Tuna: Fin words, suspicious tail
If you've read my previous posts on the plight of the Atlantic bluefin tuna, you might assume everyone would be gambolling with delight at the news that France and the UK are supporting calls for a ban on international trade in the species.
Think again.
Although on the face of it this is a move that could save the species from commercial extinction, there are some important questions.
Can it work? Is international trade the right point of attack?
Is this another case of governments seeking easy green points on things that are painless to them? And are we once again oversimplifying a complex environmental issue down to a totemistic, tokenistic posterchild?
The new forum for the tuna war is Cites, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. France and the UK are joining Monaco in saying they'll lobby for international trade in the profitable bluefin to be banned when the organisation meets next March.
Conventionally, Cites isn't used for commercial fish, and indeed at the last meeting in 2007 an almighty row erupted between Cites and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) about which was the competent body to regulate on these species.
The FAO argued that looking after food species was a job for Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) - in the case of bluefin in the Mediterranean Sea, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (Iccat).
During that meeting, the EU sought to ban trade in a couple of edible shark species - a move that was rejected by a bloc of countries including those which, like Japan, traditionally adopt a "pro-sustainable use" stance and which supported the FAO in its argument with Cites.
New Zealand's delegate Pamela Mace voted against the shark trade ban, because, she said, restrictions on international trade could not solve the problem: "It actually requires effective management at the local level."
The same argument, with some justification, will be made about the bluefin.
It's generally acknowledged that Iccat has failed to manage the Mediterranean bluefin effectively, which is why some, such as conservationist Alex Rogers, argue that Cites may offer the only option.
But who's to blame for Iccat failures? According to a coruscating independent report [pdf link] that Iccat was obliged to commission last year, it's the member states.
They have not backed fine words with enforcement, the report said, and at times have actively worked to help their own fishermen against Iccat regulations.
One would have rather more confidence that a country was serious about banning the bluefin trade through Cites if that country's authorities always inspected landings with missionary zeal and always prosecuted errant fishermen to the maximum.
And sometimes - as at last year's Iccat meeting - fine European words have evaporated under the heat of business-as-usual, with pro-fishing delegates taking a radically different negotiating position from the one implied by pre-meeting rhetoric.
By common consent, the biggest problem with the bluefin (as with many other fisheries) isn't inadequate regulation, but inadequate enforcement - mainly a job of national authorities.
The bluefin has become a symbol of the wider decline in marine ecosystems - in the UK it's received special attention since the release of the documentary The End of the Line, which you might term An Inconvenient Truth for the oceans.
Celebrities have threatened to boycott the fashionable Nobu chain of restaurants unless it takes bluefin off the menu, and the species' plight has been admitted to the select club of topics deemed suitable for conversation at dinner parties.
One suspects that political support for a Cites ban is largely based on a perception that it would be popular in dinner party-attending circles... and with tuna a species of virtually zero commercial importance in the UK, the support comes free of pain.
If you're of a cynical bent, you might contrast the support given for continued cod fishing - against scientific advice - with opposition to continued bluefin tuna fishing - in line with scientific advice.
"Iconisation" is something that happens in all environmental fields. Heathrow's third runway becomes a symbol of climate-unfriendly development, the Brent Spar a symbol of oil companies' disregard for the natural world.
The intent of those involved is often genuinely to raise awareness of the wider issue through publicising an icon that's easy to relate to.
The problem is, solving the narrow issue can suggest that the wider job is done; and anyone who thinks that preserving the bluefin means ocean health is solved is peering through the wrong end of the telescope.
The bluefin certainly needs a saviour, and it would be great to be wrong about the capacity of a Cites motion to swim into town on its white seahorse and sort the tuna issue once and for all.
This may looks like a serious attempt to solve a pressing problem, but it carries more than a hint of window dressing.
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~39~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
These are systems and the bluefin is a part of an eco-system or food chain. Large fish usually do not adhere to national boundries and this makes regulation all the more difficult. Celeb's won't eat at a restaurant, please, hardly the answer. People eat and there are many people in the world. About half the world remains poor and does not care about individual sources of food, only that they have something to eat. We have a world food distribution problem and it will not be solved by two organizations fighting over bureaucratic control. The oceans feed many people and when considering what comes out of the ocean and who eats what, you can understand the human food chain by the menus of the have and have nots. Bluefin at a sushi bar is different than bluefin washed up on some shore where the poor villagers compete with the crabs over the carcass. Most policies are still based on "might makes right" no matter how well the wording is put together.
Complain about this comment
" Can it work? Is international trade the right point of attack?"
It can, but it requires
1) those who are restrained by the law to agree
YEARS after F&M meant that MBM was banned in feed for animals, local farmers were STILL caught feeding sheep to their cows. They didn't CARE.
2) those doing the restraining are given the right tools
Some time ago the east coast of the US had several areas closed off for ANY fishing. They were spawning grounds and needed to be left to get numbers back up. But the environmental scientists were surprised at how little this worked.
Later the satellite images became fine enough to see the smoke tracks of small trawlers. The images were looked at and strange tracks appeared in the spawning grounds. They were fishermen going in to fish. The patrols were too far apart to catch them and therefore the underestimated how well they were working.
The problem wasn't the models of the fish. The models didn't model the avariciousness of men who thought of that years' catch, not the future of fishing.
Complain about this comment
Also involved in this is the Southern BlueFin tuna. For years this has been stolen from Pacific waters around Fiji and Papua New Guinea. If any regulation takes effect in the northern hemisphere then this will increase the value of these stocks leading to increased raping and pillaging by Russian, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese fishing fleets. You dont have to go far out to sea from here to see these boats. And also is the fact that the pacific island nations that depend on this revenue are being bullied, bribed and stolen from to feed the "celebs".
Complain about this comment
Joshann, I'm a little surprised that Larry isn't here supporting you. Apparently he thinks that much more should be done to help the developing nations manage their own lives, so much so, that AGW should be ignored until after those problems are sorted out.
So it's rather strange he's missing here.
Oh, right, this doesn't have anything to do with global warming, so he doesn't care about the third world nations.
Complain about this comment
I am not sure what is being proposed here: a ban on international trade or an international ban on trade. If it is the former, expect some fireworks with respect to the rules regarding trading within the EU (which cannot be "banned" by any one or more member states individually) and EU fisheries policy which more than likely would support this. It would be a nice example of conflicting objectives... And without seeing figures of bluefin catch and products traded internationally, rather than localy, it is difficult if not impossible to form a view on how effective this will be with respect to bluefin survival.
an international ban on trade would also ban trading catches in local markets which have significant other implications, not only $$ wise but also food-wise for a number of nations where fishing is an important earner or where fish is an important and cheap part of the local diet.
banning trade of course also does little for bluefin caught as by-catch (it cannot be landed but is dead on return to the water anyway; highly selective fishing and avoidance methods would but the success of those in existence for other species is limited (fishing is and remains something like hunting by night, aiming for shadows)and the time to develop and leisurely study the success of these without endangering what is left of bluefin has passed.....
No, the future for bluefin is grim and despite the best intentions the current rather shallow proposals in terms of content are little more than window dressing, although with the best of intentions..., or political opportunism... the idea of the UK sponsoring a "ban" of any kind on a subject in which it has no economic interest whatsoever (unlike some of the fisheries for species in which the UK does have an economic interest but which don't receive the same level of even verbal support that bluefin is receiving now) shows the depth of "commitment"
Complain about this comment
The prospects for the bluefin tuna do indeed look grim. Collapse of the species is something I would expect, given my more or less complete loss of faith in our way of life.
But I can never understand why we cannot see the writing on the wall, as portrayed in Simon and Garfunkel's "Sounds of Silence." The plight of the bluefin is the plight of many species on Earth, including ours, and the animating spirit behind its imminent demise is the same as that behind the global environmental crisis which will likely give the twenty-first century and its populace a place in infamy.
One can however, change the way one lives and thinks.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As someone working with BFT tuna for over 10 years I can fully see Richards point that ICCAT has failed due to non-enforcement. There are however signs that sustainable aquaculture is on its way and recent news from Australia in March and the Mediterranean in June have shown that captive tuna will spawn in captivity and last week in Spain as part of the the SELDOTT project 140 million eggs were spawned. Closing the circle from egg to adult has been shown to be possible. It is up to us to make it ecologically sustainable. This means cutting down on the use of bait fish and releaving the fishing pressures on the wild stocks. There is more than ample evidence that the first rationale can be met the second is a political and not a scientific problem.
