Archive for the ‘UNFCCC’ Category
As Kumi Naidoo, International Executive Director of Greenpeace International has said, this is an historic event. The actions of the Russian government two months ago – and the continuing failure of the UNFCCC to agree action to mitigate climate change – do not give confidence that humanity will avert an environmental catastophe. However, it is good that it has at least been agreed that peaceful protestors abducted at gunpoint in International waters cannot be jailed for piracy and/or hooliganism. Here is the email I received yesterday:
Today is a historic day – a day when the fundamental rights of the Arctic 30 have been upheld by an international court of law.
As you may recall, there was a hearing on November 6 at the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea. The Netherlands brought the case seeking the release of the Arctic Sunrise and its crew.
Today, just moments ago, the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea ordered the Russian Federation in a binding ruling to release the Arctic Sunrise and the 28 activists and two freelance journalists who were on board upon payment of a EUR 3.6 million bond.
The Arctic 30 were detained only because they stood up and courageously took peaceful action against Arctic oil drilling and to halt the devastating impacts of climate change.
I have just come from the UN climate talks in Warsaw where governments again have failed to take action against climate change. The Arctic 30 took action and it is time that governments acted with them. It is time for the Arctic 30 to come home to their loved ones. It is time for the Arctic to be protected.
Russia is now under an obligation to comply with the order: the Russian Constitution itself states that international law forms an integral part of the Russian legal system and Russian courts are under an obligation to implement this order. Greenpeace therefore expects Russia to respect International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, as it has done in the past.
As we keep saying, it is still not over for the Arctic 30. So this is also not over for you or me. We must continue to stand firm until all charges against the Arctic 30 are officially dropped. Thirty people stood up for 7 billion people. We must stand with them.
International Executive Director
Warmer oceans cause more evaporation; leading to more moisture in the atmosphere more of the time. This results in more frequent storms of greater intensity than before. This email from Greenpeace therefore needs no further introduction from me:
These are extremely tough times for the people of the Philippines. Unfortunately, this disaster is not over yet and recovering from it will take a lot of time and resources. Nothing will make up for the lost lives though.
I often say this and unfortunately it is true on this occasion as well. It is those who are the least responsible for climate change who are getting hit the hardest by its impacts.
I received the email below from the Executive Director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Von Hernandez. It was such a powerful reminder of why we do what we do that I asked if I could share it with you. He agreed.
Please continue to show solidarity with our colleagues, their families and the Filipino people and remind our governments that every fresh investment in a fossil fuel project is a bet against our children and children’s future on this planet, as Von put it himself.
International Executive Director
It is impossible to put into words the despair that millions of Filipinos are going through right now.
Days after Haiyan (Yolanda) sliced through the central islands of the Philippines, it has become horrifyingly clear that the damage wrought by the super typhoon has been colossal, the devastation absolute.
As of this writing, almost a thousand people have been officially confirmed to have lost their lives. The number of dead, however, is expected to exceed 10,000 — as more reports continue to filter in from other cities, islands and villages that were flattened by the apocalyptic winds and enormous walls of sea water that came rushing ashore.
More than 10 million people are estimated to have been displaced by this single event. Hunger, sickness and despair now stalk the most hard hit of areas, even as aid from both local and international sources started to trickle in. The President has already declared a state of national calamity.
It will probably take a few more days, maybe weeks before the total extent of this disaster can be confirmed. But for sure, this is now considered the worst natural calamity that the country has ever experienced.
While storms and typhoons are indeed natural occurrences, the ferocious strength and destructive power delivered by this typhoon have been characterized as off the charts and beyond normal.
This is also not the first time.
Last year, there was Bopha, which resulted in more than 600 fatalities, and before that a number of other weather aberrations too freakish even for a nation that has grown accustomed to getting more than 20 of these howlers in any given year. As if on cue, and following the template of Bopha in Doha, Haiyan also came at a time when the climate COP is taking place, this time in Warsaw.
