolic" setting. I can conceive of a world where a high percentage of people is urbanised but which still is without wars and institutionalised injustice.
davblo2 #82, #85, #90.
whilst I whole-heartedly agree with what you say in "I begin from the point of view...", please see the above.
"It's ironic that after many years we've finally found our "ideal" home and yet so soon, have to question our whole way of life."
thing is, we could preserve much of our existing "creature comforts" if we were prepared to change the way we operate; as has been pointed out elsewhere by yourself and others, moving to alternative methods of generating energy and modifying parts of the industrial processes, coupled with a move towards a planetary society, would go a long way to achieve the sustainability we desire.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 #97
I don't understand the flat dismissal of a steady state economy.
Are you saying that the expansive economy can go on forever?
If "Yes" then it would become infinite; but we know that is not possible.
If "No" then what happens to restrict it? If it stops expanding then it either becomes steady or diminishes.
So if you rule out steady state, there is only diminishing left.
Where did I go wrong?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
#97 jr4412, ManySummits et al
I lost touch with what is the mechanism to roll out the declaration, make
inputs, read, etc... Was a Wiki ever set up for this?
I also wanted to share a nice resource for digging up facts and publications: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7057451/6TS is an interesting presentation.
http://www.scribd.com/ is the main page location and you can set up an account to freely roam around and find stuff.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #98.
right/wrong is not what I want to argue.
I think steady-state (as manysummits points out) is not natural; nature is dynamic, so I imagine that something akin to the tides (ie. oscillating between minima & maxima) is more realistic, *if* that is what is to be desired. I do think that while there's (a) population growth, and I'm quite happy thinking Earth can support many more than the current numbers, and (b) the need for renewal and replacement, eg. old, in-efficient combustion engine based personal transport replaced by electric vehicles, poor housing replaced by better insulated buildings and so on, there's going to be "growth" in economic terms. in the far future (if we ever get there) a near steady-state may come about, who knows (but then there'll be other areas of expansion, like near-space perhaps).
Complain about this comment
further to #100.
I guess, I tried to say that renewal is a type of growth that does not rely on expansion.
Complain about this comment
Burghermeister #99.
thanks for the link, and for your interest.
the 'MayDay' declaration can be found on Richard Black's "Human rights make whale meat hard to swallow" #190, it contains link(s).
Complain about this comment
#99, #102...
...and on our Wiki...
http://www.pratar.org/puw/index.php?title=Mayday_Declaration
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
#102 and 103 jr4412, davblo, ManySummits
I read declaration at the Wiki link from davblo2...looks like a brief but well written statement of the situation and a call to action. I have not participated on a Wiki before...so I assume we communicate/collaborate on discussion tab/page and free up the BBC blog traffic to subjects pertinent to their topics? Seems only fair....
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
#95 ManySummits
Here is a link to an interesting Compendium book of what we have been pointing to on this blog in terms of sustainability... Basically stumbled onto this after reading on the Declaration Wiki.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2436300/Beyond-You-and-Me-Inspiration-and-Wisdom-for-Building-Community
The other 3 parts in the series are listed on page 6.
I hope this may give inspiration/edification for you and all interested in sustainability with the advantage of many different views. (Looks like the more we search the more we find.) I have not read the whole contents, but saw some interesting concepts that can be fairly applied to a larger/extrapolated community of the world.
I have no affiliation with this bunch, but it is interesting that some "footsteps" are already in the sand by a group/groups with which there may be some opportunity to send up a unified declaration...if that makes sense...as long as this does not delay a call to action. Before Copenhagen talks seems appropriate timing. The question is to whom we make the call(s) to action....and would seem that having increased grassroots base size increases likelihood of success.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
jr4412 #100 "I think steady-state (as manysummits points out) is not natural"
Sorry to labour the issue; I'm no expert on steady state economy, but I just don't see so much "natural" in the current economic system. I see more perversion of our natural instincts rather than beneficial utilisation of them.
John Stuart Mill (20 May 1806 8 May 1873),
Apparently wrote...
"It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on."
Which is what I was trying to say earlier; plenty of scope for "natural" human achievements.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #106.
re. JS Mill's quote: my argument is that there appears to have been little or no "mental culture, and moral and social progress" for centuries. that's where we're stagnating (read "steady state"), and the rot has already set in, big time.
seems we're arguing the same side, sorry if I mis-read your post(s).
I agree that there's nothing "much "natural" in the current economic system" and that our instincts are being used against us. but the instinctive drive to create, to produce, is also the argument against the possiblity of "steady-state", no? there will always be development(s) of some sort or other. I lay no claim to being an expert (of any sort) either, I suspect the problem here is more one of language/definition than of substance.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 #107 "I suspect the problem here is more one of language/definition"
Agreed; that's why I keep emphasising it's steady state *economics*; not to be equated to, or confused with, stagnation of any other aspects of life.
Complain about this comment
It does my heart good to see everyone back and blogging.
Interesting link there Burghermeister (#105 - Gaia education...)
It reminds me that there are many out there doing something, each in their own way.
My concern is the power of the vested interests to derail things.
What in the world is President Obama thinking in continuiing in Afghanistan?
And what is up with Steven Chu having to report no progress on CO2 emissions?
Like Olaf Stapledon (Star Maker), I was tasting bitterness last evening, and I ended up with Henrik Ibsen, the famous Norwegian playwright, and his saying:
"The strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone."
He also said that the majority was always wrong - in fact, he has quite a lot to say about society/civilization, very little of it good.
A true artist, 'illuminating the nature of man, and letting the chips fall where they may,' to paraphrase JFK.
So we have Ibsen saying, in effect, democracy is habitually wrong in its decisions, very close to what Thomas Jefferson thought, if you read him carefully, and Abraham Lincoln saying that public sentiment is everything, and then you have the Vedas saying, "In the society of men, the best man becomes a sinner."
I'd like to think that the obvious good intentions we see, such as in the link courtesy Burghermeister, and davblo2's 'steady-state economy', and jr4412's ecospheric perspective, and Burghermeister's personal crusade to revamp what parts he can of our infrastructure, etc..., that this will win out in the end and all will be well.
Then I see the fiasco at the United Nations sustainability conference in New York, and I remember those vested interests. When will they decide the internet is too free-wheeling and possibly 'subversive'?
I am about to read Lovelock's "The Vanishing Face of Gaia, A Final Warning," and I have on order Sir Martin Rees "Our Final Hour".
This is to feel 'not alone'
But in the end, maybe we are just going to have to 'do' ourselves.
For example, if we actually parked our vehicles when not absolutely necessary, things would certainly change. But who's going to go first?
We don't need to recycle so much as to stop buying in the first place - who is going to be first?
Etc...
- Manysummits in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #109.
uh, uh, you've hit a low ??
don't know much about Ibsen, but the quote you give are the words of a misanthrope, and as for the Vedas, true enough but everyone has to take responsibility for themselves to try and rise above the creature, no?
you know I don't "do religion" but I think that Buddhism has a point in saying that one has to aim to free oneself of one's ego. and ego is, in the final analysis, a major factor re trying to change the "status quo".
Complain about this comment
A little light relief:
In Antoine de Saint-Exupérys "The Little Prince", the planet he lives on is too small to support the baobab tree. The trees will make his little planet turn to dust if they are not removed. Throughout the book he is taught to be patient and to do hard work to keep his "planet" in order. The Little Prince has some useful advice for us: Taking care of your planet, he says, is very tedious work, but very easy.
Complain about this comment
#109 ManySummits
wrote:"I'd like to think that the obvious good intentions we see, such as in the link courtesy Burghermeister, and davblo2's 'steady-state economy', and jr4412's ecospheric perspective, and Burghermeister's personal crusade to revamp what parts he can of our infrastructure, etc..., that this will win out in the end and all will be well.
Then I see the fiasco at the United Nations sustainability conference in New York, and I remember those vested interests. When will they decide the internet is too free-wheeling and possibly 'subversive'?"
Well, yes that conference did not get all on board too much...and it shows that the old "interests centric" thinking is not sustainable. The challenge is how to present that so people get it. The increasing global focus has been on independence/self-dependence rather than co-dependence and holistic societal focus. Even in the east, where the focus traditionally has been on collective mentality. The results are showing there too...I hope they do not overindulge in modern western values.
The problem with independence approach is that people are left out in the cold with only their own resources to keep themselves floating. Many cannot hack that situation and bad things result in terms of crime/greed/name it... I was a loner in days past, and the resulting energy was not good. You know how they say it takes a village to raise a child? Lucky for me, the village reached out and I accepted.
The village interactions/energy do not necessarily have to be confined to small villages with highly evolved mentalities....which can think of the larger total picture rather than only the immediate 3 foot radius around each mind.
As far as the free-wheeling and subversive part, doesn't that depend on the intent and energy of those involved? When we are involved in change for the greater good, and there is a movement to do that...makes sense that we help push things along in the right direction, rather than view it as subversive and sneaky. That is when things get sideways... Being open/honest and having good intent/actions should not cause discomfort among the powers that be. All depends on approach and energy...
You also wrote:
"For example, if we actually parked our vehicles when not absolutely necessary, things would certainly change. But who's going to go first?
We don't need to recycle so much as to stop buying in the first place - who is going to be first?"
I am driving very little and making efforts to reduce my impact...and if petrol prices get painful again, so will all the zombies driving around in monster SUV's.
Simple thing on recycling...plastic Ziploc bags...bought them in the past, and the petroleum was already used to make them. I wash them out again and again, to squeeze every bit of life out of them. My wife used to say because I am cheap...now she knows that being a little green saves on the amount of stuff bought and also going into the landfills. It is amazing how much money/resources/energy can be saved by stepping back from rampant consumerism. (an unsustainable "religion")
Stay positive...we have good things to accomplish.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
To jr4412, simon-swede, Burghermeister:
Read you loud and clear - manythanks!
("It is only with the heart that one can see rightly. What is essential is invisible to the eye.") Other key thematic messages are articulated by the fox, such as: "You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed" and "It is the time you have spent with your rose that makes your rose so important.")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_little_prince
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Steady-state economy
By the steady-state economy I think you may be referring to something like this: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Given my poor success rate recently with posting links, I will also give alternative instructions:
1) Go to http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/
2) Under the title "Other headlines" in the central frame click on "Prosperity without growth"
3) Download the full report
Complain about this comment
"The Vanishing Face of Gaia," by James Lovelock, 2009.
I am a third of the way through this book.
Impressions so far:
- Without equivocation, Mr. Lovelock feels certain we have overshot the carrying capacity of the Earth in terms of human population and the requisite food and water thus required. It is the human footprint, rather than the carbon footprint, which weighs heaviest of all on the interconnected web of life and planet which James calls Gaia.
- His feeling on climate models: Largely based on atmpospheric physics - entirely inadequate in predicting the future to 2050 or 2100.
- Nevertheless, he has developed a model, this one fairly simple, but with biological input, for example, the oceanic phytoplankton, the algae, which both draw down CO2 and regulate the temperature of the planet, and produce DMS, dimethyl sulphide, which are an important cloud seeding chemical once oxidized, and thus play into one of the very large unknowns, the parasol effect. His model is withiut a doubt drastically non-linear (my term), and results in a near instantaneous jump in planetary temperature of five degrees Centigrade, immediately following a drastic short term drop in temperature.
He makes no claims to the quantitative accuracy of his model, but it eerily resembles qualitatively the history of climate as revealed in the last few dozen years from field observations and paleoclimatic data, something our big global circulation models have so far failed to manage. He is a super-supporter of field observation, and believes we should be devoting more resources to this.
- He believes we should prepare for the unexpected, prepare to adapt, and make ready those areas of the planet which will remain or become more habitable as the Earth heats up.
- David Branson has offered James a free ticket on his space ship, as soon as it is ready, and despite Mr. Lovelock's ninety years on the planet, and against the advice of his doctor, he has accepted.
I am most impressed by his 'independent status' as a scientist. He is free to say what he really thinks, and he does.
- Manysummits - looking for a copy of the "Little Prince" -
Complain about this comment
Here is the type of 'Gaia' information we need:
Ghosts of oceans past and future
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8063396.stm
See 1960's and 1990's maps of longline fish density; in particular the Atlantic and Indian Oceans:
http://www.coml.org/media-resources/maps
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#115 & 116 Manysummits
Our human footprint is deep for sure and many deep prints combined, may make a hole we cannot climb out of.
We have definitely overshot the global carrying capacity...and we are way over the top on our efficiency to overdevelop any technique such as fishing.What are the odds that people will do the right thing, even if the signs jump up and smack them in the face. Egos get in the way of admitting the truth that we are frail compared to the forces of nature...and we have basic needs of air/water/food. We need them for the long term, sustainably managed.
We definitely need to think in longer time frames for sustainability sake. Short term thinking causes logic disconnects such as poor management of fisheries/forests/feedstocks/fertility of soil.... (Oh, and investment) The quarterly profit/"take it all now" mindset pervades our world. Like you said...most of our problems are psychological.
I just read the article on Mr Lovelock's site
http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html
He paints a dark picture.
"By failing to see that the Earth regulates its climate and composition, we have blundered into trying to do it ourselves, acting as if we were in charge. By doing this, we condemn ourselves to the worst form of slavery. If we chose to be the stewards of the Earth, then we are responsible for keeping the atmosphere, the ocean and the land surface right for life. A task we would soon find impossible - and something before we treated Gaia so badly, she had freely done for us.
To understand how impossible it is, think about how you would regulate your own temperature or the composition of your blood. Those with failing kidneys know the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy kidneys."
I wonder if we are going to get a dose of reality that we cannot continue to only take and not put back... Our relationship with the earth must be a two way interaction, just as with any healthy relationship.
Complain about this comment
Extension to #117
His interview is really interesting...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
Guess we better get out the stomach distress bags...sounds like a
somewhat "controlled crash".
Complain about this comment
Having been away for while doing my bit for the planet , here is an example of GIGO , for the warmistas who cannot see the wood for the CO2 breathing trees !!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/nsidc-pulls-the-plug-on-artic-sea-ice-graphs/#more-8033
Complain about this comment
Burghermeister #117 (and #118) "He paints a dark picture"
He certainly does; and in quite a convincing way.
I see that article was published in The Independent, 16 January 2006; over 3 years ago. Even the Guardian piece was over a year ago. There don't seem to be any more recent additions at all on his web site.
I wonder what he is up to at the moment.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
#120 cont'd
I found a more recent piece (22 April 2009)...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2009/apr/22/james-lovelock-gaia-space-biochar
Complain about this comment
...and here (24 March 2009) he responded...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/biochar-earth-c02
...to George Monbiot's dismissal of burying carbon...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/george-monbiot-climate-change-biochar
If James has changed his tune from "no chance"...
http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html
...to "maybe there are ways" (eg bury carbon), I'd have thought he would have mapped out his version of a "plan of action" to avoid disaster.
Complain about this comment
MrSkipp #114 "alternative instructions"
I missed it the first time, but finally found the report;
all 136 pages!
Thanks; davblo2
Complain about this comment
#121 davblo
Good interview...Thanks for sharing the link. He is an interesting chap.
I wonder about the biochar....if it gets buried, and enough time and heat
are applied...we get coal. Which future generations will dig up and burn for energy after we implode. The cycle of life continues... ;-))
He is right about experiment and observation...must do or there is no confirmation of theory.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
To Burghermeister # 117:
You wrote:
"I wonder if we are going to get a dose of reality that we cannot continue to only take and not put back... Our relationship with the earth must be a two way interaction, just as with any healthy relationship."
