Re this Guardian piece link: climate scientists leaked emails. A couple of potentially misunderstood sentences out of 160Mb of e-mail exchanges does not point to a grand conspiracy. There is plenty of empirical evidence for climate change, and also for the human contribution toward it ( we are not solely responsible for it - one of our huge impacts has been the undermining of natures own mechanisms for dampening changes). What it might just affect is the modeling of the extent and the rate of changes, even then the adjustment is likely to be very small.
- Not squeaky clean, but certainly not a grand conspiracy
-
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
st_ouennais- November 21st, 8:39
- Coming to town (again) soon?
-
- st_ouennais
- October 4th, 10:09
J-CAN is hoping to have a showing of Age of Stupid in town end of November/First week December, right before the Copenhagen Conference. Here's a taster.
- Food climate change predictions
-
- st_ouennais
- October 1st, 5:44
The link below will take you to a page with a couple of interesting graphics. It also shows the danger of presenting data without essential context. The first two give meat and grain prices (US$) per tonne. A prediciton of prices not even doubling by 2050 is hardly startling. Prices over the last 50 years have risen much more than that. Without some base inflation assumptions stated, or making clear this is some inflation adjusted figure, it is meaningless. The other graphics showing calorie availability per capita, yield declines and malnourishment are more useful.
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2009/sep/30/climate-change-food-produ ction
- A distant connection nearer than you think
-
- st_ouennais
- September 28th, 14:24
Yesterday I wrote about events in Jersey in 1768 and 1769. Today I want to point you to something that happened in 1766. In that year Jerseyman Philip Carteret sailing a British ship , the Swallow, discovered a group of atoll islands off Papua New Guinea. Philip went on to be seigneur of Trinity, and the islands that were named after him? See for your self.
Part 1
Part 2
It is time for action.
- A criterion too far
-
- st_ouennais
- September 23rd, 9:13
I listened on the radio to the start of the States business plan on the radio yesterday. The first amendment to be debated was one from deputy Wimberley (St. Mary). This amendment simply added to success criteria of the Chief Minister's department. The amendment would have added the 'Quality and availability of advice on the impacts of climate change and peak oil on all States policies and programmes'.
The States had already agreed in the Strategy debate to bring an annual report on the impact of climate change and peak oil. You might have thought an amendment to ensure quality information is used would therefore be very sensible and uncontroversial. Even after cracking good speeches by both Deputy Wimberley and Senator Syvret in support, this apparently is not so , according to the States assembly who defeated the move 27-20.
I want to have a look at the reasons given to oppose this simple move. There were really just 3: it will cost money; it should be in the Planning and Environment department, and, climate change and peak oil are 'not settled' science.
I don't believe there is significant cost involved in collating quality information, certainly not the £100,000 per year someone pulled out of thin air as the costs (that's 2-3 full time staff!). There are good public and free sources of information on this, its not original research that is required. Moreover no one raised an issue of costs for the other success criteria on information quality (economic and statistical). What is special about this additional criterion? But it also points to a failing to grasp the nature of quality. Quality often saves money Obviously you don't need to rework if you make good products (such as reports to the States) in the first place. Moreover what you do produce lasts longer and services the requirements better. But of course the cost argument falls to bits when others equally opposed to the move are arguing it is already being done , as the Minister for TTS said his department are doing re sea level rise and sea defences.
Where the work is located is an important consideration. It may seem intuitive to put it in Planning and Environment, but it is a mistake to label it 'environmental' and therefore chuck it into the environment box. The impacts of both climate change and peak oil are States wide. Indeed as the minister for TTS said his department is already having to deal with planning sea defences arising from this. Agriculture and the presence of blue tongue just across the water in France, and how we deal with it arriving here is another aspect already affecting another department. It needs a States wide remit, like the Chief Minister's department.
Now to the peak oil/climate change is not settled science point. Yes there are a few scientist arguing against the overwhelming consensus on climate change. Almost no one doubts peak oil is a fact, though they may argue we still have a few years to go. But remember this criterion sits alongside the statistical and economic quality criteria. Statistics is a settled art, though the use of statistics is of course contentious. But when it comes to economics and economic data nothing is settled at all. Indeed it is said economics is the only field in which two people can share a Noble prize for saying opposite things. (See Myrdal and Hayek). As Winston Churchill said: "If you put two economists in a room , you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes , in which case you get three opinions"
So there we have it - we have agreed to have an annual report, but refused to ensure the quality of data going in to it. We have rejected quality information on peak oil and climate change on the grounds it is not settled science, at the same time as requesting economic data which even economists agree is highly disputed. We don't want quality data because it is claimed it costs money to acquire, only to hear some departments are already doing it, and not for free.
