An Isaac Cordal sculpture in Berlin: “Follow the Leaders” – politicians discussing climate change.
And from the New York Times’s Andrew Revkin:
Fred Pearce, writing in Yale Environment 360, provides what I sense is the closest thing to a reality-based view of what’s coming. Here are a couple of excerpts, but I encourage you to click the link and read the piece in full:
The opener:
Batten down the hatches; fill the grain stores; raise the flood defenses. We cannot know exactly what is coming, but it will probably be nasty, the latest report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will warn next week. Global warming will cause wars, displace millions of people, and do trillion-dollar damage to the global economy.
But careful readers will note a new tone to its discussion of these issues that is markedly different from past efforts. It is more humble about what scientists can predict in advance, and far more interested in how societies can make themselves resilient. It also places climate risks much more firmly than before among a host of other problems faced by society, especially by the poor. That tone will annoy some for taking the edge off past warnings, but gratify others for providing a healthy dose of realism….
What else do you expect from a socialist, only-big-government-can-solve-all-problems type of organization ?
Climate has changed, always had, always will, and with now 8B+ people there will be more human impact than with 100M .. perhaps we have a population bubble ? Let’s start with pointing fingers at heavy coal burners like China, US or India .. and also with heavy water polluters like many Asian nations.
Global “warming”, or global pollution as I call it, is a problem that has a few long hanging fruits, like unfiltered coal burning for energy production, and if this very basic fact is not even addressed then all the other more minor issues are far too expensive.
An unregulated market will solve many issues, for example fish: if fish costs more than steak, people will eat less fish and fish consumption will decline. If people overfish certain areas and now cannot catch enough fish they have to re-stock fishing areas, i.e. the problem is self-healing.
We need less government, not even more !
“We need less government, not even more !”
That would work a lot better if men weren’t so greedy. Unfortunately, there are too many who want to get rich quick and to heck with future ramifications. That’s why we’re still burning cheap but harmful coal.
We need an authority acting in the interests of society at large to put some sort of brake on greed of individuals, IMHO.
Greed and progress are closely related. Yes, unmanaged greed is bad, but excessive socialism, such as that of the UN or EU will suffocate much inventions, leads to excessive taxation and overall economic stagnation.
Once oil is more expensive, alternatives will be found. Germany , often hailed as the solar energy king charges quintuple BC’s power rates. Is this really a model to follow ?
Coal filters at least ought to be required. Unfortunately that is often not the case. So yes, much could be done here worldwide, not just in the US, China or Europe. Did you know that Denmark, the king of sustainable energy aka wind energy uses coal for over 50% of their energy production ? Yes, 50%. See here http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/ecoal-archive/ecoal-current-issue/cogeneration-achieving-energy-savings/ .. Not so green as often depicted. Much lip service.
Clean energy is very expensive. Everything, including food, will go up in price substantially. Are people willing to support that. Everyone wasn’t green green stuff, I get that, but green costs. Do people realize that ?
BC is an exception as we have almost no people, only around 4M in a large land mass blessed with ample of clean hydro and ample of LNG and ample of forests. Not so in other parts of this congested world.
Electric cars are also not so green as marketed http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472
Etc
I love green and clean energy, but I can afford to pay for it ( but unwilling to). Are most other people willing to cut their salary in half, pay 30% more taxes and pay 100% to 200% more for groceries as this would be the impact of a non-coal and non-oil society ?
Can i just say, that is a very creepy picture. Where is it from?
Doh, I should have read the line above the image, not just the post. Sorry!
http://themainlander.com/2014/03/05/how-cities-can-fight-climate-change-public-transit/
“This week the Provincial government and Metro Vancouver mayors said they’re out of ideas on how to expand the transit system. That’s a huge problem because the biggest thing that we can do locally to fight climate change is switch from private cars to public transit.”
diesel buses to the climate rescue .. woohoo !!
Who said they were diesel? And even if they were, I’d take a modern diesel bus in a dedicated lane over fifty single occupant vehicles in traffic.