Some of you would have already heard about the emotional opening speech delivered by the head of the Philippine delegation at the climate summit, bewailing the absence of responsible climate action at the global level and refusing to accept that the fate of Filipinos may now be irretrievably linked to a future where people are served super typhoons for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Once again, a disaster such as this one, underscores the urgency of the work we do as a global organization on climate change.
It is in fearful anticipation of tragic scenarios such as these why our staff and activists go through great lengths, putting their life and liberty at risk, to take action at the frontlines of climate destruction — whether that’s in the forests of Sumatra or the hostile waters of the Arctic.
I would like to believe this is part of the larger narrative why 30 of our colleagues remain in detention in Russia. And it is our hope that they find courage and inspiration to endure the injustice they are going through, moving the planet away from the clear and present danger posed by runaway climate change.
We thank you all for the messages of solidarity and support you have sent our way at this time.
More importantly, I would urge you to use this moment to remind your governments that every investment in fossil fuels is an investment in death and destruction.
The impact of new coal plants being built or new oil fields being developed — do not remain in their immediate vicinities — they translate into epic humanitarian disasters and tragedies, as we continue to witness in the Philippines.
Greenpeace Southeast Asia
The 18th Conference of the Parties (COP18) to the UN’s Framework Convention on climate Change (UNFCCC), ended in Doha (Qatar) last weekend. Sadly, this event was not considered newsworthy in the mainstream media in the UK. Irrespective of the outcome of COP18, the X Factor and the tragic death of a nurse following a hoax phone call were considered far more important than the diminishing prospects for international cooperation to avert a climate catastrophe.
Back in the real world – as opposed to the sweet-smelling rose garden of our celebrity-obsessed media – the consequences of the UNFCCC’s failure to prevent continual growth in carbon dioxide emissions over the last 20 years have been reported by a wide range of bodies. The news is not good.
Even before COP18 had ended, Greenpeace International executive director Kumi Naidoo, was on record as having told the AFP news agency:
If we make a judgment based on what we’ve seen in these negotiations so far, there is no reason to be optimistic. – Fractious Doha talks bode ill for 2020 deal, observers say
Writing for the website of the Global Travel Industry News website – let’s not talk about its carbon footprint for now – Wolfgang H. Thome (a PhD from Uganda) reported the outcome of COP18 as follows:
In spite of the writing now being clearly on the wall, and climate change projections suggesting an average rise of temperatures by 2 degrees C 40 years from now, and up to 5+ degrees C by the end of the century, the main polluters have once again succeeded to push tough decisions into the future. – Doha’s failure spells doom for Africa
A team of observers from the Center for American Progress website, introduced their summary of events as follows:
The end of this year’s UN climate summit last weekend in Doha, Qatar, marked a period of transition… to… a three-year process to create a new comprehensive climate treaty, which will be applicable to all countries and cover 100 percent of global emissions. – See here for the full briefing on the outcome.
There is just one problem with the glacial speed of the UNFCCC’s progress towards a Treaty to replace the failed Kyoto Protocol – unlike glacier melting in the real world – it is not accelerating in response to the increasingly obvious warming of the planet.
With my thanks to fellow-blogger Paul Handover for alerting me to it – via his most recent post – the Yale Forum on Climate Change and The Media has reported that the renowned British climate scientist – and prominent critique of UK government policy – Professor Robert Watson, recently told a California audience that:
Fundamentally, we are not on a path toward a 2 degree world… Average global temperatures could rise 2 to 7 degrees C by the end of the century, driving a litany of environmental change… Therefore, we must adapt… – Forget About That 2-Degree Future
What scares me about this is that, as Clive Hamilton suggested (in Requiem for a Species), believing that we can adapt to the accelerating change that our leaders are ignoring is very probably a fanciful delusion in itself. – http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/speeches/launch_speech_for_website.pdf
We have failed to heed the warning signs and therefore, just as William Ophuls predicted (in Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity), we are currently in the process of reducing the Earth’s long-term ecological carrying capacity. Furthermore, the longer our political “leaders” take to acknowledge – and respond to – this fact, the greater the collateral damage is going to be. – http://www.greatchange.org/ophuls,ecological_scarcity.html
In the long run, unmitigated climate change is almost certainly going to cause genocide on an unprecedented scale – at least 100 times greater than the extermination of 6 million Jews by the Nazis 70 years ago. As was the case back then, an awful lot of people seem to be just standing around allowing it to happen.
