What we don't know does hurt us.

What We Don't Know Does Hurt Us. How Scientific Illiteracy Hobbles Society
Norman Augustine
1998

Norman Augustine is chairman of the Lockheed Martin Corporation and a member of the engineering faculty at Princeton University.

In an oft-told variation of the Hindu myth of cosmology, a young boy asks his father what holds up the Earth. Amused, the father assures his son that the world rests on the back of a very large turtle. "But what holds up the turtle?" the boy asks. After brief reflection, the father says, "A huge elephant." "But," the boy continues, "what is under the elephant?" Sensing that he is rapidly losing control of the conversation, the father finally exclaims, "Son, it's elephants all the way down from there!"

As one who interacts frequently with the public, I often hear similarly disconcerting explanations about the "cosmology" of the modern world. If one asks a new owner how their home computer works, one is likely to hear: "You plug it in, push the "on" button...and it's all microchips from there on down."

Apathy about science and technology seems especially rampant among my fellow Americans, among whom indifference toward scientific understanding is almost considered a badge of honor. A recent National Science Foundation survey showed that less than half of American adults understand that the Earth orbits the sun yearly, only 21 percent can define DNA, and just 9 percent know what a molecule is. Another poll showed that one in seven American adults--roughly 25 million people--could not even locate the United States on an unlabeled world map. NASA administrator Dan Goldin cites a question he received while defending funding for the space agency: "Why are we building meteorological satellites when we have the Weather Channel?"

The disdain toward science is hardly restricted to the United States. The lead character in British writer Muriel Spark's play The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie states very frankly: "Art and religion first; then philosophy; lastly science. That is the order of the great subjects of life, that's their order of importance."

Somewhat more reassuring to those committed to the fields of science and technology, novelist C. P. Snow was appalled at the lack of technological understanding on the part of much of the public. He would occasionally ask an individual if they could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. He almost always got a negative response. "Yet," said Snow, "that is about the scientific equivalent of 'Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?' "

The great irony, of course, is that as much as any other on Earth, the American economy and our attendant standard of living are based on a foundation of rapid scientific advances. Today, we take for granted that skyscrapers do not collapse, satellites in geosynchronous orbit allow us to communicate reliably and near-instantaneously with others around the world, elevators in 100-story buildings operate perfectly, dams do not fail, automobiles do not break down on the hottest days or the coldest nights, a vast electric power grid faithfully delivers energy to millions of homes and enables us to keep our pizza hot and our ice cream cold, bar-code scanners in supermarkets do not make mistakes (if humans make the proper data inputs), jet airliners carry us safely to our destinations, advanced medical devices function for years within our bodies without significant degradation, and a trillion dollars in electronic transactions are flawlessly entered into millions of individual accounts each day.

Our utter dependence on these advanced technologies became distressingly clear to millions of North Americans this past winter, when a freak ice storm toppled major power lines across eastern Canada and the northern United States. Suddenly, simply switching on an electric light became for many a distant dream; weeks went by before power was restored to many communities. As this episode dramatically demonstrated, much of what separates our modern way of life from that of our cave-dwelling forebears is the product of science--and its sister field, technology.

But despite the innumerable positive contributions of science, and despite the remarkable technological innovations that are constantly being fashioned from that science, there is a great challenge to our scientific community today--one that seems likely to intensify in the years to come. I am referring to what I have from time to time called the challenge of "socioscience."

To a not inconsiderable segment of the public, the word "science" conjures up images of Chernobyl, Bhopal, Thalidomide, Challenger, and the atomic bomb. Too often science is perceived as the cause of problems rather than the solution, as something to be avoided rather than something to be embraced. This aversion to modern technology was the stated rationale of the Unabomber--a viewpoint that traces its history back to the Luddites and other early anti-technology movements. But as Intel CEO Andrew Grove has observed, "Technology happens." And so, I would add, does science.

In a corresponding vein, we have seen huge court judgments rendered against companies for a variety of transgressions based on highly questionable "proof," at least insofar as scientists understand the term. Many juries seem to give about as much weight to the opinions of astrologers as to astronomers. We have seen life-saving medical devices forced off the market by the crushing costs of litigation. And we have the "not in my backyard" syndrome carried to absurd extremes. Recently an outraged citizen demonstrating against a proposed biomedical research laboratory reportedly exclaimed, "They're trying to bring DNA into my neighborhood!"