I like that thought very much - a two way relationship! To the point, exactly, and in language everyone can relate to.
Here is from Thomas Jefferson:
"From the conclusion of this [Revolutionary] war we shall be going downhill...They [the people] will forget themselves but in the sole facility of making money..."
How utterly true that is. Marlon Brando confirmed this thinking two hundred years later in describing his populace. And personally - I know of what I speak in this regard.
------------
To davblo2:
I haven't finished the book yet, which is just off the presses, but it seems to me the ultimate cause for Lovelock's pessimism is his belief that nothing meaningful can be done as regards human population numbers, which he sees as the number one problem. Makes sense!
But is it true? We may have irrevocably committed the planet to a warmer stste, and so technically, the best and coincidentally the best fix is a voluntary reduction in our numbers. I believe in my heart this is true. We need to tell 'the people' the truth.
A Ray of Hope!
It is just possible that a large fraction of the world population are not yet as beholden to money and its values as are we in the so called developed world?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #125 "...tell 'the people' the truth"
Made me think about how much people would be prepared to forgo even if they new "truth". Made me wonder about short term interests and planning.
I googled "short term thinking" and there were many hits.
Just one example...
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-04.htm
So any "rays of hope" are most welcome.
Complain about this comment
#126 Davblo
That is a perfect example of short term thinking. (and also wrong focus)
Focus on money, with no regard for the bigger picture inevitably leads to disaster. What can we sacrifice for Money? Forests/fish/soil....
Our problems are largely psychological.
Complain about this comment
Burghermeister #127.
agree, the psychology/behaviour of herd animals is (probably) large part of the problem; in any organisation people only move into the positions where they could affect real change after they are considered "safe hands" - by which time they're usually to compromised to actually implement changes. (only need to look at all those politicians who came to politics because of their good intentions)
Complain about this comment
manysummits #125.
"It is just possible that a large fraction of the world population are not yet as beholden to money and its values as are we in the so called developed world?"
I think you're too optimistic here. most people labour under the misconception that money is needed, desirable to have. how many people do you know (personally) who would argue that a world without money (or some kind of token exchange) is possible?
Complain about this comment
#126 continued.
The Science of Short Term Thinking
http://www.parliament.uk/about/podcasts/scienceinparliament/behaviouraleconomics.cfm
The podcast is 30 minutes long and veeery drawn out (not for the short term thinker...!!).
In essence they explain that we (and lab animals) evaluate reward on a "time scale" basis, discounting (as per standard economics) rewards which are some time in the future.
They have even identified the parts of the brain responsible;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5695/503
This roughly equates to the idea of a good and bad part of the brain, one saying "go on eat the cake" and the other saying "no, you'll look better next summer if you don't". The "discounting" principles, well know to accountants, economists and politicians, are applied by the brain to decide to eat the cake anyway.
A simple example from the podcast.
Researcher: do you want £10 now or £11 next week.
Politician: £10 now.
Researcher: do you want £10 in a year's time or £11 in a year+ a week.
Politician: £11 in a year+ a week.
Researcher: That's inconsistent decision making
Politician: No it's standard discounting
...and that's the way the brain works anyway.
If I remember correctly, the politician says it's actually odd that we care at all about the future of the earth and civilisation, because its discounted value is negligible. Oh an he quotes Woody Allen (tounge in cheek I guess) "what did future generations ever do for us?".
Still looking for rays of hope... davblo2
Complain about this comment
The vertical bar symbol in the example in #130 was meant to be a currency symbol but didn't come through. Anyway, hopefully the meaning is clear; 10 or 11 of something useful.
Complain about this comment
I'm not so sure optimism is not warranted. The danger is clear to a few, but not yet "present."
I am half way through James Lovelock's "The Vanishing Face of Gaia", and I have detected a noticeable quirk in his thinking. I was going to say flaw, but that would be a judgement call, so I'll stick with quirk for now.
He frequently speaks in a detached manner, betraying his excellence as a scientist, which is good, but often speaks of humanitarianism as a mistake which clouds our thinking, because we should be putting both Gaia and the survival of our species first. Gaia because it sustains us, and species - why?
Yet in the next breath he will speak of us as tribal carnivores, or supreme hunter-gatherers, adapted to the world of a million years ago.
He is very worried about warlords taking over in place of our vaunted civilization, which he still holds in high regard, or at least parts of it. Then he speaks of a retreat to the lifeboats, and defense against climate refugees with an enhanced military. (Waterworld - with Kevin Costner?)
My impression: An excellent scientist, with the most comprehensive ecological view of our world and times that I have yet encountered, but no war leader.
And I think we need a war leader. This is as it should be - perfectly natural. Lovelock is a Celtic Druid - Merlin.
We now need an Arthur.
From my perspective I can tell you this. No real progress will be made until the visceral parts of our beings are activated, until we have Churchill's 'fire in the belly'.
So this is a time for introspection, for the few to prepare themselves for the battles ahead.
- Manysummits in Calgary -
PS: I have just obtained Sir Martin Rees "Our Final Hour". This will represent the astronmer's perspective. And I have ordered "The Little Prince", by Saint-Exupery - thank you again, simon-swede, for that!
Complain about this comment
Just wondered if anyone has seen this covered in the news (apart from on their own site of course)...
World Business Summit on Climate Change
http://en.cop15.dk/climate+consortium/news/view+news?newsid=1368
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
I know this is not a climate-related thread, but I did want to share the following... Apologies for speaking "out of turn"...
Heres some news about Russia and climate change that I had completely missed until now. It came as a surprise to me, but perhaps others know about this news from elsewhere?
The Russian government has made a change to its policy on climate change. It has officially accepted that anthropogenic global warming poses severe risks and requires immediate action to limit carbon emissions.
Previously the government had been rather sceptical or indifferent about the scientific basis and projected effects of climate change.
A detailed article about this development was published online in Nature on 26 May 2009, Russia makes major shift in climate policy.
The article includes a pdf link to a Russian assessment about climate change and the impacts it is expected to have in Russia. This assessment was released in February by Russia's federal weather service, Roshydromet. Russia's minister for natural resources, Yuri Trutnev, emphasized the urgency of domestic and international action on climate change in a presentation to the Russian cabinet on 23 April.
Complain about this comment
simon-swede £134 "but perhaps others know about this news from elsewhere?"
It was reported on the UN COP15 site.
http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=1373
See also my question in #133.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
#133 and 134
It is encouraging that there is such a movement afoot...hope it gets some of the big emitters to come around in Copenhagen and do the right thing.
Interesting that businesses are pushing the agenda and saying to be bold.
Russia has such a vested interest in fossil fuels, but maybe they know that there is big trouble brewing down the road if we do not make bold moves.
This snippet from World Economic Forum is good:
"economic progress without social development is not sustainable, while social development without economic progress is not feasible."
Balance is key....
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede #134:
I just read your comment on the Russian policy shift on climate change. As I happened to be at a college library, I have printed it off.
Thanks for the lead!
So, the avalanche of world opinion on AGW begins.
----------
To Burghermeister:
James Lovelock's considered opinion is that among the non-nuclear options for large scale power generation, solar-thermal/electric looks to him the only truly viable one. Power would be delivered long distance from sunny desert sites via DC power lines. Apparently there is a prototype in Arizona.
- Manysummits in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
ASSESSMENT REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
IN RUSSIAN FEDERATION
General Summary
If you google the title above, you can obtain this document on your home computer. It is 24 pages long, and from what I can see after a quick scan, well worth reading. There are interesting graphs as well.
_ manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits at #137,
Concerning your comment about solar thermal projects. You might be interested to have a look at the IEA's SolarPACES.
http://www.solarpaces.org/
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #139, manysummits #137.
see also info on Spain, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Spain.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 #140
Just to say that the "dot" at the end of the link above causes a new empty page to come up in Wikipedia (at least in my browser).
So without the dot is better...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Spain
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede, jr4412 & davblo2:
Thanks for the links. I see we are still a little way from a one thousand megawatt plant, but with a push, online and big in less than five years?
----------
Notes from James Lovelock's "The Vanishing Face of Gaia:"
1) The most accurate thermostat for global warming is the rising sea level.
2) The melting of the polar ice caps is consuming a lot of energy without raising temperature appreciably due to the very large amount of energy required to melt ice.
3) Ice to water: albedo change of 0.8 to 0.2
3) Oceanic surface waters stratify at between 12 to 14 deg C - effectively desertifying the surface, and reducing the phytoplankton which consume CO2 and produce oxygen.
4) Water/evaporation from land surfaces becomes a problem between 22 and 25 deg C.
5) Relative humidity has a large direct effect on the size and effective albedo of aerosols. Currently 'global dimming' may be producing a two to three deg C parasol effect - if we stop producing this man-made parasol, temperature will jump.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #142.
"I see we are still a little way from a one thousand megawatt plant, but.."
big is so old-school ;)
why not a number of small(er) facilities, serving communities and feeding excess into grid? may cost more to build but, on balance, I think it'd still be more advantageous.
also, read (sorry, hazy memory, no links) that covering 500km square in the Sahara with photo-voltaics would, even at ~20% efficiency (and we get better now), produce enough power to cover global consumption.
Complain about this comment
Re #142 Manysummits and #143 jr4412
If you want hypothetical numbers to help put the scale into perspective, then with assuming the best for Concentrating Solar Power:
- One square kilometres of land in sun-rich regions is needed to generate 100-130 gigawats/year.
- Two percent of the Sahara desert would be needed to meet the worlds energy needs
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/concentrating-solar-power250509
Complain about this comment
#144
Ok, I'm picky, but how can you trust someone (not meaning you simon-swede, but the source of the quote) who use the term...
"gigawats/year"
(a) can't spell watt
(b) a watt is a unit of power, it is a joule per second, a measure of flow of energy. You don't have a watt per year!
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Re solar thermal power plants:
OK - this looks promising. Now that I think of it, I've seen articles on those solar concentrators before. It takes a bit of effort to detach the mind from climate change and such.
Here's something from Wikipedia:
"eSolar's proprietary sun-tracking software coordinates the movement of 24,000 1 meter-square mirrors per 1 tower using optical sensors to adjust and calibrate the mirrors in real time. This allows for a high density of reflective material which enables the development of modular concentrating solar thermal (CSP) power plants in 46 megawatt (MW) units on approximately square mile parcels of land, resulting in a land-to-power ratio of 4 acres per 1 megawatt [my emphasis]."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal
-------------
Re melting polar ice:
I was just rereading, for about the tenth time, James Hansen's 2005 article:
"Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications"
- Science; June 3 2005, vol 308; pp. 1431-1435.
Excerpt:
"The estimated ~ 1.5 cm eustatic sea level rise in the past decade {1993-2003], even if entirely due to ice melt, required only 2% of Earth's present energy imbalance (table S1)."
I see I need that supplementary information now.
So most of the heat really is going into the ocean.
Another thought from James Lovelock: Apparently along with rising sea level as an indicator of global warming, the height of the tropopause is also an indicator, as the atmosphere warms.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Speculative Thought:
Gaia Theory is a mind-expander, for me anyway. Something James Lovelock said has intrigued me and won't let me go. He said that the amount of new land exposed during an ice age, due to lower sea level, was about equal to the amount of land lost due to expanding ice sheets. Then he said that the ice age world was more productive than an interglacial, and that you could tell because CO2 had dropped, as it was being drawn down by more life. The exposed land would all be within a hundred meters of sea level, when you think about it, and the land overrun by ice is largely northern, if not arctic - higher as well.
Of course! As a famous scientist, Thomas Huxley I believe, once said:
"How stupid not to have thought of that!" (may not be verbatim)
If you will remember, many blogs ago I remarked that CO2 hasn'r really been this low since the Carboiferous, some three hundred million years ago. That was very possibly an ice age, yet there was all that life, and the majority of the world's coal comes from that time, if I am not mistaken.
And the ice ages in the Pleistocene were not CO2 driven - CO2 was probably an amplifying feedback. The primary driver was very probably the orbital cycles of Milutin Milankovitch, though not quite the way he envisioned them.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
We began farming after the ice age ended - just after the Younger Dryas cold spell - the penultimate stadial event of the Pleistocene - not because the weather was nicer, but because the life in the interglacial was impoverished compared to the glacial! It wasn't hard to make a living in the ice age - it's hard in an interglacial.
I can't believe I just said that!
This is a whole new ball of wax - doubtless jr4412 will remark on this expression from my past?
Any thoughts? Wallace Broecker has said that if you want to understand climate, you need to understand the ice ages. I think I just made a quantum leap in understanding here.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #147 "new ball of wax"
Not quite how we'd put it, but clear none the less.
Thanks for that; it's certainly is an intriguing thought; one I'd never heard of and, as you say, so obvious you wonder why.
Not being impertinent (I hope), but I understood you had some trainging in such geological matters. Did that description of events no figure in standard theories of the past?
But now it makes me think; concern over AGW was that is could disrupt climate and lead perhaps to a premature ice age. I guess it could also lead to a "side-step" out of the glacial cycling; into extreme runaway greenhouse or extreme freeze. Do you know whether these latter conditions would be (a) possible (b) likely and (c) in any way "permanent". Or maybe the glacial cycles could even continue but with just a "bumpier ride".
Another question from a non-geologist; can anyone point to a good timescale chart of "all history to date" with key periods and landmarks shown? I'm still trying to get a grip on the dates involved. So far I've got (approx of course, in years)...
Age of universe: 17 10^9
Earth formed: 4.5 10^9
Earliest life: 3.5 10^9
Animal life: 635 10^6
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/04/oldest-evidence-animal-life
Earliest human: 6 10^6
How far back do our climate data stretch?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
#148 continued
I shouldn't have asked (about time charts). It's just a case of checking wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale
There's enough there to keep me going for a while.
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #148 and 149:
Yes, I'm a geologist by training. Earth science and life science come together in geology as paleontology, but I graduated in 1979, and a lot has changed since. Gaia was never mentioned - life was seen as simply adapting to whatever geochemical conditions were present on Earth. Totally wrong, in my opinion, but this insight that the two influence each other in such a way as to keep Earth optimized for life is definitely the intellectual tour de force of James Lovelock. It is not yet conventinal wisdom, but I find it a very useful way of envisioning things.
I was always fascinated in planetary science and astronomy, not only for their own insights, but because I felt you couldn't be a good geologist without them. Impacting bolides, CO2 atmospheres of Mars and Venus, Milankovitch astronomoc cycles etc...
Mass extinctions have always fascinated me - for without a suitable explanation, how to understand?
But all come together in Lovelock's Gaia Theory, which sees the "earth System, lifeforms and non-life, as intimately integrated and with feedback loops between the two which were implied but not explicit in geology. Gaia Theory is still in disfavor with many mainstream scientists, but that has never bothered me in the least.
Wikipedia is good for timescales of course, but I would highly recommend the following book, which may seem daunting at first, but is not:
"Out of Thin Air", by Peter Ward.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ward_(paleontologist)
In this book you will find a graph of the Phanerozoic adapted from Robert Berner of Yale, depicting the atmosphere of Earth for the last six hundred million years, with oxygen levels and CO2 levels and mass extinctions all in one. A copy of this graph decorates my binder of peer reviewed scientific articles. It is cutting edge science, and of potentially phenomenal importance in understanding the Earth System, which is to say, Gaia. Peter Ward is uniquely positioned, being a paleontologist specializing in mass extinctions, a biologist and origin of life researcher with NASA, a former professional scuba diver, and a field man.