I have been somewhat pre-occupied with the task of ending my unemployment recently. However, I found myself pondering the above subject on my drive home from a couple of job interviews in London yesterday.
I know I have blogged about the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) before (and the Kyoto Protocol to which it led in 1997); and – in particular – how we (all human beings on this planet) are now so clearly in breach of Article 2 of the UNFCCC:
The ultimate objective of this Convention… is to achieve… the… stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
However, driving from London to my home in the NW of England yesterday on part of the UK’s motorway network, I was astonished to see almost every single river valley covered by floodwater. Some parts of the UK have been very wet this year (bringing to an end a record-breaking 18-month drought). However, on the 180-mile journey home yesterday, I was really impressed by the fact that – as the BBC have reported – this flooding is now affecting such a large part of the country.
Meteorologists and climate scientists have a phrase for what we are witnessing – it’s Global Weirding. I believe James Hansen spoke for the majority of reputable climate scientists when, in August this year, he provided irrefutable historical statistical evidence for a reality that atmospheric physics has made inevitable:
I think all decent human beings owe it to their children and grandchildren to face up to the facts of history; and accept the nature of reality:
So-called “climate sceptics” (i.e. those ideologically prejudiced against admitting human activity is responsible for any and all environmental degradation) have dismissed the warnings of climate scientists over several decades as attempts to justify and perpetuate research funding. In a vain attempt to prevent having to pay for the environmental cost of its pollution, the fossil fuel industry, like the tobacco industry before it, has denied that it is the cause of the problem for decades… They have sought to perpetuate doubt and uncertainty; and have even accused climate scientists of crying “wolf”… However, the truth of the matter is that much more money has been spent denying science than has been spent on research and, just as it did in the morality tale, the wolf has now turned up.
What I really object to is that my children and grandchildren are going to be the main ones that have to pay the price for the shortsightedness of fossil fuel executives who have succeeded in ensuring the UNFCCC has achieved absolutely nothing.
Over the last 20 years of UNFCCC meetings, there has been a great deal of talk and very little action. Despite Hurricane Sandy and President Obama’s fine words on the night of his re-election this month, I suspect COP18 in Doha (starting next week) will be no different: Sadly, I think real action will only start to be taken when events like Hurricane Sandy become an annual occurrence.
Therefore, although I do not wish such things on anyone, I suspect I may look forward to concerted action becoming a reality before the end of this decade. By then, as any decent insurance company will admit to you, it is now very likely that we will all be paying the price of the failure of the UNFCCC process.
Therefore we are already in breach of Article 2 (i.e. the objective) of the UNFCCC:
“…to achieve… stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that… prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system…”
As promised yesterday, I want to encourage all those that are not familiar with the issues surrounding deforestation, to explore them in more detail.
Given that humanity seems determined to keep burning fossil fuels simply because they are there, it is now more important than ever that we preserve the Earth’s forests because:
1. Trees photosynthesise – turning carbon dioxide into oxygen.
2. Trees are carbon sinks – they use the carbon to grow (biomass).
3. Burning biomass not used for timber adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Deforestation is therefore bad because it reduces the Earth’s capacity to recycle CO2; it reduces biomass; and it adds to atmospheric CO2. It is bad for many other reasons, including the fundamental issue of habitat destruction leading to species extinction: Habitat loss is the primary cause of species extinction; and in destroying rain forests in particular, we are not only reducing the Earth’s vital lung capacity, we are destroying its most biodiverse ecosystem too.
