« profile & posts archive

This author has written 2362 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

11 responses to “CPD: Thinking Points on Climate Change”

  1. ange

    Still looking through the material, but just wondering, what’s the question?

  2. Mark

    I’m not sure what you mean. It’s not meant to be a set of responses to a question, but a variety of perspectives on climate change policy in the wake of Copenhagen.

  3. CMMC

    Let’s identify the problem first, and have the courage to name it.

    It is the Pollution Industry.

  4. Mervyn Langford

    “………Unless we tackle the myths of growth and development, unless we manage in a short time to enact a radical redistribution of access to the world’s commons, we will face a doomsday scenario.
    We need to look at how the issue of what we call climate crisis is framed. Once you refer to it as a climate crisis, you limit the debate to how much carbon there is in the atmosphere. It becomes a technical problem. How do we reduce carbon emissions? Solutions are seen as top-down techno-fixes, when this is really about the need to change a whole pattern of civilisation.
    Focusing entirely on carbon and temperatures also leaves out the fact that forests have been irrevocably destroyed, seas dramatically overfished, water contaminated. An economic system based on unlimited growth contradicts a limited planet.  It also attempts to obscure the political and distributional dimensions of this global crisis.
    There is a huge difference between those who have historically made the greatest contribution to climate change and those who suffer its most severe impacts. Pollution invariably occurs where the poor live,……”
    (Interview with Edgardo Lander: Professor of Social Sciences at the Universidad Central de Venezuela in Caracas.)
    http://alainet.org/active/35161&lang=en

  5. PeterTB

    Maybe it’s because it plays to my long held belief that the Chinese have no intention of reducing CO2 emissions, but I found this Guardian article by Mark Lynas fascinating – and a bit frightening.

  6. Thumbnail

    Good post, topical issue. A poster on Andrew Bolt’s blog alerted me to the difference between properly qualified sceptics [which form part of the scientific process] and us normal run of the mill sceptics [who are not ‘deniers’ – we just have a few questions.]

    I am one of those sceptics who have a technical background in Engineering and Statistics, and so get caught up in the scientific and technical details of the Assessement Reports published by the IPCC.

    Whilst I agree that there is a difference between ‘qualified’ sceptics and ‘run of the mill’ sceptics, the political will rests with those of us who either accept the science from the IPCC, or simply don’t accept it as ‘settled science’.

    I think ‘run of the mill’ sceptics have every right to ask questions.

    I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with Mervyn. If we throw all sorts of tax dollars at CO2, then we run the significant risk of industry being able to pollute in other ways which fly under the radar.

  7. FDB

    “If we throw all sorts of tax dollars at CO2, then we run the significant risk of industry being able to pollute in other ways which fly under the radar.”

    I, for one, can chew gum and fart at the same time.

  8. Jesterette

    I think a new approach to climate change is called for in light of the events in Copenhagan, where individual countries (or blocks) set their own goals and make their own benchmarks. Clearly “the world will lead and we will follow” approach is never going to work now.

    #5 Peter TB – apparently China did not act alone, but concurrently with India, South Africa and Brazil. That is an enormous land mass and population (though China alone would have been significant). China didn’t modify it’s social policies until it became aware that it was suffering global disapproval. Thus, the rest of the world must set an example, not just in setting targets, but by creating a unified front and by choosing countries as preferred trading partners who act on climate change. This may go against a free market economy and sound a little extreme – but if countries don’t act on climate change, then they have the economic advantage at the expense of the environment and the rest of the world. These countries are currently emerging economically, and might form their own trading block – but are probably too distant from each other to do so effectively. It is more likely they would quickly retreat, and start cooperative talks in order to regain their status.

  9. keIthy

    To add some sort of trivia: David Mills from Ausra is on youtube saying that 440ppm will be breached no matter what happens now…. he also says something like it MAY be possible to bring it back under after this happens but that the 440ppm mark will be breached!

  10. keIthy

    CMMC @ 3, isn’t the problem Capitalism?!!? Hasn’t it already been called the biggest market-failure of them all!

  11. Thumbnail

    FDB,
    Ha ha lol. I do both, and I fart more when I chew more gum.

    At least farting is proportional to the amount of gum chewed.

    I can’t say the same thing for CO2 being proportional to temperature change, unless one takes in the 800 year lag that is evident in studies which show that increased temperature releases CO2 from the oceans, and hence increases the CO2 in the atmosphere, which has absolutely nothing to do with human activity (like farting.)

    Merry Xmas from Brisbane. It is hot here. Oh, maybe I DID fart one too many times.