All of his books are worth reading. I might particularly recommend "Gorgon", in addition to "Out of Thin Air."
---------------
Sustainable Cities:
"Cities for a Small Planet", by the architect Richard Rogers, is recommended by James Lovelock. I may take a look at this one myself.
------------------
One last thought. Most of all we need people who are joyful, spontaneous and full of life - people who can think on their feet.
- Manysummits - doing science in cybertime -
Complain about this comment
On Sustainability in Africa:
This is not specifically about cities, but it is related.
This morning, I was over at a coffee shop, reading a national newspaper, to see if there was anything worthwhile in it. There was, for me, perhaps 10%. I thought of our 'Mayday Declaration' as I read the following:
Dambisa Moyo, an economist and activist/author from Zambia, with degrees from Harvard and Oxford, and work experience at Goldman Sachs and the World Bank, thinks all our aid to Africa is wrong and ineffective, and that glitzy stars are now the defacto leaders of her continent.
And I agree with her.
Some points of hers:
1) in the 1970's, ten percent of Africans were in dire poverty; now it is over seventy percent.
2) African governments today depend on foreign aid for seventy percent of their budgets, thereby effectively disenfranchising the citizens of Africa, as there is no real accountability to the people.
3) Sixty percent of Africans are under twenty-four years of age.
Dambisa Moyo believes that the tried and true should replace the glitz of Holywood and the glitterati:
- Trade
- Microfinance
- Foreign direct investment
Our 'Mayday Declaration' implicity treated the citizens of the world as grown-ups, and simply aimed to tell the people the condition of our collective home, the Earth - Gaia if you wish.
The road to hell, and a warmer and much less habitable world, is one paved with good intentions.
I'll settle for the truth, and people who walk the talk.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
manysummits #150
Thanks for the book recommendations!
I've made some effort here; but the book stores are severely limited, even in the capital city.
I finally gave up and opted for Amazon and placed an order. Now it's just waiting...
If these publishers where on the ball they'd have digital versions available and I'd have them in front of me now.
Re: #151, "glitzy stars" sound bad. Do you have any links to Internet sites or information where we can read anything about this?
Re: #152, not like you to break the house rules! Hope you can re-post more successfully.
Hope you all had a good weekend; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #152:
I posted a few excerpts from James Lovelock's new book - that's all I can think of?
We just got back from a five hour outing to Griffith Woods, where the Elbow River runs unchecked from the mountains to us. Underacanoe found a solitary rugose coral amidst the river gravel:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugose_coral
It is well preserved, and at least two hundred and fifty million years old, probably more.
Underacanoe and I were discussing "The Vanishing Face of Gaia", which I have now finished. A real tour de force, a mind-expander!
Underacanoe said people don't change, and I was thinking - that's probably true, so how are we to proceed? I read a couple of newspapers over the weekend, and surveyed the newest edition of "The Economist," conclusion - 'business as usual' continues. Everyone is crying about spilt milk, how much these bank failures and manufacturing bailouts are costing, and how to make money - without seemingly the slightest idea that a new world is yawning just a little ways ahead.
And so I thought - we haven't time to evolve in the Darwinian sense, in fact, even given time it is unlikely you can change the spots on the leopard. But maybe our problem is not hereditary. True, we are tribal top predators and gatherers, but we are also culturally extremely malleable, and can change with the wind if need be.
Maybe this is how we will survive? Maybe everyone in our high civilization is in a very real sense neurotic, and so what we need to do is simply become normal again, whatever that means. In other words, we need to truly discover who we are, and what we want.
In our Mayday declaration, we identified, I think accurately, three technical problems:
1) Too much CO2
2) Too many people
3) A United Nations too narrowly funded and thus dysfunctional on several levels.
But none of these technical problems is beyond our capacity to solve - they are even rather easily solved.
The problem is the impetus and mindset to do so.
If we are lucky, we have got ourselves into this predicament because of an inappropriate cultural conditioning, and we will get ourselves out of this predicament because we invent a new cultural ethos, one perhaps based on something like James Lovelock's holistic view of Gaia, which is now being taught as Earth Systems Science.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #154
I'm jealous about the fossil find! However, it was beautiful weather in Stockholm this weekend, and I did spend part of Sunday out on the lake in a kajak. Lovely.
You wrote that you had surveyed the newest edition of "The Economist" over the weekend. Did you have a look at the special report on business in America, "Surviving the slump"? Beginning on page 12 of this, there is an article with the headline "A green revolution - saving the world will not be cheap". The contents though are not as depressing as the the ehadline would suggest.
Complain about this comment
simin-swede #155 "A green revolution - saving the world will not be cheap"
...and here it is...
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13686538
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede #155 and davblo2 #156:
Just read the report from davblo2's link:
"It would be simple, direct and transparent. For these reasons, it will never happen in America." [carbon tax - i.e., James Hansen]
The report also mentions how being green is now in fashion. James Lovelock dwells on this a lot in his new book - I tried to post some excerpts, but this has obviously angered 'business as usual.'
What we are doing now is a start, nonetheless, and who can argue with that?
And it is nice to think we can solve this one step, or one watt at a time, as Burghermeister has said.
Perhaps I am simply a confirmed pessimist? But I don't think so.
This is the BBC world Environment website - how many comments did we all see the last few days?
Conclusion: The brick wall of public apathy and ignorance.
Before, when it was fashionable to debate AGW, there was interest, as CuckooToo and company battled the alarmists. Entertainment!
Now Russia is on board science-wise. I am sure their scientists always were, in the majority - the evidence was and is overwhelming to any scientifically literate and awake person.
That's not our problem.
You know, simon-swede, I just finished reading "The Little Prince" over the weekend. Marvellous little book. But when you think about it, you see how negative was Saint-Exupery on people - he states this categorically at the beginning - and the rest of the story confirms this. He too has seen the brick wall of public apathy and ignorance.
There are three books that I think sum up our problems in a very real sense, and they all point the finger at our high civilization, which, despite its technical marvels, cannot even provide joy to its citizens, joy in just living well, as a part of the big picture - the natural world. So we invent big pictures to belong to - and call them religion, or nationalism, etc.
Here are the books, for anyone interested:
1) "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration", by Dr. Weston Price (Physical and mental health - with controls from non-civilized peoples)
2) "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", by Robert Pirsig (modern philosophy of our high civilization, and its roots)
3) "The Vanishing Face of Gaia", by James Lovelock. (a modern holistic view of life, and the best summary of the state of the planet that I am aware of)
More than a few people have read these, and are in tune with them.
Result: 'Business as usual'
President Obama, our latest great hope, is adventuring in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and his nobel laureate Stephen Chu was forced to concede CO2 defeat just the other day.
Funny how communist China and Russia are doing the most at the present.
Trouble is - it's all woefully inadequate.
I know, you have to start somewhere. Fine, but the clock is ticking.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Hey Manysummits. Lost touch a bit with this blog and missing the company. All sounds well with you and the family. I just swung by and read your comment #157. You say:
"Result: 'Business as usual'"
It reminded me of my previous post #10 which seems a long time ago now. I stated:
"As for the rest of the subject (referring to Richardss main article) its pretty much "business as usual" THANK GOODNESS (my emphasis here). The last thing we need is for these organizations to start getting real traction. As long as they keep talking away in the background we can get on with our lives. A little tongue in cheek of course but a serious note as well."
It's curious that we appear to have similar experiences of life yet our responses are so different!! Such is the diversity in life.
I will challenge myself to read your recommended book list. No promises though
Best regards
Complain about this comment
An update of the scientific basis concerning climate change: New Climate Science 2006-2009
Professor Markku Rummukainen of the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) and Professor Erland Kallen of Stockholm University were asked to carry out an update of the scientific basis concerning climate change. In particular, they were asked whether more recent research provides any cause to change or adjust the conclusions drawn by IPCC in 2007. Their conclusions were published yesterday, 1st June 2009, by the Office of the Prime Minister of Sweden as a report from the Swedish Commission on Sustainable Development.
Here is a link to the press release in which their main findings were announced. http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/5867/a/127390 This is in English. On this page also there is a link to the full report, 2009: New Climate Science 2006-2009, in pdf format.
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #159 "report: New Climate Science 2006-2009"
Thanks for the link Simon. I collected the report and had a quick scan through.
That gives me something interesting to read today; being so close to home adds that little extra incentive.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Further to #159 and #160, I should perhaps have added one or two main conclusions from the New Climate Science 2006-2009 report. The authors state:
[N]ew research published since 2006 confirms earlier research results concerning ongoing climate change, human influence and possible future climate change we believe that the published results show that some of the effects of continued global warming are more severe than previously thought and that future climate warming may be greater than previously estimated.
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey # 158:
Good to 'see' you again! Strange world - this internet?
-------------
To simon-swede #159 & 161:
Thanks for the link - always appreciated. Just read the summary. It's good to see an independent report like this from Sweden confirm all we have been discussing - very uplifting, and necessary.
I will be printing off the full 24 page general summary of the Russians this afternoon and reading it carefully. From a quick look it too appears to be saying the same thing - I remember in particular their report that warming in Russia was approximately twice the global average.
PS: I'd like to hear more of your kayaking trip? Where, what temperature the water, number of other kayakers???
-------------
Re - cities of the future:
Here is an excerpt from a message from Michael Moore this morning:
http://michaelmoore.com/
"As I sit here in GM's birthplace, Flint, Michigan, I am surrounded by friends and family who are filled with anxiety about what will happen to them and to the town. Forty percent of the homes and businesses in the city have been abandoned. Imagine what it would be like if you lived in a city where almost every other house is empty. What would be your state of mind?"
This is a look at our collective future should we continue 'business as usual'. This phrase, 'business as usual', may go down in history.
The Michael Moore excerpt is especially appropriate for this blog on sustainable cities.
Michael has sent a letter to President Obama advocating a number of war-like measures to begin building a new economy. The analogy is increasing appropriate to me, and hopefully to others.
We are in effect at war now to save ourselves, and nothing short of a mindset which acknowledges this will work - not all the good intentions in the world.
It is a strange war this one, with a still largely apathetic populace, a population conditioned in every sense of the word to apathy, ill-fed and ill-nourished, both in body and in mind. We need real food to eat, clean water to drink, children to raise ourselves and to give the future a chance, and more adventure in our lives to remind us that we were once Mammoth hunters, and not superstore shoppers.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
#157 Manysummits et al
I have been out of touch for a little while. There is a conference here
in Michigan which featured David Suzuki as a keynote speaker.
Check this link regarding his take on our disconnect with nature as living in big cities gives the illusion that we can control the world.
http://www.wwj.com/Scientist-Blasts-Thinking-Of-Nature-As--Externalit/4511924
I am glad that "saving the world one step/watt/BTU at a time" concept resonated. We need to go for it....
Cheers!
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
#156 Simon-swede
I liked the article, and especially the comments that followed. This one rings especially true:
"While I know it is idealistic to expect our politicians to stand up for the people and not the big companies, it really needs to happen more often than it does. We have allowed so many things to happen which have deteriorated the health and wellness of our eco system.
Rather than training our youth how to listen and be good worker bees, we really need to inspire then to be socially responsible innovators!!"
This person's statement of truth is what we need the majority of people to evolve into...socially responsible innovators.
As a moderately (understated) disgruntled member of the US populace, I have to remain hopeful that we will get the message loud and clear that China and Russia are making strides....and feel the intense heat of the eyes of the global community to do our part in reforming our gluttonous appetite for oil/coal/gas. We can do it through efficiency measures at the least cost and only constructing the minimum energy generation infrastructure.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
#162 Manysummits
You have hit the nail squarely sir!
"We are in effect at war now to save ourselves, and nothing short of a mindset which acknowledges this will work - not all the good intentions in the world.
It is a strange war this one, with a still largely apathetic populace, a population conditioned in every sense of the word to apathy, ill-fed and ill-nourished, both in body and in mind. We need real food to eat, clean water to drink, children to raise ourselves and to give the future a chance, and more adventure in our lives to remind us that we were once Mammoth hunters, and not superstore shoppers. "
I totally agree that we are in a war for our very survival....and many do not yet see the unseen/pending devastation on the horizon. This leads to the apathy you so aptly mention.
CHARGE!!!!
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
"UN climate talks begin in Bonn", couldn't find report on this on BBC.
http://www.euronews.net/2009/06/02/un-climate-talks-begin-in-bonn/
Complain about this comment
\\\ Equations of State ///
(A New Tack; First Draft - input requested, including scholarly revision/refinement)
1) Business as usual = 1000 ppmv CO2
2) 1000 ppmv CO2 = With high confidence, the transformation of planet Earth into a new and stable hot state, at least five to six deg C warmer than at present.
3) New Hot State = Irreversible disintegration of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, with consequent rise in sea level of approximately ten meters; massive desertification of land areas at the present productive of food; massive desertification of the oceans and destruction of the world ocean fishery; possible massive losses of CO2 dependent and oxygen producing phytoplankton. The net probable result will be the destruction of many forms of life, both plant and animal and microbial, and the needless death of hundreds of millions of people, perhaps even half the current population of the world. Abrupt climate swings as we approach the new stable hot state are likely, and possible ocean stratification.
4) Possible Ocean Stratification = Oceanic anoxic events and multiple mass extinctons, which could very possibly include homo sapiens sapiens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
-----------------
We are now witnessing the early stages of the unravelling of our global economy. The "Limits to Growth", first put forth coherently by the Club of Rome in the early 1970's, and presaged by Malthus, are now upon us, and have been exceeded on a number of fronts.
We now have a choice to make:
We can continue with 'business as usual', in which case our planet will soon change states, eliminating many species as it does so, including a significant portion of the human race. This massive cull is the natural response to such a planetry change of state, documented repeatedly in the geological record.
Or we can change state, using our very considerable cultural abilities to adapt to changing conditions. In this event, it is time for we individuals, utilizing the many and varied talents and gifts which we undoubtedly possess, to lead the way, and for our governments at every level to follow our lead.
Truly it has been said:
"It is not the function of the governmemt to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
- United States Supreme Court Justice Jackson.
\\\ Manysummits, Calgary ///
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #166:
Here's something on Bonn jr:
http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb30/
And here is something on the Late Heavy Bombardment and the genesis of the world ocean and atmosphere, and possibly life, which arose immediately after the LHB.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8079796.stm
A bit of geology on a subject I have long followed. Our planet is an interesting place. It would be a real shame to be shown the exit door because we refuse to change our ways!
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
To Burghermeister: (re David Suziki)
Being a Canadian, I have been familiar with David Suziki for decades. Until now, a 'voice crying in the wilderness'?
Here is something a friend just sent me:
"The global eco-crisis is about us. Our species is exploding in numbers, consumption and technological muscle power. But the heart of the crisis is spiritual. We have lost our sense of belonging to the natural world, of kinship with all other life forms and of respect for the sacredness of the Earth."
-David Suzuki
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#169 Manysummits
His statement harkens back to yours....the majority of our problems are psychological.
On a separate note:
ABC TV had a show last night (2 hours!!!) called Earth 2100. I recorded so that I can watch intently. Essentially, a prophetic take on the expected effects of climate change from both a natural world angle and a human world angle of how changes affect a fictional family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_2100
I like the comments in this site about LCD:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009952.html
(This site looks interesting also for visionaries such as those participating in this blog.)
I think they are trying to wake us up from the zombie walking consumption locust patterns of recent past....and that is a good thing if it starts to get traction.
