Next week some leading figures within the climate change debate will gather to help formulate America’s policy at the US Climate Action: A Global Economic Perspective symposium. US legislators will be informed by leading academics and businessmen on the options for tackling the causes and consequences of climate change. That this discussion is still needed is worrying in contrasting ways. Not only because the cause and effect is obvious, but also as there is still deep division as to how to deal with the problem. The symposium is a precursor to the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen in December. The debate on climate change cannot remain in an academic bubble forever. At some point soon, i.e. now, economics and energy security policy will need to be changed to deal with the problem.
A parallel economy has existed for a long time now, involving new technologies that will reduce emissions. But a second parallel economy might be needed as well, one that deals with the consequences of climate change rather than the causes. There is a growing belief that we will have to accept climate change as a fact and limit the damage that it might cause. These inevitable changes will mean radical differences in how the world functions, where populations live and what resources we survive on. The New Scientist spells out in stark terms in its latest issue: in “a world warmed by 4 °C … it may be impossible to return to anything resembling today's varied and abundant Earth…once there is a 4 °C rise, the juggernaut of warming will be unstoppable, and humanity's fate more uncertain than ever.”
The long standing Green opposition to nuclear energy has been one of the first environmental sacred cows to be attacked in recent debate. James Lovelock - proponent of the Gaia hypothesis - was one of the first environmentalists to defy the consensus and argue that nuclear was the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels. That was five years ago and in the meantime the debate has raged, with the government pressing ahead with their nuclear energy policy. But this week four leading environmentalists have broken ranks and reiterated the nuclear case. The issue threatens to split the green movement at a critical moment.
Lovelock has more to say. His conviction is that the earth’s population will peak to 9 billion then plummet to only 1 billion by the end of the century. He also predicts that a permanent changed climate will last 100,000 years. This extremely pessimistic scenario might be extreme, but even if a fraction of his prediction comes true, then the world will be in trouble. His prediction is that a future enviro-catastrophe will resemble the apocalyptic sounding event - Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) - of 55 million years ago. He has, kindly, provided some solutions, if you can call them that. Britain, especially, will be a lifeboat of the world, so will be flooded with refugees.
How we adapt our society both in terms of infrastructure and resources is a question that academics, architects and engineers are already looking at. Events like this week’s Ecobuild conference showcase sustainable construction. With such high profile attendees, ideas for restructuring our architectural infrastructure will gain greater momentum. Obviously putting them into practice in a recession is another matter altogether. Likewise rich lists featuring the next generation of eco-entrepreneurs are admirable, but how close these individuals are to central government planning and decision-making is uncertain.
Creating new structures through intelligent engineering was well advocated in an Institution of Mechanical Engineers report - Adapting to the Inevitable. In the energy sector, the report proposes a fundamental move towards the greater decentralisation of energy production, via intelligent local networks, linked with a more internationally interconnected electricity grid to balance supply and demand differences (ie a European ‘supranational’ grid). Sources of water may need to include a higher proportion of underground storage and catchment. Greater levels of desalination may also be required and increased water recycling will become more important. The report believes that buildings adaptation is perhaps the area where most consideration of future climate change has already been made. More specifically effective master planning of urban areas to increase natural and artificial ventilation corridors. Better planned infrastructure is also required to counter possible flooding.
More radical solutions such as geoengineering are also on the cards. With origins in the Cold war and super power research into climate as a weapon, but largely outlawed by the 1970s, geoengineering now acts as a dramatic solution to an out of control problem. Geoengineering could possibly increase the reflectivity of the planet (the albedo) by propelling reflective particles into the upper atmosphere. The idea of aircraft pumping sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere might seem far-fetched to many, but it would reasonably cheap and would be applied by most nations, in contrast to the expensive and heavy investment options for cutting emissions. Scientific groups including NASA and the Royal Society have been evaluating its potential, whilst environmental groups have been cautious in their endorsement, believing that geoengineering could provide disincentives for cutting emissions. The overall effectiveness, predictability and side effects of geoengineering are questioned by the scientific community. Other risks put forward include weaponisation, geoengineering piracy or the rise of an all powerful megalomaniac with the ability to control the weather for his/her own purposes. Geoengineering could one day by the silver bullet to green issues, but until the science is conclusive, no government is going to invest substantially to take it the next step. Many of these issues are set out in an excellent Foreign Affairs essay this month: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20090301faessay88206-p10/david-g-victor-m-granger-morgan-jay-apt-john-steinbruner-katharine-ricke/the-geoengineering-option.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I agree ref. the global situation but I think the west is going to try to encourage the developing world to leapfrog to newer technologies through trading. Leading the way is surely better than doing nothing? Unless of course you think it's a nonsense in which case thousands of people far smarter than us are deluded . It is about sustainable development much as anything, We have been living wrongly since the start of the industrial revolution, burning fossil fuels, burying our waste, not recycling etc. Even if MMCC is cobblers isn't this an excellent opportunity to move to a sustainable planet?
Jonathon Porrit said it best when he said the bodies are not deep enough yet, that's the sad reality of human nature and the approach you are advocating
Decarbonization - The govt is calling for it and policies are being designed to impliment it. The psychological tipping point has been reached. It would be unimaginable if a new government backtracked on this, the single biggest issue, real or not, of our generation. Read this by the climate change committee http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/TSO-ClimateChange.pdf it outlines strategies for lowering emissions. The Climate Change Bill is real, I don't see how you can say it's just a piece of paper? You're the lawyer though, are there other acts which just exist and nothing gets done?