Complain about this comment
So, as it's the 'inconvenient truth' about the oceans does that mean that all it's data is suspect and 'modified' to fit a pattern to propagate an agenda? Is it going to be discredited over the next couple of years and demonstrated as a piece of fearmongering propaganda? i like tuna. tuna is yummy. If tuna is in serious risk of being wiped out we should take action, or as the case maybe, enforce judgements already made. Just an FYI: when trying to sell this one to the masses (oh, they don't care yet do they? you'll teach us uncaring, unconnected convenience loving people cos you guys are so much better and more 'in tune' than us right?) don't use the inconvenient truth line, the rational, humanist majority won't buy it again. I'd just like to say that in my opinion, the last decade of Mssrs. Gore and Hansen et al (little scientist joke there) has done more damage to the real environmental movement (and the environment but thats generally less important to greenies than the movement) than any evil oil company or any tuna-cidal Ahab. toodles.
Complain about this comment
To #9 - this is for you:
\\\ Infamy or Integrity ///
My excert from the article cited below seems to have been too long, so those interested will just have to read the whole thing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/apr/19/highereducation.museums
-----------------
Lest one think these are simply the words of some out of touch artist, here is some backing from a man who was at the center of politics for a thousand days:
" The life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction in the life of the nation, is very close to the center of a nation's purpose - and it is the test of the quality of a nation's civilization."
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Harvard University, 1956.
-------------------------
Since our institutions of a political nature are failing us, perhaps we should look elsewhere, both for personal inspiration and for a societal way of viewing the world which looks to quality and integrity and the long term future.
I am thinking of some of my acquaintances, who eschew politics, and blogs, and lose themselves in computer games or the arts.
Since we who blog and support politics and our institutions are such a complete failure in achieving, let's say, the preservation of a fish, or of a climate - since we have not the sense to even limit our numbers - perhaps we too should turn more towards beauty and the light.
When I write this, the mountains I have climbed spring to mind. But for others there are equally beautiful and delightful pastimes.
And perhaps, instead of being frantic about achieving change in the 'conventional way', we should change course, for the very good reason that whatever we are doing here and now is not working.
--------------
As for number 9, I'll agree on one point, perhaps an important one.
Since an in touch environmental reporter such as Richard Black seems to wonder at the credibility of these various organizations which presumably were put in place to protect us, via protecting whatever they were created to protect, be it tuna or whales etc., and since I tend to think that they are doing more harm than good:
Why not dispense with these organizations, and turn to the courts?
If the bluefin tuna is being overfished to the point of collapse or extinction, this is in some sense a crime against humanity, and should be prosecuted as such, at whatever level is deemed appropriate by the United Nations justice system.
Who better to decide than a professional court system, who will weigh the evidence, from sources such as James Hansen, Al Gore, tuna experts etc., and perhaps from #9, should he care to go on record before a convened tribunal.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
If the bluefin tuna is being overfished to the point of collapse or extinction, this is in some sense a crime against humanity
on balance, i think i would agree with statement and i am all for conservation, but
Who better to decide than a professional court system, who will weigh the evidence, from sources such as James Hansen, Al Gore, tuna experts etc.,
what on earth does Hansen and Gore have to do with tuna? The first is an astronomer and the second an ex vice-president trying to scare the world
Complain about this comment
To #11:
Just alluding to #9's disparaging comments on both men, but, now that you mention Hansen and Gore:
Al Gore: You have obviously not read his book "Earth in the Balance".
James Hansen: You have obviously not read his articles on wildlife and climate (see his website if you want to); also he is only part astronomer, mostly he is a climate scientist. For a true perspective on Dr. Hansen, please see "Censoring Science", by Mark Bowen. For a quick look - Wikipedia.
And generally, we might be well advised to remember that concerns and opinions concerning the earth, politics, etc., are not the restricted province of specialists, though specialists have, quite often, unique information and perspectives.
------------------
Followup
Since it seems so difficult to embrace all of the infamous parts of mankind's impact on the Earth in intellectual terms, at least briefly, and since I have been blogging recently on another perspective - the artists', lets take a look at one artist's holistic perspective, for those so inclined:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FZcAzZOyOg
- Manysummits -
PS: I am really liking that idea of addressing environmental issues through a court system. In my handbook on the United Nations, I found there are over four thousand NGO's that the United Nations deals with. Obviously, I think it is fair to say, this is unwieldy, apparently ineffective, and an illustration of the thought that the road to Hades is indeed paved with good intentions. Time to get real. Environmental degradations are crimes against humanity, and often a humanity almost powerless to protect itself.
Is not the central purpose of any government to ensure the interests of the many are looked after - to ensure their (our) long term survival and prosperity?
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
#12
I take it you mean NASAs James Hansen an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democrat Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz.
Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=CB71A459-1F37-4792-AE25-541FCCED0466
and Al Gore's links with Enron:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/30/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx
or here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/737753/posts
including the infamous quote Ken Lay Said The Kyoto Global Warming Accord Would Dramatically Help Enron. Following the White House meeting, Ken Lay said there was broad consensus in favor of an emissions-trading system. An internal Enron memo noted that "the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would 'do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.'"
I agree with you when you say And generally, we might be well advised to remember that concerns and opinions concerning the earth, politics, etc., are not the restricted province of specialists, though specialists have, quite often, unique information and perspectives.
I am really liking that idea of addressing environmental issues through a court system
To win, you would have to prove your case, beyond reasonable doubt, and I don't think there is sufficient evidence in your favour. Having said that, on most environmental issues, i am with you
Complain about this comment
Hi Manysummits!
Not sure I agree about establishing "a court system". Effective enforcement involves more than legal challenges before the courts. I'd prefer having a system that works (prevention is better than cure, etc) and wouldn't you say that recourse to the courts is at best a last resort and sometimes an indication of failure?
Simon
Complain about this comment
Mr summits,
I can respect the passion behind your belief, and I can respect the righteousness that fighting for those who can't fight for themselves brings. My comment was left as much in jest as anything else and on the tuna subject: mass extiction of a food species is a tremendous calamity and demonstrates ludicrous irresponsibility. However, please forgive my scepticism but as i may have suggested in my last post, the outcry of greenies has been reduced in efficacy much like the boy who cried wolf. In light of that i'd like to re-ask my question and see if you'll answer it: do you agree that it was very damaging in the long run to the environmental movement as a whole not just the global warming (climate change) movement that he used cherrypicked data and misrepresented the correlation between CO2 and temperature ie that as it warms the oceans saturation concentration for CO2 decreases and the seas release stored CO2 into the atmosphere. His postulate was the opposite: that increase in CO2 leads to increase in temp is in fact the exact opposite of the real data, ie that temp drives and CO2 is a passenger hence it aint manmade (or at least that our contribution is a tiny percent and effectively irrelevant as i believe it to be).
back on the subject of tuna: if i was never able to enjoy the tuna and mushroom pie, one of the first recipes my mum taught me to make years ago: that would be a crime against humanity.]
take care
Complain about this comment
Manysummits,
i love the outdoors and nature, i studied the 3 sciences at A level and genetics at university. I also profess a profound belief in humanism and human solidarity. I read an article by Azimov (in a faber anthology of science if your interested, can't find a link to it) where he layed out the argument against an ever expanding population in the most eloquent fashion i've ever encountered. in essence he argues all life requires energy which is trapped at a 10% efficiency from the vast but finite amount of sunlight hitting the rearth at any one time. For each tonne of biomass at the herbivore level you need 10 tonnes of plant biomass to photosynthesize the energy for the herbivore. etc etc up the food chain and he concludes that for each additional ton of human biomass a ton of carnivore or herbivore biomass must be replaced. that set me thinking a few years ago, its a good essay.
However, can you not see how a statement like 'since we have not the sense to even limit our numbers - perhaps we too should turn more towards beauty and the light' could be described as, if feeling uncharitable, ecofascist psychobabble? China is an incredibly authoritarian regime and they approve of your ideas, does that not make you pause? I'm no good christian :P but the idea going forth and multiplying isn't so much an edict from jesus but a biological imperative, hardwired into our system. What about the limiting of children leading to female babies being 'disposed of'? You accept that the climate is a vast and complex system almost beyond the scope of comprehension but you consider human nature simple, straightforward and susceptible to your control? most humans are good people, when problems in the environment are made public (despite vested interests no doubt) people respond, look at the clean air act or the return or trout (or was it salmon? anyway a species that hadn't lived there for centuries returned over the last 50 years or so) to the thames. i think hysterical, dictatorial cries are a good way to damage your own cause.
take care and keep loving the earth, but love human beings too, we are part of nature believe it or not.