Many commentators have criticised the UNFCCC and REDD/REDD+ for serving the interests of the global North (i.e. perpetuating atmospheric pollution) and working against the interests of the global South. With REDD/REDD+ being variously described as turning forests into commodities to be traded; excluding indigenous communities; and/or encouraging counter-productive activities, the situation is clearly very complex. But what is the solution? Some say the problem is that REDD/REDD+ is seeking to privatise Nature. Some say that the privatisation of Nature will be its salvation. I think the evidence of history clearly shows that the latter is a libertarian myth. Just as with the Earth’s oceans – and all creatures they contain – we cannot divide them up; assign property rights to them; and then punish individuals that mismanage them. However, must everyone who dares to suggest that property rights and the free market are not the solution to our problems be denounced as a Communist? Garrett Hardin was certainly denounced – if not as a Communist then – as a left-wing bourgeoisie academic… and for what? For suggesting that over-exploitation is the inevitable consequence of an unrestrained free market when dealing with finite resources not owned by anyone. You can see where the libertarian myth comes from: The idea that the tragedy of the commons can be avoided by having no commons. However, this is clearly unachievable. Therefore, we must either exercise collective restraint or we will inevitably destroy the very things that support all life on Earth – namely our oceans and our forests.
In researching this subject, I came across another excellent video – this time a bit longer and involving first-hand testimony from those being adversely affected by REDD and REDD+. So, please, don’t take my word for it, listen to what all these people have to say in this video produced by the Global Justice Ecology Project.
As policies and programs to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) and to enhance forest carbon stocks (REDD+) are promoted around the world by global and national elites, Indigenous Peoples and other forest-dependent communities are raising the alarm that these programs will have serious negative impacts — and will not reduce the cascading threats of the climate crisis. This 28-minute documentary introduces the many concerns about REDD from the perspective of the people who are most impacted, featuring interviews and testimonies from Mexico, Brazil, Panama, Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal, Uganda, India, and California.
Somehow we must find a way to make our politicians change course because, if we do not, I think humanity is doomed. And if anyone is looking for an epitaph, I think I found it many years ago (I just did not realise how it can be applied at a global level):
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” (Proverbs 14:12)
In my search for employment I have recently come across FERN – a European non-governmental organisation (NGO) seeking to improve the way the EU deals with the issues surrounding deforestation. FERN certainly has picked a very difficult nut to crack. However, to understand how the UN is now failing to solve the problem of deforestation, one has to understand how, over the last 20 years or so, it has failed to solve the much bigger problem of climate change.
From its very earliest days, the UN Framework Conventions on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process has pursued the notion of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). This supposedly committed each developed country (and/or Annex I party) to “corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting its anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs” [Clause 2(a) of the UNFCCC]. However, it took 5 years to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol; which included the principles of joint implementation (JI); the clean development mechanism (CDM); and putting a price on pollution through emissions trading (ET). Critics have denounced the latter as allowing speculators to make money out of trading in pollution permits; the non-ratification of the Kyoto treaty by the USA did not help; and an awful lot of time has been wasted arguing about what exactly CBDR means.
In recent years, the UN has sought to address the multi-faceted problem of deforestation through its Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD). Unfortunately, REDD is widely seen as failing because:
(1) It has allowed polluters to purchase forested land (and so prevent its destruction) as an alternative to reducing their pollution (ET); and
(2) It has encouraged land owners to make money from forested land by replacing native forest with commercial plantations such as palm oil.
The UN has responded with its REDD+ programme – designed to encourage the conservation of biodiverse old-growth forest rather than their replacement with monocultures – but this too is widely seen as failing (because ET is failing).
This is a subject I intend to explore in more detail but, for now, I would like to encourage all readers – especially those for whom all these acronyms may be new – to watch this brief video, which I found on FERN’s Home Page.