In short, while scientists have generally considered themselves to be the intellectual descendants of the "Benjamin Franklin" model of the benevolent scientist, bringing enlightenment to humankind, too often scientists are actually perceived by the public to be more in the "Dr. Frankenstein" mold, unleashing scientific havoc on an unsuspecting world.

The lesson we need to draw from this phenomenon is increasingly evident: Modern scientists (and their first cousins, engineers) must become as adept in dealing with societal and political forces as they are with gravitational and electromagnetic forces--and, candidly, up to this point I would not give us a passing grade. Today's scientists are no longer constrained simply by the laws of nature, as was generally the case in the past, but also by the laws (and attitudes) of the land.

For example:

Could we send men and women to Mars? Technologically speaking, I believe we could. But politically there is no will to do so.

Could we vastly increase the amount of electricity available to Americans through safe, nonpolluting nuclear power plants? Almost certainly--as is in fact being done in Europe and Japan even today--but communities in America are still repelled by the notion of nuclear power, especially after the horrendous example of Chernobyl.

Could we build automated highways that would increase convenience and reduce accidents? Absolutely. But who is to pay for them--and who is to insure their builders in today's litigious society?

Would an inventor be permitted today to introduce a new product that would create millions of jobs and make people's lives far more convenient, if projections showed it would cost the lives of 50,000 Americans a year? I do not know what Karl Benz, Gottlieb Daimler, and Henry Ford would answer, but I would seriously doubt it.

Could we build a superconducting supercollider? A manned base on the moon? Open new Alaskan oil fields? Create a reliable ballistic missile defense against terrorist nations? Quite likely--if anyone wants us to.

In a sense, scientists and engineers in the past have been fortunate, for we became accustomed to being measured by nature itself--an unwaveringly fair and consistent, albeit unforgiving, judge. Today, in contrast, we are often judged by humans--with all the vagaries, special agendas, and inconsistencies that entails. This has led me to propound what I have called Augustine's Second Law of Socioscience (and engineering), with due apologies to Sir Isaac Newton: "For every scientific (or engineering) action, there is an equal and opposite social reaction."

As scientists and engineers, our achievements are increasingly taken for granted and our occasional failures subject to intense public criticism. A portion of the problem is due to the fact that there is still widespread scientific illiteracy even among those who hold high-level decision-making positions. For example, only 20 of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have a science or engineering background (which is, by the way, an increase from the recent past). There are only two in the Senate and none in the Cabinet. Of the 50 governors, 9 have a science or engineering degree. Keep in mind that these are the people who must make the decisions regarding automobile pollution standards, approval of a space program, funding of the superconducting supercollider, the human genome project, and developments in bioengineering such as the possibility of human cloning.

The danger to all when those to whom we entrust our well-being do not understand the rudimentary scientific aspects of critical issues was eloquently noted by the late Isaac Asimov, who wrote, "Increasingly, our leaders must deal with dangers that threaten the entire world, where an understanding of those dangers and the possible solutions depends on a good grasp of science. The ozone layer, the greenhouse effect, acid rain, questions of diet and heredity--all require scientific literacy. Can Americans choose the proper leaders and support the proper programs if they [themselves] are scientifically illiterate?" *

All of this leads inevitably to my proposal for a two-pronged effort to help Americans survive--and thrive--in the technologically driven 21st century. First, we need "rocket science for beginners": It has often been debated whether scientists need to be exposed to the liberal arts; a more compelling need, in my opinion, is for poets to be exposed to physics. In reality, uninformed decisions about scientific issues are the equivalent of denying ourselves the future.

Second, living as we do in a "sound bite" world, scientists must learn to communicate far more effectively with nonscientist audiences. In my judgment, this remains the greatest shortcoming of most scientists and engineers today. The time has arrived when scientists will have to come down from the Ivory Tower and enter the arena of real-world debate, bubbling controversy, and--brace yourselves--politics.

It is no longer viable to place our candle under a bushel, for at best we will find ourselves in darkness and at worst our bushel will go up in flames. One must ask why, in today's technology-based society, scientists' voices are so seldom heard along with those of all the others who choose to express their views on scientific issues? We must equip scientists of the future to present their cases in almost every forum imaginable--from town meeting to state legislature, from The New York Times to Sixty Minutes, from the Congress to the Oval Office.

