What's in the news?
The latest report from the UN is apparently yet another significant piece of evidence proving the effect of humans on climate change.
How much longer can people keep denying this? Is this going to be another version of the evolutionary theory debate? Except in this instance the future of the planet as we know it could be at stake.
What a generation to be alive - possibly one of the last to witness the world as it once was? The shift of the human psyche to one of rampant individualism couldn't be better expressed than the destruction of the planet, thereby ensuring we are the most remembered generation of all - possibly and ironically, with no-one left to remember us in a few generations. Perhaps all the prophecies of Armageddon style weather patterns will actually prove themselves to be vaguely accurate?
My prediction is that as the desperation for rapidly diminishing natural resources takes hold, and eventual economic decline in the US occurs - fear will grip the hearts of populations and governments alike. Fear of losing the quality of life we once took for granted, fear of change and fear of the unknown. Like a pack of animals, countries and individuals will climb over each other, trampling the weakest as they make final lunge for the remnants of a past life. Economic invasions such as the ones already witnessed in developing countries and protectionist trade policies will be the start of the economics warfare - then what? Foreign reserve dumping, trade embargoes and alliances between countries amongst all of this. Eventually leading the defence agencies to 'prepare for the worst' and make sure their missiles are pointed in the right direction - prompting 'the enemy' to do the same. And rest will be history - possibly discovered by another species that may evolve in a few million years.
Sounds dramatic? It's already happening and it won't take much to take the blocks out from under the wheels and allow the machine of humanity to career off into oblivion.
That is unless something is done now. If people stop making excuses for the lifestyles we have become accustomed to, if fingers are pointed, if action is taken, if policies are implemented.
What is the point in denying that this is an essential course of action? To be contrary? To not be called a 'greenie' by cretins? To tow the party line of conservatives and their white hooded friends?
If you are in denial that radical action is required, ask yourself why. Why ignore the facts? Why take the risk? Why gamble with the future of humanity for the sake of your own petty comforts?
I just hope we have a Crimes Against Humanity tribunal in 50 years that will bring some justice against the polluters and the excessively wealthy.
posted by Nick at 1:52 pm
15 Comments:
It annoys me no end as well. Generally on a social scale. The energy that Belgium is provided with is nuclear (as opposed to the cheap coal), and the country as a whole has one of the lowest green-house gas emissions (yes, it is tiny, but when 10 million people live in an area the size of North Brisbane, that is high density, and since most of Europe's big companies have a base in Brussels, that is cause for a great deal of smog), and most people I know here are doing their bit - riding bikes a great deal, turning their central warming down (or off) in the winter and even pulling out all of their electrical chords. Yet, when we see the news, all of the pollies are getting frustrated at the work we are doing (not only Belgians, but French, Hollanders, Lux, scandinavians etc) and the lack of interest from places like the US, and china. I also agree that we have to do something but how do we convince the dirty countries to play along?
By the way - hope it is nice there in oz. Look forward to seeing it again :)
Monday, February 05, 2007 11:36:00 pm
yeah that is the question - how to encourage or make china/india/US do the same thing? Expanded EU with more negotiating clout? UN resolutions on carbon emmissions with enforceable limits?
The weather is great, when are you guys in these parts again?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:53:00 pm
Here is the scary thing: We currently emit 27.5Gt of Co2 a year (giga = a thousand million). At 6.5b people that’s 4.2 tonnes per capita. Energy efficient Belgium is 8.3 tonnes per capita, Australia is 18! Just think when China (3.2) and India (1.2) start to live like us in the west? All this and 27.5Gt is already WAY TOO MUCH carbon.
The changes needed are huge and come down to individual decisions that are hard to change. Turn the lights off, ride bike/catch bus, wear a jumper and leave the heat off, leave off the a/c and walk around in your undies, BUY LESS STUFF!!!… But more so, our quality of life HAS TO DECLINE!
But as too often is the case, people only react when the problem is in their face. Unfortunately, due to lag factors in climate change that will be way too late. I think it is more likely than not that current human civilisation is doomed. And just as well as really we have not been the nicest of creatures in the 100 or so thousand years on this planet. Lets hope that the species that comes next is less selfish, more caring and in tune with its surroundings… (mmmmm pessimistic comment… don’t worry I do have hope… just felt like being negative ) – I offset the carbon from my holiday (www.climatecar.org) yay!
Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:52:00 pm
woops...
www.climatecare.org
Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:54:00 pm
Thanks for the headsup Lucas. I do agree, but am sick of being the 'nag' when mentioning some of these facts to people (either back at home or anywhere else). Pehaps it is just my manner...!
Nick - heading back for a month in July/August. Not too clever with tickets, as are flying back the day before Lani and John's wedding. Would love to catch up and see how you have adjusted to 'home' again.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:57:00 pm
http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=291
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:40:00 pm
hahahaha!! that is classic.
The University of Alabama Hunstville says that "Climate's 27-year warming pattern not consistent with 'global warming".