Complain about this comment
for those interested in reading books:
Why We Disagree About Climate Change
The author, Mike Hulme, is a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, in the UK. He helped write the influential reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many other government agencies that are commonly cited by alarmists in the debate. He has been one of the most prominent scientists declaring that the debate is over and that man-made global warming will be a catastrophe.
Quotes:
What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change." (p. 75)
"Uncertainty pervades scientific predictions about the future performance of global and regional climates. And uncertainties multiply when considering all the consequences that might follow from such changes in climate." (p. 83)
He calls climate change "a classic example of ... `post-normal science,'" quoting Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz, defines this as "the application of science to public issues where `facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.'"
Issues that are put into the category of "post-normal science" are no longer subject to the cardinal requirements of true science: skepticism, universalism, communalism, and disinterestedness.
Complain about this comment
O/T i know but: thanks for the recommendation, i may check that out. Hansen has always reminded me of Lysenko (Lychenko? not sure of sp.), the russian agronomist in the 20/30's who promised 3 harvest a year by virtue of soviet scientific excellence! he is quoted (misquoted here probably) as saying something along the lines of 'give me a man who'll design his experiment to get the results i want!'. he was of course unable to provide the additional harvest and is now an example in scientific ethics courses of how science can be misrepresented by dishonest, agenda driven people.
take care all
Complain about this comment
'But I can never understand why we cannot see the writing on the wall, as portrayed in Simon and Garfunkel's "Sounds of Silence." The plight of the bluefin is the plight of many species on Earth, including ours, and the animating spirit behind its imminent demise is the same as that behind the global environmental crisis which will likely give the twenty-first century and its populace a place in infamy.
One can however, change the way one lives and thinks.
- Manysummits - '
Wow. I missed that lot the other day. Wow. There is no mass extinction occuring, that isn't true, its a lie told to misinform those who already want it to be true so they can bash their fists and tell us 'the animating spirit behind its imminent demise is the same as that behind the global environmental crisis which will likely give the twenty-first century and its populace a place in infamy.' Human beings are on the whole responsible and aim to live with in their means in a sustainable fashion. When we slip out of bounds (like easter island or the collapse of the northern amerindian cities) we suffer and we learn well from suffering and tend not to make the same mistakes again. You see humans as rapacious destroyers, hellbent on using anything they can and damning the consequences, i see us as custodians, gardeners some of whom pay little care for their charge but most of whom are diligent and farsighted. You are full of despair (because of others actions/stupidity of course), and its mostly so that you can pontificate and feel good about yourself. please reassess how you view yourself as i suspect it is colouring how you view your species and in my opinion we are alot better than you give us credit for. Anti-humanism is a weird form of self loathing but one that has recently been popular. Also, more people today have better lives, better education, are better fed and have better expectations than at any point in human history. these are not the end times.
take care
Complain about this comment
@manysummits:
more on Gore apparently being economical with the truth when speaking about his investments to the Senate:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10567
Al Gore said that every penny he ever made from his business activities went into non-profit efforts.
That is a flat-out lie, according to this March 6, 2008 Bloomberg report that indicates that Al Gore invested $35 million of his own money in various for-profit endeavors.
Complain about this comment
mango,
i stumbled on this while researching the goreacle for an article on my blog:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/08/03/246288/index.htm
It is an interesting article from 1998 in the CNN business section, entitled:
Al Gore's Wealth in the Balance the vice presidents financial acumen ain't worth a bucket of warm spit.
in light of subsequent events it seems remarkable. He's now personally worth hundreds of millions right?
keep up the good work sir.
Complain about this comment
splendidbastiat #19: "Human beings are on the whole responsible and aim to live with in their means in a sustainable fashion".
Can you honestly look at this population curve and repeat "Human beings are on the whole responsible and aim to live with in their means"
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Well, I seem to have either touched a nerve, or we have some new blood in the denial campaign!
-------------------------
To simon-swede #14:
Hello to you too! Welcome back.
You wrote:
"I'd prefer having a system that works (prevention is better than cure, etc) and wouldn't you say that recourse to the courts is at best a last resort and sometimes an indication of failure?"
Yes, on all counts. I'm getting a little desperate. It's true there is some progress being made, and there is literally no doubt in my mind that good intentions abound. But I think we have failed, and I think we need the support of possibly, and I say again, possibly, one of the last untouchables - the Supreme Court System (USA) and its analogues in all countries, and of course, the United Nations justice system.
Three reasons - the first two are feelings - to give you an idea of where I am coming from.
1) "Equal Justice Under Law"
I had occassion to visit Washington DC and the National Mall in 1994/95, on one of my sojurns. The layout of the National Mall, by a French architect, I believe, struck me positively, leaving me dumbfounded, to tell you the truth.
The Supreme Court building, on which is affixed the highlighted words above, particularly entranced me. As I remember, the words face west, where the Washington Monument and reflecting pool occupy the middle, and farthest west, a brooding Abraham Lincoln watches over all.
You may remember that I am not one to cozy up to authority, and beaurocracy has almost the ability to make my blood boil. Yet here I take a stand. An effective and honest court, an appeal to integrity and common sense, if you will, is to be treasured almost above all else. It is a last resort, to be sure, but I think we are at that point.
2) A number of years ago a new book about the United Nations Criminal Court came out, the name escapes me, but it was by a woman, and its title was evocative. I did not read it in full, but enough to remember how pleased I was that this had actually happened (founded in 2002 - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court)
3) Individuals are mortal - corporations and governments almost immortal, at least by comparison. Often this disparity between lifespans is used to wear down and 'beat' the individual. The court system is their equal, and it occupies a unique position of aloofness, at least in theory, but I think, often in practice.
Let a denialist try his or her tricks in front of a court of justice, and we will see what will be the result. Obfuscation and the misrepresenting of facts are like mother's milk to the court - they will see right through the facade, and the truth will out.
A ruling by a Supreme Court on say, the plight of the bluefin tuna, would resound around the world.
How to manage this?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Addendum to #23 - for emphasis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CourtEqualJustice.JPG
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Addendum to #24:
Copy the entire link and paste into your address bar to get the picture.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Addendum to #23/24/25:
"Substantive questions should be directed, in writing, to the Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC 20543." (have not written yet)
Email sent to the United Nations International Court of Justice, July 24/09:
"Is it possible to have the United Nations justice system rule on whether the impending collapse of the bluefin tuna is a crime against humanity?"
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
Let a denialist try his or her tricks in front of a court of justice, and we will see what will be the result. Obfuscation and the misrepresenting of facts are like mother's milk to the court - they will see right through the facade, and the truth will out.
i'm sorry to say this, manysummits, but in a court of law, each side would be allowed their experts, and there simply is no empirical evidence and maybe a little circumstantial evidence to convict CO2 of crimes against humanity. Alarmists won't even debate the subject outside a court of law, where their appeals to authority and emotion carry more weight. I am thinking about:
Dennis Avery's challange to Gore (refused),
Lord Monckton's challange to Gore (refused),
Don Blankenship challange to Hansen (still on the table),
Spencers open challange (still on the table), and
Schneiders boast that he would wipe the floor with "deniers" (which was accepted by Pielke, but then Schnieder couldn't find a slot in his diary).
you will recall Hanson was given a free ride in the English courts. If he had faced a real cross-examination, much of his "facts" and appeals to emotion, would have been thrown out. As far as i know, hansen was not properly cross-examined, but, if you can actually find evidence of any real cross-examination please let me know
Complain about this comment
Cross-examination?
Have you never heard or read of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change, of the Academies of Sciences of various countries, of the words of your own Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees. Have you not seen the data from the Grace satellites, or followed the links these last many months on this blog? You attempt character assasination of the few, and blanket slanderous assessments of the many.
Try this before a supreme court.
The more I hear from your denialist campaign, the more I am convinced that it is time for the courts to get involved, even if it means a new high court, devoted to crimes against the environment, and implicitly, against humanity.
Take sharks, the cutting off of their fins and throwing them live back in the water. Surely this constitutes a legal basis with precedent for animal abuse. Why should your pet have more rights than a shark?
Animal cruelty is a stupid and base pastime, whether practiced on the international high seas or in the sanctity of your home. But the first may require a different set of laws and a different court. Let us begin to create both, and bring to justice perpetrators of crimes against the environment and humanity, and those who misrepresent the facts.
English Common Law is one of the the United Kingdom's true claims to progress - let us use it!
------------
A good article:
Waiting for the low carbon revolution
"Our research clearly shows that one of the major barriers to low-carbon technology is the lack of coherent policy at the domestic level in both industrialised and developing countries."