By Nele Marien in Bolivia – www.nelemarien.info/20-years-of-unsustainable-development/
Therefore could all those re-blogging this please stop crediting me as the author!
Foreword by Martin Lack
Today, with the permission of its Bolivian author, Nele Marien, I am delighted to re-publish an item first posted on her For Whom The Bell Tolls blog earlier this week. I am completely indebted to Nele for bringing this to my attention yesterday; in completely unsolicited comment on something I posted here in July. I was so impressed with the power and clarity of Nele’s blog (brilliantly supported with illustrations), that I immediately knew I had to re-publish it. In the About me section of her blog, Nele describes herself as a “freelance analyst and investigator on environmental policies at both the Bolivian and international level”; who focusses on environmental and climate justice. From 2009 to October 2011 she was a negotiator for the Bolivian delegation to the UNFCCC. This experience and expertise shines through in Nele’s writing; in which she expresses things I know – only she does it better than I have yet achieved…
20 years of unsustainable development
20 years ago, the ecological crisis was already quite evident. Enough for world leaders to worry about it, and to call for a global “Earth Summit”.
At the time, humanity yearly consumed resources and caused pollution at a rate that Nature could regenerate in approximately one year time. But it was clear that this rate was growing. The environmental crisis was growing and the unsustainability of the (even then) current way of life was obvious.
The response of the Earth Summit in Rio (1992), was the launching of the concept of “sustainable development”. The concept was based on three “interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars”: economic development, social development, and environmental protection. The basic idea was that the three are compatible, and that there does not need to be a contradiction between economic development and protection of the environment.
Evaluating the “pillars”
20 years is quiet some time to see if a proposed scheme works, so, time for an evaluation of the evolution of the three interdependent pillars:
1. The Economy has received most attention, and was totally enhanced:
— During this period, world GDP grew approximately 80%.
— Hundreds of multilateral, regional and bilateral economic agreements were established.
— The whole international trade system is legally binding and counts with enforcement mechanisms that have more power than individual nations, in particular the ICSID.
— In times of economic crisis, states have mobilised billions to save the bank.
— The only valid indicator states use to see how they are doing is the growth rate of their GDP
2. For social development, some progress was made:
— Several agreements were made, at a multilateral level.
— New bilateral or regional agreements on social issues are scarce.
— The enforcement of those agreements has been weak, with only a few international institutions having the possibility to emit judicious sentences, but only for those states that accept them.
— The millennium development goals were decided upon, and up to some degree, progress has been made to try to meet them.
3. For environmental protection growth seemed to come from the wrong side:
— On climate change, global green house gas (GHG) emissions grew with around 30% and the GHG concentrations in the atmosphere increased from 354 ppm (just over the 350 ppm safety limit most scientists recognise) to 392 ppm, far above this limit.
— Biodiversity loss escalated, up to more than 100 species/million a year.
— There were multiple human-induced ecological disasters in this period, including several major oil spills and a major nuclear disaster. Nevertheless no policies to prevent this kind of events happening were elaborated, on the contrary, every day more projects that imply huge dangers are approved.
— The global ecological footprint is now 1,5 times Earth’s capacity, while 20 years ago, this was approximately 1 time its capacity.
— Almost none of the environmental agreements are subject to strict compliance systems.
In synthesis, although there has been many conventions, summits and declarations on the environmental side, almost non of them has been enforceable, and the results are clear: the environment is in a worse situation than ever.
So, while sustainable development established three “equal” priorities, it is clear which one prevailed, and which one wasn’t really prioritized. No building can stand on uneven pillars.
Looking for a new paradigm
But, let’s take one step back. Should the three pillars really be of equal importance? Or, rather, is the one pillar the inevitable condition for others to stand? Let’s be clear: without the natural conditions, no social nor economic development is possible!
As a wise indigenous saying says “Only when the last tree has been cut down; Only when the last river has been poisoned; Only when the last fish has been caught; Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.”