European procurement law is being changed this year to give local authorities the power to have 50% of their procurements not opened to the whole market - i.e. buying and acting locally, this sweeps away decades of the EU free market goals at a stroke. Why have they done this?
I believe radical decarbonization (and other greenhouse gases) is going to happen is what I should have said however when one expresses an opinion it is usually understood that is what's happening. I am actually working in this arena, currently designing national seminars to train people who procure public infrastructure to do so sustainably, not just mitigating for and adapting to climate change but acting with local social responsibility. My company wanted me to solely focus on carbon and energy as they are the money-spinners and attention grabbers but I have insisted we include all aspects of sustainability as I believe we have been "doing it wrong". Should I stop being naive and just get a job in a casino instead?
thought i'd up your comment numbers - where is the rest of the thread??
I have to say, there is an the air of The Inquisition about the debate on Climate Change. The attacks on those who question the orthodox position is quite ferocious. Even George Monbiot (a colossus in the fight for global social justice and a personal hero of mine) is becoming more and more personal and downright unpleasant in his attacks on such people. I agree with Ross, the coining and use of the term 'climate change denier' is quite objectionable . To insinuate that Climate change sceptics are some how on a par with holocaust deniers is obscene.
I believe two things.
1. That man-made climate change is not entirely proven.
2. That if it is proven then there is no political will to reduce carbon emissions to any meaningful level.
Secondly, I agree that to assume that nothing can be done is a dangerously position to work from. Human endeavour is endlessly creative and we need to be aware that solutions can come at any time from any direction. However, there are occasions when the correct course of action, on balance, is to accept that a situation will most likely arise and that the responsible approach is to direct ones resources towards accomodation and mitigation. I think the issue of Man-made climate is one such issue.
Making a commitment to a carbon reduction policy on paper that will culminating in 40 years time doesn't demonstrate sustainable or deliverable political will to me. All it demonstrates is the position of one group of people (the Government) at one point in time (right now). Its naive to say radical decarbonisation is going to happen. No-one can possible make that kind of prediction and have any geniune assurance that it will actually happen.
And in any case, the UK account for only 1% of the world population. I am talking about global political will, not just domestic. Do we really think that the populations of China, India, Sub Saharan Africa really share your environmental concerns? They want food on thier tables, and once they have that they will want the lifestyles we have lead for decades and all the oil munching consumer comsumer goods that come with it. Environmental concerns come way down thier list of priorities.
Climate change is not a theory it is a self perpetuating industry that pays the salary of countless academics. And even if it is true, the only way to lower carbon emissions in any meaningful way is to dramatically contract the world economy and there is zero political will to do that.
The best option is case by case mitigation of effects.
1. We may never know but basically apart from a few dissenters tens of thousands of scientist agree that the climate is changing rapidly and this is related to human activity.
2. This is just not true, in this country at least, 80% reduction by 2050. Radical Decarbonisation is going to happen. I refer you to my previous post. I think Obama is also going to drive the agenda hard.
3. It could all be sunspot related, in which case we may be fecked no matter what.
4. Lets go to an energy efficient community anyway, just because its the smart/cheap/responsible thing to do.
Investment in new energy technologies will reduce global emissions and provide an economic stimulus – solving two of the world’s most serious problems....
having recently been with a female I would not, however if there's another three month drought then I might consider it after a few whiffs of her bleach.
assuming we can't do anything is a bad place to start from. Remember that green politics have brought about real change in the past - e.g. CFCs and the ozone layer. This is bigger and harder problem yes, but huge awareness has already been brought to the western world and I'm optimistic that some solutions will be found in the next few years to at least reduce the potential damage. Sure - at the same time we should probably think about what to do about rising sea levels, for example, but prevention is better than cure! Hence my knife analogy that "cuts" to the core of your central argument.
Movement towards a low carbon economy is happening.. http://interactive.berr.gov.uk/lowcarbon/
Slower than ideal, but it is happening.... regardless of MMCC disagreement....
sort of lessaiz faire attitude to climate change - surely better to reduce the chance of something happening rather than deal with it later. Sort of like saying let's work out how to bandage knife wounds better, rather than stopping people are getting stabbed in the first place.
Whilst I accept your passion and belief in MMCC and also that you are actually 'putting your money where your mouth is' and taking part in the effort to reduce carbon emissions, I nonetheless disagree with certain interpretations, extrapolations and assumptions you make about the situation you believe we find ourselves in. And equally, despite disagreeing with you, I am in no way annoyed by your views.
let me step past your condescension for one minute.
I am sure human activities effect the climate on a limited level. What I believe is more likely is a cyclical adjustment of the earth's climate systems, you are aware, I am sure, that we have experienced the longest period without an Ice Age with millions of years, 10-15,000 years and counting. You are also aware I am sure of phenomena such as the Little Ice Age of the 17th century, way before the Industrial Revolution.
I would suggest that it is typical human arrogance to assume that 'he' is creator of all 'he' sees, for good and bad, without possibly conceiving that the variances occurring have never happened before because he has recorded history for the last 200 years.
saying that, i just want nicer Summers :o)
Post a Comment