Climate change-fighting a losing battle?

[kwicky]

We are all about to be landed with hefty tax rises..why? Shouldn't we let nature take its course. Rising sea levels.. King Canute tried to do something about this..what did he achieve? We are now trying to lecture other countries how to behave...China, the USA, India, etc...will they listen to us when their economies will suffer? I doubt it!
Isn't it better for us to take the parts which would help ie warmer winters and less accidents on icy roads. Also cheaper heating bills. But on the negative side prepare for flooding by increasing all our flood defences?

[Llamatron]

I don't think you're being very sensbile.
You'd need to build a 30 foot wall around all of the UK. And of course we'd have to deal with the refugees from low lying countries that didn't have your foresight or couldn't afford a wall big enough and strong enough.

But you're right, money is more important. As long as we're rich now who gives a stuff, future generations can deal with it.

[noxlumos]

You should go and work for that moron Bush kwicky, you're well suited. I would personally pay endless tax to save this planet from the bungling airheads that mistakenly think money is more important that anything else. I appreciate I'm in the minority, but how the hell can you justify your "I'm alright jack" attitude? There IS no upside to climate change. Warmer winters, less accidents?
Horrific flooding, massive loss of life, crop failures, ozone deterioration,extinction of coutnless species, huge levels of cancer, and you're happy because the weather's getting warmer?

[NJOK]

This has to be a wind up.

[horsestache1]

Or written by a very slow 10 year old!

[Pajama Girl]

April 1975 Warning! Global Cooling will be the death of the planet. Please see the links below.

And when confronted with the 1975 article, a Environmentalist friend of mine said [no exaggeration]: we have it right now. We know that global warming is the problem. That cooling trend from the 1940s to the 1970s was just an abberation.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/17247 68/posts

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006 /04/cooler_heads_needed_on_warming.html

"I don't know much about" [she sings this part] Global Cooling or Global Warming, but I do recognize government trying to take more money from us.

[jake-the-peg]

Oh please spare me the global cooling stuff - yes it was embarassing for a lot of scientists but it wasn't based on anything more than predictions based on past cycles.

If you don't believe in global warming you better have a good explanation of where all the goddamn glaciers have gone to!

But the question isn't a stupid one at all. It's been suggested by a number of people that continuing economic expansion and developing green technologies would allow us to tackle Global Warmin more effectively in 20 years or so.

This concept is precisely what today's report contradicts. Nicholas Stern says that doing this would be catastrophic and would plunge the world into a depression that would make the 30's look like a slight shortage of cash.

Does he know what he's talking about?

Well he obtained a Doctorate of economics at Oxford , taught at the LSE, was chief economist at the World Bank and the European bank of reconstruction and development.

I'm certainly not going to call him a fool!

[Pajama Girl]

In fact, the Earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling. In the 70s, scientists with credentials as good as Dr. Stern sounded the alarm and were reported in:

"Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950." " hat tip G. Will

I still don't know much about Global Cooling or Global Warming, but I do recognize fear when I see it. People do, say and believe odd things when they are afraid.

[honest_joe]

If you are of a religious bent then you know the problem of climate change will be solved without our direct intervention. As in other catastrophic situations equilibrium has always prevailed with a return to the norm whether it is overpopulation, disease, or even overcooling. It is in the interests of the provider to maintain the staus quo and make any corrections as necessary.

[jake-the-peg]

Your argument seems a bit confused PJGirl.

I can't tell if you don't believe the Earth is warming or whether you do and don't think it's caused by humans - then you say you don't know much about it anyway!

Firstly yes the Earth does have natural cycles and this rather kicked off the hole global cooling thing 30 years ago when people thought 100,000 years oh we're due another Ice Age - Thinking back to that time I don't remember any researchers saying that it was an imminant threat - I do remember a lot of journalists running stories on it that were a bit sensational.

You'll notice a lot of your quotes are from Newspapers.

Then people started decent measurements and discovered that actually the Earth was warming not cooling.

This is pretty certain now - infact we even have direct satelite measurements

see www.imperial.ac.uk/P2641.html

Or http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GLIMS/

for more visual evidence.

It's pretty hard to argue that the Earth is not warming.

As for the human contribution even the US Senate's comission on climate change has said "the trends seen over the last 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone".

Yes there's fear out there but that fear is based on real change

So what is the best cure for fear? Facing facts and trying to do something about it or burying your head in the sand and saying "It wasn't me I didn't do it it was like that when I got here"

I think that's called the "Bart Simpson defense" isn't it?

[Pajama Girl]

Oh, absolutely. Finding facts and doing the right thing.

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep& id=264777

It's just that we are not all agreed on either the facts or what to do.

That's why I am poking fun at the Global Cooling alarm of the 1970s and the Global Warming alarm of the 2000s.

As fender says, it all sounds like a doomsday scenario. And I was poking fun ... as was kwicky to start this thread, by the way.

But Jake. I know you take this subject seriously and I respect that.

[Dom Tuk]

Jake....how does raising our taxes solve the climate change problem. It gives Brown loads of cash to spend on the heath service but it wont change the world climate because the chinese and the indians and the americans are not going to follow suit. We contribute 2% to world carbon emissions. read that again 2%. no read it again 2%. if we stopped all carbon emissions yes all carbon emissions for ever (if we put the entire UK population in a cryogenic state of being) then the reduction in carbon emissions will be 2%...read again 2%. Sorry to be so patronising but your goverenment is being very patroning about this and it seems to be only the labour faithful who cant see the wood from the trees on this one. He is taking us all from behind over his oil barrel and laughing as he does it.