The importance of a healthy environment for human wellbeing and even as a condition for the economic functioning is something everybody agrees on. Indeed, development that doesn´t take into account the intrinsic Laws of Nature, and uses up the Earth’s resources at a faster rate than its capacity for regeneration is unsustainable by definition.
If we accept that we have to keep our common activity within the limits of Nature’s capacities and laws, then the next thing humanity should do is to define the fairest way possible of sharing the resources and living possibilities with all human beings. This, the social element, is the next level. Then, having clear that Mother Earth’s health is imperative, that social wellbeing is a common aspiration for humanity, then economy should be put in function of those other elements. Economical policies should make sure that Nature and social wellbeing are to be respected.
Nothing can be nor supportable, nor viable, nor equitable, and much less sustainable, if the first condition is not fulfilled: a healthy environment.
Rio+20: A reflection and adjustment of this unbalanced scheme?
The logical thing for Rio+20 would have been to make an evaluation of 20 years of sustainable development, and adjust any factor that causes a lack in equilibrium.
Unfortunately, quiet the contrary has happened. There was no such thing as an official evaluation, not about the current situation of the environment and the development, nor about the adequacy of policies that have been implemented in the name of sustainable development.
On the contrary, a new “response” was prepared, under the name of “green economy”. The green economy enhances exactly the pillar of the sustainable development that is already the most inflated: it proposes an unlimited economic growth –the final text mentioned ‘sustained economic growth’ not less than 23 times. It claims that technological advances will imply that the impact on the environment will decrease, and proposes economical mechanisms, such as the payment for ecosystem services, which incorporate the environment in the economic scheme, and puts the environment at the service of the economy.
The future this is leading to, may not be exactly the one we want: a future where economy is prioritized over social wellbeing, and where social wellbeing is being prioritized over Mother Earth. This can go only as far as Nature permits us.
AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming. But, let’s be honest! It just isn’t that simple, is it?
Global average temperatures are rising. Since the 1980s, every decade has been warmer than the last. 1998 was a very warm year, but global warming has not stopped; it has morphed into Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD). Some even suggest we should call it Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) but I prefer ACD, because that is what we are experiencing: It will be decades before it becomes obvious that HIRGO is happening and, if we wait for it to be obvious, there will be no way to stop it.
We need to accept that ACD is a reality; it is an inevitable consequence of a warming atmosphere; one with more moisture in it more of the time and – as I said – it is exactly what the climate models have being tell us would happen for decades. That being the case, how is it that our politicians – seemingly led by members of a supposedly left-of-centre Democratic Party administration in the USA – can have such monumental tunnel vision as to offer up the planet itself as a sacrifice upon the altar of the god of Growth?
George Monbiot has been busy this week (and looks set to be busy next week too – presumably calling all sane people everywhere to rise up in a sustained campaign of civil disobedience). On Monday he reported on the negotiations over the text of the declaration (to be finalised today) that:
“The word ‘equitable’… must be cleansed from the text. So must any mention of the right to food, water, health, the rule of law, gender equality and women’s empowerment. So must a clear target of preventing two degrees of global warming. So must a commitment to change ‘unsustainable consumption and production patterns’, and to decouple economic growth from the use of natural resources.” – Monbiot (18 June 2012).
How can the government of the USA be against mention of such basic human rights; what can be more important… Growth, that’s what! Yesterday, Monbiot identified the astonishing inversion of the principles of the 1992 declaration achieved by confusing – if not substituting – sustainability with ‘sustained growth’:
“This term crops up 16 times in the document, where it is used interchangeably with sustainability and sustainable development. But if sustainability means anything, it is surely the opposite of sustained growth. Sustained growth on a finite planet is the essence of unsustainability.” – Monbiot (22 June 2012)
It really does make me despair. I have been complaining for weeks about the way in which so-called climate change “sceptics” invert reality; and now I find that our politicians are doing it too.
Sustainability => Sustainable development => Sustainable growth => Sustained growth.
It is like a game of chinese whispers; except it has been conducted in public and no whispering was involved. It is as if he warnings of scientists have been completely disregarded. Growth is seen as the only solution to our debt crisis. Nothing else matters. Growth will save us from our current mess; we will just have to re-write the basic laws of physics to make the future possible.
I fear this will be humanity’s epitaph: This Rio+20 Summit will go down in history as the day we attempted to re-write the basic laws of physics. It will be, as I said yesterday, a lasting testament to human stupidity, arrogance and greed.
The asteroid is approaching and, rather than designing a rocket to send up to blow it of course, we are getting out the red, white and blue paint – not to paint our flags or our faces – to paint an enormous target across the landscape to guarantee the asteroid cannot miss.
It is no wonder that I am not a socialist. Socialists believe in utopia. Utopia would require humans to be good, kind, fair, and reasonable. Humans – or at least those we have appointed to lead us – would appear to be none of these things and, so it would seem, we are in big trouble; because the Conservatives have been hijacked by people with no interest in conservation; no interest in being good stewards of what we have inherited from our forefathers; no interest in treating the Earth as they would like to be treated themselves; no interest in leaving the Earth as they found it… Nope, to hell with all that namby-pamby, good-neighbourly stuff. They have sold their souls to the god of Growth and, although they know it cannot go on for ever, they are living in denial of that fact; and behaving like it can and will…
Scientists that tell them they are wrong are dismissed as doomsayers; whereas scientists who insist that technology will enable us to circumvent the laws of physics are treated like magicians; and that is what they shall have to be…
Where will it all end? David Roberts answered that one (see the video I embedded here yesterday): 6 Celsius temperature rise by the end of the Century and a perpetual financial cost burden bequeathed to all remaining future generations that will make our current financial crisis seem like we temporarily mislaid the loose change in our pockets down the back of our favourite chair.
People like Anthony Watts and Barry Woods will be incensed by the title of this post; and I will no doubt be accused once more of failing to comply with the need for civilised debate on the subject of climate change “scepticism”. However, let us get this straight, once and for all:
“It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.”
George Monbiot (10 May 2005)
If you dismiss all the evidence that we have a problem because you have already decided that we do not or cannot have one…
If you ignore the vast majority of data that tell us we have a problem, and cite instead the very few studies that appear to indicate we do not have one…
If you question the integrity of genuine climate scientists based on cherry-picked quotations from emails, and ignore the fact that such quotations were twice published on the eve of UNFCCC conferences in an attempt to prevent progress being made…
If you label all those that say we have a problem as anti-progress, anti-Western, anti-human, eco-Fascists, or Watermelons; rather than accept that such people are merely highlighting the fact that we live on a finite planet with a finite waste recycling capacity…
If you cannot see the link between the way in which the tobacco industry denied that smoking causes lung cancer and the way in which the fossil fuel industry has denied that burning their product is damaging the Earth’s climate…
That is not scepticism; it is either ideologically-driven prejudice or willful blindness.
Still not convinced? Just look at this wonderful piece of reality inversion regarding politically-conservative (Mormon) Professor of Geological Sciences, Barry Bickmore, from a recent visitor to this blog – John Douglas Swallow:
“Martin, I did waste my time watching ‘How to avoid the truth about climate change’ and I discovered yet another individual who, if he knows what the truth is (and I do believe that he does), is as deceptive and as untruthful as most of the fools in the anthropogenic global warming crowd… A number that has declined, as I saw just yesterday while watching Al Jazeera TV, to only 35% that now believe that there is anthropogenic climate change (or whatever you call it).”
According to Swallow, Barry Bickmore (a long-standing “sceptic”) has now decided to promote the need to take climate change seriously even though he knows it is all a hoax… To all but the most hardcore ‘delusionistas’, this must surely be the most spectacular piece of conspiracy theory nonsense you have ever seen? Hopefully, too, it is therefore a salutary lesson for all to see what happens when you fail to apply Occam’s Razor appropriately.