If, as we have in the past, we put our trust solely in the primacy of logic and technical skills, we will lose the contest for the public's attention--and in the end, both the public and the scientific and technical communities will be the losers. If, on the other hand, we become more adept at explaining science and technology, while at the same time encouraging more "rocket science for beginners," our future will be bright indeed.

And already a few encouraging signs are beginning to emerge. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision strengthened the hand of trial judges to exclude evidence from scientifically frivolous studies or dubious "expert" witnesses. This would seem to be common sense, but for many years we have seen such questionable tactics go unchecked, leaving complex technical arguments to be decided on the basis of little more than the emotion of jurors. The Supreme Court decision reinforces a comment once made by former Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger that "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion...but no one is entitled to their own facts."

Over the long term, I am an optimist. I believe our fellow citizens will ultimately come to understand the critical link between scientific advances and our generally comfortable way of life. I believe we will realize that the answers to many of the problems that still confront us will need to be solved by scientists and engineers who understand the complexities of the societal problems their work impacts. Ultimately, I endorse the view of that great "honorary" American, Winston Churchill, who is reported to have said, "Americans will always do the right thing...after they have exhausted all the other possibilities."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5357/1640

Worst polluters 'off the hook' under Howard

Dr Pearse says the Government should do more to encourage the biggest polluting companies to cut their emissions - rather than give them a free ride at the cost of the rest of the community.

By Adele O'Hare

ABC news

Prime Minister John Howard's plan for an emissions trading scheme is letting Australia's worst polluting industries get off the hook, the author of a damning book argues.

Guy Pearse is a Liberal Party member and former adviser to the Howard Government who has documented the role of the self-described 'greenhouse mafia' - the lobbyists for the worst polluting industries - in helping to write government policy on climate change.

In his new book, High and Dry: John Howard, climate change and the selling of Australia's future, Dr Pearse says lobbyists from these industries have admitted to him on tape that they have been running Australia's greenhouse policy remotely for many years.

Dr Pearse says this kind of compensation for the worst polluting industries is the exact opposite of the kind of incentives an emissions trading scheme should provide.

"If you look closely at the implications of effectively carving out those worst-polluting industries from the emissions trading scheme, the impact is to double the carbon price that the rest of the economy bears," he said.

"So you and I end up paying more for our electricity, in order that our worst-polluting industries get off virtually scot-free."

He says that instead of encouraging Australia's worst polluters to cut emissions, the report's recommended course of action would give them a free ride.

"What's being proposed is that our worst-polluting industries get compensated, both for the erosion of their asset value now that we're costing pollution rather than allowing it for nothing, but also they're going to be receiving 100 per cent compensation for the increase in the cost of electricity associated with putting a price on carbon," he said.

"But... once you understand who's in his ear, then his policy makes perfect sense because it turns out that our worst-polluting industries have an overwhelming overrepresentation among the voices that Howard takes most seriously on climate change."

"And when you look closely you find that it's only about 10 per cent of the economy, the mining, metals and energy sector, that he's really paying a great deal of attention to, and going out of his way with his greenhouse policy to serve."

"Those industries, while most Australians now have been sold a message that they are the backbone of the economy and the key to our future prosperity, they're only about $1 in 10 in the economy and about a job in 20."

More here

War for Oil

Here is a story about the real reason the Australaian government went to war in Iraq - to keep its oil supply safe. Hmmm.

.

War for Oil

.

The Australian government has added oil supply security to its list of justifications for keeping Australian troops in Iraq.

The defence minister, Brendan Nelson, says humanitarian grounds, clamping down on terrorism and standing by allies are all reasons for staying in Iraq, but he says there should not be any surprise that securing oil supplies is also on the list.

"It is in the interests of Iraqis to protect and support energy security as much as it is for those that actually buy that oil from Iraq,"

Mr Nelson said. The minister argues instability in the Middle East could affect many nations that rely on the region's oil supplies.

The opposition Labor party's Joel Fitzgibbon says the government has been dishonest with the public from the start of the Iraq war.

"People have suspected oil has been a consideration for some long time now," he said. The prime minister has warned that globalisation could lead to increasing rivalry over oil.

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1970555.htm

.

Please also check out:

.

Peak Oil Debate
.
More Peak Oil Debate
.
World Energy Outlook 2008
.