- Andrew Pendleton
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8158869.stm
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Have you never heard or read of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change, of the Academies of Sciences of various countries
Appeals to authority - the IPCC itself is a political, not scientific body.
You attempt character assasination of the few, and blanket slanderous assessments of the many
Since when is stating a few facts character assassination? And anyway, there is a whole, well funded, industry attempting to slur sceptics. (quote from the link at the bottom of this post)
DeSmog is a funded wing of a professional PR group Hoggan and Associates (who are paid to promote clients like David Suzuki Foundation, ethical funds, and companies that sell alternative energy sources like hydro power, hydrogen and fuel cells.) ExxonSecrets is funded by Greenpeace
I am sure alarmists won't bother to read this following link, but if you are interested in funding for the AGW industry versus the Sceptics, see the pdf here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
meant to say, i agree with you about the rest of your post (animals), although i think human rights and welfare should come before animal rights. I don't think pets should have more rights than sharks. I think sharks are beautiful creatures and deserve our respect having been around a lot longer than us
Complain about this comment
mr summits,
don't try to convert me. i am not for turning by the likes of you, i have a scientific education my friend. I have my opinions (as barbarous and ignorant as you no doubt consider them)and will stand by them till someone with sufficient credibility gives me reason to change my mind (not gore, hansen, mr black or yourself fyi). As for whoever it was asked the silly question: yes, (this will make you hate me :P) i can with my hand on heart swear as a far more fully formed and developed human being who has trancended (externally imposed) the burden of guilt and shame that disfigure your persective of life, that almost all 9 (some are utter scum, like benefits parasites, most are ok, inoffensive or average and a few do their best) human beings care about not sh*tting in their own bed. If you think otherwise you ain't thinking straight buddy. do you seriously believe that people want to doom the world? or would knowingly do so in the interest of short term gain? HAHA! people are, on average, decent and conscientious. if you don't see the world that way then look to your upbringing my friend, maybe your rolemodels were a little disappointing? as far as newbies etc, i've been an active campaigner for the 'global warming is BS' side of things for nearly a decade. when i heard the science was 'settled' i knew they were lying because, as someone trained in biology and molecular science to degree level, i knew that isn't how science works. i did notice that my contributions to this page basically doubled the (mostly) mutually masturbatory comments. you guys are the vanguard of the new consciousness right? what a following! lol! no offense but you're movement is stillborn because of your 'holier than thou' and utterly irrational, hysterical assessment of the situation. still not answered the question as far as i can see: did the hype generated by the goreacle backfire and damage legitimate environmental concerns? no answer= no idea.
take care
Complain about this comment
for people who think there are too many people: please look up Norman Borlog (not sure of sp.). in the 70's and 80's he pretty much single handedly averted the 'soylent green' scenario by quadrupling agricultural output in many 3rd world countries. by introducing new, GM crops that are more productive and able to live in conditions that would have previosly killed the plant. human habitation covers about 3% of the land area of the world. agriculture covers about 35% of the land surface of the world. the world is a lot bigger and tougher than you are able to understand, and it doesn't need officious doo gooders to help it out.
take care
Complain about this comment
mr. summits:
if you reply to me
1)please don't be an arrogant, patronising ****
2)please don't ignore most of what i've typed and cherrypick it to score easy points
3)please answer the question you have ignored twice and i've asked 3 times.
cheers
take care
Complain about this comment
oh, as for the courts, they let the ecoterrorists who vandalised those cooling towersd off right? you want it to go to courts because the average juror is a product of GW propaganda, alas, and you think the masses are all on your side right? because the jury believed (or wasn't willing to appear to not believe) that climate change is a 'clear and present threat right? how many innocent people have been sentenced to death by the mistaken juries throughout history? how many of you support roe vs wade and how many consider abortion to be eveil? you want a court system because you think it will stack the odds in your favour. just shows how disillusioned and out of touch you are eh?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
isn't it strange that those who claim to have science on their side also use mysticism and 'spirituality' on the same side as science? when has that ever happened before? they are, and always have been and always will be mutually exclusive!
Complain about this comment
one solution to overpopulation for the true believers in the room: if the mods will permit: if you sincerely believe that there are too many people in the world, will you have yourself irreversibly sterilised and will you volunteer for euthanasia when you reach a certain age, like at 55 say, to make way for the young?
mods: its a legitimate question when people are saying 'agggh! too many filthy humans! not enough nonsentient life on earth grr!' lol
Complain about this comment
for those who think there are too many people:
when will you report for irreversible sterilisation and will you accept mandatory euthanasia at 55? if not then you're all talk and no trousers.
Complain about this comment
Ps. if you won't be sterilised and euthanised in the interests of your fellow (non-human i'd like to stress) creatures, does that make you a hypocrit? does that make you part of the problem again despite all your enlightenment and ranting at those of us who know that your hysterical BS is just that, who just want to live peaceful, comfortable lives? yes it does. However i don't think any of you are hypocrits, i'm sure that mr. summits for instance would be quite happy for the government to ordain the moment and method of his demise and to never know the joy of raising a child of his own flesh and blood for the benefit of us all. totally. that makes sense. Penn and teller (US magicians who have a theatre in vegas) have a comment at the end of one of their shows that goes something like: i would personally strangle with my bare hands every single chimp in the world to save the life of 1 junkie, who has AIDs. far more noble than any of the dross you lot spout.
Complain about this comment
one last thought then bed:
is this drive to get ecofreakery authorised/enforced by the courts a result of your democratic failure? i noticed in the recent euro elections that the green vote increased by a measley 2.7% and the BNP increased by 2,4%. the BNP increase was actually only the appearance of an increase due to a drop in voter turnout as was stressed by every pndit going. so logically only .3% of the green increase was actually an increase in votes? I found it heartening that the electorate is distrustful of fascism from either end of the political spectrum but is this one reason why you now don't want to continue to try to get democratic support for your ideas?
night all
Complain about this comment
To #31: I am most assuredly not trying to convert you - I'll leave that to a much higher authority than myself. And make no mistake - you are in no sense whatsoever "my friend."
----------------
Addendum to my post #23:
I have it, fresh from the bookstore:
"The Sun Climbs Slow" (The International Criminal Court and the Struggle for Justice), by Erna Paris, 2008.
"After the foundations of the International Criminal Court - the world's first permanent tribunal of international criminal justice - were voted into being at an international diplomatic conference in the late 1990's, the subsequent Republican administration [of George W. Bush] tried to destroy the new institution with every means at its disposal."
- book
"In 2003, eighty-nine countries joined to inaugurate the ICC." [not including the United States, India, China and Russia]
- book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
--------------
Two Comments
1) " The United States was the first nation founded on the bedrock principle of justice and equality before the law. It is wrong for us now to insist that this principle cannot be applied to all inhabitants of the earth."
- Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States
2) "In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision."
- Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary General
-------
I believe we need an International Court of the Environment, which will address the savaging of the common heritage of mankind in the global commons, or, more simply - The Environment.
It could begin with three truly global commons:
1- The Atmosphere
2- The Oceans
3- Space
What say you?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
splendidbastiat #31-#40
I was inclined to say that we could all safely ignore your rantings; you seem to be YW re-incarnated.
But I thought it may be worth setting you straight on a couple of points.
You say in #37, "will you have yourself irreversibly sterilised and will you volunteer for euthanasia when you reach a certain age, like at 55 say, to make way for the young" and in #39 "Ps. if you won't be sterilised and euthanised..."
Being sterilised is no big deal. It's been common practice for years. Aren't you?
Euthanasia: you seem to misunderstand. Changes in the age people live to has only transitory effects on the population. Just think about it. Imagine birth rate equal to death rate; so population constant. Then suddenly the average life expectancy increase by 5 years. For 5 years you have extra people alive so there is a small increase in total population, but after 5 years they all start to die at the same rate as before, so the population level becomes constant again. On the other hand a positive growth rate (births> deaths) produces a continuous rise in population level.
As for your #40: "i would personally strangle with my bare hands every single chimp in the world ... far more noble..."
I don't find anything noble in that at all thank you.
Oh, and re: #33: "please answer the question you have ignored twice and i've asked 3 times"
You haven't answered my question to you at #22.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits #41; "The International Criminal Court"
"The court is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes."
Sounds just what we need.
"Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression."
I think they need to expand their list.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
To "ghostofsichuan" #1:
I would very much appreciate your thoughts on an International Court of the Environment, if you are so inclined?