The problem is mainly psychological...caused by the corporate entities pulling on ours puppet strings through the advertising giants convincing us of all the things we need to BUY BUY BUY. Maybe those same firms could be the answer to help convince us that we need to THINK THINK THINK....before we run out of time and ability to choose a different path.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
Burghermeister #170.
"Earth 2100"
and Jon Stewart's 'The Daily Show' had a bloke called Bob Woodruff, on June 1st, who has just published a book with the same title.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/06/bob-woodruff-on-the-daily-show/
Complain about this comment
oops, #171 cont'd.
you're right, the WorldChanging site does look promising.
Complain about this comment
Burghermeister #170.
seems link was too much for our "moderator".
to recap. #171, a journalist, Bob Woodruff, has published a book called "Earth 2100" and was interviewed on 01.06.2009 on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show". coincidence?
Complain about this comment
To manysummits #167
You say: (A New Tack; First Draft - input requested, including scholarly revision/refinement)
I'll speak for the plants as they do not seem to have a voice here. So heres my input:
1000ppm is pretty much the optimum environment for us. We have evolved over the years to live healthily in environments of between 600-1400ppm. The current environment is a bit low but we have adapted albeit somewhat stunted. Please remember we have not got lungs like you humans and therefore cannot increase our CO2 input when needed. We rely on it being there all the time for our survival. Please continue your initiatives to increase our life-giving supply of CO2. Help us to fully blossom and to reach our full potential. Use whatever means you can to force it up to that 1000ppm optimum level for which our current depleted forms hunger for.
Thank you. Gaia will bless you for your contribution.
Complain about this comment
To Burghermeister #170, and jr4412:
I just viewed both links from post #170 - very interesting.
I wrote that "Equations of State" to update my own thinking, which has evolved over the last month, since our cooperative "Mayday Declaration."
It's actually hard to believe so much has happened on the "Limits to Growth" front in just one month.
My sense is that the avalanche leading to public awareness has truly begun. I think it is still necessary to blog here, and to collect and appreciate and evaluate original scientific literature for ourselves, and then test these against persons such as David Suziki, or the Russian Federation's new assessment report, which I now have in my hands, etc...
A few months ago I thought it necessary to alert the world. Quite obviously this feeling, which drove me to blog here, is a shared experience. It's actually uncanny, and reminds me of the biologist E.O. Wilson and the medical researcher Lewis Thomas, who both said the human being was as social a being as the ant.
Perhaps the fear of imminent danger is now spreading around the globe, as that visceral feeling begins to take hold?
The Russian about face is as remarkable as the downing of the Berlin Wall, or the collapse of the Soviet Union.
If I may indulge some random thoughts here:
The spiritual reconnection with the natural world, or the psychological mindset, or whatever we choose to call it, which needs to take place to enable change which will actually avert catastrophe, is still not present. Right now we might best describe the situation as an awakening awareness.
I am thinking of St. Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits.
He was a Basque, working as a knight for the Spanish Crown, when he was seriously injured, and the rest, as they say, is history. What comes to mind is this - I have his autobiography, and have read it several times, trying to understand more of human nature. We will have to leave that for another time. But what he did find, and develop and use, is something along the lines of what we need to do.
He developed 'spiritual exercises' to condition and convey meaning to his disciples, and he considered these all important.
What I am wondering is what spiritual exercises we should practice to change our collective mindset.
What changed me was a near death experience, travel at a natural pace, i.e., not in a hurry, but 'for to admire an' for to see', and seven years climbing mountains, which I like to think restored me to being a part of the natural world, rather than someone talking about it or being an interested observer.
Is there, realistically, anything we the people can do which would have the effect I describe, of restoring one to the natural world, or do we simply await the near death experience which is surely approaching, and suffer the war of natural attrition which will accompany it?
------------
To timjenvey # 174:
Yes, the plants and other lifeforms can survive very well at higher CO2 concentrations - no problemo.
But you are neglecting the only important thing to us - how will we make out? In this, your science is very much out of date, and I can only recommend that you read more, say James Lovelock's "The Vanishing Face of Gaia,", and then pour over the scientific literature in Nature, and Science, and Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, etc...
Or simply enjoy your family and the great remaining beauty around San Francisco - all will become abundantly clear in the ensuing few years, I have little doubt.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
To manysummits #175
The plants are encouraged to receive your confirmation that CO2 is a blessing for them. However, they do not understand why our appearance on this planet is of any significance. They were happily here eons before us and likely will be here eons ahead of us. If we can help them along they see us contributing and we will be blessed by Gaia (in fact they tell me that they will be able to provide more food for our survival). So they are having a problem understanding. They also do not understand this word 'science' and how it makes a difference.
From my own viewpoint about my revitalized San Francisco. We have made tremendous progress in the last 50 years from a hell hole to an increasingly beautiful environment which I'm actively engaged in developing even further. Very encouraging progress and enjoying it with my family immensely.
Our experiences are giving conflicting response. As usual!!.
At least somethings are consistent
Cheers...........
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey:
You know, speaking of California and San Francisco, myself, Underacanoe and Cloudrunner visited the Presidio under the Golden Gate Bridge a few years ago. What a beautiful sight!
The Presidio, and San Francisco, were founded by the colonizing expedition of Juan Bautista de Anza:
"I went to the passageway where the mouth of the harbor is the narrowest, where no one had been. There I placed a cross, and beneath the soil at its foot, a notice of what I had seen, to serve as a guide to the ships that will enter there, all of which I prpoerly did for the establishment of the fort rightfully belonging to this port."
- Juan Bautista de Anza
Entrance to San Francisco Bay
Thursday, March 28, 1776.
---------------
We then went on to camp in the desert near Joshua Tree National Park, at the RV campground owned and run by my old friends Ken and Sally. We arrived under the light of a silver moon, threw our tent on my old site, and stayed a week.
We three visited perhaps my favorite desert just south of J-Tree, Anza Borrego Desert State Park, named after that same Anza, who on his way to the future site of San Francisco, camped by Coyote Creek, beside Coyote Mountain, both places intimately familiar to yours truly many years later.
- Manysummits, waxing nostalgic in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
I just read this on the ocean fishery. It's Geeorge Monbiot's latest article, and is worth a look for several reasons. His connection with nature is one of them.
"The story is the same all over the world. Next week, on June 8th, The End of the Line will be released in UK cinemas(5). Its an excoriating, shocking film about the collapse of global fisheries, and the utter uselessness of the people who are supposed to protect them."
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/06/02/blue-desert/
Again, a spiritual disconnect - what else could you call this? And the story of the spiritual disconnect is repeated ad-infinitum in every sector of our high civilization, whether on the land or on the sea.
Here in North America General Motors has just officially collapsed, but it was dead and bankrupt a long time ago. I've been wondering what to call these so called free-enterprise multi-national companies, and I think I have it:
They are rackets, and they have taken us to the cleaners but good, at no risk to their bosses.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Bonn Climate Talks:
http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb30/
I just tried this link to see what's going on.
On this page I found mostly pictures of the delegates and support staff, I presume. I did try a few other links, with limited success. Perhaps I am just not geared to this type of discussion, but since the Chinese proverb says a picture is woth ten thousand words, and since I am instinctive these days, I thought to address the pics:
All suits and ties, even bow ties, nice surroundings, comfortable, fun, perhaps even exciting.
But this doesn't look like it will work. There's something amiss here.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Hey manysummits. Now youre talking.
On the subject of plants, did you get to notice the change as you move east out of Joshua Tree and from the Mohave to the Colorado deseret how the fauna and landscape changes. Amazing changes in adaption over such a short span travel. I just marvel at the robustness of life in such diverse environments.
Nice talking this stuff.
Complain about this comment
To manysummits #179
You say: "But this doesn't look like it will work. There's something amiss here."
THANKGOODNESS - 'Business as Usual'
Sleep well and when the sun comes up tomorrow rejoice that we can share another day.
Cheers.....
Complain about this comment
"Eat, Drink and be Merry, for tomorrow we die".
Is that your philosophy, tim?
Not much for forward planning are we..
Complain about this comment
To yeah_whatever #182:
Glad to see you back! That attitude you mention will be temporary I imagine.
----------
To timjenvey # 180:
Yes, I certainly did notice the plants change. I have a number of books and pamphlets on the Indian uses of native desert plants, but I remember most an old desert rat I met in the Anza-Borrego desert. We were discussing life in the middle of the night, and old Hank was telling me how he came to the desert and what he had learned. One of the insights was the extremely high quality of the food in a desert. It is not abundant in the way of agribusiness, but what there is is extrememly high quality.
Unfortunately, as 'business as usual' proceeds, the deserts are expected to expand, along with the population. The numbers don't add up tim. Even with higher productivity some places and some new land available as the planet heats up, it is a death spiral that best describes the present configuration.
Ever been in a death spiral in a small plane? It's not hard to get out of, if you work the controls correctly. Of course, if you don't, that never exceed red line is waiting. The planet you crash into will still be there after they recover your body, but your relatives will weep, and wonder what went wrong.
Science isn't good enough yet to give an absolutely certain number for that red line tim, but it is entirely clear that we are in a death spiral. The Russians have just admitted as much:
"It is absolutely obvious that development of measures for adapting our country's economy to climate changes must involve every Ministry and Department."
- Yuri Trutnev, Russian minister for natural resources
- "Nature online"; 26 May 2009 | doi:10.1038/news.2009.506; "Russia makes major shift in climate policy."
- Manysummits, maintaining an even strain - for now -
Complain about this comment
"Glad to see you back!"
Well like I said, I don't know about building codes and garden roofs so I had nothing to say whilst it was on that subject.
And, rather than yibber about something I don't know (like some others do here), I kept quiet and let those who know something discuss what they know without raising the noise level above the signal.
Complain about this comment
Yeah_Whatever #182.
You ask if my philosphy is: "Eat, Drink and be Merry, for tomorrow we die".
In part yes. Very much:
* Eat - I give thanks for every bite.
* Drink - I give thanks for every drop
* Be merry - All the time
* For tomorrow we die - The ONLY thing we can be certain about.
I would also add:
* Respect, honor and cherish everyone and everything.
* Endeavor to increase wisdom
* Rejoice and mourn with a whole heart
Planning is actually my day job (program and project management consulting). I work in many disciplines and am pretty good at it. At least I get paid for it:)
To manysummits #183:
I agree that expanding desert communities are unsustainable. Phoenix and LV are already starting to feel this and the land grab of the past few years has gone into reverse. Youve probably noticed that the vast tracks of staked out land around these cities that were set out for expansion are now being returned to nature.
Im of the opinion that we do these things for ourselves and not set up crippling bureaucracy which in my experience usually end up broken in a short time and feed the instincts of corruption.
If we fail Gaia will step in and naturally help. Have no fear that She will look after her earth whatever. Fire, meteors, earthquakes, volcanoes, drought, floods. You name it. She can deliver it.
I'm rejoicing in that I have been given another day. Im just setting off to make the most of it.
Have a good one.
Cheers
Complain about this comment
Update to #185.
Manysummits: I think I misread your update about deserts in my rush to get going this morning. On a re-read I understand you are saying that global population expansion leads to increased global desertification.
An interesting angle and one that I'll see if I get time this evening.
Cheers....
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #186 re desertification:
That's a negative tim - it's global heating that is resulting in increased aridity in many places already too dry, and much more is expected on this front in the future. In fact, having just read the Russian climate change assessment, they are of the same opinion as to the future, and have documented this increasing desertification in their own country, especially since the 1980's, in areas which were already semi-arid.
That report is free on the internet - it's 24 pages long, but very well written, very very clear, and there is no alarmism in it - just matter of fact stuff, such as their country documenting approximately twice the instumental temperature increase compared to the world average, etc, etc...
I can't give the link because it is a pdf, but if you Google the following it will come up immediately. I highly recommend this to you:
assessment report on climate change and its consequences in russian federation
As for the desert communities you mention - actually I didn't know they were contracting. Thanks for the info - I don't get down to those deserts anymore, and appreciate the update!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #187. Thanks for clarifying.
Just logged in and read your update and a bit confused that you say:
"it's global heating that is resulting in increased aridity".
That's not my understanding or actual observation of deserts. How does this account for the Atacama, Gobi and The Great Basin just south of you. They are cold.
The northern Sahara ebbs and flows by 100's of miles due to natural climate changes. Other deserts change in response La Nina's, El Nino and Monsoons. Some man-made cultivation regress back to desert when irrigation is diverted from olive groves to more profitable enterprises like golf course as in southern Spain.
Is heat a new discovery in the dynamics of desertification? That would really be new news to me. Wondering on the accuracy of such research. I'll take a look.
Dinner is ready.
Later
Cheers....
Complain about this comment
Update to #188
Manysummits. I Googled your Russian folks. I picked up the report by Roshydromet who are the Rusian equivalent to the goverment departments like US NASA/NOAA or the UK Hadley. The report looks pretty much cookie cutter. Not very impressed.
Like Yeah_Whatever I will retreat into how he puts it in his wise comment #184:
And, rather than yibber about something I don't know.. I kept quiet and let those who know something discuss.
IMO a 24 page cookie cutter report on land the size, complexity and diversity of Russia it is very weak (beyond belief if I'm honest) and should be challenged (by those that have knowledge) and put on the bottom of the pile for the time being in my world.
Its late and time for the sack.
Cheers
Complain about this comment
Re: #189
I just had to look it up...
"The phrase 'cookie cutter', which is intended to epitomise a conformist attitude, lacking in originality, is of fairly recent American origin."
Complain about this comment
Manysummits at #179
If you want details about who said what on specific issues being discussed at the climate talks in Bonn, look at the daily updates. You'll find these at:
http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb30/dailies.html
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey:
Yes indeed - 'cookie cutter' science - always verifiable, always the same results, whether Russian, or Scandinavian, or from Outer Mongolia. It's why I went in for science, and after fifty-nine years on the planet, it is still one of the only fields which has never disappointed me. I am still a little surprised you are so closed-minded though. The information is unequivocal, unless you believe they are deliberately misrepresenting the truth.
----------
To davblo2 #190: Made me smile!
-----------
To simon-swede #191:
Thanks for the link - I followed it. I suppose you could spend a lot of time trying to research each topic - I suppose that's why they have summaries at the end.
-------------
A few random thoughts:
"I cannot look at the sky anymore without seeing carbon dioxide, and every bit of unusual warmth seems to me a sinister thing.
Trouble is - I think this is not just my imagination.
We are creatures of the ice age, whether an interglacial or a full glacial, and now we seem bent on returning, for a time, to the Mesozoic, when insects and dinosaurs ruled."
This is part of an email I sent to a friend recently. I was just looking at a weather map, as is my habit every morning these last fifteen years or so. I'm going to post a link, which may be out of date by the time anyone looks at it. It shows some significant heat in the Alaska/Yukon region, between 20 and 30 deg C inland:
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/jet_stream/index_e.html
In any case, having just read that Russian assessment on climate change in their country, and having seen all the suits and ties in Bonn, I was struck by the ommission, if I might so characterize it, of the bigger picture. The 'Limits to Growth' picture.
Even our scientists are dressed in suits and ties, a uniform of conformity, a 'business as usual' signal. They all have careers to keep and maintain, and competition to engage in - all very normal. Yet it is worrisome, is it not? Hence Lovelock - a free thinker?
The money for those surveillance satellites comes from others in suits and ties. And they are not scientists. The internet upon which we depend and blog - who funds that? Hmm??