Global oil supply crunch looming

Here is a worrying story about the possibility of a global oil supply crunch (as demand outstrips supply) - Peak oil debate anyone??

Global oil supply crunch looming

July 10, 2007
Reuters

Record petrol prices are inevitable with global oil demand outstripping supply over the next 5 years leading to a supply crunch, the International Energy Agency said.

In its Medium-Term Oil Market Report, the adviser to 26 industrialised countries said demand will rise by an average 2.2 percent a year between 2007 and 2012, up from a previous medium-term forecast of 2 percent.

"Despite four years of high oil prices, this report sees increasing market tightness beyond 2010," the IEA said.

"It is possible that the supply crunch could be deferred - but not by much."

The IEA's previous Medium-Term report called for world demand growth of 2 percent a year between 2006 and 2011.

It now expects global demand to reach 95.8 million barrels per day (bpd) from 86.1 million bpd in 2007. The forecast assumes average global GDP growth of 4.5 percent annually.

"The results of our analysis are quite strong," said Lawrence Eagles, head of the IEA's Oil Industry and Markets Division. "Something needs to happen."

"Either we need to have more supplies coming on stream or we need to have lower demand growth."

The Paris-based IEA also said additional global refining capacity over the next five years will lag earlier expectations as rising costs and a shortage of engineers delay construction.

It said world production of biofuels would reach 1.75 million bpd by 2012, more than double 2006 levels, but the fuel will remain marginal as economics hobble further growth.

More here
.
**Please also check out:

.

Peak Oil Debate

.

More Peak Oil Debate

.

World Energy Outlook 2008

Climate Change Protest

Photo by Glen Mccurtayne

Climate Change Ski Team member Josh Brown of Bega is led away after his protest.

He shouted: "What are you doing about global warming? There is no snow, there is no snow"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/assault-charge-for-protestor/2007/07/04/1183351262290.html

Human greed takes lion's share of solar energy

July 3, 2007
SMH

HUMANS are just one of the millions of species on Earth, but we use up almost a quarter of the sun's energy captured by plants - the most of any species.

The human dominance of this natural resource is affecting other species, reducing the amount of energy available to them by almost 10 per cent, scientists report.

Researchers said the findings showed humans were using "a remarkable share" of the earth's plant productivity "to meet the needs and wants of one species".

They also warned that the increased use of biofuels - such as ethanol and canola - should be viewed cautiously, given the potential for further pressure on ecosystems.

The scientists, from Austria and Germany, who publish their results today in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analysed data on land use, agriculture and forestry from 161 countries, representing 97 per cent of the world's land mass.

This showed humans used 24 per cent of the energy that was captured by plants. More than half of this was due to the harvesting of crops or other plants.

The human use of the natural resource varied across the globe, ranging from 11 per cent in Oceania and Australia, to 63 per cent in southern Asia.

An agriculture professor at the University of Melbourne, Snow Barlow, said the paper showed humans were taking up too much of an important natural resource.

"Here we are, just one species on the earth, and we're grabbing a quarter of the renewable resources … we're probably being a bit greedy."

Chee Chee Leung

"Mass incidents" on the rise as environment deteriorates

2007-07-05
China Daily

Chinese people's refusal to accept an ever deteriorating environmental situation has resulted in a rising number of "mass incidents", the country's chief environment official said on Wednesday.

Zhou Shengxian, director of the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), did not give detailed figures or examples when addressing a national environment meeting on Wednesday.

But Zhou did reveal that his agency received 1,814 petitions in the first five months of the year appealing for a better environment, an 8 percent increase over the same period of last year.

"As people's living standards rise, they are focusing more on the environment and on quality of life," said Zhou, acknowledging that repeated environmental incidents have undermined public confidence.

Since May, blue-green algae outbreaks have been reported in eastern Taihu Lake, Chaohu Lake and southwestern Dianchi Lake, endangering local tap water supply.

The local government said on Wednesday water supplies to 200,000 people in Shuyang county in east China's Jiangsu Province had been halted for more than 40 hours after ammonia and azote polluted a local river.

An unending series of water pollution incidents has prompted environmental officials to suddenly become very outspoken.

"In China the environment is facing extremely difficult conditions," Zhou said.

Zhou also revealed that the administration would treat the prevention of pollution in the main rivers and lakes as the priority task in the last six months of the year.

