>Climate Change
>There’s a lot of disagreement on whether climate change is occuring and what’s really at fault. Do you think climate change is really ocuring, and if so to what extent is it our (people’s) fault?
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Battison's Blog 
>There are massive vested interests who refuse to accept the Science as fact. These interests oppose any reductions in use of oil , & gas, because the oil owners including Standard Oil in US, Shell, BP and the countries with vast reserves of oil eg Russia, Canada,Saudi-Arabia are happy to see prices rise for ever. They present their arguments, as if they are sceptical about the science. So did the tobacco companies, as evidence mounted about cancer & smoking. They are only interested in continuing to hold the energy-hungry world to ransom.Bob
>I certainly agree that we have to treat the words of such bodies with vested interests with extreme caution. To give another example off the top of my head I remember in 'Supersize me' that a dietician spoke about his father running an ice cream company. He, his father, and his uncle all ate copious amounts of ice cream. But his Uncle died in his mid fifties. The dietician, who was then a child, went to his father and asked if he thought the ice cream had anything to do with the death. He deined it, even though it did. He couldn't face believing that his company was having a negative effect on people's health. Anyone with vested interests (and that goes for people on both sides of the debate) should be treated with caution.But it is not only these people who are arguing against Climate Change. Many Professors are also doing the same, and they do have evidence to back their case, which they sometimes in a very persuasive manner.I'm currently writing an article on the topic and it should be accesible soon. But to summarize: everyone agrees that the Earth's surface temperature has risen about half a degree celsius in the last hundred years. The debate is over the extent to which humans are contributing to the problems. Personally I think that greenhouse gases are not the only contribuent to temperature changes. However I do think the evidence sufficient to state that we are having an impact and that we can curb that impact. This is why the world has gathered at Copenhague; not because we are entirely at fault and should stop now, but because we are significantly altering the environment and do have the power to curb that effect.
>Also, people often talk about economics versus the environment. The cost of investing in the environment is opportunity cost. But there are no end of ways to make wealth through the environmentally friendly route, and indeed most leading economists and financiers are at least thinking of investing in green businesses for the next decade.In addition some people talk about the techbnology simply not being there. Well firstly we can do good already, but secondly, when Kennedy announced his intention of getting man on the moon the US did not have the technology. 7 years later they did it! This is the time now to dream such big goals once more. We can go green and will go green. The first nations to do so will a considerable advantage in this century.
>To throw the cat amongst the pigions (which I like to do since I like neither cats or pigions)… what would the general response be to my decleration that the money that is or is not on the table at this moment in time for poorer nations to combat climate change would be better invested in the development of the technologies that will be needed to reverse the impact whilst providing safe reliable energy for an increasingly overpopulated world. Clearly some of the very poorest nations, often least at fault will be the first to suffer and or to the greatest degree. However, the Netherlands will suffer from rising sea levels, Alpine nations are set to suffer a fantastic loss from the lost revenue of a profitable industry as the edge of Glaciers speed up the mountain and Australia is entirely subject to encroaching desertification of its already scarce arable land. The billions invested into the Apollo shuttle program were more easily justified to important sceptics by the need not to lose to the reds in Space matters again then by any greater human endevour to be accomplised for the good of mankind.I do not want my already bankrupt state to be plundering my hard earned money into dubious aid programmes in notoriously corrupt african states to the benefit of brutal despots who continue to grow fat whilst sucessfully continuing to point blame for the desperate state of their people back at us. Nor am I even slightly able to come to terms with the idea that a consolation fund must be paid to the apparantly still 'developing' oil rich (but dependent) states in the Middle East. All this while the Chinese and Indian elite need not worry of a single penny of their tax finding its way to the other side of the world unless it is in their definate and obvious interest.What can be sold to me is the concept of Britain heavily investing in its own ability to provide itself with energy from resiliant, reliable and renewable sources releasing itself from the fearful prospect of becoming a client state for Russian gas and providing a cheaper and more stable price for the energy consumer (everyone). I am comfortable with the idea of protecting ourselfs from the threat of our undeniable (cause its bloody obvious… we as a species are the biggest pest on earth how can we not be having a bloody) effect on ecosystem / climate / atmosphere. As a Londoner I would love to breathe good fresh air but even more would enjoy the idea of not drowning should the thames barrier possibly be breached. It is then this technology and this knowhow which should be afforded to the poorer nations as it is a hell of a lot harder to thrust a carbon capture machine into a swiss bank account then it is a lot of other peoples money. It could easily be sold to even the most hard-hearted uncharitable bastard on the basis of migration and conflict prevention aloneCOP 15 showed negative realist arguements kicking the shit out of international society arguements. Thst fight is lost and it is now imporatnt to try a different tact and one where the realist is beaten into submission with their own ideals and beliefs.
>Are you talking about our technological development before and instead of environmental aid or are you talking about our development before all aid, including the 0.7% UN development aid goals? I assume you're talking about the first, in which case I believe there is some sense in your answers. You're especially right to talk about motivation to invest. There is not enough of it, but the arguments are in abundance stating that there should be this motivation. Environmental investments in the next decade will be profitable, whether you're investing as an individual in bonds, stocks and shares, or a government investing in technologies and carbon emissions cuts.However I believe that aid should still be given to the developing world for these reasons:. Developing countries are not the ones at fault.. Creating an incentive to to encourage Brazil to impose some restrictions on companies' ever present advance into the Amazon is useful now! Every day 2 and a hlaf acres of the Amazon are being lost every second. So clearly every second counts!. The main reason is that developing countries have not reached their maximum potential with existing technologies. Giving them new technologies would make little difference in the grand scheme of things because many states simply aren't able to utilise them effectively.
>In the winter of 2009/10 cold Siberian like weather swept accross the entire northern hemisphere. And the although ground temperatures have risen with global warming temperatures in the subtroposphere have not. I think the combination of these factors implies that we are living through a change in the magnetism of the Earth's core. Perhaps the Earth's core is shifting its magnetic polarity to counter both changing solar action, and also the hole in the ozone layer.