Look at this BBC article on Malta to see the future - especially the first couple of paragraphs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/
Look at the last lines - I'll copy them here:
"It's hardly surprising that the women arguing so passionately can't tell me how the European Parliament is relevant to their debate. "You vote red or blue. That's the way it is," one says with finality."
Yes indeed - 'business as usual'.
It has occurred to me that we will not solve this CO2 thing in time to avert disaster, and that in that event, the first caualties will be unnecessary science funding, read climate change, limits to growth academics, etc.
We will scramble for resources, and protection from the hungry masses at our door - just like Lovelock suggests.
Am I wrong?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Davblo #190:
Often quoted Britain and America are "two nations divided by a common language". I've obviously lived here too long!!! Thanks for the reminder.
Manysummits #192:
Here's the latest "cookie cutter" report from the denier camp. They definitely do not agree with you about unequivocal science.
http://www.nipccreport.org/
You say "always verifiable, always the same results". Science is only like that because we define it to be so. I drop an apple and I observe it falls to the ground. I call that gravity and define some measures and it's repeatable as long as our planetary system remains stable. It gives me no understanding of what this phenomenon actual is.
Anyway, it's too early for this and I must away. You say you are surprised at my closed mind. I will take that as a complement as there are many that think I have got one:)
Happy Friday....
Complain about this comment
Edit to #192: Last sentance should say:
"I will take that as a complement as there are many that think I have NOT got one:)
Cheers........
Complain about this comment
Tim, you're an MBA type so maybe I shouldn't be so harsh, but this gem:
"I drop an apple and I observe it falls to the ground. I call that gravity and define some measures and it's repeatable as long as our planetary system remains stable. It gives me no understanding of what this phenomenon actual is."
Shows how woefully inadequate your education has been.
We note that a bowling ball falls as fast as the apple.
Therefore inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent.
Interesting. Why?
We also note that the force throwing things away when you spin them in a circle could equal the falling force making things come together.
And find that this would cause planets to describe an ellipse with the Sun at one focus.
Interesting.
We also note that there's no way to tell the difference from accelerating by moving faster and being in a gravitational field, therefore the path described by a straight beam of light must be bent in a gravitational field else it would have to know the difference between moving faster and being heavy.
Wow.
All this from an apple falling. And the constancy of the physical world to experimentation in it.
Then again, when all you've got are time-and-motion-studies, there's nothing else worth thinking about, I guess.
Complain about this comment
Yeah_whatever #195:
Don't forget the butterfly that flapped it's wing's in the Amazon the other day.
I think you are making my point for me. I'll re-read back later.
Thanks for the science lesson. Your very good.
Not sure of your meaning about time-and-motion-studies. I'd be interested seeing one on you and understand how you can be so prolific. I think we could all learn from that.
Have a great weekend..........
Complain about this comment
Probably off topic but got thinking about time-and-motion-studies. Got a few mo's will I'm waiting here so thought to share.
Time-and-motion is about studying what was done in the past and how that can be improved to gain better efficiency. This is an anathema in my work as I'm usually trying to break these habits down and look for new ground and get folks thinking differently. I find business moves very quickly these days and the methods applied to vast stable production lines just do not work.
Folks sometimes say they have open-minds. I explain that this is a problem and they need to throw it out
Time up, perhaps later.
Complain about this comment
Now this is interesting, especially after that turnaround in Russian climate change policy:
Putin publicly humiliates oligarch
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8086549.stm
I was talking about the suits and ties in a previous post because I am so frustrated that we are moving like the 'herd of turtles' on climate change. And then here comes Vladimir Putin, and single handedly, so it seems to me, causes this climate change policy and now the humiliation of this oligarch.
Lovelock speaks of a return to warlords as our civilization crumbles - maybe this is what it looks like? Or maybe this is what a truly high civilization should look like - the ability to see the truth and act in the perceived interests of the commons?
- Manysummits, on a rainy Calgary Friday evening -
Complain about this comment
Continued update to Yeah_Whatever #196
Looks like in my rush to get out this morning and a head full of stuff I did not communicate completely and used imprecise words. However, you have expressed my thoughts brilliantly. I have taken the liberty to use them and have knitted them together. I hope you approve:
In reply to Manysummits talking about science "always verifiable, always the same results".
[Tim]it's repeatable (like dropping an apple) as long as our planetary system remains stable (not a good use of words here).which it demonstratively isnt (added for clarity).
[Yeah] We note that a bowling ball falls as fast as the apple.
Therefore inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent.
Interesting. Why?
We also note that the force throwing things away when you spin them in a circle could equal the falling force making things come together.
And find that this would cause planets to describe an ellipse with the Sun at one focus.
Interesting.
We also note that there's no way to tell the difference from accelerating by moving faster and being in a gravitational field, therefore the path described by a straight beam of light must be bent in a gravitational field else it would have to know the difference between moving faster and being heavy.
[Tim] And don't forget the butterfly that flapped it's wing's in the Amazon the other day.
The Yeah_Tim team..
I remember a few posts back that we were lock step in our agreement over Copernicus, Galileo and Flat Earth. BTW did you get to read the book I recommended Inventing the Flat Earth by Geoffrey Russell?
Have a great weekend.
Complain about this comment
As you can see Tim has no clue and doesn't care.
He's a *manager*.
Just realise that the constancy of physical theories is hugely powerful and that the line of investigation leading from apple to general relativity is a result of it.
And that if someone can't handle it, they'll rubbish it.
Complain about this comment
Adam & the Apple or Avalanche of Awareness?
The front cover of 'New Yorker' magazine highlights the "Sixth Extinction", now ongoing.
Various other magazines and books are all about various parts of "The Limits to Growth" concept, first put forth in modern form by the Club of Rome ca 1972, and next by the United Nations Bruntland Commission report, "Our Common Future", which brought us the now mainstream concept of sustainable development.
In one of Canada's national newspapers this morning, there was a two page center spread on "Apocalypse Now." James Lovelock's "The Vanishing Face of Gaia" was up front and center, and amplified by several other books.
On this blog we have seen much discussion on this same general topic, i.e., "The Limits to Growth," in various guises. Even one "Mayday Declaration" (May 1/09), and "Equations of State" (June 2/09).
Perhaps we will churn out one summary piece each month, as our contribution to this struggle?
------------------
I am reading James Hansen's 2008 'Scholarly' publication "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?"
This is like a course on climate science, both past and present, and I am reminded of the almost preposterous difference in the knowledge base and working life of this scientist and myself, and presumably many others on this site.
Every time I read something by this man, typically after I have read a few more books and publications from others, I realize how much he knows, and how little we know.
Yet he is often scathingly criticized.
Wasn't it a tradition in some societies to respect your elders, to listen closely to what they have to say?
Is not this lack of proper respect our best indicator of the poverty of our society?
-----------------
I am also reading Richard Rogers' "Cities for a Small Planet", published in 1997, coincidentally the year I re-discovered the Rocky Mountains by Lake Louise.
He highlights 'natural capital' as a source of wealth - clean air and water, good soil, biodiversity ...
Perhaps it is time for the United Nations, and every Nation State, and most individuals, to reexamine "The Limits to Growth" concept and quantify the dates and numbers, issue by issue?
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Addendum to Post #201:
Let's start with Resource Depletion in AgriBusiness Farming - Phosphorous & Fossil Fuels and Water:
In the June 2009 Scientific American, one of the feature articles is on the looming scarcity of phosphorous, an essential agribusiness element, and the price spike it has recently undergone:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phosphorus-a-looming-crisis&page=2
A Canadian ecologist, David Schindler, has a new book out about the eutrophication of our fresh water and estuaries, "The Algal Bowl." David is at the University of Edmonton and is cited in this Scientific American article on phosphorous, having carried out the definitive experiment on this element's role in a fresh water lake over a period of 37 years. Dr. Schindler published his findings in The Proceeding of the Natural Academy of Sciences last year:
http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=eutrophication%2C+schindler%2C+aug+12%2C+2008&submit=yes (Open Access)
This is an open access article, and along with the Scientific American article which is available on the internet, we can discern several trends:
1) A typical bag of fertilizer, say xx/yy/zz; is Nitrogen/Phosphorous/Potassium. Almost by definition, the use of fertilizers in the fashion we use them, a part of the so-called green revolution, is unsustainable, and leads to rampant eutrophication of our fresh water and estuaries. So in this sense Thomas Malthus and his 1798 book on population is correct, in that an exponentially increasing population is limited by an arithemetically increasing food supply. We have been able to maintain population growth not by better farming, but by unsustainable mining of the Earth.
2) Then there is the fossil fuel component to present day green revolution farming. By several estimates, we are already at or very near Peak Conventional Oil. Not only does this power our farm machinery, it is used in fertilizers directly, from what I can understand.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/15/at-last-a-date/
3) Then there is water, another resource with looming scarcity, falling water tables, and with global heating, increasing desertification of irrigated lands, and thus increasing demand in areas least able to provide it.
Without looking farther, we have fallen into one of Ronald Wright's 'progress traps', 1, 2, and 3.
We are agribusinessing using water at ever increasing rates, and from unsustainable underground aquifers, and then damaging rivers and lakes via eutrophication and other pollutants, then the runoff makes its way to the sea and damages estuaries. All the while fertilizing with unsustainble elemental fertilizers, powered by unsustainable fossil fuels, to feed an exponentially growing population expected to reach nine billion by 2050.
There are ways to irrigate more efficiently; there are ways to recycle phosphorous and fertilizers; and there are alternate energy sources, but I think we should stop kidding ourselves, literally. The pressure of two billion more people in the next forty years makes me shudder.
Richard Rogers in his 1997 book "Cities for a small planet" tells us that half the world population lives in cities now, and that is expected to go to three quarters by 2050. And many of our cities are built and are building to the urban sprawl/suburbia mandate to keep auto sales up and are consuming the majority of resources worldwide.
How is that for a start on "Limits to Growth" issues?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Yeah_Whatever #200.
From your last couple of comments you appear to me to be either someone who retired 20 years ago or works under some Dickensian or Luddite work practices. The world has moved on from time-and-motion studies and the type of "manager" that you allude to. One of my more heart searching tasks has been the removal of such position.
On consistency from apples to relativity. Of course. That's how we defined them. Why stop there? We now have new theories and there will be more and more and more and................... We will still be debating them over coffee at the 'Cafe at the end of the Universe' (I think you know the Hitch Hikers Guide).
You obviously are very bright and knowledgeable on the science. However, there's a whole world out there that lives and breathes in ways we have absolutely no understanding and it couldnt give a monkeys about half baked theories.
IMO science is a useful tool (e.g. it has helped us to clean up my local San Fransico Bay and puts a man on the moon) but in the real world its just superfluous to the direction we are heading. Also in the real world CO2 it's an essential plant food that is currently, according to those that depend on it, in depleted mode right now.
* Eat - give thanks for every bite.
* Drink - give thanks for every drop
* Be merry - All the time
* For tomorrow we die - The ONLY thing we can be certain about.
Also:
* Respect, honour and cherish everyone and everything.
* Endeavour to increase wisdom
* Rejoice and mourn with a whole heart
Night, night........
Complain about this comment
Tim, you want to try again in ENGLISH this time?
Complain about this comment
Yeah, nah I'm an American citizen now.
Hey Manysummits, can I drop by your place for a snowball fight?
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Technology/Alberta+Saskatchewan+snow+June/1670900/story.html
From a sunny and chilly SF.
Complain about this comment
you can drop by in the UK if you like, timjenvey - they've built snowmen in scotland - it's caused by global warming, you know
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #198 Re. Putin publicly humiliates oligarch.
Just got back from my morning rowing workout. Over coffee I asked a couple of the Ukrainians in the crew about this. They had escaped in the 80's and are now US citezens.
I generally picked up that the Russian culture is peasant based and the response to a crisis is the turning to a warlord. Putin is an excellent example of a warlord and his public display last week was a demonstration of strength and solidarity with the general public. He will do well they think (as a warlord that is).
Business as usual I think. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Also got into discussions about governments and science. Later perhaps. The day calls..........
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #206.
Nah, I'm conscious of my carbon foot print so trips to UK are out for such a frivilous pursuit:)
Although I must say the thought of chutney makes me home sick for a trip home. Not easy to get over here.
Cheers.......
Complain about this comment
well tim, mango's are native to south asia, but i believe you can get them in calafornia now (ok since 1880). no need travel far to get a taste of the good stuff
Complain about this comment
Actually the vision brought on by seeing your name was siting in the garden of a pub on the banks of the Thames on a sunny summer afternoon with a pint of Fullers Pride, a wedge of imported English cheddar, pickled onion, Branston pickle, crusty roll, chutney & a green salad.
I wanna come home..........
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #207 - Vladimir Putin:
"Analysts have described Putin's economic reforms as impressive."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_putin
This is an intersting man.
But of more interest was the video which I posted in #198.
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8086549.stm
I am something of a believer in first impressions and body english, and other clues to a person's integrity and overall sense of being, from years of adventuring. His walk was impressive - a man of action, not to be trifled with. His career confirms this assessment. A warlord - perhaps. Aren't all true leaders? We speak of democracy, but we wait for others to lead - always. Leaders are rare. It's why Andrew Jackson once remarked:
"One man with courage makes a majority."
---------------
As for science and the Russian climate change assessment report, I'd like to get a little more serious. I have tried various approaches when discussing climate change with skeptics and non-believers.
Now I am finding myself more warlord-like myself. It is presumptuous at least, and slanderous more probably, to dismiss outright the findings of a reputable source in scientific matters, or in other fields. In science, critical evaluation is always present, or else it is not really science, but that is not the same as outright dismissmal of verifiable results, and especially without impressive counterargument.
There are 'loose canons' in any field of human endeavor, and these must be looked for, we are all aware of that.
However, the United Nations IPCC, the United States Academy of Sciences, and now the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian hyrometeorological service are now in substantial and fundamental agreement on the manmade nature of climate change (AGW), and all have presented verifiable concrete proof to back up their assertions, along with the normal and necessary probabalistic caveats.
Outright dismissmal of such documented sources is not an option if you wish to be taken seriously. This does not prevent you from doing so anyway, at least on this blogsite, nor should it. But I think from now on I will adopt more of the "show me your cards" attitude.
------------
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
There is some real science coming down the pipeline, more speculative in nature - cutting edge science - at the limits of present understanding.
"Medea hypothesis : is life on Earth ultimately self-destructive?"
- by Peter Ward, 2009.
Synopsis:
"Ward demonstrates that all but one of the mass extinctions that have struck Earth were caused by life itself. He looks at our planet's history in a new way, revealing an Earth that is witnessing an alarming decline of diversity and biomassa decline brought on by life's own "biocidal" tendencies. And the Medea hypothesis applies not just to our planetits dire prognosis extends to all potential life in the universe. Yet life on Earth doesn't have to be lethal. Ward shows why, but warns that our time is running out."
- barnes and noble boosellers
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ward_(paleontologist)
Now this type of inquiry is more amenable to heated debate. There is as yet no overwhelming concensus.
Has anyone read this book yet? I have it on order.
---------------
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I'm rereading David Attenborough's "Life on Earth", 1979, as I am feeling a little lonely for some life science, as opposed to strict discussion of climate change and the "Limits to Growth".
I'm doing this while awaiting "The Poincare Conjecture", 2007, by O'Shea. This was a spontaneous decision - it just seems necessary. Maybe it's because one of my mountaineering partners is a professor emeritus of chaos theory.
Outside, the stiff south wind has blown the snow away, and it's just cool and unsettled. Underacanoe, Cloudrunner and I are just laying low, waiting for a change.