---------
I believe the Three Gorges Dam is just east of Sichuan?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_gorges_dam
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichuan
I have a fascinating book on the great rivers of the world, amongst which is included the Yangtze:
"All About the Great Rivers of the World", by Anne Terry White, 1957.
This is ostensibly a children's book. Perhaps we might all learn from the simple honesty of the truly young? My four year old son (almost five), is a constant inspiration to me and my wife. We find ourselves thinking of ourselves very much as those penguins in the marvellous documentary, "March of the Penguins," and are very satisfied to be so blessed, and, of course, at times apprehensive. The wind is often cold, but then there is so much company!
- On the path which has no name -
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #43:
I wonder if the International Criminal Court doesn't have enough on their hands?
Perhaps a new court, an International Court of the Environment, (ICE), would be required, with scientifically very literate judges?
---------
Good to hear from you!
Here the saskatoon berries and the pin cherries are just out. Underacanoe, Cloudrunner and I began foraging yesterday, after a cool and rainy summer. But it is now unseasonably hot, and forest and grass fire smoke at times fill the air.
It is also the hundredth anniversary, in August, of the discovery of the "Burgess Shale" in Yoho National Park, by Charles Dolittle Walcott, then Secretary of the Smithsonian in Washington DC. So I have been reading up on past articles about this most important of geologic windows into the past. (I have visited the site and the mountains in the the vicinity repeatedly).
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_shale
- http://brembs.net/gould.html (see pictogram and dissertation on bacteria in particular - perspective 901)
With President Obama listening to his science advisor, John Holdren, but seemingly unable to do more than 'Cap and Trade', I am, as I indicated to 'simon-swede', a little desparate. This new book of mine on the International Criminal Court implicitly tells me that in a 'civilized' society, we are so far in constant need of 'simon-swede's "last resort", the courts.
I hope to learn much about international law from this book, which might be of use in environmental law.
I am largely ignoring the denialist campaign. The record of links to reputable sources of information is already volumnously documented in past blogs. They can say anything here in the blogosphere, unlike a court setting, where their under oath testimony would boomerang back on them.
- Hasta Luego, Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Hi manysummits,
Thanks for the links, they look worth a good read.
I like your idea of an "International Court of the Environment".
How do you see the corresponding development of International Environmental Law, and International Environmental Crime Policing?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Addendum to #41 - "The Sun Climbs Slow" (The International Criminal Court and the Struggle for Justice), by Erna Paris, 2008.
"The legacy of the twentieth century is one of unsurpassed brutality..."
The formation of the International Criminal Court marks "the birth of the most important institution to penetrate the global sphere since the creation of the United Nations in 1945.."
"Its mandate is to mount an assault on the age-old scourge of criminal impunity, on behalf of the peoples of the world."
-----------
Again, I would like to see, and I think the time is right, for a parallel court in The Hague, perhaps to be called the 'International Court of the Environment', with acronym 'ICE', appropriate for an Ice-Age species now advertently willingly to cast us out of the Pleistocene into at least the Miocene, and perhaps the Eocene, and in the process, to effectively create on Earth a sixth mass extinction.
I suggest that we move from an age of infamy to one of integrity, one that we can bequeath with pride and not regret, to our children and descendants. That we may come to regard ourselves as 'responsible world citizens', and not the irresponsible nationalists we seem to have become.
-------------
On a lighter note (to davblo2 and company):
Last evening I returned home from work to find our home empty. A few hours later, Pea and Pod returned from a circumnavigation of the Glenmore Reservoir - sixteen kilometers - on bikes!!! And Pea (four and three quarters) had only left his training wheels behind a month ago!!!!!
Father and son then went out into the tennis court, to try out a newly acquired boomerang. Manysummits could not but admire the delta airfoil construction, and its flight characteristics, and marvel at the unknown number of centuries or millennia that this throwable 'wing' had been known and used by our distant ancestors?
- Manysummits, on a Sunday afternoon in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #46: ( Hello and Good Sunday! to you and yours)
I hadn't read your post before I sent #47:
I am out of my depth at present as regards both environmental law and policing. Enforcement may be necessary, of course, but even a sanction from a sufficiently reputable body is a form of enforcement, which is why the denialist campaign miss no opportunity to slander the IPCC etc...
I do know that Robert Kennedy Jr. is a lawyer, and an environmentalist, and one of the architects, I believe, of "The Riverkeepers", and has written a book or two on environmental law and enforcement, which I have not yet read.
First I will read Erna Paris's book, and my textbook on meteorology, and then perhaps it will be time to investigate Robert Kennedy's doings.
All the best,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
manysummits #48: "First I will read..."
I too am working my way through books (and rather lagging behind), with James Lovelock and Peter Ward as per your recommendation several blogs ago.
Happy reading.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
splendidbastiat at #32 suggested that people who apparently are so silly as to think that there are too many people "to please look up Norman Borlog" (actually, Norman Borlaug).
I did, and discovered that in his Nobel Lecture of 1970, Borlaug stated: "Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the 'Population Monster'...If it continues to increase at the estimated present rate of two percent a year, the world population will reach 6.5 billion by the year 2000. Currently, with each second, or tick of the clock, about 2.2 additional people are added to the world population. The rhythm of increase will accelerate to 2.7, 3.3, and 4.0 for each tick of the clock by 1980, 1990, and 2000, respectively, unless man becomes more realistic and preoccupied about this impending doom. The tick-tock of the clock will continually grow louder and more menacing each decade. Where will it all end?"
Thanks for the tip!
Complain about this comment
It's not just this blogger being an alarmist, is it?
From the BBC this morning: [Sir Jonathon Porritt]
"As he leaves office, Sir Jonathon accuses ministers and civil servants of failing to create a new economy fit for the 21st Century, of being stuck with an economic ideology from the days of Mrs Thatcher, of failing to match green rhetoric with action, and of shameful neglect of the poor."
"He believes the Treasury is stuck with an out-dated economic model which promotes consumer-driven economic growth, even if it makes society more unhappy, more unequal and damages the environment."
"The rhetoric - delivery gap is very large indeed."
"I am not saying politicians don't have to get capital markets sorted out - but to sort them out without significantly amending the way they operate to ensure less risk and more sustainable outcomes, is a massive failure of economic and political leadership."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8169716.stm
-----------------
Thank you simon-swede #50 for your always 'on the mark' input! We have missed you these past weeks.
----------------
We are being told through our media here in Canada that the recession is over. Translation - 'business as usual' can resume.
When are we going to wake up as a society? Because some of us are comfortable, does that make it OK that most of the world is not?
Like the boomerang Cloudrunner and I were throwing the other day, the reason self-centeredness is frowned upon is because it may come back and hit you in the face. Not your typical altruistic motive, but true I think.
"And what is good Phaedreus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"
(Greek; from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance")
The comments quoted above from the BBC article could equally apply to many countries, and in general, to the world.
In effect, unless I have missed something, Sir Jonathan is accusing the powers that be of irresponsibility.
"To be a man is precisely, to be responsible."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery (Wind, Sand and Stars)
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #51: "Sir Jonathan is accusing the powers that be of irresponsibility."
Porritt parting shot at ministers
"Sir Jonathon has been government green adviser for nine years"
I really wonder why he waited until he left before he spoke out.
Is that how things work? They have to keep tight lipped for fear of loosing your their jobs?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Would a ban on international trade of Atlantic bluefin tuna have a positive effect on saving the species from extinction?
I think yes (even minimal, as Mr. Black explains well). Therefore, it's a move worth supporting.
Of course, the next logical step would be to pursue other more effective policies.
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #52:
Just read your link.
Sir Jonathan has an honest face. Perhaps he simply believed he could have a positive effect from the inside, rather than the outside. Perhaps that is how John Holdren feels in his position in the USA.
I am speculating of course, but I think many of us think this way, i.e., 'inside' is the way to effect change. I personally am not so sure.
I prefer to view this as a positive development - since things really aren't changing fast enough on what we can call the environmental front, some people of conscience are defecting, and in resigning their positions, they have given themselves the leeway to speak out and yet not compromise their implicit or perhaps explicit obligations while 'inside'.
Think of Colin Powell. I've read his personal autobiography, and followed his career since then. If my reading between the lines is worth anything, he feels that he must say very little against the administration and country he worked for - such is his nature, his training, his career. I can respect him for this, even though I would like to have the truth from his own lips about how the Iraq war came to be. I doubt we shall ever have it, but there are other ways of communicating. When he publicly endorsed Barack Obama when he was running for president, that meant something.
