An interesting article from the Financial Times on whether the economic downturn will take its toll on environmental consulting.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5fefa730-b1e3-11dd-b97a-0000779fd18c.html
It finds that two factors will be key in answering this question
1) whether environmental consultancy can help companies to save money and improve business performance; and
2) whether the regulatory drivers that inspired the rush to environmental improvements hold firm.
Most affected area ?
“So far, the firms most affected by the financial crisis have been those which were engaged in contaminated land consultancy for the development market”
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
California Climate Risk and Response
The University of California Berkeley has released a report called "California Climate Risk and Response" which found that over half of California's real estate was at risk from climate change from such risks as extreme weather events, sea level rise and wildfires.
Real estate ($2.5 trillion worth at risk) and insurance represent the largest sectors at risk from climate change in the state, according to the report.
Six additional sectors, including water, energy, transportation, tourism, agriculture and public health would incur tens of billions of dollars per year in direct costs and expose trillions of dollars of assets to collateral risks, according to the report.
“Our report makes clear the most expensive thing we can do about climate change is nothing,” said lead author UCB adjunct professor Davis Roland-Holst.
The report, “California Climate Risk and Response,” was funded by Next 10, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization.
Well worth a read, especially if you live on the coast.
UPDATE
I woke up on Sunday to see "Fire menaces Los Angeles suburbs"
Note: I don't want to suggest that these fires are a direct result of climate change. Fire has been a natural part of the ecosystem for many many years, but we now face increasing risk from fire because of the increasing chance of weather extremes (due to climate change) and the fact that there is more concentrated human development in this area than ever before.
UPDATE 2
.
Here is a story from the New York Times
.
California to Plan Climate Change Strategy
.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has instructed state agencies to prepare for climate change, especially rising seas, as they plan to replace, upgrade and repair the system of pipelines that distributes water around sewage treatment plants and low-lying airports, among other things.
.
“We have to adapt the way we work and plan in order to manage the impacts and challenges that California and our entire planet face from climate change” said Mr. Schwarzenegger on Friday after issuing the executive order.
.
“We don’t want to be investing in infrastructure that could be underwater in 20 to 30 years.” said Anthony Brunello, deputy secretary for climate change and energy at the California Resources Agency.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Financial Times Climate Change Challenge
The hottest thinking on climate change
By Ed Crooks
November 12 2008
The Financial Times is launching a competition to find the world’s most creative ideas for tackling the threat of climate change.
The FT Climate Change Challenge, backed by Hewlett-Packard, the information technology company, and Forum for the Future, the sustainable development group, aims to highlight businesses and other organisations with ground-breaking approaches to what is arguably the greatest long-term danger we face.
The objective of the competition is to harness the collective brainpower of FT readers to identify ideas that have the potential to be scaled up to a significant size, both to build a successful business and to have a material impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
From those suggestions, a short-list of five will be chosen by a judging panel including Sir Terry Leahy, chief executive of Tesco, Sir Richard Branson, Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Mark Hurd, chairman and chief executive of HP.
The short-listed ideas will then be presented in the FT newspaper and online in March 2009, and readers will have a chance to vote for their favourite. The winner in the vote will receive a $75,000 prize, sponsored by HP, to help develop their product and bring it to market.
Peter Madden, chief executive of Forum for the Future, says:
.
“We have to innovate our way out of the climate crisis, and that means unleashing a wave of creativity not seen since the Industrial Revolution. By showcasing some of the world’s most exciting innovations, we want to show there are solutions to climate change, and money to be made from finding those solutions.”
.
More details about the competition, including how to enter, related articles and terms and conditions, can be found at http://www.ft.com/indepth/climatechallenge
.
Source:
.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Nanotechnology - risks and benefits
Some of my thoughts on nanotechnology:
.
When it comes to nanotechnology, there are both possible benefits and risks involved. Those that are pro-science tend to push the benefits (and the nanoproducts) and those that are against science tend to push the risks of nanotechnology and nanopollution. Will nanotechnology help to solve environmental issues or will dangerous nanopollution and nanoweapons be the result? Will nanoscience help to reduce human suffering for many (or few) people? Or will it increase suffering? Will it boost human lifespans and lifestyles or reduce them? And who will benefit or suffer as a result of the new science and technology and its products and effects? Well, that depends on what 'society' does with the new science and technology it now increasingly has at its disposal.
.
Above: Microscopic faces of Barack Obama made using nanotechnology, and imaged using a scanning electron microscope. Each face consists of millions of vertically-aligned carbon nanotubes, grown by a high temperature chemical reaction. Image source here
.
Lets have a look at the benefits first.
.
Benefits of nanotechnology
.
Nanotechnology is already being used in many applications. For example, in modern medicine, nanotechnology is being used for fluorescent biological labels, drug and gene delivery, tissue engineering and MRI contrast enhancement. The benefits of these improved medical diagnostic methods and treatment options could be huge for those that are sick with a range of illnesses and diseases such as cancer. Those that support nanotechnology suggest the amazing possibilities of nanotechnology are almost endless.
.
Strong proponents believe that, with further research and development (and funding), nanotechnology could be used to help solve a wide range of environmental and social problems including: climate change; water/air pollution; and even world hunger. However, the hype and marketing surrounding nanotechnology makes it difficult to separate what is technically possible and what may one day be available.
.
It is also important to consider who will benefit. Can people access or even afford it when they may need it? Who owns, and therefore profits and controls nanotechnology? Much of the debate coming from the global 'South' in climate change, centres around the need for technology transfer, but will nanotechnology solutions be shared?
.
Risks of nanotechnology
.
Consider the case of the nanosock which has nanosilver particles in them to prevent bacteria and foot odor. Preliminary results from research being conducted by Troy Benn (an Arizona State University doctoral student) were presented at the American Chemical Societies 2008 conference. The research found that nanosilver particles would come out of the sock in the wash and therefore be released into the environment. This raises serious issues, such as what happens when bacteria killing particles are released into the environment? Science cannot yet answer that question adequately so we should remember the precautionary principle (PP) and be very careful until we can. Arguments over whether a strong or weak precautionary principle should be used then begin. Those that push for less regulation argue that a strong PP would limit the pace of discovery and therefore hold back the benefits of nanotechnology to those that may really need then now (i.e. the sick or the elderly). While those that want stronger regulation believe that the unknown risks out weigh the possible benefits and slowing the pace makes it safer.
.
New nanoproducts should be tested for safety before going onto the market, but currently the risk research lags behind the new products. Some of this is because we are only beginning to 'see' some of the possible risks of nanotechnology.
.
Molecular nanotechnology may allow the creation of self-replicating machines and the problem of ‘grey goo’. [See: the sci-fi book 'Prey' by Michael Crichton] Is this idea of nanotechnology 'getting out of control' only 'science fiction'? Or is it a very real nasty future that awaits?
.
Nanoweapons could be created, given almost half of all scientific research is for military purposes, there is a good chance that researchers will look towards nanoweapons that could deliver bioweapons – like a nanobot mosquito with a nasty toxin such as botulism). The development of nanoweapons could lead to a nanotechnology arms race, between nanotechnology superpowers or even smaller rogue states or terrorist group. There could be a large number of states with nanoweapons and because of there size they would be difficult to find and easy to smuggle which means they could be easily transported. There is also the possibility that a black-market for banned nanomachines could occur and because of the size of future nanomachines, it would be difficult to find them.
.
Microscopic surveillance devices raise serious privacy concerns because individuals, governments or businesses could misuse them and it would be very difficult to deal with negative antisocial uses of the technology e.g. hidden cameras in private places such as bathrooms, or used for industrial or government espionage.
.
Nanotechnology could have unintended consequences that could cause serious harm to society or the environment. Technocratic science has ‘blind-spots’ that result from its disciplinary and reductionist nature. These blind-spots could include unanticipated new illnesses, unintended negative environmental effects or major negative social change. These unintended consequences could also cause the public to lose of confidence in nanotechnology and this could effect funding.
.
A lack of effective regulations to deal with the unintended consequences of nanotechnology could allow dangerous risks to be placed upon society. I believe a precautionary approach is therefore needed. It is also important to consider who owns and controls the technology, and who can have access to it (when and where it is needed).
.
Having said all this - scientists actually working in fields of nanotechnology and nanoscience are increasingly aware of both the possible benefits and the possible problems. The example of genetically modified food has demonstrated to many scientists, some of the possible battles ahead. Good policy needs to stear through the minefield of the different assumptions and views on 'science' itself.
.
Will the public trust nanoscience if it is found being used for weapons or polluting the environment? What if it is providing much joy and saving many lives? Many governments (including the US Government, the European Union and the Australian Government) have began to investigate the question of what should society do with nanotechnology.
.
In conclusion, because there are many different values and worldviews in our society (e.g. anthropocentric, ecocentric and ecofeminism) and these values and worldviews are often conflicting, there is no one correct way of answering all the difficult ethical and environmental questions raised by rapidly progressing nanotechnology.
.
Therefore, there needs to be a dialogue between all the key stakeholders, rather than a narrow group of experts. In order for the public to gain some control over the technology (Habermas question), they need to be involved in the problem definition, problem framing, discussing of options, etc. It must be a bottom-up rather than the typical top-down decision (leave it to the 'experts' i.e. scientists and economists).
.
This could be achieved using a citizen’s jury (as they did with the UK nanojury). This is needed because nanotechnology has the potential to affect almost all aspects of modern society, so all people have a stake in their future and should help decide what risks they are prepared to take rather than having them thrust upon them without been consulted.
.by Random Man
For more on nanotechnology see:
.
History of Nanotechnology
.
What is nanotechnology?
Environmental Nanotechnology
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.
.
When it comes to nanotechnology, there are both possible benefits and risks involved. Those that are pro-science tend to push the benefits (and the nanoproducts) and those that are against science tend to push the risks of nanotechnology and nanopollution. Will nanotechnology help to solve environmental issues or will dangerous nanopollution and nanoweapons be the result? Will nanoscience help to reduce human suffering for many (or few) people? Or will it increase suffering? Will it boost human lifespans and lifestyles or reduce them? And who will benefit or suffer as a result of the new science and technology and its products and effects? Well, that depends on what 'society' does with the new science and technology it now increasingly has at its disposal.
.
"There are many people, including myself, who are quite uneasy about the consequences of this technology of the future".
Eric Drexler.
Above: Microscopic faces of Barack Obama made using nanotechnology, and imaged using a scanning electron microscope. Each face consists of millions of vertically-aligned carbon nanotubes, grown by a high temperature chemical reaction. Image source here
.
Lets have a look at the benefits first.
.
Benefits of nanotechnology
.
Nanotechnology is already being used in many applications. For example, in modern medicine, nanotechnology is being used for fluorescent biological labels, drug and gene delivery, tissue engineering and MRI contrast enhancement. The benefits of these improved medical diagnostic methods and treatment options could be huge for those that are sick with a range of illnesses and diseases such as cancer. Those that support nanotechnology suggest the amazing possibilities of nanotechnology are almost endless.
.
Strong proponents believe that, with further research and development (and funding), nanotechnology could be used to help solve a wide range of environmental and social problems including: climate change; water/air pollution; and even world hunger. However, the hype and marketing surrounding nanotechnology makes it difficult to separate what is technically possible and what may one day be available.
.
It is also important to consider who will benefit. Can people access or even afford it when they may need it? Who owns, and therefore profits and controls nanotechnology? Much of the debate coming from the global 'South' in climate change, centres around the need for technology transfer, but will nanotechnology solutions be shared?
.
Risks of nanotechnology
.
Consider the case of the nanosock which has nanosilver particles in them to prevent bacteria and foot odor. Preliminary results from research being conducted by Troy Benn (an Arizona State University doctoral student) were presented at the American Chemical Societies 2008 conference. The research found that nanosilver particles would come out of the sock in the wash and therefore be released into the environment. This raises serious issues, such as what happens when bacteria killing particles are released into the environment? Science cannot yet answer that question adequately so we should remember the precautionary principle (PP) and be very careful until we can. Arguments over whether a strong or weak precautionary principle should be used then begin. Those that push for less regulation argue that a strong PP would limit the pace of discovery and therefore hold back the benefits of nanotechnology to those that may really need then now (i.e. the sick or the elderly). While those that want stronger regulation believe that the unknown risks out weigh the possible benefits and slowing the pace makes it safer.
.
New nanoproducts should be tested for safety before going onto the market, but currently the risk research lags behind the new products. Some of this is because we are only beginning to 'see' some of the possible risks of nanotechnology.
.
Molecular nanotechnology may allow the creation of self-replicating machines and the problem of ‘grey goo’. [See: the sci-fi book 'Prey' by Michael Crichton] Is this idea of nanotechnology 'getting out of control' only 'science fiction'? Or is it a very real nasty future that awaits?
.
Nanoweapons could be created, given almost half of all scientific research is for military purposes, there is a good chance that researchers will look towards nanoweapons that could deliver bioweapons – like a nanobot mosquito with a nasty toxin such as botulism). The development of nanoweapons could lead to a nanotechnology arms race, between nanotechnology superpowers or even smaller rogue states or terrorist group. There could be a large number of states with nanoweapons and because of there size they would be difficult to find and easy to smuggle which means they could be easily transported. There is also the possibility that a black-market for banned nanomachines could occur and because of the size of future nanomachines, it would be difficult to find them.
.
Microscopic surveillance devices raise serious privacy concerns because individuals, governments or businesses could misuse them and it would be very difficult to deal with negative antisocial uses of the technology e.g. hidden cameras in private places such as bathrooms, or used for industrial or government espionage.
.
Nanotechnology could have unintended consequences that could cause serious harm to society or the environment. Technocratic science has ‘blind-spots’ that result from its disciplinary and reductionist nature. These blind-spots could include unanticipated new illnesses, unintended negative environmental effects or major negative social change. These unintended consequences could also cause the public to lose of confidence in nanotechnology and this could effect funding.
.
A lack of effective regulations to deal with the unintended consequences of nanotechnology could allow dangerous risks to be placed upon society. I believe a precautionary approach is therefore needed. It is also important to consider who owns and controls the technology, and who can have access to it (when and where it is needed).
.
Having said all this - scientists actually working in fields of nanotechnology and nanoscience are increasingly aware of both the possible benefits and the possible problems. The example of genetically modified food has demonstrated to many scientists, some of the possible battles ahead. Good policy needs to stear through the minefield of the different assumptions and views on 'science' itself.
.
Will the public trust nanoscience if it is found being used for weapons or polluting the environment? What if it is providing much joy and saving many lives? Many governments (including the US Government, the European Union and the Australian Government) have began to investigate the question of what should society do with nanotechnology.
.
In conclusion, because there are many different values and worldviews in our society (e.g. anthropocentric, ecocentric and ecofeminism) and these values and worldviews are often conflicting, there is no one correct way of answering all the difficult ethical and environmental questions raised by rapidly progressing nanotechnology.
.
Therefore, there needs to be a dialogue between all the key stakeholders, rather than a narrow group of experts. In order for the public to gain some control over the technology (Habermas question), they need to be involved in the problem definition, problem framing, discussing of options, etc. It must be a bottom-up rather than the typical top-down decision (leave it to the 'experts' i.e. scientists and economists).
.
This could be achieved using a citizen’s jury (as they did with the UK nanojury). This is needed because nanotechnology has the potential to affect almost all aspects of modern society, so all people have a stake in their future and should help decide what risks they are prepared to take rather than having them thrust upon them without been consulted.
.by Random Man
.
Comments most welcome, what do you all think about nanotechnology??
.Comments most welcome, what do you all think about nanotechnology??
For more on nanotechnology see:
.
History of Nanotechnology
.
What is nanotechnology?
Environmental Nanotechnology
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment'
.
Boost the economy and tackle poverty at the same time.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.
New Environmental Paradigm Scale
I received this in my inbox yesterday (via a listserver that I am on) from Riley E. Dunlap who is the Regents Professor, Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University.
.
It began:
.
"To commemorate the 30th anniversary of publication of the New Environmental Paradigm Scale, the Journal of Environmental Education has reprinted the 1978 article in which Kent Van Liere and I presented the scale along with the following invited essay in the Fall, 2008 issue:Riley E. Dunlap. 2008.
'The NEP Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use.' Journal of Environmental Education 40 (1):3-18.
In the new essay I discuss the development, revisions, criticisms and current uses of the NEP Scale. I suggest that the scale has become widely used after a slow start because changing ecological conditions (particularly the emergence of global environmental change) provided it with increased face/content validity, and discuss why diffusion of an ecological worldview has been hampered more than I could have imagined 30 years ago by an enormously powerful anti-environmental countermovement denying the seriousness of ecological problems."
So I have decided to get a copy and write to him once I have read his paper. It sounds like a great paper and hopefully he will answer my questions too. I will report back soon.
Update 1: After only a few hours, I have already heard back from Dr Dunlap.
He sent me not only the original paper ('The "New Environmental Paradigm") and the most recent one ("The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Margin use to Worldwide Use") but also another two papers "The Organisaion of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism" and "Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP Scale"). THANKS for that!
I have read them, but I need a bit of time to process it all.
The paper about Conservative Think Tanks and their connection to environmental scepticism was very interesting. It reminded me of the US Gallup poll 2008 on climate change, which shows a strong connection between political affiliation (Republican versus Democrat) and likely views on climate change.
.
"To commemorate the 30th anniversary of publication of the New Environmental Paradigm Scale, the Journal of Environmental Education has reprinted the 1978 article in which Kent Van Liere and I presented the scale along with the following invited essay in the Fall, 2008 issue:Riley E. Dunlap. 2008.
'The NEP Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use.' Journal of Environmental Education 40 (1):3-18.
In the new essay I discuss the development, revisions, criticisms and current uses of the NEP Scale. I suggest that the scale has become widely used after a slow start because changing ecological conditions (particularly the emergence of global environmental change) provided it with increased face/content validity, and discuss why diffusion of an ecological worldview has been hampered more than I could have imagined 30 years ago by an enormously powerful anti-environmental countermovement denying the seriousness of ecological problems."
So I have decided to get a copy and write to him once I have read his paper. It sounds like a great paper and hopefully he will answer my questions too. I will report back soon.
Update 1: After only a few hours, I have already heard back from Dr Dunlap.
He sent me not only the original paper ('The "New Environmental Paradigm") and the most recent one ("The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Margin use to Worldwide Use") but also another two papers "The Organisaion of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism" and "Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP Scale"). THANKS for that!
I have read them, but I need a bit of time to process it all.
The paper about Conservative Think Tanks and their connection to environmental scepticism was very interesting. It reminded me of the US Gallup poll 2008 on climate change, which shows a strong connection between political affiliation (Republican versus Democrat) and likely views on climate change.
.
Update 2:
.
Here is a brief summary of the original paper. Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) note that "ecological problems stem in large part from the traditional values, attitudes and beliefs prevalent within our society" and suggests that the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) includes "our belief in abundance and progress, our devotion to growth and prosperity, our faith in science and technology, and our commitment to a laissez-faire economy, limited governmental planning and private property rights". The DSP is "anti-ecological" and therefore damaging to the environment.
.
Here is a brief summary of the original paper. Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) note that "ecological problems stem in large part from the traditional values, attitudes and beliefs prevalent within our society" and suggests that the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) includes "our belief in abundance and progress, our devotion to growth and prosperity, our faith in science and technology, and our commitment to a laissez-faire economy, limited governmental planning and private property rights". The DSP is "anti-ecological" and therefore damaging to the environment.
.
An alternative to this DSP is the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) which includes the ideas of "the inevitability of "limits to growth", the necessity of achieving a "steady-state" economy, the importance of preserving the "balance of nature", and the need to reject the anthropocentric notion that nature exists solely for human use . . . a world view - perhaps best captured by the "spaceship earth" metaphor."
.
"The purpose of this paper is to report a preliminary effort to determine the extent to which the public accepts the content of the NEP and, in doing so, to develop an instrument to measure the New Environmental Paradigm."
.
12 items (see below) were designed to measure the NEP. Subjects were asked to rate each item (from Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Mildly Agree, and Strongly Agree).
.
1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.
2. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
3. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
4. Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature.
5. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
6. Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.
7. To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a "steady-state" economy where industrial growth is controlled.
8. Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive.
9. The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources.
10. Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs.
11. There are limits to growth beyond which our industrial society cannot expand.
12. Mankind is severely abusing the environment.
.
Of these, 8 items were worded such that agreement reflects acceptance of the NEP, while for 4 items (Can you guess which ones? - answer below) were worded such that agreement reflects acceptance of the DSP. Note: I am not sure why they didn't have an even number for each type - this was later fixed up.
.
The results showed "a remarkable degree of acceptance of the NEP - not only among the environmentalists, which was expected, but among the general public as well." and "The evidence suggest that the proponents of the NEP may have been more successful in getting their message across to the public than has been imagined."
.
Answer: Items 3, 4, 6 and 10.
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
.
.
.
.
.
**Other topics covered include:
.
Australia, Biodiversity, Business, Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme, China, Cimate Change, Coal, Conferences, Earth, Emissions, Green Wash, Health, IPCC, Murray-Darling River, Nanotechnology, Nuclear, Peak Oil, Politics, Poverty, Protests, Psychology, Public Participation, Religion, Science, Social, Sustainability 2.0, Technology, United Kingdom, United Nations and the United States.I
**Other topics covered include:
.
Australia, Biodiversity, Business, Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme, China, Cimate Change, Coal, Conferences, Earth, Emissions, Green Wash, Health, IPCC, Murray-Darling River, Nanotechnology, Nuclear, Peak Oil, Politics, Poverty, Protests, Psychology, Public Participation, Religion, Science, Social, Sustainability 2.0, Technology, United Kingdom, United Nations and the United States.I
Limits to growth ???
Just thought I should post this reply I made to a mate about 'limits to growth' and technology. I might come back to it and rework it up a bit as it is a bit rought at the minute.
Hi Mate,
Thanks for that video link: http://www.the11thdollar.com/2007/11/origin-of-money.html
Very interesting, although perhaps a bit simplistic, it did get me thinking.
However, it was mainly the comments made under the video that I want to discuss.
The comments made under the video by the blogger are in italics below for you (my comments then follow, beginning the bolded section).
First, perpetual growth in a finite world is possible.
The factor Grignon doesn't account for is technology. The function of technology is to allow us to be more efficient with our given resources, to get more out of what we have. We are riding the dart that continuously slows its speed by half so as to never touch the wall.
Yes, population is increasing at an exponential growth rate. But so is technology. It is this very technology which has allowed our ever-increasing world population growth to occur. And it is exactly what will allow it to continue, provided that technological innovation is not impeded by man (read: governments).
His error is understandable, as this fallacy is common to all overpopulation scenarios since Thomas Malthus first published "An Essay on the Principle of Population" in 1798. But Grignon's conclusion, that the populace must be coerced into a reduction in the birth rate, is not. It is fascism masquerading as environmentalism.
I think:
Perpetual growth in a finite world is NOT possible because of the ecological limits of the Earth (i.e. greenhouse gas production is causing problems already, loss of habitat and extinction of species due to many human causes, pollution of air water and soil, etc, etc).
The blogger is right that technology plays a role; but he fails to understand how technology affects our impact on the Earth. Technology does play an important role in economic growth but it also play a big part when you consider the environmental impacts that human societies cause.
At the University of New South Wales (Institute of Environmental Studies), they taught us a formula that was proposed (during the 1970's) to explain the impact of human society of the Earth.
I = P A T
I = impact
P=population
A= affluence (consumption)
T= technology i.e. how resource intensive the production of affluence is; how much environmental impact is involved in creating, transporting and disposing of the goods and services used.
(Improvements in efficiency can reduce resource intensiveness, reducing the T multiplier).
So impact equals population x affluence x technology.
The blogger makes two mistakes:
1. Assumes that technology is growing at the same rate as population growth.
However it isn’t - data from the UN World Bank has shown it hasn't been keeping up and is falling further behind.
2. More importantly, the blogger ignores the influence of affluence (A) on the impact on the environment.
Affluence has been growing greatly in the west since the industrial revolution. However, now China and India are rapidly developing (growing affluent) and many other countries are trying to follow our increasingly heavier footsteps (consumer lifestyles).
These two factors means there is an ever increasing (negative) impact on the Earth.
Although we have had massive technology growth (more efficient production), not only is it not enough to keep up with population growth, but the technology is not evenly spread. There are big debates over how to spread the current technology to developing nations where much of the population growth is occurring at present.
Also, not everyone can afford a new hybrid car, for example, or have the most up-to-date energy efficient appliances or homes. There is always a time-lag between the development of a new technology and its uptake by large parts of society. Although getting shorter for many products (e.g. think of household appliances that are now designed to last only 4 years), for many products there is still a long time between updates (e.g. an old energy inefficient house may only be rebuilt after 70 years and may not take up other currently available options such as solar heating, insulation, double glazing, etc, due to cost or perhaps the person is renting and won’t receive the long-term benefits).
Another good example of the problem is that modern car motors are more efficient, BUT there are way more cars on the road (and many cars are caught in traffic and crawl along with single occupants - which is not very efficient at all). Building more roads also makes more traffic, so traffic jams just tend to grow (increasing inefficiency of the system). Bikes are one solution to help reduce the greenhouse problem, but there are many barriers to people getting on a bike – the point is technology doesn't always get taken up or used efficiently).
Note: I= PAT was only a simplistic starting point (the theory has been further developed and is still being refined and reworked) but the main point agreed upon is that unlimited growth can be very BAD.
Growth and development are possible but need to be within the limits of sustainable development. Thankfully, this is now the development model of the United Nations and its many member countries, because unsustainable growth is NOT sustainable.
To say that suggesting slowing the population growth rate is a fascist idea ignores the fact that population growth plays a big part in the overall impact of humanity on the Earth. (I could talk more on this point too but I won't today - lol).
Many economists (and businesses) are now starting to use triple bottom line reporting to try and include the environmental cost of growth on the Earth (e.g. measuring carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases).
Many free-market economists who believe that government intervention makes the economy less efficient also often believe that governments impede technological development when they try and pick technology 'winners'. They prefer that the market decides. This may be true when they protect technology 'losers' (such as inefficient car makers). However, sustainable solutions often need a lot of help to get to market and many 'dirty' industries have been given large amounts of money already and continue to receive them. Just think of the huge investment in 'clean coal' made by many governments.
Governments and science are not seperate, today many have strong links with universities and research institutions and play a critical role as both facilitator and actor (e.g. CSIRO) within technological development. Governments indeed have a vital role to play in encouraging technological development that helps us move towards a sustainable society. Environmental regulations are needed and designed to protect the environment when the free market fails to do so e.g. fines for polluting are designed to try and discourage firms/individuals from doing the wrong thing.
Still governments can also impede technological progress. Just think about the huge subsidies given to nuclear and oil producers rather than renewable energies such as solar, wind or geothermal. Or look at the controversy over car efficiency standards in the US. Legal battles are being fought between Federal law makers who want less stringent standards and Californian legislators (go Arnie !!) who want tighter controls. All the while, both Ford and General Motors are about to go under because they built mainly HUGE cars with terrible fuel efficiency.
Policies that restrict the free-market are designed to protect the system so that it can become sustainable. Yes, policies can be bad and do a lot of harm to industry and people - but good policy should try and walk the fine line between the different stakeholders while protecting the environment.
Also, increasingly banks in Australia (and elsewhere) are starting to insist that projects ‘looking for finance’ take steps to lower the impact on the environment. The banks don't want to 'look bad' and lose their valuable reputation by being connected to 'dirty' projects such as the Tasmanian pulp mill (e.g. ANZ were or maybe still are thinking of pulling their promise of funds for the pulp mill project to go ahead).
Bit simplistic video, as the government does have the ability to TAX and SPEND, so there is another big player in the market that can control where money goes other than the banks.
Also people pay interest because of the opportunity cost (having $100 now is worth paying $110 later for) because you don't have to wait to save it up! Also in say 6 months time, $100 won't buy $100 worth of stuff because of inflation - so the lender wants to ensure that they are not losing on the deal over time. Of course interest charged above this opportunity cost is a different thing altogether. Still, banks are there for shareholders profit (and shareholders want profit) . . . so yeah, that is the system we have and I agree it may need some radical changes. The recent wall street problems have lead to a change in the way banks operate (more regulation and tighter credit controls), but are only really tinkering - many governments are lowering interest rates to encourage borrowing to those that are already drowning in too much debt or worried about losing their jobs and not spending.
Wow, really did get my thinking . . . I will put this on my blog.
Update:
My friend's reply:
Yeah, I found it a bit simplistic, too, but I would talk about other philosophical implications (like the fact that it's not just the bank that creates the money; the borrower is just as much a party to it by promising to pay back money he doesn't have. Banks are just institutions that do what we want them to do: give us money now for the promise of our future hard work). I agree that it's unsustainable and that technology is chancy ground to build castles on. I'm hoping our generation will be lucky and get to sleep in peace before the shit hits the fan. If technology pulls an ace out of the hat, so much the better, otherwise it could get a bit grim.
Hi Mate,
Thanks for that video link: http://www.the11thdollar.com/2007/11/origin-of-money.html
Very interesting, although perhaps a bit simplistic, it did get me thinking.
However, it was mainly the comments made under the video that I want to discuss.
The comments made under the video by the blogger are in italics below for you (my comments then follow, beginning the bolded section).
First, perpetual growth in a finite world is possible.
The factor Grignon doesn't account for is technology. The function of technology is to allow us to be more efficient with our given resources, to get more out of what we have. We are riding the dart that continuously slows its speed by half so as to never touch the wall.
Yes, population is increasing at an exponential growth rate. But so is technology. It is this very technology which has allowed our ever-increasing world population growth to occur. And it is exactly what will allow it to continue, provided that technological innovation is not impeded by man (read: governments).
His error is understandable, as this fallacy is common to all overpopulation scenarios since Thomas Malthus first published "An Essay on the Principle of Population" in 1798. But Grignon's conclusion, that the populace must be coerced into a reduction in the birth rate, is not. It is fascism masquerading as environmentalism.
I think:
Perpetual growth in a finite world is NOT possible because of the ecological limits of the Earth (i.e. greenhouse gas production is causing problems already, loss of habitat and extinction of species due to many human causes, pollution of air water and soil, etc, etc).
The blogger is right that technology plays a role; but he fails to understand how technology affects our impact on the Earth. Technology does play an important role in economic growth but it also play a big part when you consider the environmental impacts that human societies cause.
At the University of New South Wales (Institute of Environmental Studies), they taught us a formula that was proposed (during the 1970's) to explain the impact of human society of the Earth.
I = P A T
I = impact
P=population
A= affluence (consumption)
T= technology i.e. how resource intensive the production of affluence is; how much environmental impact is involved in creating, transporting and disposing of the goods and services used.
(Improvements in efficiency can reduce resource intensiveness, reducing the T multiplier).
So impact equals population x affluence x technology.
The blogger makes two mistakes:
1. Assumes that technology is growing at the same rate as population growth.
However it isn’t - data from the UN World Bank has shown it hasn't been keeping up and is falling further behind.
2. More importantly, the blogger ignores the influence of affluence (A) on the impact on the environment.
Affluence has been growing greatly in the west since the industrial revolution. However, now China and India are rapidly developing (growing affluent) and many other countries are trying to follow our increasingly heavier footsteps (consumer lifestyles).
These two factors means there is an ever increasing (negative) impact on the Earth.
Although we have had massive technology growth (more efficient production), not only is it not enough to keep up with population growth, but the technology is not evenly spread. There are big debates over how to spread the current technology to developing nations where much of the population growth is occurring at present.
Also, not everyone can afford a new hybrid car, for example, or have the most up-to-date energy efficient appliances or homes. There is always a time-lag between the development of a new technology and its uptake by large parts of society. Although getting shorter for many products (e.g. think of household appliances that are now designed to last only 4 years), for many products there is still a long time between updates (e.g. an old energy inefficient house may only be rebuilt after 70 years and may not take up other currently available options such as solar heating, insulation, double glazing, etc, due to cost or perhaps the person is renting and won’t receive the long-term benefits).
Another good example of the problem is that modern car motors are more efficient, BUT there are way more cars on the road (and many cars are caught in traffic and crawl along with single occupants - which is not very efficient at all). Building more roads also makes more traffic, so traffic jams just tend to grow (increasing inefficiency of the system). Bikes are one solution to help reduce the greenhouse problem, but there are many barriers to people getting on a bike – the point is technology doesn't always get taken up or used efficiently).
Note: I= PAT was only a simplistic starting point (the theory has been further developed and is still being refined and reworked) but the main point agreed upon is that unlimited growth can be very BAD.
Growth and development are possible but need to be within the limits of sustainable development. Thankfully, this is now the development model of the United Nations and its many member countries, because unsustainable growth is NOT sustainable.
To say that suggesting slowing the population growth rate is a fascist idea ignores the fact that population growth plays a big part in the overall impact of humanity on the Earth. (I could talk more on this point too but I won't today - lol).
Many economists (and businesses) are now starting to use triple bottom line reporting to try and include the environmental cost of growth on the Earth (e.g. measuring carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases).
Many free-market economists who believe that government intervention makes the economy less efficient also often believe that governments impede technological development when they try and pick technology 'winners'. They prefer that the market decides. This may be true when they protect technology 'losers' (such as inefficient car makers). However, sustainable solutions often need a lot of help to get to market and many 'dirty' industries have been given large amounts of money already and continue to receive them. Just think of the huge investment in 'clean coal' made by many governments.
Governments and science are not seperate, today many have strong links with universities and research institutions and play a critical role as both facilitator and actor (e.g. CSIRO) within technological development. Governments indeed have a vital role to play in encouraging technological development that helps us move towards a sustainable society. Environmental regulations are needed and designed to protect the environment when the free market fails to do so e.g. fines for polluting are designed to try and discourage firms/individuals from doing the wrong thing.
Still governments can also impede technological progress. Just think about the huge subsidies given to nuclear and oil producers rather than renewable energies such as solar, wind or geothermal. Or look at the controversy over car efficiency standards in the US. Legal battles are being fought between Federal law makers who want less stringent standards and Californian legislators (go Arnie !!) who want tighter controls. All the while, both Ford and General Motors are about to go under because they built mainly HUGE cars with terrible fuel efficiency.
Policies that restrict the free-market are designed to protect the system so that it can become sustainable. Yes, policies can be bad and do a lot of harm to industry and people - but good policy should try and walk the fine line between the different stakeholders while protecting the environment.
Also, increasingly banks in Australia (and elsewhere) are starting to insist that projects ‘looking for finance’ take steps to lower the impact on the environment. The banks don't want to 'look bad' and lose their valuable reputation by being connected to 'dirty' projects such as the Tasmanian pulp mill (e.g. ANZ were or maybe still are thinking of pulling their promise of funds for the pulp mill project to go ahead).
Bit simplistic video, as the government does have the ability to TAX and SPEND, so there is another big player in the market that can control where money goes other than the banks.
Also people pay interest because of the opportunity cost (having $100 now is worth paying $110 later for) because you don't have to wait to save it up! Also in say 6 months time, $100 won't buy $100 worth of stuff because of inflation - so the lender wants to ensure that they are not losing on the deal over time. Of course interest charged above this opportunity cost is a different thing altogether. Still, banks are there for shareholders profit (and shareholders want profit) . . . so yeah, that is the system we have and I agree it may need some radical changes. The recent wall street problems have lead to a change in the way banks operate (more regulation and tighter credit controls), but are only really tinkering - many governments are lowering interest rates to encourage borrowing to those that are already drowning in too much debt or worried about losing their jobs and not spending.
Wow, really did get my thinking . . . I will put this on my blog.
Update:
My friend's reply:
Yeah, I found it a bit simplistic, too, but I would talk about other philosophical implications (like the fact that it's not just the bank that creates the money; the borrower is just as much a party to it by promising to pay back money he doesn't have. Banks are just institutions that do what we want them to do: give us money now for the promise of our future hard work). I agree that it's unsustainable and that technology is chancy ground to build castles on. I'm hoping our generation will be lucky and get to sleep in peace before the shit hits the fan. If technology pulls an ace out of the hat, so much the better, otherwise it could get a bit grim.
.
UPDATE 2:
.
A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality (a new paper by Graham Turner, from the CSIRO)
Friday, November 07, 2008
Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making
For those interested in public participation, there is a new book:
Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making
by the U.S. National Research Council. 2008.
Editors: Thomas Dietz and Paul C Stern
Washington, D.C.
National Academy Press.
It is well worth a look too; as it is easy to read and full of good ideas for those wanting to know more about this important part of environmental management.
Anyway, have a look (or buy the book).
It is available online at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12434
Following are the main conclusions and recommendations made:
Conclusion 1:
When done well, public participation improves the quality and legitimacy of a decision and builds the capacity of all involved to engage in the policy process. It can lead to better results in terms of environmental quality and other social objectives. It also can enhance trust and understanding among parties. Achieving these results depends on using practices that address difficulties that specific aspects of the context can present.
Recommendation 1:
Public participation should be fully incorporated into environmental assessment and decision-making processes, and it should be recognized by government agencies and other organizers of the process as a requisite of effective action, not merely a formal procedural requirement.
Recommendation 2:
When government agencies engage in public participation, they should do so with:
1. clarity of purpose
2. a commitment to use the process to inform their actions
3. adequate funding and staff
4. appropriate timing in relation to decisions
5. a focus on implementaion
6. a commitment to self-assessment and learning from experience.
Recommendation 3:
Agencies undertaking a public participation process should, considering the purpose of the process, design it to address the challenges that arise from particular contexts. Process design should be guided by four principles:
1. inclusive of participation
2. collaborative problem formulation and process design
3. transparency of the process
4. good-faith communication.
Recommendation 4:
Environmental assessments and decisions with substantial scientific content should be supported with collaborative, broadly based, integrated, and iterative analytic-deliberative processes, such as those described in Understanding Risk and subsequent National Research Council reports. In designing such processes, the responsibile agencies can benefit from following five key principles for effectively melding scientific analysis and public participation:
1. ensuring transparency of decision-relevant information and analysis
2. paying explicit attention to both facts and values,
3. promoting explicitness about assumptions and uncertainties
4. including independent review of official analysis and/or engaging in a process of collaborative inquiry with interested and affected parties
5. allowing for iteration to reconsider past conclusions on the basis of new information.
Recommendation 5:
Oublic participation practitioners, working with the responsible agency and the participants, should adopt a best-process regime consisting of four elements:
1. diagnosis of the context
2. collaborative choice of techniques to meet difficulties expected because of the context
3 monitoring of the process to see how well it is working
4. iteration, including chages in tools and techniques if needed to overcome difficulties.
Recommendation 6:
Agencies that involve interested and affected parties in environmental assessments and decision making should invest in social science research to inform their practice and buil broader knowledge about public participation. Routine, well-designed evaluation of agency public participation efforts is one of the most important contributions they can make. Because public participation makes a useful test bed for examining basic social science theory and methods, the National Science Foundation should partner with mission agencies in funding such research, following the model of the successful Partnership for Environmental Research of the National Science Foundation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Reference:
U.S. National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decison Making. Thomas Dietz and Paul C Stern (editors). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making
by the U.S. National Research Council. 2008.
Editors: Thomas Dietz and Paul C Stern
Washington, D.C.
National Academy Press.
It is well worth a look too; as it is easy to read and full of good ideas for those wanting to know more about this important part of environmental management.
Anyway, have a look (or buy the book).
It is available online at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12434
Following are the main conclusions and recommendations made:
Conclusion 1:
When done well, public participation improves the quality and legitimacy of a decision and builds the capacity of all involved to engage in the policy process. It can lead to better results in terms of environmental quality and other social objectives. It also can enhance trust and understanding among parties. Achieving these results depends on using practices that address difficulties that specific aspects of the context can present.
Recommendation 1:
Public participation should be fully incorporated into environmental assessment and decision-making processes, and it should be recognized by government agencies and other organizers of the process as a requisite of effective action, not merely a formal procedural requirement.
Recommendation 2:
When government agencies engage in public participation, they should do so with:
1. clarity of purpose
2. a commitment to use the process to inform their actions
3. adequate funding and staff
4. appropriate timing in relation to decisions
5. a focus on implementaion
6. a commitment to self-assessment and learning from experience.
Recommendation 3:
Agencies undertaking a public participation process should, considering the purpose of the process, design it to address the challenges that arise from particular contexts. Process design should be guided by four principles:
1. inclusive of participation
2. collaborative problem formulation and process design
3. transparency of the process
4. good-faith communication.
Recommendation 4:
Environmental assessments and decisions with substantial scientific content should be supported with collaborative, broadly based, integrated, and iterative analytic-deliberative processes, such as those described in Understanding Risk and subsequent National Research Council reports. In designing such processes, the responsibile agencies can benefit from following five key principles for effectively melding scientific analysis and public participation:
1. ensuring transparency of decision-relevant information and analysis
2. paying explicit attention to both facts and values,
3. promoting explicitness about assumptions and uncertainties
4. including independent review of official analysis and/or engaging in a process of collaborative inquiry with interested and affected parties
5. allowing for iteration to reconsider past conclusions on the basis of new information.
Recommendation 5:
Oublic participation practitioners, working with the responsible agency and the participants, should adopt a best-process regime consisting of four elements:
1. diagnosis of the context
2. collaborative choice of techniques to meet difficulties expected because of the context
3 monitoring of the process to see how well it is working
4. iteration, including chages in tools and techniques if needed to overcome difficulties.
Recommendation 6:
Agencies that involve interested and affected parties in environmental assessments and decision making should invest in social science research to inform their practice and buil broader knowledge about public participation. Routine, well-designed evaluation of agency public participation efforts is one of the most important contributions they can make. Because public participation makes a useful test bed for examining basic social science theory and methods, the National Science Foundation should partner with mission agencies in funding such research, following the model of the successful Partnership for Environmental Research of the National Science Foundation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Reference:
U.S. National Research Council. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decison Making. Thomas Dietz and Paul C Stern (editors). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE)
Here are some links to some great papers on green power, food issues and climate change from the ATSE Focus. Including one by Mark Diesendorf (my lecturer in Frameworks at EIS).
Volume 152 - October 2008 - Green Power
Volume 151 - August 2008 - Food for the World
Volume 149 - April 2008 - Climate Change
More available at:
http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=1124
Volume 152 - October 2008 - Green Power
Volume 151 - August 2008 - Food for the World
 | ||||||||||||||||
|
Volume 149 - April 2008 - Climate Change
| ||||||||||||||||
|
More available at:
http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=1124
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Australia's Low Pollution Future: The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation
The Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change and Water released Australia's Low Pollution Future: The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation on the 30 October 2008.
This report presents the results of the Treasury's economic modelling of the potential economic impacts of reducing emissions over the medium and long term.
It spans global, national and sectoral scales, and looks at distributional impacts, such as the implications of emission pricing for the goods and services that households consume.
The Treasury's modelling demonstrates that early global action is less expensive than later action; that a market-based approach allows robust economic growth into the future even as emissions fall; and that many of Australia's industries will maintain or improve their competitiveness under an international agreement to combat climate change.
The modelling shows that Australia and the world continue to prosper while making the emission cuts required to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change.
Summary Report
Summary Report – Corrigenda
Major Report
Major Report – Corrigenda
Fact Sheets Discussing Key Issues of Australia's Low Pollution Future
Consultants Reports – Modelling Australia's Low Pollution Future
Source:
http://www.treasury.gov.au/lowpollutionfuture/
This report presents the results of the Treasury's economic modelling of the potential economic impacts of reducing emissions over the medium and long term.
It spans global, national and sectoral scales, and looks at distributional impacts, such as the implications of emission pricing for the goods and services that households consume.
The Treasury's modelling demonstrates that early global action is less expensive than later action; that a market-based approach allows robust economic growth into the future even as emissions fall; and that many of Australia's industries will maintain or improve their competitiveness under an international agreement to combat climate change.
The modelling shows that Australia and the world continue to prosper while making the emission cuts required to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change.
Summary Report
Summary Report – Corrigenda
Major Report
Major Report – Corrigenda
Fact Sheets Discussing Key Issues of Australia's Low Pollution Future
Consultants Reports – Modelling Australia's Low Pollution Future
Source:
http://www.treasury.gov.au/lowpollutionfuture/
Future climate projections for 52 developing countries
The United Nations Development Program and the School of Geography and Environment at Oxford University have generated country-level studies of climate observations and multi-model projections for 52 developing countries, which are now available at:
http://country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk/
For each of the 52 countries, a report contains a set of maps and diagrams illustrating the observed and projected climates of that country as country-average timeseries' as well as maps depicting changes on a 2.5° grid, and summary tables of the data.
A narrative summarises the data in the figures, and placing it in the context of the country's general climate.A dataset for each country containing the underlying observed and model data in text format is also made available, through the website above, for use in further research.
Some of the developing countries include Afghanistan, Chad, Cuba, Pakistan, The Bahamas and Zambia.
Well worth a look!!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Analyses of the effects of global change on human health and welfare and human systems
Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.6
.
.
A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research.
.
.
[Gamble, J.L. (ed.), K.L. Ebi, F.G. Sussman, T.J. Wilbanks, (Authors)].
.
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
.
.
Also check out:
.
.
.
Climate change fight as important as ever: Rudd
Below is a newstory from ABC news about the cost of an emission trading scheme (about 0.1 percent of national GDP and increasing household energy bills by $7 per week).
Glad to hear Rudd is still pushing climate change during these diffficult economic times.
The scientific reality is that we need to act now !!
The current financial crisis will pale into insignificance compared to the possible dangers involved in a serious climate change crisis.
Glad to hear Rudd is still pushing climate change during these diffficult economic times.
The scientific reality is that we need to act now !!
The current financial crisis will pale into insignificance compared to the possible dangers involved in a serious climate change crisis.
.
Climate change fight as important as ever: Rudd
Fri Oct 31, 2008
ABC news
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the threat of climate change remains as significant as it was before the global financial crisis.
Yesterday the Government released Treasury modelling showing that an emissions trading scheme would have an impact on economic growth of around 0.1 per cent, as well as possibly increasing household energy costs by around $7 per week.
"The challenge of climate change is no less real today than it was before the financial crisis. Addressing climate change is part of laying the foundations for long term economic growth."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/31/2406259.htm?section=australia
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Dr Pachauri says 450ppm too high (we need 350ppm)
Here is a story abour Dr Pachauri suggesting we need a target of 350ppm rather than 450ppm.
.
Expert raises climate hopes
.
Adam Morton
The Age
October 24, 2008
.
The Age
October 24, 2008
.
THE head of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific body has argued for optimism on fragile climate negotiations, believing the snowballing impact of global warming may persuade world leaders to strike an ambitious deal.
.
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, said a more ambitious agreement to cut greenhouse emissions than Australian Government adviser Ross Garnaut believes is possible was still on the table.
.
Dr Pachauri supported the views of scientists who believe stabilising atmospheric carbon dioxide at 450 parts per million - a level that Professor Garnaut says is beyond reach in the short-term - was not enough.
.
They believe the target should be 350 parts per million, to avoid, among other catastrophes, sea level rises of more than a metre.
.
"If you talk to the president of Maldives and indeed the People of the Maldive islands, they are living in a state of fear," he said yesterday.
.
"If you look at parts of Africa, by 2020 there will be 75 million to 250 million people living under water stress on account of climate change.
.
"Attention on some of these issues will increase, it will escalate, it will snowball, and as a result people are going to say 'Look, 450 parts per million itself is a bit too high'."
.
The IPCC last year predicted stabilisation at 450 parts per milllion would lead to a temperature rise of between 2 and 2.4 degrees. Two degrees is the tipping point where catastrophic climate change becomes potentially unavoidable, with ice sheets melting and releasing stockpiles of greenhouse gas.
.
Professor Garnaut believes the best achievable target in the short term is 550 parts per million and recommends Australia agree to play a proportionate part in a deal at this level.
.
He says this would create a framework that could cut carbon dioxide further, as required.
.
Speaking at a conference on the future of cities, Dr Pachauri said stabilisation was likely to lead to sea level rises of 0.4 to 1.4 metres. "Now, add to that the melting of ice bodies (and) you're talking about well over a metre of sea level rise. That, to my mind, will be disastrous for hundreds of millions of people," he said.
.
Garnaut Climate Change Review
The Garnaut Climate Change Review presented its Final Report to the Prime Minister of Australia and the eight states and territories on 30 September 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