- Manysummits, Calgary; two weeks before the Summer Solstice -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #211, Putin contd.
I watched the video as well and I agree.
An interesting observation by one of my Ukrainian buddies. You may remember that our governator, Arnie, in his state speech a few months ago did exactly the same. He told state officials in the same terms as Putin that they needed to deliver a balanced budget on time or I will deduct for every day you delay. We voted a few weeks ago on a bill that was close to this and it got a resounding YES. All other proposition got voted NO including gay marriage. When you consider this is California this is huge.
http://www.sacbee.com/288/story/1879767.html
Arnie the warlord. An interesting perspective!!
I've been feeling ashamed today for sending that link to you this morning. It was the first note I opened in my mail this morning from a client I worked for in Edmonton. I just had this little boy sense that took me over. You should have chastised me but you are a gentlemen and I respect that. That's probably why I felt so bad.
On your challenging of the skeptics I think you will have your work cut out. My sense is that the denier camp is on the rise. Its even okay to talk about it with my rowing mates in the most liberal and environmental activist community in the Bay area, Marin county. A couple of years ago I needed to have an escape route planned in advance.
The issue you will find is that folks are not trusting the science. To Joe public like me the questions are mounting and the answers are not coming. Only a few years ago we were told that we would now be past the tipping point of runaway catastrophic global warming and the result is we get snow in Calgary in summer. We ask why should we trust computer models to predict the future when even the scientists debate their predictive usefulness. Put politics in the mix seeing opportunities for tax and control and stir it around and folks have a good reason to be skeptical. Its not for you to prove. This will just turn us against each other and I like you.
The fix is easy. Just get a debate going amoungst all the science disciplines involved, appoint a totally independent moderation board, set out the risks, set out the benifits, set out the costs, etc. and let the people decide. We do this all the time in business it's the very least expected for reporting to share holders. Whats the problem if the science is irrefutable?
Nice sharing with you
Complain about this comment
timjenvey at #214
The fix is easy. Just get a debate going amoungst all the science disciplines involved, appoint a totally independent moderation board, set out the risks, set out the benifits, set out the costs, etc.
Ahhh, you mean the IPCC of course?!
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #214.
You have put your finger right on the problem.
I knew I would not have to mention it.
Complain about this comment
The mix of politics and science is a double red flag.
Complain about this comment
Good morning Simon. Up early as usual.
I'll say night night and trust your day starts well....
Complain about this comment
This blog has an expanding list of must reads. Heres another: Ultimatum by Matthew Glass, which is reviewed in this weeks Economist.
The teaser for readers of this blog is that the year is 2032, the newly-incumbent US President is frustrated with 30 years of successive Kyoto treaties and proposes a radical international solution
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13777094
Complain about this comment
To mark World Environment Day 2009 (5th June), the movie HOME by Yann Arthus-Bertrand was released.
It can be viewed (for free) at: www.youtube.com/homeproject
I haven't watched it yet, but the films flyer says:
We have a greater impact on the Earth than it can bear. We over-consume and are depleting the Earth's resources. From the air, it's easy to see the Earth's wounds. So, Home simply sets out our current situation, while saying that a solution exists. The film's subtitle could be It's Too Late To Be A Pessimist. We have reached a crossroads; important decisions must be taken to change our world.
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #214 & simon-swede #215:
The IPCC was my thought too - immediately.
Tim - as regards business - I've been there. I once stood up in a boardroom meeting when I was a stockbroker, and told everyone we would effectively have to transfer wealth to the developing world. On another occassion I told my boss from Newfoundland that I wouldn't promote his fish stocks because the fishery would collapse. That was in 1988, and I imagine you can tell why I only stayed one year in that profession!
Look at this from this morning - this is all too common, and is repeated all over the world. It is not right, and must end.(Peru smelter)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8081907.stm
------------
To simon-swede #219 & 220:
"Tidal Fear", yes, the new genre of books out there. I don't have time to view youtube this morning, but certainly will, perhaps this evening.
Art, read movies, may be our most powerful ally. I don't know anymore? The converted are happy to see more and more accurate portrayals of the current state of affairs, but I see in the BBC this morning Europe is swinging farther right, and I think timjenvey is right to say public sentiment is still denialist. People are afraid for their jobs, and rightly so, or should I say normally so.
We have all been subjected to conditioning for so long, to believe our purpose in life is to consume thereby supporting the economy that it is seen even by decent people as a patriotic thing to do, never mind the fact that most of what we buy is unnecessary.
Every time I blog, often alone on the weekends, I wonder if everyone is just geting bored with this talk of the approach of Armaggedon, then on Monday morning, I get a few hopeful blogs, including timjenvey, even though he is unconvinced.
Surely people are reading these books, and seeing these movies, but where is the groundswell, where are the hundreds of comments I would like to see on this blog? Anything other than resignation and apathy, as evidenced by omission. That's a lot to read between the lines, but then there is the European election?
Here in Alberta it is very much James Hansen's 'business as usual.' Government deficits, or declining revenues, cut back health care etc..., and promote big oil, hoping for another boom - human nature?, or cultural conditioning?
Look - let's summarize, even at the expense of accuracy.
The problem is psychological, or spiritual, maybe cultural conditioning - in the end - our detachment from day to day with the elements and the natural world outside of the city.
Only solution: Must get everyone back out in the elements and the natural world. You don't have to be a reader or intellectual thinker.
Is working out with your rowing club enough? I don't know - maybe not. Maybe we need ancient rites of passage again. Children becoming adults. I see too many adults today who are still children.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits: Here's so tips from my experience.
When talking to executives you do not tell them to pour money into bottomless pits of unaccountable, swollen, faceless bureaucracies were the money ends up everywhere except where it was intended.. They will just show you the door.
What you do is work with them and find some common benefits. e.g. A company doing consulting in areas like agriculture, irrigation and the like usually have buffer time to fill for their people. So you organize sending them to areas that need their expertise and work directly with the locals. The benefits to the locals are they get clean water, sanitation and sustainable crops. The benefit to the company is very effective on the job experience, tax benefits and a nice piece to write up in the company reports. Every bodies a winner.
And yes, there are many such schemes in operation and very successful they are, especially recently.
On the subject of business and IPCC. Under the current circumstances business would be pulling in 'independent' subject matter experts, assessors and due diligence. Believe me, AGW would not get on the radar and would be hushed away to save any embarrassment..
Cheers........
Complain about this comment
i disagree tim, i think most businesses would look at AGW, find it to be not proved and show it the door. i say most businesses because energy companies got into bed with democrats years ago to agree AGW existed and are now reaping the benefits with cap and trade schemes.
google "enron gore clinton memo" for details
Complain about this comment
re 222: "Believe me, AGW would not get on the radar and would be hushed away to save any embarrassment.."
Why should we believe you? Do you have any evidence that shows this would happen. Or even that this would have to happen (why, for example)?
Or is this like when Tony Blair said about WMD's that we should just trust him since he had information we couldn't be told?
PS On:
"When talking to executives you do not tell them to pour money into bottomless pits of unaccountable, swollen, faceless bureaucracies were the money ends up everywhere except where it was intended.."
This cannot be right.
How would directors be paid for part-time work at such a high rate, of this were true? Why would CEO's get bonuses they do?
Complain about this comment
Yeah_whatever #224:
The context of the comment was the falling away of public support for AGW which we seem to be in agreement on. I'm offering my experience of such matters and recommended a way for you to re-gain that support. I'm not offering any proof. Take it or leave it.
On your PS:
I was responding to Manysummits who wrote I once stood up in a boardroom meeting when I was a stockbroker, and told everyone we would effectively have to transfer wealth to the developing world.
I was responding with a suggestion of how to engage a board room into action. With a bit of lateral thinking there are a variety of ways to engage depending on their type business. IMO its not "wealth" (as he says) that needs transferring. Its skills and know-how to the local level to enable them to start, and create their own sustainable wealth.
Take a look at this organization that I have worked with:
http://www.technoserve.org/who_we_are/ourapproach.aspx
They are the type I was referring to in my previous post.
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey:
I have no faith in big business anymore. I understand what you are saying, and your methods will produce results, for as you say, everyone looks good.
The large modern corporation is pathological from the get-go. It is legally bound to find a way around the common interest, to look good while doing this, all the while obeying its legally mandated obligation to make its shareholders wealthy, and even here it is strictly caveat emptor - survival of the fittest, meaning the most ruthless and cunning shareholders and managers will prosper and advance.
It is mistakenly thoght by some that this is somehow Darwinian - but it is not - it is perverse, and has been a mistake from inception.
If you run with criminals, you become one. I've heard that argument too many times - work with them, learn their ways, etc...
No!
We will reinvent the future or there will be no future.
Good riddance to GM. May many follow in their wake.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Snowballs in June (San Francisco, Scotland and Calgary)
Since weather was a topic just a few posts ago, we'll go with it:
1) We like warm sunny weather, but I can't help but notice the reverse is true for the plants. The grass and trees were singing just recently, as the laments from 'homo sapiens city-slicker' were being heard.
2) The Carboniferous Period some 300 million years ago was the last time an extended period of CO2 as low as today was seen, and the majority of the world's coal deposits are the result. So low CO2 is just fine with plants, in fact it is probably the reason why CO2 was so low - drawdown from the atmosphere by a vibrant plant community. Oxygen levels were probably higher than today, possibly 35%. The Phanerozoic record indicates an inverse relationship between CO2 and Oxygen. CO2 was generally high during the Mesozoic (dinosaurs), and Oxygen low. Thus birds , the remaining dinosaur lineage, are our most efficient oxygen animals, having evolved in a time of low Oxygen.
3) During the ice age just passed, sea level was ~100 m lower than today, exposing continental shelf areas now under the sea. The additional 20% of land covered by the great ice age glaciers was approximately balanced by the emergence of rich near sea level lands. CO2 was even lower than the Holocene pre-industrial level, but again, probably because of a thriving plant community. No Problemo - as Arnie would say.
4) Once the skies clear here in Calgary, in mid-July and August, 'homo sapiens city-slicker' will once more rejoice, but the grass will turn brown. Strange, isn't it?
As for the weather, see below for the NASA official results for 2008, which was:
1 - A 'La Nina' year.
2 - A solar irradiance low - see links below.
3 - Current ENSO status - neutral (see links below)
------------
"Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record."
- http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ (look down the page for solar irradiance)
ENSO - (El Nino Southern Oscillation)
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html (look around if you are so inclined - there's lots here)
- Manysummits, on a CO2 high -
Complain about this comment
More! General Motors at al:
The business of big business is big business. Translation, transfer wealth (money) from anywhere you can get it to the few. Trickle down enough to keep the slaves fed; entertain them.
If GM's business had been to produce highest quality vehicles, they would still be in business.
Greed is self-destructive. General Motors and others have already imploded, all will follow.
The way to the future?
How about Quality, quality in everything we do and say, think and dream.
Maybe it's that simple.
----------------
"Creativity has the appearance of chaos."
- Douglas Cardinal, architect
"The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed."
- Jacques Yves Cousteau
- Manysummits, Calgary
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey at #222
On the subject of business and IPCC, you wrote that "Under the current circumstances business would be pulling in 'independent' subject matter experts, assessors and due diligence. Believe me, AGW would not get on the radar and would be hushed away to save any embarrassment."
I agree with you on your first point - its sensible business practice after all. However I believe that the evidence is strongly against you on the second and the AGW is being taken very seriously indeed by business leaders.
Energy and climate change is one of the major project areas of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WCSD). The WBCSD is a CEO-led coalition of some 200 international companies in a shared commitment to sustainable development through economic growth, ecological balance and social progress. Its member companies come from over 30 countries and 20 major industrial sectors. Nearly half our members are in the Fortune 500.
Here's a sample of what they are saying on climate (quoted from WBCSD website):
As a global organization, the WBCSD is involved in a number of key processes and dialogues around the world, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Climate change can only be resolved through cooperation that includes all parts of society, in particular between governments and business. These next few years are crucial to establishing the right framework conditions that will deliver long-term, large scale greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.
---
Tackling climate change requires an integrated approach that addresses the issues of competitiveness and economic sustainability, energy security, the environment and development, as well as adaptive capacity for inevitable climate impacts.
---
Adapting to climate change
It is now acknowledged that even if we do succeed in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through mitigation actions, some climate change impacts will be unavoidable as a result of existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere. Adaptation to a changing climate will therefore be necessary as temperatures will continue to rise, bringing both short- and longer-term impacts.
Business will not only have to adapt their own operations, but can also play a role in working with governments and society to prepare for and avoid the worst climate impacts through its information, technology and capacity. This will require a holistic and long-term planning perspective, encompassing different levels of activity (including international, national and local), and engaging different stakeholders. An international climate change framework is an important stimulus to drive change at the national and local levels and business experience and input can be shared at every step.
See http://www.wbcsd.org
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #226. You say:
"I have no faith in big business anymore. I understand what you are saying, and your methods will produce results, for as you say, everyone looks good."
While I share your thoughts on big anything you quote me 180 degrees off my point. I said "everybody benefits". This is the key I find that makes things work. Darwinian maybe, I'm not too much into theories, I'm more "if it works do it". Our experiences in receiving and giving enrich all our lives. A third world family getting clean water and sanitation is happier with life than a westerner getting an SUV. A westerner with the opportunity to use their skills for the betterment of their brothers is equally enriching when they observe, appreciate and learn from the deep struggles of those emerging from the poverty.
IMO and experience governments are an anathema to this process. I'm not saying all business is good but this is the option to choose for a successful path.
Boy. You got me going on this. Must go, getting sarcastic comments from the family.
Complain about this comment
Contd. #230. managed to slip back online without anybody noticing. I see Simon is already busy. No time for new thoughts now.
Just wanted to add about "re-distribution of wealth" depends on your definition of "wealth". If it's skills, knowledge, know-how, human experiences, culture, history etc. I'm all for it. If money comes into it (apart from legitimate expenses) its the slippery slope to corruption and waste. IME governments are a magnet for such.
Complain about this comment
A report published by DEMOS in March 2009, a UK-based think-tank, argues that scientists need to reconnect their work and expertise with a wider role in society.
The report is called "Citizen scientists reconnecting science with civil society"
It can be downloaded from: http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/citizenscientists
Complain about this comment
"223. At 5:09pm on 08 Jun 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
i disagree tim, i think most businesses would look at AGW, find it to be not proved and show it the door. "
Why? What proof do they have it's wrong? They haven't shown any yet, so I would suggest they have none.
Do you have any to show?
Complain about this comment
re 226: "It is legally bound to find a way around the common interest, to look good while doing this, all the while obeying its legally mandated obligation to make its shareholders wealthy,"
Wrong.
Corporate welfare fluffers use it all the time. IT IS NOT TRUE.
Many who do wrong for their own benefit explain it away as not THEIR fault, it's the SYSTEM!!! They had no choice! They MUST do *whatever* is needed to increase shareholder value.
THIS IS WRONG.
You MUST have customers.
Without customers you have a way to employ idiots and keep them off the streets.
You THEN must have workers.
Without workers, you have no product to sell other than what you have in the storehouse. And no product means no sales.
You THEN must have shareholders.
Without shareholders you have a product and customers. With them you have a pool of money to take. SO shareholders are *useful*, but not central.
Heck, if shareholders were the top requirement, CEO salary would have to go through shareholder vote. After all, why spend $10M for ONE PERSON when you can get 100 workers and sales staff and make MORE MONEY!!!