----------
I would really like to know Sir Jonathan's views on an International Court of the Environment - whether this is a timely suggestion, or one worth pursuing.
Power corrupts - that is why there is a sharing of power in many democracies. The people have the vote, the government has temporal day to day power, and the Courts, though not entirely aloof, are a balancing and formidable check on excesses. A free press is ideally supposed to make all views known.
We live in an imperfect world, and we are all of us imperfect people.
But we can do our best, and hope that in the final analysis, this is sufficient.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
We are getting to the stage we are going to have to start making unpopular descisions on issues like this, and issues like climate change. This is why we argue so frequently over these issues. We have been living beyond our means as we are not living in a sustainable way at the moment and we need to change, and this will hit some harder than others.
Complain about this comment
From the BBC this morning:
Getting a grip on Greenland's future
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8171757.stm
--------------
Major theme - the disconnect between science and politics/the public?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
On Extinction:
"The proportion of freshwater crabs threatened with extinction is equal to that of reef-building corals, and exceeds that of all other groups that have been assessed except for amphibians."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8171000/8171268.stm
- Manysummits - (wishing there were more good news)
Complain about this comment
From the link within the link that Manysummits gave:
Four thousand years ago, the Earth was significantly warmer than it is now, and accordingly the glacier retreated; but the evidence suggests it was perhaps only 20km back from its current position.
In other words, the Ilulissat glacier may reach a point in its retreat where the dynamics of the ice sheet make further regression very difficult, and very slow.
So when the more excitable climate campaigners claim that Greenland's ice sheet - which contains roughly 10% of the world's fresh water - is "melting" and that catastrophic rises in sea level can be expected within a century, it is advisable to take a deep breath and ponder the complexities of the ice.
Seems somebody else at the BBC (Blog of Bloom, Peter Sissons, Jeremy Paxton) is beginning to think AGW may be false.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #58: "...beginning to think AGW may be false"
If you read what you posted carefully, you'll see the criticism is levelled only at "...the more excitable climate campaigners claim..."
So that says nothing about the majority of climate campaigners and nothing about the validity of the theory of AGW.
It simply says that some of the more extreme predictions of possible outcomes should be treated with caution. Which is what we do anyway.
I'd be interested to hear your predictions as to when and how our increasing presence on this planet will eventually have sufficient effect on the climate to warrant concern; (assuming you maintain that it hasn't yet).
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
Unfortunately "the more excitable climate campaigners" are the ones who are heard and given a platform to air their views. How often do we see headlines relating to climate change telling us that things are "WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!"?
I'd be interested to hear your predictions as to when and how our increasing presence on this planet will eventually have sufficient effect on the climate to warrant concern; (assuming you maintain that it hasn't yet).
I don't do predictions - only projections ;)
Seriously, I have accepted on many occassions that we do have an effect on the earth through deforestation and land change use amongst other things - of course we do and we need to learn to live within our means (resources-wise), but I sincerly doubt mans CO2 emissions have any significant effect on the earths temeprature. Why we are trying to regulate CO2 (or tax it and raise energy prices if you like) is beyond me.
As far as I am aware, we have been trying to pin the temperature rise on CO2 for over 20 years and we still do not have any empirical evidence to prove the connection.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #60: "Why we are trying to regulate CO2 ... is beyond me"
How about; the climactic conditions on Earth have been brought about to a great extent by the presence of living organisms which have to date pulled down the CO2 level and set a high O2 level (plus lots more I'm no expert on). We too are living organisms and have demonstrated the capability of altering some of those levels (in air and sea) by amounts which could well be significant. Even if we cannot be sure of the actual consequences, is it wise to continue regardless, messing with things we don't properly understand? Aren't the risks too great?
Let me know which part you disagree with.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
by amounts which could well be significant
there is no empirical proof that co2 causes significant temperature rise beyond the initial 20ppmv
read Sahviv for a detailed explanation:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
which also contains a part alternative for warming
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #62: "read Sahviv for a detailed explanation"
I read the article in your link.
So the alternative suggested was...
"Thus, a more active sun will reduce the flux of cosmic rays, and with it, the amount of tropospheric ionization. As it turns out, this amount of ionization affects the formation of condensation nuclei required for the formation of clouds in clean marine environment. A more active sun will therefore inhibit the formation of cloud condensation nuclei, and the resulting low altitude marine clouds will have larger drops, which are less white and live shorter, thereby warming Earth."
I follow the first part, up till "less condensation nuclei", but why that would lead to short lived, larger drops, low altitude cloud, I'm not so sure about. (It also makes the greenhouse effect sound simple)
But anyway, the result would be more solar wind => warming; and it continues...
"As previously mentioned, solar activity has been increasing over the 20th century."
So I checked and found...Space Scientists Say Solar Winds Are at a Record Low
"...according to data gathered by the Ulysses spacecraft, a space probe jointly operated by the United States and the European Space Agency."
"...officials say the latest data, gathered in 2007, show the solar winds are at their lowest levels of activity in a half century."
"Scientists found solar wind activity decreased by 20 percent compared to measurements taken by Ulysses during the last solar cycle."
What do you make of that?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
#63 cont'd
This sums it up nicely I think.
From...
Do sunspots and solar wind contribute to global warming?
"Ironically, the only way to really find out if phenomena like sunspots and solar wind are playing a larger role in climate change than most scientists now believe would be to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Only in the absence of that potential driver will researchers be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earths climate."
You wanted "empirical" data didn't you?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Framing a Legal Argument for Bluefin Tuna
From Richard Black's "Happy Tail", Nov 20, 2008 (re Atlantic Bluefin Tuna)
"The results have been entirely predictable; with catches soaring and illegal fishing rampant, numbers are crashing and boats are finding precious few of the really big fish that once made up their entire catch."
--------------
Let's suppose there is an "International Court of the Environment" in The Hague, and they agree to hear the case regarding the collapse of the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. Perhaps a coalition of NGO's has brought forward this case.
Evidence is presented - for and against, and a verdict is reached. It is found that the stock is indeed undergoing technical 'collapse', and may indeed already be there.
A 'cease and desist' order is given by the court, until such time as the bluefin stock is deemed recovered enough to warrant a resumption of commercial fishing. Exceptions are allowed for truly small scale subsistence fishing.
This 'precedent' could be repeated worldwide, for many and sundry species. We will wonder about enforcement at a later time in the blogosphere.
The Court will possibly see submitted as evidence, along with many others, the following two articles I have in my binder:
1)"Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities,"
Ransom Myers & Boris Worm; Nature; May 15, 2003; 423; pgs 280-283
2)"Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services,"
Boris Worm et al; Science; Nov 3, 2006; vol 314; pgs 787-790
(predicting the "global collapse of all taxa currently fished by the mid-21st century")
--------------
\\\ "The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated." ///
- United States former Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, American chief prosecutor at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg - concerning Nazi war crimes.
-------------
Justice Jackson's words, I suggest, are applicable to our current state of the environment.
No doubt the legal argument framed above is crude and awkward - I am a geologist by training, not a lawyer. But the intent is clear, surely, and with or without enforcement, with or without the participation of the United States, Russia, China, India etc., this Court would be, I suggest - an invaluable step forward. We have been regressing for so long, I wonder that we can remember how to move forward properly into the future.
The creation , finally, of the International Criminal Court, after centuries, possibly millennia of impatient waiting, gives one a glimmer of hope that this 'last resort' of an abused world populace and an equally abused environment may mark, if not the final solution, at least the beginning of a workable solution for a sustainable future.
To lapse into colloquial language - We need some big guns on our side.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
More reasons for an International Court of the Environment, and why the United States has still not signed onto the International Criminal Court at The Hague:
"American conservatism could be described as a movement of denialogues, people whose ideology is based on disavowing physical realities. This applies to their views on evolution, climate change, foreign affairs and fiscal policy."
- George Monbiot, July 28, 2009
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/07/28/politically-transmitted-disease/
----------------
You cannot argue the case for Bluefin Tuna in isolation of the political and ideological realities of the world. At least not if you actually want things to change.
The article linked to above is a very interesting one - and strangely so, given its main subject. But the theme has wide implications.
As the historian Arnold Toynbee wrote in his "A Study of History,"
"Crystallization of a new order or civilization into an uncreative minority of powers that be leads to deterioration and ultimate collapse, despite the efforts of creative saviors."
------------
I hope that the United States, which I have admired for most of my life, has not lost its ability to recreate itself, and that President Barack Obama is not merely one of Toynbee's "creative saviors." But with or without the USA, it is time to move on, and to move on decisively.