"We will give all the polluted rivers and lakes a rest," he said, admitting that northern China's Liaohe River and Haihe River had been seriously contaminated.

There is still a possibility of a pollution outbreak in Chaohu Lake, Dianchi Lake and drainage area of the Three Gorges offshoot, he added.

Frequent water pollution incidents also increased the Cabinet's concern, as a State Council executive meeting presided over by Premier Wen Jiabao on Wednesday stressed the need to amend the existing law on handling of water pollution, allowing for harsher punishment for illegal practices.

The growth of China's high energy-consuming and polluting industries in the first five months of 2007 far exceeded that of the national economy, "posing great difficulties for environmental protection," said Zhou.

SEPA vice-director Pan Yue said on Tuesday that "traditional ways of development have caused the near breakdown of China's resources and environment and people's lives are in great danger."

Local authorities in six cities, two counties and five industrial zones - all in the vicinity of the Yellow River, the Yangtze River, the Huaihe River and the Haihe River - only have three months to fix their "environmental problems", according to Pan.

He set in motion a plan to tackle water pollution in China's four major rivers, mainly targeting illegal pollution discharge.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-07/05/content_910216.htm

Michael Costa an "idiot", says Random Man

Tim Flannery an idiot, says Costa
.
Andrew Clennell
State Political Editor
June 29, 2007
.

The NSW Treasurer, Michael Costa, has called Tim Flannery an "idiot" - just four months after Mr Flannery, the Australian of the Year, launched a climate change forum set up by the Premier.
.
Mr Costa, a renowned climate change sceptic, made his comments in question time in the Legislative Council, saying the environmental campaigner Mr Flannery was wrong to say that dams were going to dry up because of climate change.
.
Mr Costa referred to "idiots like Tim Flannery saying it'll never rain" as he launched into a tirade against the theory of greenhouse gases.
.
More here

.
And the reaction?
.
"My reaction is just lofty disdain," Mr Flannery said.
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

BHP Billiton produces 50 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution a year

Here is a story by Don Henry (who was the Australian Director of World Wide Fund for Nature from from 1989-92) about BHP. The biggest shock was that BHP Billiton globally "produces 50 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution a year, equivalent to about 10 per cent of Australia's emissions". WOW !! That is a lot of emissions. Lacking an emissions target does seem a bit poor for such a large company - perhaps it isn't really committed or fails to see the full reality of climate change.

BHP misses the target on climate change emissions
June 21, 2007
The Age

BHP Billiton's climate change policy, released this week, has the giant mining and resources company making a modest commitment to tackling the most pressing issue of our generation.
It is important that this big international business has a policy, but its policy is weak. The company has failed to set any targets for gross reductions in its greenhouse emissions.

Globally, BHP Billiton produces 50 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution a year, equivalent to about 10 per cent of Australia's emissions.

The absence of a reduction target puts BHP Billiton behind many international companies that have committed to absolute cuts by 2010. BP will cut emissions by 10 per cent, Alcoa by 25 per cent and DuPont by 65 per cent — all by 2010.

Duke Energy has committed to reduce its emissions to 5 per cent below 2000 levels for the period 2010 to 2012.

Instead of setting a target to reduce emissions, BHP Billiton has set a target to reduce "energy intensity" by 13 per cent by 2010. This would allow the company's emissions to continue to increase, so long as the company grows. The energy intensity target of 13 per cent by 2010 is weaker than the Chinese Government's target: to reduce energy intensity by 20 per cent by 2010.

On the positive side, BHP's energy intensity target means the company aims to run its operations more efficiently, which is a start.

Many companies, of course, are genuinely trying to ease their impact on the planet. Virgin Blue offers to fly customers "carbon-free" for a small surcharge, the AFL has committed to offset its greenhouse gas emissions through efficiency measures and investment in renewable energy, and Rupert Murdoch recently pledged to make News Corporation carbon neutral by 2010.

None of these initiatives is perfect but the fact that big businesses are tackling the issue is encouraging. There remains a problem with a lack of widely accepted standards and accounting by which to judge the effectiveness of "carbon-neutral" programs. Companies and the public need to know if the schemes are fair dinkum.

Aside from making genuine and significant cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, corporate Australia has another crucial role in all this: furthering the development of climate change policy in this country.