"Our shareholders made us" is the Nuremberg defence "I vas only followink orders". But the shareholders are, by government fiat, safe from the consequences of their "demand" and so the system can spiral down into the cesspool with NOBODY "at fault".
As long as that meme is renewed we will never get ethics in business.
Complain about this comment
For a discussion about a code of conduct for business leaders, see "A Hippocratic oath for managers - Forswearing greed" in this week's Economist.
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13788418
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #230:
Good morning! Actually I remembered uou said everybody benefits, but I couldn't bring myself to use that as I don't believe it. Our reservation systems here in Canada and the US should remind us that taking away someone's control of their future is more important tnan giving them charity.
The only place for that is in a full scale emergency - to save lives. As an ongoing think it is disastrous. Remember that the giver still maintains the high ground in his mind. If you have a slave, you are a slave too - to a perverse system.
#231: No, I mean money. People all over the world already have full-blown cultural/knowledge/lifeways - successful in their way else they wouldn't be herre. Our civilization is a money civilization, and we are the ones who have to change. Money was an invention to facilitate business - now it is an end in itself, along with the power it temporarily confers in a money based system. This system has proven a failure in the real wealth of a people - fresh food and water, families raised by the village or tribe, and the ability to be happy and joyful.
-----------
To simon-swede and yeah_whatever:
The oath taken is an admission, is it not, of the truth of what I say.
As for shareholders, try "The Corporation", by Joel Baken, professor of Law.
Simon-swede, you quoted:
"Climate change can only be resolved through cooperation that includes all parts of society, in particular between governments and business."
Note the "in particular between governments and business". They are already in bed together - there are I believe four lobbyists in Washington DC for every Congressman.
There are undoubtedly decent people in business - then change the laws which create a corporation as a legal person, and change the laws which mandate a corporation's first obligation to their shareholders. This will only happen if we the people demand it.
Actions speak louder than words.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
re 236
"The oath taken is an admission, is it not, of the truth of what I say."
No, it's an admission that what you said is what they believe. It doesn't say that it is true, just that it is believed.
There's a difference.
I can believe that God Made Me Do It. I can take an oath in court saying that I will tell the truth "so help me God". But that oath doesn't show that God Made Me Do It. Just that some people believe that he could.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#233
What proof do they have it's [global warming] wrong?
Business doesn't have proof that AGW is actually occuring. The idea hasn't been tested in a court of law as far as I am aware, so there may be circumstantial evidence for AGW, as there is for cosmic ray theories (i think solar cycles are pretty much proved to influence climate). Don't get me wrong, I think global warming is occuring, but most businesses will try to back the winning horse regardless of which direction it is heading in, because it's about profit for shareholders, not about the environment. If there is legislation, businesses will comply insofar as they have to, but if there are loopholes that can be exploited, business will exploit.
google "enron gore clinton memo" for an example of how enron had an epiphany and exploited to suit their bottom line
Complain about this comment
"238. At 1:52pm on 09 Jun 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
@yeah_whatever
#233
What proof do they have it's [global warming] wrong?
Business doesn't have proof that AGW is actually occuring."
Yes they do.
The temperature record shows this.
Duh.
PS the Randian Free Market hasn't been tested in a court of law, either. Nor the Law Of Gravity...
Complain about this comment
the temperature record shows warming that's true, but consider the surface stations study www.surfacestations.net 90% of the surface stations do not comply with regulations and give readings up to 5C higher than they should do
(ps the law of gravity is a universal law that has been shown to be true, time and time again - that's why it is a law of physics)
Complain about this comment
Limits to Growth - A Broader Perspective:
Could the modern publicly traded corporation be hindering the growth of humanity? Can they be humanized, or should the corporate form be abandoned?
-----------
"The corporation's legally defined mandate is to pursue, relentlessly and without exception, its own self-interest, regardless of the often harmful consequences it might cause to others. As a result, I argue, the corporation is a pathological institution, a dangerous possesor of the great power it wields over people and societies."
- Joel Bakan; professor of law at the University of British Columbia (2004); Rhodes Scholar; former law clerk to Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada; law degrees from Oxford, Harvard, and Dalhousie Universities; author of "The Corporation" (2004); co-creator and writer of a documentary film and miniseries of the same name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Bakan
Joel Bakan points out in his book that the Anglo/American corporation had its roots in England in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. Founded in ignominy, the corporate form was outlawed in the 1720 'Bubble Act' by the British Parliamnent, and wasn't reinstated until 1825. The rest, as they say, is history.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
"the temperature record shows warming that's true, but consider the surface stations study www.surfacestations.net 90% of the surface stations do not comply with regulations and give readings up to 5C higher than they should do"
But that would have been true for all their period. And so if it was reading 5C warmer 10 years ago, it will be reading 5C warmer now.
And if it says it's gotten warmer, then it's STILL gotten warmer.
"(ps the law of gravity is a universal law that has been shown to be true, time and time again - that's why it is a law of physics)"
Uh, nope.
MOND. MOdified Newtonian Dynamics. And the anomaly of the Pioneer satellites.
PROVE it is universal.
And, by the way, prove that it is caused by curvature of space-time (which means it falls down in quantum scales) or it is a quantum phenomenon (which makes the universe act differently than it seems to).
So "proven" and "universal" don't mean what you think they mean.
Proven == Well tested.
Universal == We assume it is because we don't assume we're in a special place.
Now, to AGW:
Proven == Well tested measurements. Well tested experiments.
Universal == Well, CO2 works as a GG in a lab, how would it know it isn't in a lab elsewhere?
And just because you don't know 100% doesn't mean you know nothing.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
But that would have been true for all their period. And so if it was reading 5C warmer 10 years ago, it will be reading 5C warmer now.
stations that are reading warmer now may have been resited, had A/C plants installed, not been callibrated etc etc etc. The fact remains around 90% of weather stations are unreliable. Only now are the USHCN quietly putting things right - surely an admission that they are unreliable.
Complain about this comment
"stations that are reading warmer now may have been resited, had A/C plants installed, not been callibrated etc etc etc."
May???
It's not like you can't TELL if that happened, is it.
So why don't you KNOW?
Because you're afraid if you look you'll find it isn't so and you don't want to know, just deny.
Complain about this comment
Yeah_Whatever: OT
Thinking about our earlier post on moving objects I just read this article on hummingbirds. We have a lot around here and I'm always in awe at what appears to me to be physically impossible. You understand the science and I wondered if there were any specific combinations and/or particular dynamics that are behind this little creatures movements.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8091944.stm
Thought it would make a nice intermission between bouts of AGW.
Thanks
Tim
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #241.
Let's look at another angle.
You were a stock broker so you made a charge for every transaction and professional service you added. That's business. Governments take tax, tariffs, dues and pay buracrats.
So the flow of aid (wealth) goes from individual -> local government/organizations -> international organizations -> local government/organizations -> local bandits/mafia -> where it's intended.
Now add the human instincts of greed and corruption across such a broad field and there, suddenly it's all gone.
You can site Enron; you could site 'oil for food'. Same.
Local -> Local (or as close as possible) is what I'm advocating.
BTW you say: "the giver still maintains the high ground in his mind".
I can tell you that you only have to actively engage/work once in this situation to be humbled and that thought disappears for ever.
Cheers.......
Complain about this comment
"Now add the human instincts of greed and corruption across such a broad field and there, suddenly it's all gone."
There are also human instincts of compassion, empathy and morality.
Strange you only want to manipulate the bad features of the human psyche.
Complain about this comment
"You understand the science and I wondered if there were any specific combinations and/or particular dynamics that are behind this little creatures movements.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8091944.stm "
Not really much up on aeronautics, but there's the square-cube law. The inertia of an object goes up as the cube of the linear dimension, where the ability to exert pressure goes up as the square.
A bee hummingbird weighs a couple of grammes. And it's power output per kilo is much higher than a jet fighter.
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/51/17731.long
has some info on hummingbird energy needs and flight. It should start things off.
Complain about this comment
Further to 245, this didn't take much googling and is basic Secondary School physics.
Try thinking.
Complain about this comment
Yeah_Whatever:
#147: Of course. Why do we want to do things like this in the first place? I'm just offering a process which takes out the bureaucratic overheads and removes the temptations that attract our "bad features"
It works. Take it or leave it.
#148: Thanks. I value your insight and you have a good way of explaining. That's why I asked.
#149: Sorry. I won't ask again.
Complain about this comment
"#149: Sorry. I won't ask again."
You can ask, but at least look like you did some work on your own to answer.
You learn better from someone else when you've tried, failed and THEN asked. Just asking isn't going to get the connections in memory that trying yourself will create.
And in case you consider this "dissing", if I thought you were too dumb to do this, I wouldn't be asking.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#244
May???
It's not like you can't TELL if that happened, is it.
So why don't you KNOW?
Because you're afraid if you look you'll find it isn't so and you don't want to know, just deny.
Looks like we have a "big man online" boy here
The word "may" is used to be polite.
If you bothered to check out the surface stations website, you would see they have documented around 75% of all US weather stations, both pictorial and mapping using historical maps to show which stations have been resited.
Further, if you bothered to read the NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network, you would see surface stations is correct 100%. Why else would the weather stations be resited?
Complain about this comment
Yeah_Whatever #149
Enough. I can only take so much. You'll not hear from me again.
Complain about this comment
"The word "may" is used to be polite."
Well, you may be wrong.
Does that sound polite?
In fact you're probably wrong since there's a limited things that could cause the data to be fallacious but a much greater number of ways it can be right.
And Occam's Razor applies.
Complain about this comment
"253. At 5:40pm on 10 Jun 2009, timjenvey wrote:
Yeah_Whatever #149
Enough. I can only take so much. You'll not hear from me again."
Only so much what? Being asked to do some work yourself???
Hardly a "go-getter" attitude.
Or do you not like people thinking you could be smart enough to think of reasons yourself and investigate whether they are right?
I didn't need more than 60 seconds thought to come up with a likely difference and about 2 minutes googling ("hummingbird caloric output", the only "high falutin' word there being caloric) to come up with some starting points.
And all I needed was physics a 13-year-old will know (or should) and a little interest in the answer (and not much since the only interest to me was to answer it).
Am I expecting too much of you?
I hadn't thought so, but if I am, you'd better let me know.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
#254
Well, you may be wrong. Does that sound polite?
yes, it does - see costs nothing ;)
read the surface stations web site and then favour us all with your wisdom. No doubt, your superior knowledge will be able to prove that placing a weather station in the middle of a car park, surrounded by A/C plant, doesn't affect the temperature record. And don't go down the route of the records are adjusted to suit, because they didn't even know the weather stations were performing badly
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneUKOK #254:
Very interesting read on the surface stations. I would recommend a must read for all on this site.
BTW. I think that (a gentle suggestion) correction (before somebody blasts you). The car park and A/C has built up around the station over time. They were all placed carefully to start with but have not been maintained is what I got out of it.
Thanks.....
Complain about this comment
"MangoChutneUKOK #254:
Very interesting read on the surface stations. I would recommend a must read for all on this site."
Hard to do when there's no link to follow...
Are we sharing a room with Mango???
"read the surface stations web site and then favour us all with your wisdom."
Ah, see, that's not polite either.
Since you can't be bothered, I won't either.
Complain about this comment
Uh, I'd like to know what the 1.6% of the earth's surface that is the united states of america has to do with the global temperature...
Just askin'
Complain about this comment
Ah, I notice that the owner of surfacestations.org and surfacestations.net is that well documented denialist Anthony Watts of whatsupwithtat.
And there's Pielke doing the reviewing. Rather handy that.
(NOTE: This is rather like me pointing to a site that has Al Gore on it for Tim and his pals)
The conference ppt (not peer reviewed, I note!) has three pictures showing screens close to buildings. Nothing about when they changed, nor how those three affect the 900 in the US (and as said before, 1.6% of the globe, natch).
The pitures of "poor siting" just says that they aren't on grass (mostly, though some are on grass: for some reason, siting it in a water treatment works is a problem) but doesn't say what effect that will have.
Some complaints are that the site is on concrete pads. Presumably because it will have a "mini heat island" effect. Though that would make the nights colder. No note on whether this is seen.
A few say "tarmac" but the sensor isn't ON tarmac.
Weird, huh?
And on...
Some have "shading issues", but won't that reduce the temperature of the screen, or am I reading "as high as 32 in the shade!" wrong?
"rooftop weather stations" would, one presume (unless people placed the screen in midair and people built up to it to stop the locals noticing there was anti-gravity technology available to weathermen) that these had always been there. Hardly going to change a trend for that station, is it.
Similarly the ones on top of poles. Again, unless they serendipitously built the pole up to the hovering station...
Then goes in to classifying, but those classes don't say that the siting will bias trends at that site, so I wonder what they're trying to say here.
Then stops.
Doesn't say that this shows any bias in trend. In fact, for many (see the ones on rooftops or on top of poles) there CANNOT be a change in trend.
Now, does anyone have what proofs are there?
Anything?
Funny how skeptics are so uncritical of works like Anthony's...
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
lots of ad hom attacks there, with no real content
what part of "do not comply with NCDC rules" do you not understand?
what part of "give false readings" do you not understand?
what part of "90% give false readings between 1 and 5C"?
if you looked you would find site surveys of USHCN, GHCN, CWO, and other weather station networks, photographic views and sketches of instrumental sitings, historical notes on each station when available, survey notes about nearby objects, surfaces, and sensor placement, supplemental notes and photographs when applicable
As for being sceptical of the work, please tell me what there is to be scepitcal of. Is there a flaw in the survey that we need to know about?
Clearly NCDC don't think so, they are moving the weather stations, seemingly following Anthony's Watts implied recommendation ;)
Complain about this comment
btw, your figure of 1.6% is completely spurious, the USA represents around 15% of LAND surface, and therefore represents a considerable historic temperature record.
Gallup polls tend to be around 1000 people in a country of over 60,000,000, are they any less valid?
Complain about this comment
"btw, your figure of 1.6% is completely spurious, the USA represents around 15% of LAND surface, and therefore represents a considerable historic temperature record."
Uh, I was talking about the globe.
Which is mostly sea.
Please try again.
Complain about this comment
"what part of "give false readings" do you not understand?
what part of "90% give false readings between 1 and 5C"?"
And what part of "a consistent error will not change the trend" do YOU not understand?
Real temps:
1,2,3,4,5,6
dT/Dt = 1
With a 5C error:
6,7,8,9,10,11
dT/dt = 1
Where's the proof that the poor sites are wrong for climate input, creating a GIGO scenario?
Complain about this comment
"Gallup polls tend to be around 1000 people in a country of over 60,000,000, are they any less valid?"
If the remaining 59,999,000 are polled and come up with something different, yes.
Or do you think that the global temperatures are taken from only US sites, with the rest of the world's sensors left unused? If the Gallup Poll was 1,000 Monster Raving Loony Party members, would you trust the result of the poll? Why then do you equate this to a "poll" of 1.6% of the globe that is ALL in the USA (sans Alaska and protectorates)?
If someone were to sample the earth, 1.6% would be good. But NOT if they were all in the same country.
Complain about this comment
"survey notes about nearby objects, surfaces, and sensor placement, supplemental notes and photographs when applicable"
Which mean nothing if the siting were consistent over the lifetime.
Would mean nothing if the quality control were to remove the station (there is a four-fold over supply of stations for climate work, cf your Gallup Poll example).
Would mean nothing if the quality control were to recalibrate the station for reading errors over time.
So where is Watt's work on the QC mechanisms?