Those same conservatives who preach prudence might not like the following quote, but in my experience, it is entirely accurate:
"Prudence quenches that ardour of enterprise by which everything is done that can claim praise or admiration, and represses that generous temerity which often fails and often succeeds."
- Dr. Johnson (Great Britain)
Which country will now step forward, possibly even with temerity, and some risk to reputation? Or will it be the United Nations? Or some as yet unheralded voice?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #65: "International Courts..."
I've been reading up a little and can see (maybe) a slight problem.
From what I can see, the existing International Court of Justice which I guess ICE would be modelled on to some extent, has rules concerning its jurisdiction (contentious cases) where they say...
"Only States may apply to and appear before the International Court of Justice. International organizations, other collectivities and private persons are not entitled to institute proceedings before the Court."
On the other hand they have advisory jurisdiction...
"Since States alone have capacity to appear before the Court, public (governmental) international organizations cannot as such be parties to any case before it. A special procedure, the advisory procedure, is, however, available to such organizations and to them alone."
"Contrary to judgments, and except in rare cases... the Court's advisory opinions have no binding effect."
Requiring States to bring up cases sounds like a too cumbersome process for ICE.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
#63 / 64
I was actually pointing to Shaviv's views on CO2 and sensitivity, but:
I follow the first part, up till "less condensation nuclei", but why that would lead to short lived, larger drops, low altitude cloud, I'm not so sure about. (It also makes the greenhouse effect sound simple)
Please refer to the Shaviv's work for a detailed explanation here:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
and also the reference documents towards the end of the article.
So I checked and found...Space Scientists Say Solar Winds Are at a Record Low
Currently, yes, but this is compared with the previous measurements by Ulysses, which would tie in neatly with rising temperatures towards the end of the 20th century. I'm not saying the sun is to blame, but what I am saying is the sun is an obvious contributing natural factor. Personally I don't see why it has to be CO2 or the sun or Milankowitch, I think it could be a combination of many different factors, which may include CO2, although CO2 is insignificant (read Shaviv)
"Ironically, the only way to really find out if phenomena like sunspots and solar wind are playing a larger role in climate change than most scientists now believe would be to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Only in the absence of that potential driver will researchers be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earths climate."
the funny thing is, i know we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, simply because we cannot carry on raping the earth of finite resources, but we must stop this knee jerk reaction everytime some scientist or politician (of whatever flavour) announces the next crisis.
What ever happened to Homo Sapien, thinking man?
You wanted "empirical" data didn't you?
i want empirical proof that CO2 emissions are to blame (and if you read Shaviv amongst others, i don't think there is any proof), before we restrict our lives and cause undue hardship to the people who can least afford to pay more taxes on energy
is that too much to ask?
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #68: "lease refer to the Shaviv's work for a detailed explanation here"
I read the article thanks.
As I said the explanation and attempts to prove it make the greenhouse effect seem simple. But as you say, it could well be a contributing factor.
I see the idea got attacked in the New Scientist "Climate myths: It's all down to cosmic rays", and they refer to a paper by Steven Shneider which attempted to discredit Marsh & Svensmark's handling of the data.
I was rather surprised about the new Scientist article (bye Fred Pearce and Michael Le Page, whoever they may be) saying...
"Far-fetched concept
There is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays are a major factor determining cloud cover. The ionising of air by cosmic rays ... which in theory could ... form particles large enough for cloud droplets to form around, called 'cloud condensation nuclei'.
But cloud physicists say it has yet to be shown ... And even if it does, it seems far-fetched to expect any great effect on the amount of clouds in the atmosphere. Most of the atmosphere, even relatively clean marine air, has plenty of cloud condensation nuclei already."
I clearly remember "cloud chambers" at school where we saw cloud formation on tracks from ionising radiation. But I guess there's still a lot of open questions.
Then the theory has another hurdle concerning the actual warming versus cooling effect of clouds. There seems to be debate about that as well.
So for now I think I'll go with CO2 as the bad guy.
You say "...i know we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, simply because we cannot carry on raping the earth of finite resources, but we must stop this knee jerk reaction everytime..."
Glad we agree on something, and for me it's no knee jerk. I have a lasting impresion of a time in my youth when I first heard fleetingly that we (mankind) had actually changed the CO2 content of the air; it must have been by about 8% I guess at the time. I was staggered that we could do such a thing without consequences. I've just been waiting 30 odd years for something to happen. So no; not a knee jerk for me.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits #65: "International Courts..." (again)
More trouble with melting glaciers...
"Bolivias Indians feel the heat"
...and I noticed towards the end of the report...
"Some of the communities are active members of a new civilian pressure group formed this year, called the Platform of Civil Society against Climate Change."
"One of the Platform's demands is for the formation of an international tribunal on climate justice, and for an international compensation fund for victims of climate change."
Not quite ICE, but at least someone is thinking along the same lines.
I haven't managed to find them on the web yet.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
#70 cont'd
They seem to go under the name "Klimaforum", (at least they use the same title).
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
To davblo2:
Thanks for looking into that. I think if only states can launch a lawsuit, that is not a real problem, especially as the 'advisory role' for NGO's and the like has already a precedent.
I read the article link on Bolivia and its glaciers with great interest. Illamani is a very beautiful mountain. A friend of mine climbed it, and I would love to. I would also love to visit the Andes, Bolivia perhaps in particular, and hear the lovely music from these mountain people, whether I climbed Illamni or not.
I was just thinking today that surely my idea for an International Court of the Environment must have occurred to many many people, and here you have presented one example!
-----------------
I've also been looking up "The Hague", and Justice Robert H. Jackson, whom I quoted several times , once in this blog, and one or two times previously. So I thought I'd attach a link to each - they are both so fascinating:
Robert H. Jackson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jackson
Justice Jackson was a country-lawyer (see link in Wikipedia):
"By extension, and popularized by such figures as Abraham Lincoln, Clarence Darrow, and Robert H. Jackson, the country lawyer's image has become that of advocate and protector of the common man.
The Hague
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hague
---------------
The "Mayday Declaration" which we and jr4412 co-authored, with input from many others, was, I think, a first step. This proposed Court - I think this is truly necessary. It is a next step. As evidenced by the Bolivians, and countless others, this new Court would have its work cut out for it. So much so that they would have to prioritize. I wonder what they would regard as a highest priority, which case would they hear first?
- Manysummits - off to a summer picnic with Underacanoe and Cloudrunner -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits, your various posts about an international environmental court
Hi again, and many thanks for your welcome back (I won't mention that I had a couple of weeks holiday largely spent cycling - and some canoeing around the Camargue because you might get jealous... ooops! too late!)
On the international environmental court issue, maybe the following might help in developing your ideas.
- The ICC has a very specific focus and I would disagree with muddying the waters by seeking to bring environmental cases within the remit of the ICC - unless environmental modification appeared to being used as a tool for genocide, for example. (Note that there is also the ENMOD convention which deals with environmental modification in conflict.)
- The ICJ does have competence for some environmental issues. Essentially the ICJ can examine any case brought to it by two or more states (contentious cases). As noted by another correspondent, not all countries accept referral to the ICJ (unless by mutual consent), and there are other limitations also which does pose problems when seeking to bring cases. However, should a case be heard at teh ICJ, states are required to follow its judgement, which can be enforced through the Security Council.
- Another type of case that the ICJ can consider, are advisory. Here, UN bodies may request a legal opinion from the ICJ. Here the ICJ is asked to issue an opinion upon a point(s) of law, which has "weight" but which is non-binding. That is to say, these are not binding on states under Article 59 of the statute, but nevertheless are as authoritative statements of the law as those judgements issued in contentious cases. A recent example of this, is when the ICJ was asked on the basis of a World Health Assembly resolution (WHA46.40, in 1993) and a UN General Assembly resolution (UNGA Res 49/75 K, in 1994) to rule on the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The ICJ issued its advsory opinion in 1996 (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, A/51/218).
- Nnote that the statute of the ICJ concerns disputes between states (in contentious cases) or opinions provided to UN organisations (for advisory opinions). It is not a mechanism for addressing private entities disputes. On the other hand, the advisory opinion on nuclear weapons was the result of a successful international campaign lead by NGOs. that resulted in the assemblies of the WHO and UN requesting the opinion from the ICJ.
