Three degrees 'inevitable' says UK govt scientist 15 April 06

I don’t seen Americans getting into this issue & reducing their GHGs. They are in a state of permanent denial. I think the worse it get, the more they deny, because their big egos won’t allow them to admit any fault—even to the extent of having their own children & grandchildren suffer greatly. I’ve learned in other contexts that they don’t love their children, they only seek their own glory through their children & all else. Anything detracting from their self-glory is to be ignored or condemned….Hope I’m totally wrong.

Here’s an interest satire of the Armageddon people:

http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magellanslog52/armageddon.htm

Though I think Sir David has erred in the past, I think these latest remarks may have been a good move, by throwing up a poignant angle for coverage of the climate change story.

His remarks led several media outlets to report on the immediacy and expected consequences of 3C warming. I was thrilled to see the Daily Telegraph filling the editorial top half of page 3 (Saturday) with such a feature, giving the final word to Tony Juniper’s comment and with a pictorial inset quoting Bill Hare on various effects of 1C, 2C and 3C warming.

Even the Daily Mail uncritically reported David King’s warnings on the imminence and consequences of 3C warming. Thus upping the ante against recent self-serving diatribes by columnists Michael Hanlon and Melanie Phillips.

He is certainly right that the world should prepare for the eventuality.

Yes, but he is not just saying that, if we don’t act now, those things will happen. Last year he said we should aim for stabilising the atmosphere at 450ppm, now he has increased this to 500ppm. This would mean moving away from the EU target of stabilising the climate below 2 degrees C, which would be unlikely to achieve above 450-475 ppm (of course, nobody can predict the precise level). He has been criticised by other scientists for this, and the level he wants to negotiate seems to be based on his view of ‘political reality’ not of dangerous climate change. Of course, I can understand his pessimism and where he comes from.

Almuth Ernsting

I like the way you’ve structured the book Mark and look forward to reading it. I’ve said, in a fairly throw away fashion below, that we need a TV (and maybe radio) series on the AGW/CC future that faces us. I hope you are alerting your media contacts to the potential your book’s structure has for this venture.

Half-a-dozen 15 minute word picture radio programmes would be good. A 6 part mini series following your chapters on TV would be great. With the CGI stuff they produce now the future could be graphically depicted. Just taking maps with the contour lines being submerged one by one would be a bit of a wake call as viewers see their own town, street and home threatened.

Douglas Coker

I would agree that the USA neo-con goverment and media are in a state of denial about global warming. However, I believe there is a sizeable proportion of the American population who are either open-minded enough to see through the propoganda or can be encouraged to do so if they were engaged in trans-Atlantic debate (is this idealistic?).

I am new to blogging but surely that is where it comes into its own. Public opinion in America has to shift against the pro-oil parties who are trying to carve up the Arctic (which is rapidly melting) to find more fossil fuels to further speed up global warming. It is madness but there must be ways of pursuading even the more egotistical and undiscriminating portions of the population that the consequences of doing nothing are not worth considering.

I would like green politics to be introduced into the regular discussion points in tabloids, whereby multinationals have to pay for any pollution and the nation’s wealth is partly measured by environmental diversity and riches as well as the current markers.

Oops.

Evidence:

1. 2.

IMHO, folks are starting to cut through the BS and see for themselves.

Best,

D

“Says FoE director Tony Juniper: ‘It is technologically possible to significantly reduce our emissions and deliver 2C…’” Sure… but first world-society must design an economy that does not require the consumption of 83 million barrels of oil every day. Capitalism will not do it.

The part I will share has to do with the climate effects of flying which I am addressing as part of a much longer document I am writing. This document will be forwarded to those in the NGO who wish to promote a policy dealing with global warming and energy issues for the USA.

I am sharing it because many of the ideas I am suggesting originated in discussion on Mark’s blog. I want to know that those who have advanced my knowledge are also enabling me to use that information in a positive way. It is in draft at the moment. Special regards to Almuth for providing me that link to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

When I feel anxious, I come to this site and it helps me because everyone has an awareness of what we are truly up against. It is hard to find that awareness here in the USA. If you feel discouraged, know that you are not alone. Remember, saving the planet was never meant to be an easy task.

Below is the part dealing with flying. I hope this indicates that those on this blog may be doing more than they realize. I am working on it and I come here often. I live in the USA.

The Climatic Effects of Flying (Recommendations)

Problem: How do we reduce and eliminate the climatic impact of air flights?

Discussion:

The total effect of flying is 3 times the carbon emissions of the fuel itself based on the current practice of flying in the stratosphere. The effects of water vapor, contrails, and cirrus cloud formation increase heat trapping qualities of the atmosphere.

Present trends indicate a desire to save the airline industry at all costs despite its climatic effects while using fuel subsidies at taxpayer’s expense. So we enjoy cheap air flights, and save an industry, but this is causing detrimental harm to the climate.

Useful Information:

Royal Commission On Environmental Pollution, UK http://www.rcep.org.uk/aviation/av05-s3.pdf

Recommendations:

1. Through education, disclose to the public the climatic impact of flying and provide guidelines to reduce the number of flights taken, and how to best use other alternatives. Provide the public guidelines on how to schedule flights with lower climate impact such as seeking flights with 100 percent passenger occupancy. (Note: most calculations assume about 80 percent occupancy on an aircraft. If a flight has fewer people on it, then the effect per person is magnified. If all flights were near 100 percent capacity, then this would reduce emissions up to 20 percent).

2. Seek a phase out of all marketing incentives such as frequent flyer miles which can be used for free flights and purchasing merchandise.

3. Through an ongoing dialogue with the Airline Industry, determine what win-win procedures and incentives can insure all planes are at 100 percent occupancy and how can the public know in advance this information. Higher occupancy increases efficiency and lowers the total number of flights.

4. Seek a phase out on airline subsidies. Immediately redirect current spending to aid the airline industry on how to best scale back flights to reduce their climate impact, and the impact on displaced infrastructure and workers. Provide a time table on transferring subsidies toward commuter rail development. Seek to merge rail and flight operations in future planning to utilize existing infrastructure when feasible in the transition to using more train options. Seek to insure train fare as well as bus fare is less expensive than flying plus all the other amenities that are normally discounted by air travel. Car rentals located near train and bus depots should not be higher in price to those using the airline facilities.

5. Through an ongoing dialogue with the Airline Industry, determine what win-win procedures and incentives can insure all planes are at 100 percent occupancy. How can the public know in advance this information which can lower their climate impact. Higher occupancy saves fuel costs and encourages a win-win constructive dialogue between [NGO] and the airline industry.

6. On reducing the climatic impact of flight itself, flying in the troposphere has benefits. Avoiding stratospheric flight can eliminate excess water vapor which lingers for years when flying in the stratosphere. Using turboprop jet engines versus regular jet engines are more efficient when traveling in the troposphere. Propeller craft can have pollution controls which eliminate NOx like in automobiles. The main factor in reducing NOx lies in lower temperatures in the burn which may be difficult to achieve in jet engines.

7. Other improvements to reducing the impact of flying on the climate include using non-carbon fuels such as hydrogen but to still fly within the troposphere. Also, as suggested in the referenced report, flight paths may be directed in ways which can minimize the formation of contrails and cirrus clouds.

8. More research on the impacts of flying is needed because so many uncertainties exist with many competing tradeoffs. Flying in the troposphere can use more fuel than flying in the thin stratosphere but the effect is worse in the stratosphere even with lower carbon emissions. Much fuel is used for takeoff and landings as compared to level flight. Planes fly in the stratosphere longer for non-stop flights of a longer distance to save fuel and time. Research is needed to eliminate remaining climate uncertainties which inhibit our ability to create policy and offer firm guidance for the airline industry.

Yes, thanks Douglas, I’m totally on your wavelength here: I liked your earlier idea of ‘time team – into the future’, and indeed have been trying to persuade the BBC that some variant of this idea would be a good way to televise Six Degrees. I’m talking to a few other TV producer people too (no point in putting all eggs in one basket), so fingers crossed that something comes through.

Dan, This sounds very good. You might wish to add a paragraph on aviation fuel duty. Perhaps also one to express concerns about the Clear Skies treaty, currently being negotiated between the US and the EU, where the US push to prevent Europe from imposing any restrictions or ‘financial burdens’ on aviation. You might also like to have a look at the UK website www.airportwatch.org.uk/ – perhaps, if you email them directly they could give you some more comments, or point you to some further documents to consider – particularly when it comes to the different measures they have considered to reduce the impact of aviation.

Almuth Ernsting

What I shared was one part of 11 pages of a comprehensive focus on policy. I was working on the final draft yesterday and will receive comments before it goes up the line. All this is done on a volunteer basis.

One recommendation I made was we should study our energy/emission profile as compared to other industrialized nations to better understand the role of culture and lifestyle plus the effects of different infrastructure.

One aspect which drives everything is the price of energy. In fact, I am concerned about our ability to estimate what future prices will be. This affects all energy saving calculations and if we underestimate the price of fossil fuel energy then we underestimate the energy savings of clean alternatives. Then again, if the cost of climate change were factored in then clean alternatives look even more promising. Energy pricing aspects was another focus I brought up in my report.

I appreciate your link and we will see what happens. Those involved in climate issues over here do not address the effects of flight mostly because few of us know much about it. I tell people here that folks in the UK protest airport expansion and sometimes get arrested.

Again, we will see how things go and I do hope that in time the USA can work more with other countries on dealing with GW/CC. Mark’s blog has been an important link for me in this regard. Over here, there is a stronger focus more on the state and local level which is growing. This is because not enough is happening at the national level.

You do have many people in the USA concerned but we are behind in awareness. We never get enough information and our energy has been so inexpensive for a very long time. Bad habits are hard to break especially when they become part of the culture. I think higher prices will have an effect.

Also, for those trying to make a difference, it gets rather lonely here. It does help morale for Americans to have connections with people in other countries. It is more difficult to be motivated when you feel you are in the minority opinion at times.

Kind Regards, Dan

Regarding your quote Mark ”...the lack of any likelihood of emissions cuts in the US, India and China…” I wonder about China and India? ...

“China could become the world leader in wind power according to Greenpeace. By 2020, Guandong province could meet the equivalent of Hong Kong’s total current electricity supply. A string of 5 eco-cities designed by British engineers, will be built in China. These self-sustaining urban centres, which are the size of a large western capital are regarded as a prototype for urban living in over-populated and polluted environments.”

“The World’s only Minister for Renewable Energy, Vilas Muttemwar, has received 2005’s World Wind Energy Award for his outstanding achievements in pursuing policies to encourage the use of wind energy. Under his leadership, India has become no 4, worldwide, in terms of installed wind capacity, with currently more than 4,000 megawatts of turbines in operation.”

Source: ‘Positive News’ No.46

Although obviously a public relations venture for the Olympics this is pretty positive ..

Gardens in the China Sky

In an ambitious project that will span three years, Wang Xianmin, a former aircraft manufacturer and researcher, now Secretary General for the China Environment Protection Foundation, plans to cover 40 million square metres of Beijing’s rooftops with grass. In 2008, Beijing will be hosting the Olympic Games. This ancient but over populated and polluted city is therefore undergoing radical change. A massive engineering project has now begun to improve the cities infrastructure and build the new and necessary arenas. A huge campaign has been launched to clean up the city and reduce pollution, relocate more than 200 factories and lay natural gas pipes to substitute the burning of coal. Wang’s green rooftops will increase Beijing’s green acreage by 50 per cent.

Sam Rawlings Dec 19, 2005 Positive News Issue 46