The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change companies — BP, IAG, Origin, Swiss Re, Visy and Westpac — made a valuable contribution to the policy debate at a time when it was pretty lonely out there. In May last year, their report, The Business Case for Early Action, showed Australia could cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, with a strongly growing economy. The companies called for emissions trading and for 2050, and legally binding 2020, reduction targets.

BHP Billiton also knows there are benefits in Australia joining the global move towards a low-carbon economy. The company's submission to the Prime Minister's emissions trading task group said of an Australian scheme: "Ideally, this would include participation in the CDM (the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism) market."

The only way for Australia to participate in the lucrative CDM emissions trading market is for it to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. BHP Billiton should be publicly calling for bipartisan support for Kyoto ratification, helping take the politics out of a crucial issue.

Shareholders and the public expect corporate Australia to play a lead role in tackling climate change.

First, companies should make genuine and substantial cuts to their greenhouse gas emissions — in absolute terms. Business is a crucial part of the solution. Second, business has a pivotal leadership role in educating employees and the wider community. Third, it is essential that business urge bipartisan support for science-based 2050 and 2020 targets to cut emissions, targets for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and Australian participation in the CDM.

Don Henry is executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/bhp-misses-the-target-on-climate-change-emissions/2007/06/20/1182019202449.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Climate Counts

By Claudia Deutsch
Published: June 19, 2007
NY Times

Climate Counts' Environmental Scorecard

Climate Counts, a new nonprofit group, wants consumers to think about more than taste or service when they make those decisions. It wants them to consider the companies’ records in adding to or curbing climate change.

In a scorecard to be released today, the group will rank 56 consumer companies, grouped by industry, on how they measure greenhouse gas emissions, their plans to reduce them, their support or opposition to regulation and — most important, says Wood Turner, the group’s executive director — how fully they disclose those activities.

“If the information is not in the consumers’ hands, they can’t make informed choices,” Mr. Turner said.

More here
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Banking on Climate change's consequences

18 Jun 07
article from Climate Change Corp

Financial services providers are now addressing what climate change means for their businesses and providing risk assessment advice for their clients.

Climate change has taken centre stage in the finance world, as bankers focus on its implications. In a flurry of research, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, UBS and Merrill Lynch have all published major reports on the issue in the last six months. There is a remarkable consensus in the documents – climate change is on the agenda for governments, regulators, consumers and businesses and this is creating some major risks, but also opportunities.

Imboden outlines the concept of the “2,000 Watt Society”, which maintains that a country like Switzerland can survive on energy use of 2,000 watts per capita while still enjoying uninterrupted economic growth and an equivalent quality of life. To put this in context, he says, per capita energy consumption in Africa is 500 watts, in western Europe it is 6,000 watts, and in the US it is 12,000 watts.

Merrill’s Knight concludes, optimistically: “What has changed of late in our view is that the benefits of addressing environmental issues … are beginning to outweigh the costs.” Lehman’s dour conclusion is that if companies do not adapt to climate change, they may well not survive. And ultimately, what is bad for business is bad for their bankers.

More here

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

BHP commits $360m to climate change plan

June 18, 2007
SMH

BHP Billiton is committing $US300 million ($360 million) over the next five years to support emissions technology development.

The world's biggest miner today released a revised climate change policy, stating it believed accelerated action was required to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
.
"BHP Billiton has recognised that our company, as well as society generally, must make real behavioural changes and accelerate technological progress if we are to achieve a meaningful reduction in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions,'' chief executive Chip Goodyear said.

More here
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Climate change up for debate at NSW Nationals conference

Sunday, June 17, 2007
ABC online
.

Clear divisions have emerged within the New South Wales Nationals during a debate on climate change. It is the first time the annual state conference has considered the issue. The party invited to the Singleton conference scientist Doctor Graeme Pearman, who for many years headed the CSIRO's division of atmospheric research, but later revealed scientists were gagged under pressure from the Government.

.
More here
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Climate Change behind Darfur killing

From correspondents in Washington
June 17, 2007
Agence France-Presse

THE slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizo, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says in an article published today.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change,'' Mr Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column.

AAP

More here


**If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

The Climate Change Market

by Frank Scott

(Saturday, June 16, 2007)

"In order to affect positive change in the climate, both naturally and politically, a majority democratic force needs to counter the minority anti-democratic force of capitalism. No matter what the weather forecast may be, we will face an extremely stormy future if we don’t face that fact."