Now ask yourself what was the real (unspoken) reason for rejecting the amendment.
- Time in perspective
-
- st_ouennais
- September 3rd, 5:33
Today my darling 4 year old starts school. It is a huge change in her life of course, though from my perspective it is just the first of many faltering steps towards the future. For Rose life is still largely the eternal now. Yes she is vaguely aware of time, at least as far as birthdays go and the notion that one day she will be 'as bigger as mummy'. However her life is lived one day at a time, each something like the last. There is no clear quantum change. What must seem to her an endless procession of days to me has passed so very quickly.
When she leaves primary school in 80 months time or so we should know if we have taken the major steps to avert runaway climate change, see http://www.onehundredmonths.org . 7 years may sound a way off , but ask any primary school child parent: it passes in the blink of an eye. Can you imagine reaching 11 or 12 years old and realising your parents generation have condemned you to live in a desperate world of inexorable global temperature rises, severly diminished fresh water, and rapidly dwindling food supplies, disappearing eco systems, rapidly advancing deserts, spreading tropical diseases, and nothing you can do to prevent it. Not having young children or grand children your self does leave you immune either. Who do you think you are relying on for that pension in 10, 20, 30, years time? My daughter's generation. They won't be looking too kindly on your demands for an easy life having handed them that legacy.
But it doesn't have to be like that, if we act. In all probability you have seen the extraordinary sacrifices and energies that families produce when a small child is threatened with severe illness. It isn't always the case, but typically parents will do almost anything to save the life of a child. Giving up foreign holidays, remortgaging the house, collecting petitions or going out fund raising every day become normal, obvious, without questions activities. The world's young children face that sort of threat. We know something is wrong, the diagnosis isn't good, but the progressive illness is not yet terminal. Now is the time to act, and act as though you mean to save the lives of our youngest children, because that is very possibly what we are talking of.
Have a great first day at school Rose. However it turns out by the time you leave, know that daddy tried his hardest to create a world that you can look forward to inheriting. I'll be in town on Saturday collecting signatures for the J-CAN (http://j-can.org.je) petition to the States on climate change. What will you be doing, reader?
- Interview with a scientist
-
- st_ouennais
- July 8th, 8:59
Spiegel is carrying an interview with a glacier expert. See spiegel international
"By the time the last IPCC report was finished in 2005, it was simply not possible to project what will happen. We had already seen dramatic changes by that time, but we had to leave them out. We simply didn't know how to model the ice sheet. But we are in a better position right now. New estimates that we are about to finalize suggest a potential sea-level rise from the Greenland ice sheet that could be 0.35 meters (14 inches) over the next century."
"I am a scientist, not a politician. As a scientist it is, nevertheless, interesting to see that the politicians are trying to figure out what would be feasible politically. Currently, trying to cap global warming at two degrees is something that they can seemingly sell to the public. But as a scientist I have to really stress that two degrees is an absolute maximum. It is not something to be negotiated, like 2.7 or 2.5 degrees. We are at the very maximum already, I believe."
- 1000 years for greenhouse gas effects to reduce after zero emission
-
- st_ouennais
- June 24th, 6:53
A recent Spiegel edition carries an article on a study of recent climate change thinking. It is very very scary.
What a legacy for our decendants, even assuming we do enough to have a habitable plantet for our potential descendants. Preparing for a four degree average temperature rise is serious stuff. Recall that only last year the consensus was that anything over 2 degrees was serious.
You can get some idea of the outcomes of a four degree temerature rise here how to survive the coming century. Alligators on the south coast of britain a Brazilian desert and only 10 % of human beings surviving."The last time the world experienced temperature rises of this magnitude was 55 million years ago, after the so-called Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event. Then, the culprits were clathrates - large areas of frozen, chemically caged methane - which were released from the deep ocean in explosive belches that filled the atmosphere with around 5 gigatonnes of carbon. The already warm planet rocketed by 5 or 6 °C, tropical forests sprang up in ice-free polar regions, and the oceans turned so acidic from dissolved carbon dioxide that there was a vast die-off of sea life. Sea levels rose to 100 metres higher than today's and desert stretched from southern Africa into Europe."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl
d/0,1518,631262,00.html
- Updated UK climate change info
-
- st_ouennais
- June 18th, 20:44
The UK government has today issued revised information on climate change. You can read it at Defra climate change. The revised methodology used by the Met Office in producing the projections now includes asessments of uncertainty in the predictions.The key findings from UKCP09 suggest how the UK climate might change.
