Global warming. time for a new radical strategy?

Akrasia

Yesterday the British Labour party announced that their strategy to combat Global warming has utterly failed. The U.K. Independent are launching a public debate into what we need to do to protect ourselves from the looming catastrophy, and they argue that it's not going to be an easy answer. We are all going to have to make personal sacrifices, we are going to have to fundamentally change our approach to the problem, and impose restrictions on 'business as usual' if we are going to make any difference. bacically, what we need to do, is change our economy from a growth based development, to sustainable development. There is no point in getting people to cut down on the pollution they produce, if we are promoting more and more companies to start up and contribute more to the greenhouse emmissions problem.

Four senior ministers today made one of the most embarrassing admissions of the Labour Government's nine years in office - that the official policy for fighting climate change has failed.

Yet, as they did so, a group of MPs will offer a different way forward in the struggle to combat global warming, one which they think is the only alternative. It will mean turning established principles of British economic life upside down. It will mean sacrifices from everyone. Therefore, they say, it will have to be taken out of politics.

Mr Challen and his colleagues believe, carbon will have to be rationed, for companies, individuals and, eventually, for countries. And only a full cross-party consensus would allow such a departure to be implemented without being destroyed by the political process.

Today, the group announces a climate change inquiry, inviting evidence from any interested parties, and readers of The Independent are invited to join in the debate. We will forward your responses to the committee.

no more economic growth?

the Government's policies, which are well-meant, are indeed lowering the carbon intensity of the economy. But the phenomenon of economic growth means that there are more and more plants, and the cuts are swamped by the growth. It is that growth which must be addressed.

"No amount of economic growth is going to pay for the cost of the damage caused by a new and unstable climate," he said.

He says that the pursuit of growth, which essentially has not changed since Victorian times, is misleading, and the terms need to be redefined. Instead, we need a different policy which looks at how much carbon we can afford to emit. Some scientists think we should stabilise global atmospheric CO2 concentrations at between 450-550 parts per million to avoid dangerous climate change. Concentrations currently stand at just more than 380ppm, but are rising all the time.

Is the current strategy failing?

Global warming

THEY PROMISED: "We will lead the fight against global warming, through our target of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2010."

WHAT HAPPENED: Carbon emissions are 3 per cent higher than they were in 1997.

VERDICT: Promise not kept

International agreements

THEY PROMISED: "We will push environmental concerns higher up the international agenda."

WHAT HAPPENED: Global warming was a major feature of last year's G8 summit, hosted by Tony Blair, and the UK is on course to keep targets set at the Kyoto summit in 1997.

VERDICT: Promise kept

Transport

THEY PROMISED: "An effective and integrated transport policy."

WHAT HAPPENED: Traffic has gone up 11 per cent since 1997 while it became 11 per cent more expensive to travel by bus, and rail journeys went up 4 per cent.

VERDICT: Promise broken

Green taxes

THEY PROMISED: "Just as work should be encouraged through the tax system, environmental pollution should be discouraged."

WHAT HAPPENED: Fuel duty, climate change levy, landfill tax etc. rose to 3.6 per cent of national income in 1999 and 2000. Then Gordon Brown froze fuel duty and road tax, and froze the climate change levy.

VERDICT: Promise not kept

Nuclear power

THEY PROMISED: "We see no economic case for the building of new nuclear power stations."

WHAT HAPPENED: Tony Blair ordered a review of energy policy last autumn, which is likely to conclude that new nuclear power stations are needed.

VERDICT: Promise soon to be broken

The Independent is inviting contributions from the Public, which will be sent directly to the relevent people. Submissions can be e-mailed to
climatechange@independent.co.uk

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article354055.ece

bonkey

So basically, if you look at the promises kept/broken, their strategy was really only to make sure the problem was discussed.

In this sense, the strategy was an outstanding success. Anyone who believed that talking endlessly about a problem was going to help reach any goals was kidding themselves.

Personally, I put this down to electioneering strategy. There is no way Labour were going to allow other parties to beat them senseless over their dismal performance on the issue. Instead, they've admitted complete failure and a willingness to do something else. In this regard, they're no different to the other parties who will ffectively say "Labour's policy has been a complete failure and we want to try something else."

Anyone want to guess what the opst-election something else will be? My guess will be that it will involve putting pressure on emerging economies to be greener faster, putting pressure on the US to play ball, and continuing to discuss (and perhaps investigate) ways in which the UK can achieve savings without crippling the economy.

In other words...once the election is past, the new strategy - regardless of who gains power - will look surprisingly like the old one.

jc

Akrasia

well if that happens, then we're all screwed.

Unfortunately, it's probably what will happen, because politicians won't support anything that costs jobs or causes hardship to constituents even if the electorate demand it. And this strategy of limiting growth will only work if other competing economies pursue the same policy, and there is absolutely no way the U,S. will support this, not the democrats, and certainly not the Republicans. If the U.K. act alone, not only will they be crucified internationally, but it won't make any difference to global warming.

There has to be international consensus and i can't see this happening. Unfortunately.

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

well if that happens, then we're all screwed.

Unfortunately, it's probably what will happen, because politicians won't support anything that costs jobs or causes hardship to constituents even if the electorate demand it.

The telling line, for me, in what you quoted was:

And only a full cross-party consensus would allow such a departure to be implemented without being destroyed by the political process.

In other words....even though the party is willing to consider utterly innovative ideas, unless they'er ideas that everyone gets on board with, they won't work.

Now ask yourself....other than agreeing to help the US invade some Middle-Eastern nations, when's the last time you saw a UK government agree unilaterally on anything.

And this strategy of limiting growth will only work if other competing economies pursue the same policy,

Indeedy. So its not just the UK parties...its (at least) the major parties across the developed nations in the EU. Arguably, they'd have enough clout to try it on their own....

and there is absolutely no way the U,S. will support this, not the democrats, and certainly not the Republicans. If the U.K. act alone, not only will they be crucified internationally, but it won't make any difference to global warming.

You'd be surprised.

One of the most intrgiuing ideas I read was this: rather than spend the money to fight national emissions....spend the money to fight global emissions. It is global warming, after all.

Imagine if, for example, the UK signed a treaty with the Chinese, to go there and build them a chunk of nuclear reactors. Part of the deal would include all the necessary tech for the Chinese to take over this stuff.

How much impact would that have on global emissions, comapared to an equivalent expenditure at home? Its also not something that would need the US economically on board with, nor would it damage the Chinese economy whilst making them more eco-friendly.

OK - its by no means without its problems and flaws, but the point I"m driving at is that there are options other than the current "get every developed nation on board, and make the developing nations get on board within a timeframe" road.

This consensus approach has failed - as it was designed to. The "act nationally, but only after we've gotten enough other nations to agree to do likewise" approach has failed - as it was designed to.

Anyone serious about tackling the issue will discuss why these options have (and were designed to) fail, and how such organisational issues can be resolved. Then, and only then, will serious moves be made.

jc

meepins

..in short.. We is doomed I tells ya.

Akrasia

well, we are doomed as long as the political classes in all countries are so damned short sighted. In ireland, things we should be doing RIGHT NOW.

1. Improving Building regulations dramatically, Better insulation and Manditory solar panels rain water collection and wind turbines on every new house and commercial development with a facility to sell extra capacity onto the national grid.

2. Investing far more in renewable fuels for Cars and power stations. All public transport including taxis should be run on Pure Plant oil and bioethanol ASAP. this includes all State vehicles, ambulances, Garda Cars, Ministers cars etc There should be No VAT or excise on Pure Plant oil Diesel replacement in the short term in order to encourage conversion and grants should be given for farmers to grow the Seeds and for Seed presses to be set up. All Petrol should include at least a 5% ethanol mix which helps reduce pollution dramatically.

3. Taxes on Aviation fuel. I know we are prohibited by international treaty, but we should either leave that treaty or put pressure in the E.U and U.N. for this treaty to be lifted.

4. Taxes on dirty concrete production, Concrete produces tonnes of CO2, 6% of CO2 globally comes from concrete production. there are new technologies that cut this CO2 emmission in half. These technologies should be encouraged and the old production methods should be banned

5. Plant more trees. In finland for every tree that is cut down, 2 must be planted. That is such a simple Idea. We could make it manditory for commercial forresters to plant at least one native tree for every cash crop tree they plant (they could plant them in a state managed forest away from their own plantation)

6. Offshore wind Farms. We have a massive wind resource that is being ignored. Offshore windfarms can generate huge amounts of electricity without causing much ecological damage or posing a threat to wildlife. We should join up with the European Electricity grid to sell extra capacity and suplement our own needs during calm periods.

These are all things that we could start doing RIGHT NOW and would have immediate public support. the fact that they're not happening, is testiment that our Government don't give a damn about Golobal warming.

Other things that we should be doing include, import taxes on goods that could be produced locally. Not for protectionism, but as a reflection of the environmental cost of transporting bulky goods across the world. Local economies should be supported because they are the most environmentally sustainable.

elurhs

Unfortunately, I think we are all pissing into the wind with global warming. Nothing will be done until it is too late. Even if the west maintains the current level of CO2 emissions, China, India and the rest of the world are expanding their economies, and no amount of lecturing by the west will make them halt their expansion.

Akrasia

even if we can't stop global warming, we can at least do a bit to reduce it's impact.

CerebralCortex

"Oh look its global warming aaaahhh" -Southpark:D

What are the effects of global warming, sure its been wetter occasionally where I am but all that does is piss me off?

Basically what are these supposed effects on western democracies if any?

My own opinion is that gw is used to get those few more votes.

Akrasia

well, as usual, the people who will suffer the most will be the developing countries where droughts and famine will get far worse.

We have already witnessed an increase in storms in the U.S. and water shortages in The U.K. But the real problems are yet to begin, The Ice caps are melting faster than anyone had predicted only a few years ago, when the ice melts, the sea levels will rise causing a lot of coastal flooding (guess where most of our cities are) And then there's the gulf stream problem, we are on the same latitude as Siberia and Greenland. The only reason we have a temperate climate is because of the heating effect of this warm stream of water. A sea level rise of 5 metres, which is what will happen if the Greenland Ice Sheets melt, will be enough to destroy pretty much every coastal city in the world, and bye bye the netherlands.

The evidence for Climate change mounts on a daily basis, we have two choices, we can either act now, or 'wait and see'. we've already tried the wait and see approach and all we've seen is more and more evidence to support the idea that we should be acting.

A rapid increase in “glacial earthquakes” – caused by sudden large movements of glaciers – over the past few years indicates that warmer temperatures will destroy the Greenland ice sheet faster than expected, a new study warns. .....

.....When the team analysed glacial seismic records back to 1993, they found a striking increase in the number of quakes recorded in recent years. All 136 of the best-documented slips were traced to glaciated valleys draining the main Greenland ice sheet. A handful of others occurred in Alaskan glaciers or on Antarctica.

Ekström reports that quakes ranged from six to 15 per year from 1993 to 2002, then jumped to 20 in 2003, 23 in 2004, and 32 in the first 10 months of 2005 – matching an increase in Greenland temperatures.

From New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8889-glacial-earthquakes-rock-greenland-ice-sheet.html

The finding adds to evidence that the Greenland ice sheet is far more vulnerable to temperature increases than had been thought. Models that treated glaciers like giant ice cubes had predicted very slow melting. But recent studies of Greenland glaciers have shown much faster effects when meltwater causes glaciers to slip easily over rock.

"Within a few years after temperature warms, you get a big increase in discharge," says Ian Joughin of the polar science center at the University of Washington in Seattle, US. "If temperature rises two or three degrees in Greenland, things are going to start falling apart," Joughin told New Scientist. Antarctica is not as sensitive to rising air temperature because it is too cold for surface melting, which accounts for about half the mass lost from the Greenland ice sheet.

Other ominous news comes from a pair of new studies examining sea level and glaciation 129,000 years ago. This was during the last interglacial period, when the Arctic was as warm as it is expected to be by 2100 – when it is expected to be at least 2.2°C (4°F) warmer than present. Palaeontological evidence, examined by Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona, US, and colleagues, indicates that sea levels were 4 to 6 metres higher than they are today, and some of that water came from melting of the Antarctic ice sheet.

bonkey

CerebralCortex wrote:

"Oh look its global warming aaaahhh" -Southpark:D

What are the effects of global warming, sure its been wetter occasionally where I am but all that does is piss me off?

Basically what are these supposed effects on western democracies if any?

My own opinion is that gw is used to get those few more votes.

Rephrased:

I don't know what it does, so that means it can't be all that bad.

Your logic terrifies me.

jc

CerebralCortex

That isn't fair you don't know me. I know quite a bit about on the subject of global warming and the effects of it. But my point was that these effects are not causing anyone that much trouble where I am from at least and governments are making it out to be something its not.

I can understand your fear though cause if anything bad happens I am of the "We fu*kin deserve it" camp.

CerebralCortex

Akrasia wrote:

A sea level rise of 5 metres, which is what will happen if the Greenland Ice Sheets melt

You may be waiting a while.

Washington, D.C. - infoZine - Ice sheets covering both the Arctic and Antarctic could melt more quickly than expected this century, according to two studies that blend computer modeling with paleoclimate records. Led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Arizona, the studies show that by 2100, Arctic summers may be as warm as they were nearly 130,000 years ago when sea levels rose to 20 feet (6 meters) higher than they are today.

Click

CerebralCortex

Akrasia wrote:

A sea level rise of 5 metres, which is what will happen if the Greenland Ice Sheets melt

You may be waiting a while.

Washington, D.C. - infoZine - Ice sheets covering both the Arctic and Antarctic could melt more quickly than expected this century, according to two studies that blend computer modeling with paleoclimate records. Led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Arizona, the studies show that by 2100, Arctic summers may be as warm as they were nearly 130,000 years ago when sea levels rose to 20 feet (6 meters) higher than they are today.

Click

Who knows what might happen in a hundred year time frame. Fossil fuel consumption at its current rate can't remain the same in that time span.

More needs to be done but Western democarcies are rotten to the core so it really pisses all over my belief that they will do something to stop global warming.

As much as I'd love some action.

bonkey

CerebralCortex wrote:

That isn't fair you don't know me. I know quite a bit about on the subject of global warming and the effects of it.

Ah. Sorry. My misunderstanding. When you asked what the effects were, I thought you were asking what the effects were rather than making some subtle point about the (unspecified) effects.

But my point was that these effects are not causing anyone that much trouble where I am from at least and governments are making it out to be something its not.

Global warming isn't causing that many problems (other than stuff like increases in the frequency and power of extreme weather events). Global warming is going to cause problems if its allowed to continue.

You have already dismissed these (unspecified) effects as nothing but "supposed" and also cast doubt on any of the long-term predictions based on a "no-one can tell what will happen" line of reasoning...and yet claim to know quite a bit about the subject. Then when one of the problems is listed, you (somewhat) misrepresent it on the lines that we'll be waiting for a 5-6m rise for about a century. This utterly ignores that such a rise will occur over the 100 years, and so could have significant effects as soon as a decade from now...and almost certainly within 20-25 years

60% of the world's population lives coastally, and we don't have the technological, mecanical or financial capacity to either build sufficient protections or relocate them within those types of timeframes.

But hey - where you live hasn't experienced anything other than a bit more rain. I'm sure the rest of the world's population will take great solace in knowing that Global Warming is nothing to worry about over the coming decades because up to now you haven't been significantly effected.

governments are making it out to be something its not.

The only government that I can think of who is engaged in that practice is under the administration of George W. Bush - making it out to be no big deal and not something we need to worry about.

Such arguments rely on tactics about as intellectually and scientifically honest as those the tobacco companies relied on to claim smoking tobacco was not carcinogenic.

But you know all this, being quite well informed....I forget.

jc

CerebralCortex

You are absolutely right. I guess I am a wee bit bitter on the subject of the Global Warming due to the pathetic atempts by this nations governments to do anything about it, whereas instead they do everything in their power to stay in power. I did make a poor attempt at debating my point of view but anger blinded me.

DadaKopf

Richard Douthwaite at Feasta has an interesting proposal to create incentives to people to tackle global warming on an individual basis. I think it's too individualist, but it's certainly an interesting proposal.

http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/emissions2006.htm

Akrasia

i just think we need to regulate corporations much more stringently then we already do. For example, now that we have flash memory that requires no power to store, we have no need for stand by modes in most domestic appliances. It is much more effective to force the electronics corporations to remove the stand by modes from their equipment, than it is to plead with consumers to unplug all their electrical equipment whenever they're not using them.

Similarly with cars, we should force all cars imported into Ireland to be already converted so they can run on bioethanol or BioDiesel. And then we can force fuel retailers to include Biodiesel and Bioethenol supply as a condition of their license.

Freedom of choice is not an issue here, because your freedom to choose a gas guzzling car, impacts on my freedom to not have to swim to work, or for my children to not be sent to war to secure basic resources like food and water if our climate changes.

CerebralCortex

Just a question. Who is going to tell corporations what to do? Irelands government? I ask cause I don't know, not because I am objecting to what you said just so we are clear.

Akrasia

well, The only people who can regulate corporations at the moment are governments. (The E.U. is like a government) So they're the ones who would have to impliment and enforce the regulations.

If they don't do it, it won't get done, It has to be done, but it doesn't mean the Governments will do it.


Because of the way we have designed things, Ireland probably can't regulate by itself because the corporations would probably sue in the European courts for anti competitive practises, or breaching free market rules, but we could pass the regulations anyway, and then fight it out in the courts.;..... but that requires bravery and leadership.. so it probably won't happen.

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

If they don't do it, it won't get done, It has to be done, but it doesn't mean the Governments will do it.

Until there is enough public momentum behind the idea, I can't see any government making this a priority.

The biggest problem is getting public momentum. Sure...your AJITS (Average Joe In The Street) has nothing against a greener world, and may even be in favour of one....but what are they willing to do about it?

Time after time, threads have appeared on this forum about Irish politics, where someone has calmly, rationally and (I believe) correctly explained that so many people vote for Fianna Fail because - on balance - noone else has the ability to put a full package together. You might like the Greens when it comes to Greenness, but when it comes to A, B or C, The AJITS won't touch them with a pole. Same for most other political factions.

Until people literally take a stance saying "if you are not persuing a green policy as a matter of urgency, we will not vote for you", then green issues will always be dictated by corporate concerns, because no party is going to win/lose significant support just for its stance on this one issue.

And how many people will do that? How many people will side with the party offering what they would normally see as a weaker overall package but who are willing to tackle this issue, rather than (for example) whoever is promising tax-cuts and so forth.

Will you vote for someone offering a tax hike and a action towards a greener Ireland over someone offering a tax-cut and the usual "we'll build working groups to form comittees to discuss how to build consensus about what we should use as our next platitude" approach to greenness? Its easy to say yes...just like its wasy to say "of course I'd take a guess on the 64,000 question in 'Millionaire'". When push comes to shove, though, something as simple as your take-home is (rightly or wrongly) all-too-often seen as a more important issue.

Its wasy to blame the government, but are we - the public - any better? The truth is that - collectievely speaking - we're quite probably a damn sight worse.

Ask yourself this...of all the efficiency / conservation / green issues brought in to Ireland thus far....how many were driven by public demand, and how many were foisted on the public by the government.

My guess is that the balance is formly in favour of the latter....and yet we - the public - will be the first to say that they - the government - are the ones doing nothing.

And so it will continue...until someone else takes teh lead, and we sheepishly* follow

jc

*pun intended

CerebralCortex

In response to Akrasia.
See this is where my apathetic viewpoint on the subject comes from. I think this is where we will fall when it comes to implementing change in GW policy, there are political careers at stake.

CerebralCortex

bonkey wrote:

Until there is enough public momentum behind the idea, I can't see any government making this a priority......

Too true. Wouldn't global warming be justice then in that case. You reap what you sow. I don't mean to sound negative I'd love to see green Ireland but first you need green ppl. The way I see it and I could be wrong its like the health service people complain about the health service they are preoccupied by it but you don't see a majority of Irish ppl doing too much to keep themselves out of hospitals (lifestyles,drinking,smoking.....). You reap what you sow.