[WendyS]

I don't think anybody yet fully understands the long term consequences of global warming. As the oceans rise from melting snow, VAST areas of the world will disappear under water. Where will these populations move to? How will countries feed themselves with much of their agricultural land vanished?. What if even the oil producing countries are covered with water.? Wars will be fought as nations seek to find new resources and territory to support their populations. And vast numbers of animal and floral species will disappear for ever. Everybody's living quarters will be crammed closer and closer together as governments have to cram their populations on what little land is left above water. Shall I continue......? Kwicky. you are wrong. All of us have a moral responsibility to do whatever we can to save our planet, even if that means being faced with higher taxes and having to change our personal habits.

[bustergutt]

Has anyone really scientifically put pen to paper and calculated how much snow or ice would have to melt to raise the Ocean water levels Globally to such an extent that we will all drown?
The Arctic is floating anyway it`s mass takes up the volume in the Ocean. There`s not enough pack ice or snow on the Antarctic to make any difference at all. You take a mug full of snow and melt it and you will be lucky to have an inch of water in the bottom. It`s all hysteria.

[jake-the-peg]

Let me try and cover some of these:

Unfortunately I'd have to agree to a certain extent with Dom - I hate doing it but green taxes will not do a great deal - history shows us that the population is very resistant to changing it's behaviour against taxation.

The big nasty is hiding in the corner and as yet everybody is ignoring it. The only realistic way to meet these targets is an expansion of nuclear power. Cameron, Blair and everybody else can visit all the windfarms they like but sooner or later they'll have to bite that bullet and it looks like it won't be pleasant.

Add that to the fact that China's plans will wipeout any savings we make and it's clear that the answer to the world's problem will not be found by turning off our VCRs in the UK.

But we can be part of the problem or part of the solution and we won't be well placed to negotiate reductions with the US or China if we're sticking our heads in the sand at home.

As for Buster's point about melting ice caps If all glaciers and ice caps melt, the projected rise in sea level will be around 0.5 m. If the melting includes the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (both of which contain ice above sea level), then the rise is a more drastic 68.8 m.

Right now though we're only seeing small rises, you'd want to be more concerned about more violent storms and large population pressure as more areas become uninhabitable - if you think illegal immigration is a problem now stick around 20 years!

[kwicky]

All the answers above seem to evade the real problem. That the USA, China and India are unlikely to reduce their living standards. Even with new technology we need to reverse the current climate to prevent a catastrophe. Any action that the UK takes in isolation is so miniscule it will have no effect except to provide a lead that no one is prepared to follow. So we all sit in limbo waiting for the big powers to make the first move. Well if a disaster like New Orleans happened what needs to occur for them to sit up and take notice.

That is why Britain should be concerned only for the British population and not be distracted by some far off island about to be submerged. We can only do this by investing much more resources in our our defences and minimise any future risk.

[tell-me-more]

Bustergutt: Ice is less dense than water, granted. So as the glaciers or whatever melt, the volume of water that replaces them will be less than that of the ice originally.

As far as I understand it, the problem is, when the massive volume of ice turns into a smaller - but still massive - volume of water, none of that mass will be above sea level any more. When melted, all the ice that was previously above sea level will combine with the existing water, causing sea levels to rise significantly. I doubt we'll all drown, but I don't think it's hysterical to be concerned.

[bustergutt]

My point on the Arctic ice sheet is that it is already in the water, Whatever is above sea level doesn`t make a difference, it`s called WATER DISPLACEMENT. It`s the same as putting ice cubes in a glass and filling it with water to the brim. When the ice cubes melt the glass doesn`t overflow.
And jake`s estimate of 68.8m is really stretching it, Greenland is about 4.000 mile in circumference, Antarctica about 11,000. Compare that to the size of the Earth,They will both have to hold one hell of a lot of snow and ice to reach that amount of raise in sea levels.
Has anyone got real scientific measurements of volume and mass? also what about global measurements of temperature, real on the spot readings! I say this as the other day the television forecast said that where I live the temperature was 18 degrees. The two thermometers I have in my garden showed readings of 11 degrees. This have been the same over the past 2 years. I have had the thermometers calibrated and are correct.
I wonder if we are all being told the temperature is on the raise just to scare us into paying these green taxes, when in reality it the same as it`s always been?
Admittedly I have been cocerned over the wind strength and frequency over the past 10 years.

[Ralph]

Taxing us heavily with a "green" tax isn't a stupid idea. Leaving aside individual circumstances, the population of this country can afford to pay more money in taxes or otherwise towards green causes. What good will it do if we only produce 2% of the global carbon emissions? 2%? Good question.

China commissions a coal fired power station every 5 days. Every 5 days, another chimney or two starts polluting this planet heavily for your kids or grandkids. Every 5 days. 5. If we take the extra tax you have to pay and say to the Chinese, "here you go, we know you're only able to fuel your monstrous growth from the small amount of cash you have right now, so we'll give you a bit more cash so you can build something less polluting and still raise the living standard of one fifth of the planets population."

When we've done this with the Chinese, we can do it again with another fifth of the planets population in India. They're going to build these pollution plants to meet current demand with meager funds, we should use our comparative financial and intellectual riches to help both them and ourselves, so everybody gains for a small investment now.

As for the Americans, we can only try and shame them into action. They are singularly responsible for one quarter of all the carbon dioxide emissions on this planet. If they are unwilling, we should act in spite of them and they will follow when their own public opinion points their (next?) president in the right direction, which it surely will eventually. As my mother used to say, "If they jumped into the harbour, would you jump in with them?" The answer was almost always no!