- All areas of the UK get warmer, and the warming is greater in summer than in winter.
- There is little change in the amount of precipitation (rain, hail, snow etc) that falls annually, but it is likely that more of it will fall in the winter, with drier summers, for much of the UK.
- Sea levels rise, and are greater in the south of the UK than the north
Key findings for the Channel Islands, 2050s
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of increase in winter mean temperature is 2.2ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.3ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 3.4ºC. A wider range of uncertainty is from 0.8ºC to 3.4ºC.
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of increase in summer mean temperature is 2.8ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.3ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 4.7ºC. A wider range of uncertainty is from 1ºC to 4.7ºC.
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of increase in summer mean daily maximum temperature is 3.9ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.5ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 6.9ºC. A wider range of uncertainty is from 1ºC to 6.9ºC.
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of increase in summer mean daily minimum temperature is 3.1ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.4ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 5.3ºC. A wider range of uncertainty is from 0.9ºC to 5.3ºC.
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of change in annual mean precipitation is 0%; it is very unlikely to be less than –4% and is very unlikely to be more than 3%. A wider range of uncertainty is from –4% to 4%.
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of change in winter mean precipitation is 18%; it is very unlikely to be less than 3% and is very unlikely to be more than 38%. A wider range of uncertainty is from 0% to 38%.
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of change in summer mean precipitation is –23%; it is very unlikely to be less than –49% and is very unlikely to be more than 11%. A wider range of uncertainty is from –49% to 20%.
Key findings for the Channel Islands, 2080s
High emissions scenario
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of increase in winter mean temperature is 3.3ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 2ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 5ºC. A wider range of uncertainty is from 1.3ºC to 5ºC.
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of increase in summer mean temperature is 4.6ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 2.5ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 7.3ºC. A wider range of uncertainty is from 1.2ºC to 7.3ºC.
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of increase in summer mean daily maximum temperature is 6.2ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 2.7ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 10.7ºC. A wider range of uncertainty is from 1.2ºC to 10.7ºC.
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of increase in summer mean daily minimum temperature is 5ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 2.5ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 8.4ºC. A wider range of uncertainty is from 1.1ºC to 8.4ºC.
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of change in annual mean precipitation is –1%; it is very unlikely to be less than –6% and is very unlikely to be more than 3%. A wider range of uncertainty is from –6% to 4%.
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of change in winter mean precipitation is 28%; it is very unlikely to be less than 7% and is very unlikely to be more than 62%. A wider range of uncertainty is from 3% to 62%.
- Under high emissions, the central estimate of change in summer mean precipitation is –34%; it is very unlikely to be less than –64% and is very unlikely to be more than 6%. A wider range of uncertainty is from –64% to 16%.
You can see other scenarios by clicking on the maps here CI maps
Without immediate and extensive action we are are heading to the high emissions scenario. It is very very bad news.
- Putting some ranges on the future growing conditions in Africa
-
- st_ouennais
- June 17th, 16:01
The new Scientist is carrying an artcle on its web site on the impacts of climate change on growing conditions in Africa. Researchers at Stanford University have run 18 climate models. Even assuming annual variablilty similar to today (and all expectations are that the variability will increase), by 2025 in over 40% of years the growing conditions will be outside of the curent range of condition experienced by African farmers. That figure increases to 97% by 2075.
Please bear in mind that climate change temperature effects are believed to be greater toward the poles. That could indicate even greater mismatch for us. That may not be all bad news locally, but on the global scale it heading for catastrophic.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17327-african-farms-becoming-too-hot-to-ha ndle.html
- That was the week we wished had never been
-
- st_ouennais
- June 8th, 20:46
It has appeared as though life has been imitating parody this last week. From the news that peak oil is likely to be on us even earlier than we thought to the frightening article that the consensus scientific view on climate change by the end of the century is now in the range 3.5- 7 degrees, and some even predicting 10 degrees. We have seen the population limit amendment to the Strategic plan thrown out on the rather curious grounds that not increasing the population means the message will go out that 'Jersey is closed for business'. At the same time the Attorney General drops 2 potential prosecutions of cases of child abuse, on again very odd grounds, and completely oblivious it seems to the message that sends to the rest of the world about Jersey. We are now getting mixed messages about what messages are actually being sent.
Just a quick reminder to you, dear leaders: actions speak louder than words. That's why the election of not just one but two MEPs from the BNP must be a wake up call to all. It gives me no satisfaction whatsoever to say I told you so. What is does bring to mind to me is that we must now see action. Action to prevent the rise of the neo nazis, action to avert the impending climate crises, actions to prepare the population to life post cheap plentiful oil, and action to seek justice for those who suffered abuse in the child care system in Jersey. I know we in Jersey did not have a vote in the european elections, but the fact is the stay at homes and the can't be bothereds did as much to elect the racists as those who voted for them. In both cases the BNP candidates scrapped in ahead of green candidates by a mere percent or two. A few thousand more votes in an electoral division of millions of voters in each case would have made a difference.
But before Jersey people get too smug saying it wasn't their fault as they did not have a vote, just remember the same could be probably be said for every one of those other issues, and they are all local and in your hands. It as well on the weekend of the D-day landings that we recall the difference a few make. The few that Churchill remarked on in the Battle of Britain, and the few locally who risked all to shelter Jews and escaped slave workers in our Island in the war. They are the happy few of Shakespeare's Henry the V's Crispins day speech. They are the 300 at Marathon.
History does not record the feats of the indolent, the self interested and the cowards. It is the action of the few taking a stand against overwhelming odds who have throughout history changed the outcome of battles, turned the tide of wars and shaped the future of nations. So reader, are you content to be one of the many, letting the events of the world overtake you, or do you see the need now more than ever to take a strand, to make a difference , to show what it is that makes a real human being?
The St Crispins day speech:
WESTMORELAND.
O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!
KING.
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
- what is the real risk?
-
- st_ouennais
- June 3rd, 17:41
A report, from the Ceres network and the Environment Defence Fund, found companies offered only minimal information to their shareholders last year on how global warming might affect their bottom line.
Oil and gas companies did not even provide the bare minimum of information on climate risk. No surprise there.
The other big question of course iwhether the information governments telling their shareholders (taxpayers) is any better.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/03/business-investors-climate-cha nge-risk
On a related note I heard on the radio this morning during Farming Today one of the most shocking snippets of the impacts of climate change for Britian I have ever come across. The viticultural specialist was saying by 2070 Scotland could be a significant wine producing country. But much more shocking was that he said large parts of the south east of England would not be growing grapes commercially because on the latest Hadley Centre figures it would simply be too hot. So from barely warm enough to be viable in 1970's to too hot to be viable in 2070's.
- 70 CEO's aiming for low carbon economy
-
- st_ouennais
- May 28th, 7:48
There has been a business meeting at Copenhagen, in advance of teh major event in December. The outcome of the meeting of business leaders has been criticised in some quarters, but there is no doubting that the low carbon economy is central to their strategic thinking. Big business is looking like it will be part of the solution. They meeting called for:
A timeline of emissions reductions targets;• Standards and regulation for energy efficiency;
• A standardised method for companies to report on their low-carbon progress;
• Economic incentives to drive the development, financing and deployment of low-carbon technology;
• Rapid scale-up of carbon markets;
• Immediate action to protect forests and a fund for adaptation
If only we had that sort of clear statement in our States strategic plan too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/may/27/climate-change-busin ess
- States Strategic Plan debate
-
- st_ouennais
- May 27th, 18:38
The States debate on the Strategic Plan is to be held on the 2nd and 3rd June. According to their own site, the plan is 'the blueprint for Jersey's future'. It is reported that following consultation the following changes have been incorporated:- Population proposals have been adjusted to keep the peak figure below 100,000;
- The intention to work together with charities and other voluntary organisations (The Third Sector) has been highlighted;
- Environmental concerns and targets are clearly defined, within the strategic aim of balancing environmental, social and economic policy;
- Community safety is now a separate priority (rather than forming one aspect of social inclusion).
This is the last chance we have to influence the outcome. If you believe lobbying your representatives makes a difference now is the time to do it.
Chapter 13 of the report is called Enhance and protect our natural and built environment. It is in this section we find the few references to climate change and resource dependency. The third paragraph reads: "There is also a need to consider our responsibilities in dealing with the major global environmental issues that need to be tackled, including global warming and general climate change, longer-term dependence on fossil fuels and carbon emissions. A particular challenge will be to take full advantage of our renewable energy sources - wind and tide - to provide the Island with more secure and sustainable energy."
However if the intention is to consider our responsibilities "within the strategic aim of balancing environmental, social and economic policy" why is it that it is confined to a single chapter, and not ingrained in the fabric of the document like the economic and implicit fiscal aspects are? There is a sort of balance, but it isn't an equal balance. It certainly isn't the balance I think we need if we are to have a credible response to the enormous challenges of fossil fuel dependency and climate chaos. I am also rather disappointed with the absence of the food security theme the former Chief Minister, Mr Walker, spoke of when he launched the Keeping Jersey Special report.
Read that third paragraph of the report again. While it gives the impression we are facing up to the challenges, it really commits to nothing, We are only 'giving consideration' to our responsibilities. We should be fully planning to deal with the inevitable consequences of peak oil, and the mounting urgency of averting catastrophic climate change. As Herman Daly, former Senior Economist at the World Bank said, "the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment". A messed up global eco-system will destroy any classically defined economy. Similarly any society as dependent as we are on oil products for food,clothing, plastics, and fuel that does not prepare in advance for the well atested depletion of that resource is one whose economy will necessarily collapse.
Our States members need to have a detailed realistic strategic plan to deal with the coming carbon crises, and put that on at least an equally footing to the social and fiscal aspects of the plan. Anything less would be to hand our children and grand children a depleted, deteriorated planet and a thoroughly desperate fight to maintain any sort of civilisation, possibly even the continued existence of the species itself.
Get writing those letters!
a bi
- Health effects of climate change already here?
-
- st_ouennais
- May 15th, 9:37
I am unsure if it is a relief hearing professionals say it, or a ratcheting up of concern to hear this. As the prof says : "The biggest impact could be in food and water shortages, which in the past have led to war and mass migration." The prof is looking only at Climate Change. Compound that with the challenges of food production arising from peak oil and rising populaiton levels and you start to get a sense of jsu thow much of a mess we are in. But then I've told readers that before.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/13/climate-change-health-impact "We have not just underestimated but completely neglected and ignored this issue," said Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, which published the report commissioned from University College London. "This has not been an issue on the agenda of any professional body in health in the last 10 years in any significant way. This report is one of the stepping stones in changing that culture within the health sector. It is the biggest employer in Britain and it should be a leading voice in the debate."
The lead author of the report, Prof Anthony Costello, a paediatrician who works on maternal and newborn health in the developing world, said his own views had changed. "I thought there were other priorities 18 months ago," he said. Now he believed that mitigating the impact of rising temperatures was urgent. "Every year we delay, the costs go up. We are setting up a world for our children and grandchildren that may be extremely turbulent."
The biggest impact could be in food and water shortages, which in the past have led to war and mass migration.
Prof Hugh Montgomery, of UCL's institute for human health and performance, who was one of the report's authors, noted that Mikhael Gorbachev had linked 21 recent conflicts to water instability.
The report says that the poorest people in the world will be worst affected. Although the carbon footprint of the poorest billion people is about 3% of the world's total footprint, loss of life is expected to be 500 times greater in Africa than in the wealthy countries.
Despite improvements in health, 10 million children still die every year, more than 200 million children under five are not developing as well as they should, 800 million people are hungry, and 1,500 million people do not have clean drinking water. All those things could worsen very significantly, the report says.
The impact of heatwaves, flooding and global food shortages will be felt in Britain too, the authors warned. "This is an immediate danger. It is going to affect you and it will certainly affect your children. While there is the injustice that the poorest will be worst affected, you will be affected too," said Montgomery.
The report says evidence on greenhouse gas emissions, temperature and sea-level rises, the melting of ice-sheets, ocean acidification and extreme climatic events suggests the forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 might be too conservative. The UK target, to limit global warming to two degrees more, is unlikely to be achieved.
Costello, however, said the message from the report was not entirely negative. "There is an awful lot we can do," he said. Reducing carbon emissions would encourage people to cut use of vehicles, and if that led to more walking and cycling it would tend to lower stress levels, reduce obesity, and lessen heart disease, lung disease and stroke risks.
- A brighter mediterranean future, NOT
-
- st_ouennais
- April 15th, 17:34
Having just read page 3 of tonight's JEP , I cannot help but think either we get very very vocal, or we simply give up. In a piece on climate change and Jersey 2080, we are informed we maybe growing olives and grapes, having more tourists, enjoying earlier Royals and welcoming more visitors. Oh and maybe there will be bigger storm surges.All that maybe true, but it is an extraordinary partial , parochial and misleading take on the issue.Hidden in the piece is the observation that it is predicted by the Hadley Centre people that we will be 3 degrees warmer by then. Now many informed commentators believe that is the likely global average. In which case the above are the only positives that might be drawn from an otherwise catastrophic scenario.Three degrees global average temperature rise implies,among other things:Collapse of the Amazon.Perennial drought in Southern Africa, and possibly Mexico.Melting of Himalayan glaciers resulting in failure if many great rivers in the bread basket areas of China and India.Hundreds of millions, possible billions of famine refugees.Extinction of many marine species , etc etc etc
And we have a JEP headline of Here Comes the Sun, as though we were back to the 1970's, with an apparently booming bright future in tourism and agriculture ahead of us.
- New UK CO2 emissions targets
-
- st_ouennais
- 7th October 2008
The Committee on Climate Change has called for the UK to make C02 emissions reduction of 80% by 2050, and to include aviation and shipping in their figures. This committee is not a coalition of climate change campaigners, it's a formal part of the UK government Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) . See http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/legislation/committee/index.h tm They said that the target is achievable at an affordable cost of between 1-2% of GDP in 2050. Bearing in mind what effect the credit crunch and the latest financial turmoil and the prospect of recession are having on the economy, you have to ask, wouldn't it have been so much less painful if we had started to do this seriously then we first signed up to Kyoto?
There is one part of their commentary that I think is mistaken. "But we have the potential to reduce our emissions by 80% or more by using energy far more efficiently, by investing in developing new energy sources and by making relatively minor lifestyle changes." I am sure it is factually true, but it is not the best approach. If we think a bit more holistically , making lifstyle changes is an effective way to make change, not just on carbon dioxide emissions, but also on waste, health, and community too.
In case you are wondering, our C02 reduction target locally is 60% by 2050 according to the "Keeping Jersey Special" material. Of course that is backdated to just before decommisiosning the old powerstation, and doesn't include air transport. Not really in the same league as the UK commitment is it? We hear 'world class', and 'iconic' being used about all sorts of building and development schemes by our ministers, so where is a our world leading climate change strategy?
- new link
-
- st_ouennais
- 7th September 2008
I have added a new link to a web site I rather like. It is www.climatechangetriage.net/ This site has a very pragmatic and realistic feel to it. Rather than simply reiterate the problem and the call for 'someone to do something' it actively reflects on the challenges of implementing possible solutions. It also shows up just how tough are the decisions we will have to face.
In their own words "Responding to climate change costs money. The UNFCCC estimates that adaptation alone will cost up to $166 billion every year. It seems likely that the funding needed to deal with climate change will not always be available to individuals or communities. Decisions will be made locally, nationally and internationally about which areas are supported through climate change crises and which are not. This web site is dedicated to helping make those decisions as wisely as possible."
- scenario planning for climate change.
-
- st_ouennais
- 11th August 2008
I've stumbled across a rather useful blog. It is run by someone who has experience of scenario planning and has applied it to climate change.
http://climate-cassandra.blogspot.com/2007/11/scenario-planning-for-climate-chan ge.html
'We badly need ways of thinking about the implications of climate change. Most of what’s written gets hung up on the uncertainties of the science. If we don’t know, and we don’t, whether temperatures will increase by one or two or four degrees how can we prepare?The answer is scenario planning.In scenario planning, a method pioneered by Shell, we focus on the uncertainties, not on forecasts, and use these to define a set of possible scenarios. If we get this right the actual events will follow one scenario or, more likely, fall between several scenarios. But in any case we’ll have considered what we can and should do before we have to do it.Climate change is a long-term problem so let’s look at the long-term – 2050. On that timescale little is certain but there are two big uncertainties.'
À la préchaine
- Four degrees
-
- st_ouennais
- 8th August 2008
I am frankly astounded not to have seen any local comment on the article in the Guardian yesterday quoting Defra's chief adviser saying we need a strategy to deal with the real possibility of 4 degrees global temperature increase. Four degrees - that puts us in Jersey in a climate like North Africa. It is a level of change that even the human species with all its ingenuitiy and capacity to modify its living conditions would really struggle to deal with. If we can't what chance do other species have? Those who have studied it reckon that half of all species would face extinction. In truth we dont know enough about the intricate interdependencies of eco system to be sure about this -the carnage could be worse. It would only need the extinction of a few key species for homo sapien's 'civilisation' as we know it to be utterly undermined. For example no bees and we would lose very many of our food crops, you know the ones we are encouraged to eat 5 a day of. In truth planning for 4 degrees global warming is a more a measure of hope than of probability. To continue the poker analogy its getting to the point where we have to decide to either go 'all in' or fold our hand.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/06/climatechange.scienceofclimate change