Sorry UN and every one else (other than 'brave scientists who go against the grain'), UAH has proved you all wrong. Don't worry about buying that gas guzzling 4x4 - you can afford it. Let's mine some more coal - there's money to be made goddammit!
Hey, isn't Alabama sitting snuggly amongst Tennesse and Mississippi - definitely some enlightened forward thinkers coming from those parts. What I don't get is why do Bible Belt creationist slavery advocates have to be anti-environment as well?
Ingrid and Tom - yeah would be great to catch up when you guys are over.
Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:40:00 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Please debate the science.
Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:45:00 pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:47:00 pm
Well it appears I have an obvious legitmate argument from authority. Whereas as opponents of climate change theory do not. They fail the 'reasonably unbiased' test. Religious ideology, fear of change, financial supporters (the most blindingly obvious) to name just a few.
Your (yet another) conservative newspaper (The Telegraph aka The Tory rag) is also put together by a journalist - therefore failing conditions one and two for a legitimate argument from authority.
Thanks for that one.
If I was a god fearer I would say something along the lines of:
a) what would jesus do? he'd be a dead set greenie from way back.
or
b) There are plenty of arguments to defend Satan - but that doesn't make him a good guy. - If you get what I mean.
Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:18:00 pm
Argument from authority cuts both ways - it is often used to stifle debate.
"The UN said X so it must be true.
Redneck scientists and conservative newspapers said Y so it must be false."
This is what passes for debate? Have you no intellectual curiosity? Have you bothered to inform yourself about any alternative theories of climate change?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Oh, it's the Times so I guess you can disregard it. Something tells me you will disregard anything that doesn't conform to your worldview.
Irrespective of your point of view, your idea of a criminal court to prosecute those engaging in scientific debate is strikingly reminiscent of the methods of the Inquisition. Galileo was once a dissident.
Monday, February 12, 2007 12:35:00 pm
Another gem - you liken people like yourself to Galileo? What a joke. And the Inquisition? How about a War Crimes Tribunal - a secular authority. Try another analogy.
The status quo for a long time has been anti-climate change - the sudden shift to accepting the impact of humans on the climate is the step forward.
Strange choice to introduce the concept of argument from authority but then to disregard it as a debate stifler.
I can assume you are not a scientist, therefore this is not a scientific debate - it is my opinion about which theory to hold as 'true' (as much as any theory can be) and live ones life accordingly. You're kidding yourself if you think you can comment with any authority or insight on the matter.
There is an alternative view to just about everything. Like I said much earlier - think about why you are so defiant about the issue - why are you so adamant that it is okay to take a risk with the environment? You clearly aren't thinking about the bigger picture.
Monday, February 12, 2007 7:26:00 pm
You have no idea what I think about the issue. For the record:
1. I agree that there is significant evidence that at least parts of the world have been getting warmer.
2. I acknowledge that there is a strong case that human activity has contributed to this change.
3. I have seen other research that suggests that other factors have contributed to this phenomenon.
4. I have yet to see any research that quantifies how much warming is the result of human activity and how much is due to other factors.
Furthermore, I know that there was a 'medieval warm period' which predates significant human carbon emission activity, not to mention a bunch of ice ages. I have also read that the current warming is not globally uniform, which is apparently not as most models predict.
Finally, it's not clear to me that demonising those who challenge the orthodoxy and talking about war crimes is a sensible way to find a solution. After all, a key element of scientific method is falsifiability:
Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives: This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
Monday, February 12, 2007 10:06:00 pm
Well I recommend having a look at a “Rough Guide to Climate Change” (http://roughguides.com/website/shop/products/?productid=653) if you feel like knowing what you're talking about. It is a great summary of the issue; Its possible causes and solutions. And no it is not hard core left wing. In fact it has been supported by world famous scientist James Lovelock, a nuclear advocate as a way of dealing with climate change.
But really, regardless of the argument, we are wasting such a great resource as fossil fuels in all of this. Isn't the conservation call enough, or is waste a good thing if it enhances our freedoms in the short term whilst leaving nothing for our future generations to use?
Wise up contrarians, the world is in a mess, this much is obvious! Stop arguing about who has the moral or intellectual high ground and start doing something to reverse the decline!!!
Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:53:00 pm
Well said Lucas.
And Mr/Ms Anonymous, gee I love you - who else is going to wrangle with me to the pointless end of any discussion.
All I can add is that no-one in their right mind expects my blog to contribute towards finding a sensible solution - having your two cents worth is not about sensible solutions but having a crack because you've got your back up about some outrageous comment I've made.
Am I going to lobby a government to create a Environmental Crimes Tribunal - hell no! There are people more intelligent, better informed and more passionate than either of us involved more seriously in the issue, and whatever will be will be.
All I can do is do my little bit and encourage others to do the same. If I choose to dismiss the arguments of 'contrarians' (nice one LK) then good on me.
So thanks again Anon for your input. I feel appropriately put back into my box.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:36:00 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home