- A "one stop shop" for environmental cases is problematic on a number of levels. Different international agreements have differing dispute/enorcement mechanisms, or perhaps even none at all. This applies equally for environmental instruments as it does for other instruments that address matters that may impact on the environment. More broadly, there is a question of what makes a dispute an "environmental" one. Is it exclusively so, or is one with environmental considerations but which also touches on other matters - health, trade, fisheries, patent law.... It seems to me that it would be difficult to develop a remit for the ICE that was sufficiently broad so as to capture environmental issues in all their diversity, but sufficiently narrow as to make having a specific environmental court effective.
- The European Court of Justice does have competence for certain environmental cases, and it is worth noting that an increasing number of national courts also provide access to the courts for environmental cases. You may want to have a look around under the "Aarhus Convention" and "access to justice" to see some interesting recent developments in this field.
- I know you are a geologist, not a lawyer, but there is a classic article which discussed whether the natural environment should have legal standing before the courts. It is written from a US legal perspective, but the isuses it raises are provocatively interesting and I think it would be fair to say that this article has stimulated the thinking of lawyers interested in environmental protection ever since it was first published in teh early 1970s. Have a look for "Should Trees Have Standing?: Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects", by Christopher D. Stone, first published in 45 S. Cal. L. Rev. 450 (1972).
Cheerio!
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede #73:
I am glad your vacation cycling and canoeing was such a success! The invigorating capacity of time to oneself in the outdoors is a real treasure. There's something magical about the open road.
-----------
Thank you for that assessment of the legal landscape as regards the international and national pursuit of justice as regards the environment.
I shall of course take your suggestion and learn more. The article "Should Trees Have Standing..." is probably where I will start.
All the best,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
#69
I see the idea got attacked in the New Scientist "Climate myths: It's all down to cosmic rays", and they refer to a paper by Steven Shneider which attempted to discredit Marsh & Svensmark's handling of the data.
But, as far as i am aware, no paper was produced to back up there claims, so until somebody produces something to show Shaviv is wrong, I think i will stick with Shaviv
So for now I think I'll go with CO2 as the bad guy
Even though the ice tells us CO2 lags temperature and always has done?
Why do you think we have never had runaway global warming caused by CO2, even when CO2 levels were much, much higher?
Have you read Beck's work, where he presents data showing recent and historical CO2 levels have fluctuated a lot (higher than todays)? I know certain parts of the blogoshere panned the paper, but again, as far as I am aware, they have not published anything to show Beck is wrong, just a lot of attacks on Beck and dismissal of his work
So no; not a knee jerk for me
I didn't mean you - it's fairly clear you are a thoughtful person - I meant the doom and gloom merchants who constantly tell us "THINGS ARE WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT" and "WE MUST ACT NOW".
All the best
Complain about this comment
i meant to add:
The American Chemical Society membership are demanding their editor-in-chief is removed, because the membership think his article claiming that AGW was beyond doubt was disgusting; a disgrace; filled with misinformation; unworthy of a scientific periodical and pap."
Also the American Physical Society membership is demanding the American Physical Society revise its current statement on climate change, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:
Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.
Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earths climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.
The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes natural and human -- on the Earths climate and the biospheres response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause.
Sorry for reproducing the whole thing, but this statement is significant
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #76: "Also the American Physical Society membership is demanding..."
I think you mean "some of the membership..."
I haven't managed to find out what proportion they amount to; have you?
It doesn't seem to have taken effect yet; this is part of their current statement (but I guess you've already seen it)...
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earths physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
MangoChutneyUKOK #75: "...CO2 lags temperature and always has done"
...and then we came along.
MangoChutneyUKOK #75: "Have you read Beck's work"
No; but I'll try to take a look if I get time.
MangoChutneyUKOK #75: "doom and gloom merchants"
Generally people need a big shove else they won't change, as shown clearly by the outlandish methods of presentation and promotion of everyday consumer items, so I think on balance, a good dose of doom and gloom is the only way to get through to (some) people.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
MangoChutneyUKOK #76: "Also the American Physical Society membership is demanding..."
I think you mean "some of the membership..."
I haven't managed to find out what proportion they amount to; have you?
The original statement was made in response to an article that the APS printed by Monckton, showing how AGW was false. The APS rushed out a statement distancing themselves from monckton's article (which begs the question, why did they publish it?)
My understanding is it was even less than "some of the membership" who demanded the new statement. I believe, and please correct me if i am wrong, the decision to publish the original statement was made by the editor and his staff without consulting the membership, so "some of the membership" is a significant response.
I don't know what the proportion of the membership are demanding the new statement on global warming, but, again a guess, a higher proportion than demanded the original statement. Whatever the proportion of APS membership supporting / not supporting the statement is, this clearly shows there is no consensus and the debate is not over.
MangoChutneyUKOK #75: "...CO2 lags temperature and always has done"
...and then we came along.
The IPCC tell us proof of CO2 / AGW will be found in the "hotspot" located at the tropics. Despite over 20 years of trying to find this hotspot, there is no evidence in any data (although Santer claimed he found it, until sceptics showed it was just noise).
I really can't see how anybody can still assume AGW is real, knowing the key evidence presented by the IPCC, simply doesn't exist
The following isn't a great link, but it does explain in simple terms (i'm not trying to be patronising btw) why CO2 isn't implicated:
http://peacelegacy.org/articles/how-see-yourself-global-warming-climate-models-are-false
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #78: "I don't know what the proportion of the membership are demanding the new statement on global warming, but, again a guess, a higher proportion than demanded the original statement"
If correct, then you'd have a good point, but it would also depend on what the remaining membership (those not involved so far) actually think. Maybe it's best not to read too much into something where we don't have all the facts. Isn't one of your complaints about AGW is that it involves too much guesswork?
MangoChutneyUKOK #78: "...this clearly shows there is no consensus and the debate is not over."
Is there any reason to expect that there could ever be a full consensus? The debate will go on as long as someone disagrees, and there are plenty of reasons for people to do that.
MangoChutneyUKOK #78: "...isn't a great link, but it does explain in simple terms ...why CO2 isn't implicated:"
I looked at the explanation given there. It's very easy to be critical of such things, so just a few brief points...
The analogy doesn't really add much. It just labours the point that you figure out possible results and then look to see which actually appears.
It's amazing how these graphs are slotted into articles, sometimes changing the captions or loosing axis labels (in this case the left axis). These two pop up all over the place.
Strangely the first graph claims to be the model prediction for 40 years whilst in this document "scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/whatgreenhouse/moncktongreenhousewarming.pdf" the same levels of warming are shown as being "per century".
Also the second graph shows "deg C increase per decade". If you were to change that to total change (it says linear after all), say for 40 years, then the 0.2 & 0.3 deg rise per year actually shown turn onto 0.8 & 1.2 deg total, and the second graph would look a whole lot more orange and red and spoil the effect of the comparison.
Then rather than picking on the lack of a hot spot he'd have to explain why it's hot all over. It just seems people pick what they want to show to suit their purpose.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
#79
Isn't one of your complaints about AGW is that it involves too much guesswork?
i'm more concerned about the massaging of the data and presentation of the "facts"
Is there any reason to expect that there could ever be a full consensus? The debate will go on as long as someone disagrees, and there are plenty of reasons for people to do that.
Then why do some scientists, the politicians and the media tell us the debate is over?
I agree with your comments about the analogy, but i'm more interested in the lack of the hotspot and, for me, this is a very significant point that has failed to be addressed by the alarmists.
Clearly the models, the alarmists and the IPCC tell us the hotspot should be there, but it is simply nowhere to be found. If the hotspot shows up with robust proof, i would have to reconsider my view of AGW, but until then, I really can't see any empirical proof to implicate man in global warming
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #80: "I really can't see any empirical proof to implicate man in global warming"
I guess we are starting from different standpoints. I'm not looking so much for proof of AGW. I'm more worried about how much longer the Earth will put up with us. I'd be happy to see many other "activities" of ours drastically reduced. "Not messing with the atmosphere" is just one item on the list; "leaving space for other species" would be another and "not changing the pH of the oceans" another.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
and "Not messing with the atmosphere" is just one item on the list; "leaving space for other species" would be another and "not changing the pH of the oceans" another." is where we, and most reasonably intelligent sceptics, both climate scientists and laymen, would certainly agree (despite Yeah_whatever's tantrums). But i think pollution is a different, although linked, subject.
I just don't want to see my taxes rise any further to line the pockets of the companies selling thin air
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #82: "I just don't want to see my taxes rise any further..."
I don't like the way they use the slightest excuse to raise taxes. It feels intuitively wrong to tax something more to reduce its use (eg ciggies); simply because they get more tax income, which they then rely on and can't do without, and so are forced to prolong the thing they claimed to be stopping. But it seems to be the only way our financially oriented society can come up with.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS