For me it seems like two quite simple (conceptually) problems which need to be addressed and it makes sense to address them at the same time, first we have the issue of climate change itself, the average temperature does correlate with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and since humans have been pumping billions of tons of the stuff out continuously since the dawn of the industrial revolution then it seems entirely likely that we have trouble ahead so we need to have a plan for that. Secondly, carbon fuels are a finite resource there is a tipping point whereby we have used more than there is left, many believe this point has already been reached but regardless, at some point soon the only way the price can go is up; like fine wine with a limited production restricted by a particular terroir, as demand increases through population growth, market forces mean that eventually the resource becomes only available to a smaller and smaller elite so either most of us need to become teetotal or we need to find alternatives.
Addressing climate change and energy independence will require a new way of thinking about the world, i.e. as a single entity with a single population of humans living on it; it will require collaboration and cooperation between those primates on an unprecedented scale and the cracks in our existing cosy nationalistic, religious and cultural silo's are really starting to show. The proof will be in the pudding and as we saw in Copenhagen last week, the jury on our ability, as a population of slightly different coloured apes, to grasp the big picture here is still well and truly "out".
5 comments:
"Silo's"?
And you from Reading too.
I wish people (including Prof Dawkins) wouldn't use "deniers". It equates disagreement with Holocaust deniers, and that's a different issue in so many ways. The Holocaust is historical, there were so many witnesses and so many victims. Whereas "climate change" is a scientific prediction which, over the last few years at least, has failed to come true.
Your cartoon gets it right. We should stop burning fossil fuels (he says smugly, with his new wood-burner installed). They crud up the atmosphere and they run out and we need them to make plastics that can fail to biodegrade and clog up the seas. We should stop driving around and flying around - for tourism, for computer system sales, for fun. We should learn to walk and work and shop locally. It makes so much sense. But the minute you join the climate change affirmers, you're in there with the Gaia-worshippers. Still, I'm sure you'll enjoy the company.
G, I can't agree with your conclusion there, to say that climate change is not "historical" is to deny the evidence of correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Rises and falls in line with CO2 concentrations have happened in the past, it seems reasonable that this will probably happen again in the future bearing in mind the billions of tons of the stuff we pump out; the last few decades have shown this to be true at least as far as *average* temperatures are concerned, although I would have been susceptible to the counter arguments on Monday night stuck on the A4!!!
Dawkins equates evolution deniers with Holocaust deniers, I did read that in his latest book. But I haven't heard him say that about climate change, anyway invoking Godwin's law in any argument (unless it's about Nazis) is probably a bad idea. Climate change denial is very similar to evolution denial as far as I can see, a refusal to look at the actual evidence combined with a refusal to accept the time-scales involved. Also, looking at local outliers as if they somehow disprove the overall trend, very similar indeed.
As for Gaia worshippers, I'm sure they're lovely people :) but to equate new age romanticism like this with the science on climate change seems unbalanced to me.
Hi Steve
Wasn't accusing Dawkins of saying people were climate deniers. I just hate anyone using the term "deniers" about anything except the Holocaust because of the associations it has, and the cheap credibility it tries to claim. It's a way of saying "these people are like Holocaust deniers" and that's not a good argument. For people who don't believe in the theory of evolution, I'd suggest some less offensive term like "idiots"?
CO2 seems to correlate with temperature, but that's not the same as causation as you know. If temperature rises caused CO2 rises, the correlation would look pretty similar. And I can think of plenty of ways it could happen that way round.
But stop flying in planes, either way. It's not good for the environment. It fills the air with smoke, breaks the ozone layer and I like my skies blue. I do my best (but it helps that I hate flying and driving!)
Gary
Hi G, I know what you mean, I wince when I hear people invoking anything "Nazi'esc" in an argument, it's invariably a precursor to a huge straw man..!
Post a Comment