The global warming issue has become a bonanza for marketing political products dubbed green, meaning nature, but more realistically, meaning money. While actual dollars are rarely exchanged in electronic financial trading, the markets are thriving on green speak and fear mongering. The problem grows, but the buzzwords and commercials offered, as solutions make no mention of the economics that must be confronted.

Politicians all repeat mantras about future green horizons, but without any change in the system mainly responsible for the problem. Madly creating products for sale in markets, with little concern for either their actual need or the long range damage that process may cause, is the commercial religion which has ruled the planet for centuries. Its name is rarely spoken in serious criticism, for fear that it bring charges of economic hate speech.

Capitalist denial may be the major curse of the 21st century, differing from past denial only in that its impact has grown more deadly. Ecology under assault since the industrial revolution is threatened with even more damage as the spread of global capital brings more of the world into its malls, parking lots, garbage dumps and killing fields.

Growing affluence for a minority, a critical part of this social system, depends on the impoverishment and indebtedness of a majority, and the slow but steady deterioration of the natural foundation on which humanity survives and builds its social structures.

This environmental degradation has been criticized for generations, but now not only specialists and visionaries but ordinary citizens can sense and consciously experience the impact of fossil fuels and imperial wars on a poisoned planet. Though the suffering billions who live in poverty are well aware of the down side of this system, it has taken longer for it to be revealed to the developed world. And it isn't only climate that is sending the foulness we put into the atmosphere right back at us. If we don't change our ways it may not be long before what we flush down our toilet commodes instantly flows out of our kitchen faucets.

Most green-speakers represent the forces that brought us to a point at which natural systems are overwhelmed by the economics of waste and war. Some environmental groups are demanding more conscious treatment of nature, but it is difficult for average citizens to break through the plastic curtain of propaganda in the USA. Much of the world lives under the western gun and can’t be held responsible for the long term, given that its future is often tragically measured in days or hours. The major source of the problem is where the real debate is needed, not only over how serious it has become, but how to confront its source and begin working to assure future survival.

While new age entrepreneurs suggest green product lines, which may slow the pace of deterioration, others are demanding more substantial changes. Local groups calling for efficiency in industry and housing may not yet face the source of the systemic problem, but their proposals will ultimately involve bigger productive shifts than any establishment politician has suggested. That is, once they dig beneath the political surface, and get to the economic substance.

Renewable energy generation, a popular and sensible idea, may make for a revolutionary change, but only if connected to its much more positive use. It makes little sense to switch to windmill or geothermal powered factories that produce weapons, or solar powered sweatshops in the third world, or to use nuclear power to manufacture biodegradable products. Not only the creation, but the use of energy needs to become part of the debate.

There is conflict over whether the climate problem is exaggerated, or even exists at all except in a natural sense. But whether we believe it is man made or ultimately correctable by universe, dualistically speaking, we suffer either way . Until we confront the ever more dangerous system of production and distribution of the earth’s resources, arguing about the origins of a process destroying our future makes as little sense as debating whether death results from mass murders called wars, or mass murders called terrorism. The end result is the same.

Purifying carbon producing industries like coal and aluminum, to name only two, will mean vast social changes that may not be apparent now, but will reveal themselves as we encounter institutional forces that prevent a truly clean mode of production for all life support systems.

And there is no way that so called free market capitalism works other than by turning a profit for private investors in the production and sale of incredible amounts of stuff which becomes un-recyclable garbage, and destroying even more incredible amounts of human and natural resources in the process.

Environmental degradation, whether seen as climate change, desertification, pollution or slaughtering innocent people in commercial race wars, is a foremost and primary example of the normal functioning of that process.

We can’t change the future unless we deal with the political economics of the present, and so far the climate change debate has avoided capitalism completely. While democratic power has been futile, especially regarding the horrible slaughter of Iraq, it must assert itself soon if there is to be any long-term future for humanity. When we stop the war on the environment, we will end other wars as well, and probably see an improvement in all aspects of nature.

In order to affect positive change in the climate, both naturally and politically, a majority democratic force needs to counter the minority anti-democratic force of capitalism. No matter what the weather forecast may be, we will face an extremely stormy future if we don’t face that fact.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/44273