It doesn't exist.
And THAT is the problem with the report.
It isn't reporting anything. Just insinuating.
With results that those who believe with all their heart and soul that AGW is a scam will say things like
"I think that (a gentle suggestion) correction (before somebody blasts you). The car park and A/C has built up around the station over time. They were all placed carefully to start with but have not been maintained is what I got out of it."
With nothing about whether this "thought" is correct.
Skepticism is not the word. Selective credulity is.
Complain about this comment
#263
Uh, I was talking about the globe.
Interesting that you infer alarmists are allowed to extrapolate, but realists aren't. Speaks volumes.
#264 etc
Where's the proof that the poor sites are wrong for climate input, creating a GIGO scenario? etc etc etc
you really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you. If you did, you would see the significance of Watts work. NCDC see the significance, this is why they are resiting the weather stations
Complain about this comment
And if you want to find out yourself what quality control is made, links:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/Hansen_etal.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
Complain about this comment
"you really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you. If you did, you would see the significance of Watts work. NCDC see the significance, this is why they are resiting the weather stations"
Nope, I have no idea what you or Watt is talking about. Mostly because you let innuendo shield you from concrete examples that can be proven wrong.
I have a hangnail. I bite it off. Does this prove that the hangnail was a health hazard to me?
NO.
So please, you or Watts show what the effect (if any) on the global record of temperature is of his "discovery".
Until you do, all you have is innuendo.
Complain about this comment
Your links offer no information on the quality of the data collected from the weather stations, except insofar as they acknowledge there may be quality issues. The only information on data quality that is given is once the data has been received by Hansen, which is fair enough I wouldnt expect Hansen to warrant the raw data. Hansen et al use the data from the weather stations and perform adjustments to suit the location of the weather station (i.e urban etc). No adjustments are made because the weather station is located next to a car park, a/c unit or wherever.
Regardless of quality control of the data after receipt by Hansen et al, the raw data is clearly contaminated. No amount of adjustment will compensate for a weather station receiving hot exhaust air from a/c. In fact, Hansen regards the UHI as being insignificant, which may be correct in his view, but when weather stations are giving false readings, between 1 and 5C, you have to accept that Hansens work is therefore unreliable, although, in fairness, it may not be his fault.
Complain about this comment
Nope, I have no idea what you or Watt is talking about.
Good, we agree
Complain about this comment
"270. At 3:49pm on 11 Jun 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
Your links offer no information on the quality of the data collected from the weather stations,"
Which happen to be the stations used for measuring the climate.
Plus, if the exhaust of AC's inappropriately close to US weather (not climate) monitoring stations is where the warming comes from, why do you say it's been cooling for the last 11 years?
Why, as well, are the satellites (quite a long distance from the nearest AC unit) also showing increasing temperatures?
Complain about this comment
"but when weather stations are giving false readings, between 1 and 5C, you have to accept that Hansens work is therefore unreliable, although, in fairness, it may not be his fault."
Could you not read 264 at the time?
The error there is a 5C error in temperature record.
dT/dt was the same. however.
Complain about this comment
"Nope, I have no idea what you or Watt is talking about.
Good, we agree"
Yup.
Now, you state whether this announcement has ANY effect on the climate model validity.
This is the conclusion you want to draw from whatever you're saying, so show it has the effect you wish to ascribe to it.
Complain about this comment
if you can't see the significance you have either not read or understood the data presented
Complain about this comment
Chutney, my old son, you nor Anthony have shown ANY significance in what you've "discovered".
Just insinuations that this is "important".
"either not read or understood the data presented"
WHAT data???
The pictures that say there are quite a few poor sites for weather monitoring?
No shit, sherlock.
What does that have to do with climate, though?
You haven't said, there's no data saying what it is, and insinuations.
PROVE that this "revelation" is important to climate prediction or the models that do so.
No waving of the hands.
PROOF.
Complain about this comment
think about it, yeah_whatever, old son
i'm not doing your homework for you
if you really can't see the significance of this work then just own up, but don't flounder around like a fish out of water
Complain about this comment
Yup, I AM thinking about it.
YOU don't seem to be.
Hand waving away the really quite simple queries I have made only goes to show you don't.
1) What effect is this having on the climate record IN YOUR OPINION.
2) Is this effect seen?
The data is out there, it seems YOU haven't done ANY homework, else you'd have these answers without more work than just transcribing them.
It isn't even that I can't see the significance of this work, it's that you haven't SAID what the significance is.
SAY WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE IS.
Stop waving the hands about and blaming others for your inability to say what you think.
Complain about this comment
Youre a very angry young man, arent you, old boy ;)
There are around 10,000 weather stations worldwide, of which 1200 or 12% are located in the USA.
Anthony Watts and his team have surveyed around 80% (and growing) of all weather stations in the US (roughly 8% of the weather stations worldwide). His results tell us that 90% of the weather stations surveyed give readings that are between 1 and 5C too high. His research has included desk top surveys on how the weather stations have been moved, have been built around, had plant installed adjacent etc. The records go back over 100 years, so we can see exactly how the weather station environment has changed over the last 100 years and what effect this has had on the recorded temperature.
You will argue that Hansen etc have adjusted for the UHI, but Hansen has always argued the UHI is insignificant, not up to 5C! Here we have proof the weather stations have been giving false readings of up to 5C (due to the problems listed above) for 8% of the worlds weather stations.
Temperature records for the whole of the USA will need to be re-written.
This is not insignificant regardless of whatever slant you choose or whatever excuse you come up with.
Complain about this comment
"Temperature records for the whole of the USA will need to be re-written."
They will? Why? If Blain's Technical College for Young Boys has recorded 3C warmer temperatures for the past 60 years, then this doesn't change the increase over the 60 years. It's just that the local tourist board will say that the average daytime peak summertime temperature in the area is 26C when it really is 21C.
If these errors DID have a huge effect on weather modelling, why do boreholes have the same result? Satellite measurements don't show any difference between the values used for temperature records from land stations and the satellite result and ocean sensors, airplane sensors and radiosondes don't give a different picture.
I don't know of many AC units in the mid troposphere...
There's a Sun recorder, basically a big glass ball in a holder with a piece of paper behind. The sun's rays when bright enough are focused by the ball to burn a line on the paper.
And so sunlight duration is recorded.
Some stations in resorts had people going out with lights early in the morning and late in the evening to extend the line by hand.
Somehow, this didn't affect weather forcasting.
Why?
Because they were quality controlled before being put in to the system.
So, what does rewriting the temperature records for the whole USA (which is incorrect: you have no proof that ALL temperature records for the WHOLE USA will bee needed) even if it does happen have to do with climate modelling and AGW?
Complain about this comment
If Blain's Technical College for Young Boys has recorded 3C warmer temperatures for the past 60 years, then this doesn't change the increase over the 60 years
We are not talking about 60 years, we are talking about the last 30 years or so of global warming (as you may know, 1940 - 1970 saw a cooling in global temperatures).
Since the 70's globally recorded temperatures have risen, until recently. The construction of car parks, installation of a/c has escalated since the 1970's, and this, plus other factors detrimental to the quality of recorded temperatures, has given a false impression on global temperatures. All of this is freely available from the surface stations web site.
Complain about this comment
And where do you get the last 30 years from that site?
Since the 70's globally recorded temperatures have risen and are still rising.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/plot/wti/from:1999/trend
(taking march-march).
"All of this is freely available from the surface stations web site."
Where is the information you post on that site? The PPT slide didn't have it.
"installation of a/c has escalated since the 1970's, and this, plus other factors detrimental to the quality of recorded temperatures, has given a false impression on global temperatures."
And where did you get that from the information on that site? You're making up stuff, aren't you?
There's nothing about whether this data has been used to determine the average temperature, no check on whether QC has been done, no proof even that this A/C power has affected the data at all.
If A/C were making such a difference, why wasn't it a step change THEN FLAT when the A/C was put in?
You are making assertions that I do not see made in the site, so I'll need to see those links. And if they don't answer the skeptical questions I have then the site is saying nothing.
Complain about this comment
seems you castigate others for not doing their homework, but then don't want to do your own.
poke around the surface stations website and you may learn something, instead of being spoon fed by real climate
Complain about this comment
Ah, Chutney, so the site doesn't say anything like that. Otherwise you'd be able to say. After all, you write as if you've read that, so you already have the links if you have and have no links if you didn't.
PS How about the UK? After all, AC isn't as popular here but there's no difference in the signal of warming.
Russia? How about China? Africa?
Open ocean network shows the same pattern of increase.
How does US air con affect the signal from these sites?
Spooky action at a distance???
I'm not asking for homework.
I'm saying that you haven't seen any such evidence and that you're making things up and hiding that when outed on it.
Complain about this comment
And why would the poles be warming quicker than the equator/tropics?
There's much less need for air con exhausting heat in Canada compared to Washington state, so if A/C output is the "cause" of the warming signal, you would expect it to be the opposite of what is seen.
Complain about this comment
i'm not making it up - i want you to go to the surface stations web site, poke around and learn something. You won't learn anything by relying on alarmist websites, except how to reinforce your own beliefs
try reading the report from ~gasp, shock, horror~ the Heartland Institute and then refute it
Complain about this comment
I did go there Chutney.
It doesn't say anything that you ascribe to it that I query in #284. So as far as your comments on what it means is concerned, it IS refuted. The PPT and report don't say what you say it does and the refutations of its capability to be an answer to ANYTHING (in #285) IS a rebuttal to the report, since the report doesn't answer those queries.
It. Is. Rebutted.
Complain about this comment
O, and Chutney, shouldn't the one with the claim to make prove it first? Once they've proven what you say they have (though as I say, they didn't say what you said they say in the PPT), then I'll answer.
But they haven't proven anything yet.
Complain about this comment
If you'd like another take on the "discoveries" at Watt's newest creation surfacestations.com, you can try here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/surface-stations/
Complain about this comment
To run a completely environmentally friendly society, the entire world would need to be made aware of the possibilities and ALL move forward in that direction.
As many of you can probably agree, it will likely never be in the interest of governments and politicians around the world to act using the best means (renewable energies). There is just no money in sustainability... they need cyclical consumption.
It is time to start educating the masses of the real possibilities. The fact that we can support the ENTIRE WORLD's energy usage on harnessing geothermal energy ALONE (excluding solar, wind, wave, and current energy)is overwhelming enough. Our energy supply is nearly endless and harnessing it is practical and easy. So, why aren't we doing it?!?!
Simply put, there is no place for free energy in the Monetary system. The world now revolves around money when it seems to only cause betrayal, corruption, and greed. On top of that, there are many reasons why the monetary system does not logically make sense....at all...to anyone who knows how it works. For example, EVERY DOLLAR the US govt has EVER borrowed from the federal reserve has been taxed, so how is it possible to pay it back?! It isn't possible people.
I am posting this to inform people on an alternative solution that many have never even scratched the surface of (b/c the government surely isn't putting out the information). And I'm just asking for an open mind to hear it...
A Resource-Based Economy:
It is a complete social reformation, but don't let that scare you. A global economy that revolves around the institutions of science, technology and nature rather than politics, money and government. It has only been made possible recently, when the required level of technology was met. Namely, the ability to harness renewable energies (especially geothermal). There is no money in this new economy, everything is FREE, because our Earth's resources are incredibly abundant and, with our level of technology, scarcity is a thing of the past. So how does it work?!
Energy is captured and turned into electricity. This electricity can then power everything we create that needs electricity. Most monotonous jobs will be terminated (as most are irrelevant in this society, for example, any jobs relating to money) or replaced by machines. Agriculture, industrial jobs, constructing buildings, medical surgeries etc etc etc can all be done by machines!!! Don't let that scare you either...they are machines made to free humans from unnecessary labor, such as ATMs, cars and any other machines you can think of. We have let technology take us so far, yet we are being held back from using it to its full potential.
So, people don't need to work. But the monetary system creates competition for jobs and the need for money creates incentive. That is true but it comes with a huge price. It creates almost all acts of violence, and corruption/greed in every social class. This competition is not necessary. So, why not rely on the curiosity and incentive that we are all born with as a child? If a person doesn't want to do anything with their life in a resource-based economy, let them be (they still get to live in a house and have the best products as the rest of society. For those who see a problem with this, a prime example of the individualism the monetary system creates). But, for the people that have the desire to do whatever they love in life, they can do it without a government deciding if what they do is worth enough money to live off of.
In this economy large decisions would be made objectively, without the influence of opinion that has led us into horrible situations so many times. A super-computer, for lack of a better term, that is equipped with all of the knowledge we have at the time and comes to it's conclusions based on that knowledge, would always answer objectively.
That is the gist of it but there is much more to learn. I understand most people, if not all, will have many questions and concerns about this. I am confident that I will be able to answer them all, but only time will tell that. I suggest you check it out yourself if it interests you.
Check out thezeitgeistmovement.com or thevenusproject.com
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever #288
been exercising my size 18 carbon foot prints ;-)
O, and Chutney, shouldn't the one with the claim to make prove it first?
and shouldn't the alarmists present real, empirical evidence, measured in the real world, not just in the lab, to back up their claims that man made CO2 is causing global climate change?
now i know you will come back with the usual carp, but as others on this blog have already pointed out, you are good with shouting and insulting, but your arguments simply don't stack up
Complain about this comment
oh! and it would seem McIntyre has done your homework for you:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6382
Complain about this comment
"and shouldn't the alarmists present real, empirical evidence, measured in the real world, not just in the lab, to back up their claims that man made CO2 is causing global climate change?"
There's a satelite that does this. Takes IR pictures. The Earth is reducing in brightness in the 15um band.
And what would make it not work outside the lab anyway?
Do the molecules get bashful when watched in the lab???
Complain about this comment
And I notice chutney still hasn't answered the 288. Just tried to swerve it off to another irrelevant channel.
PS: NOAA have done the work and used the 70 sites that Watts thinks are good.
Running the same analysis on this reduced set displays no significant change in trend over that of the full data set.
Seems NOAA have done their homework for them. And we see the reason why they didn't want to do this: it doesn't show what they want to display.
Complain about this comment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x199920
There's a link to the actual paper on there and a text summary of the points.
NOAA's response to surfacestations' results and accusations.
Complain about this comment
and Watts reply to NOAA's attempts to discredit him (I know you won't read it so here's a summary - they used the wrong data)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/ncdc-writes-ghost-talking-points-rebuttal-to-surfacestations-project/
Complain about this comment
and you wanted me to answer 288:
O, and Chutney, shouldn't the one with the claim to make prove it first?
agreed ;)
Complain about this comment
Uh, "they used the wrong data" is incorrect. Watts is trying to say "We haven't finished!".
Complain about this comment
"O, and Chutney, shouldn't the one with the claim to make prove it first?
agreed ;)"
Go on, then.
Prove it's cooling.
Give us your data.
Complain about this comment
#298
again read the article
#299
you go first, it's the alarmists that made the original claim not the realists
lol - only joking, i know exactly what "evidence" you will produce and not a single piece of it would stand up in a court of law, so i'm not going to argue with you
Complain about this comment
No, Chutney, YOU say you have proven it's cooling.
You show the data that shows it.
Either that or I can say the recent temperature rise has been nearly 0.2C per decade.
A figure I got from the GISS data.
Complain about this comment
"#298
again read the article"
Did.
That's the argument Watts makes.
NOAA took the information that Watts had, took the 70 stations that they said were good or best and found the signal unchanged.
The only way this could be genuinely "the wrong data" is if Watts has been printing up the wrong data on his blog.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS