US goes crazy over high oil prices 03 May 06

The market should determine the prices of gasoline not politicians. If the price goes back down then there will be little motivation for reducing driving, getting better mileage and lowering the demand in the US. They need to just let the market dictate where price goes. Fortunately the $100 pay out was dropped. That would have probably gone as far as the $1000 credit cards issued by the Red Cross during Katrina. Some were found squandering the money at bars and strip clubs… sad.

The US auto industry needs to get a clue. Ford and GM are waking up to a real nightmare. Their models are being sold at cut rate prices and still having trouble moving. Seems until US sells a vehicle which competes on gas mileage as well as quality (which has improved) then they will have problems in this environment. Japanese cars are very popular and for good reason.

Congress has hampered many energy inititives in the past. If the US had drilled in Anwar 10 years ago then the US would have a million plus output today. Cuba and Mexico drill off shore in the gulf and yet the US sits and complains… does nothing else… meanwhile, Kerry and the gang protest off shore wind farms in the Cape! That the future terror/ oil supply unknowns, worldwide consumption and limited refinery capacity is holding gas prices higher in the US.

All this increase in energy cost and the Dow is still at it’s highest levels in years and unemployment at it’s lowest! Just imagine if gas was cheap right now. The US economy would be overheating.

You sneer at the ”. . . watered-down versions of Kyoto which have not a hope of stabilising – let alone cutting – emissions.” as if you believe that full ratification of the Kyoto Protocol would have some effect on the output of the IPCC computer models.

Last word I heard was that ratification of and compliance with that politically impossible and technically irrational debacle would have had zero effect on future temperature predictions. It seems like the number was somewhere around 0.07 Celsius degrees.

Sneer if you must, but please offer an efficacious and practicable alternative.

on another subject, one about which many have opined on these pages. I clipped the following assessment from the Prometheus page.

“Often on these pages we have made the case that the debate that rages over hurricanes and climate change is largely irrelevant to climate policy, even as it used as a symbol in climate politics. The reason for the insensitivity of policy to this debate is the overwhelming influence of societal factors in driving trends in the growth in disaster losses even under assumptions that global warming has significant effects on hurricanes. We have made the case in a wide range of fora and in a wide range of ways, and yet, it seems that the urge to use hurricanes as a justification for climate-related energy policies is just too appealing, despite its grossly unsupportable scientific grounding. It does not matter whether or not scientists can establish a link between global warming and hurricanes – it won’t affect how we think about climate policy.”

There is more at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000798al_gores_bad_start_.html, should anyone wish to read it.

then give all that money back to the taxpayers, by way of rebates on hybrids and electric vehicles.

So, should the market be given climate change?

The cousins seem to live in a madhouse run by children. Even if they now understand and believe in global warming, for the most part they’re caught living in a country (created largely by market demands) that prevents them doing much about it.

To wake North Americans of their petrol addiction is going to take a shock. A 30% increase would be good for them and the rest of the world, but should be followed by say 6-monthly increases until the market/country starts to respond to the new prices.

Perhaps the only easier aid to slowing climate change would be for all oil-extracting nations to increase their prices.

Our media never educates the public on the most basic concepts of Peak Oil and next to nothing on global warming. The general public only perceives that Big Oil is raising the price simply to make higher profits and that is as far as their thinking goes.

Our politicians from both political parties rally behind the misconceptions because I think they actually do not know themselves. Scary!

One concept comes up quite a bit that annoys me very much is the idea of drawing oil out of the strategic oil reserves to lower prices. Even John Kerry suggested this in the last campaign which shows you truly that we have a problem here. I heard a Democratic Senator suggest this and it seems his reasoning was to help the airline industry.

The strategic oil reserves should be only tapped during very severe supply problems which disrupt vital services and never as a means to lower price. In fact, more oil should be added to the reserve even as the price of oil goes up. Having a supply of extra oil on hand is a better way to enhance energy security than going to war in my opinion. I support this idea in the face of depleting world oil reserves as a buffer.

As Lynn suggested, a gasoline tax would be a good idea. I think a well designed tax would offset Peak Oil by insuring a gradual but continuous controlled increase in energy price. This would aid investments into alternative energy by having a predictable “future price” to calculate energy savings. Prices would rise steadily instead of going up and down and then shoot up like a rocket. The idea of the market controlling price is very simplistic one-dimensional thinking at best.

Both a continuous and predictable energy price increase using taxes and the prudent use of strategic oil reserves is the only way to distribute the pain so a long range plan can work which will enable a smooth transition in changes to our infrastructure which reduce energy consumption. The tax revenue would go directly to aid this transition.

This basic focus does not include a carbon tax or another means of including climate change in the formula which would be another welcomed addition.

Politically and socially, these philosophies can not yet be embraced here. Mark is not exaggerating at all with his comments.

Best wishes,

Dan

I have read and re-read Jimbo’s post and I cannot find any place where he implied that the market demands climate change.

In fact, if you actually read the post you will see that it implies that the market will reduce carbon dioxide emissions as high gasoline prices increase the demand for more efficient vehicles.

Read, and then respond.

Do you live in a country that has successfully employed command and control by a central government to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? If so, which country? I am not aware of any that have.

Norbert, try re-rereading Jimbo’s first sentence.

Yes, the market will, by the laws of supply and demand, increase prices as oil becomes scarcer.

The problem is, we’ve only used up half of the world’s oil… and we’re already suffering from climate change. Would it not make sense then, to get the reduction in demand now?

The US market (and others), left to be controlled by market forces, will continue (far) longer burning up the world’s fossil fuels shuffling people between work, home, school and shopping malls.

If politicians (or OPEC or whoever) force up the price of petroleum, will not the increased price reduce consumption?

This can also work in positive ways. For example, if a government were to provide interest-free loans to encourage the uptake of say, solar-water heating, then surely this could conceivably be an example of command and control by a central government to reduce CO2 emissions?

Do you not agree?

OK, I know you probably ‘had’ to, but, if this climate change is the problem you say it is (and I DO think it is), then criticising America in the way you do in this post would be greeted by howls of derison and words like ‘hypochrite’, ‘do as I say not as I do eh?’, ‘but you’ve just flown here to say this?’, ‘but I HAVE to use fossil fules too!’.

This AGW business IS serious. Those, like you, fortunate to be well known, write books, a good communicator, ear of the media, really need to start to walk the walk. Indeed, you HAVE to go out of your way to do this!

I’ve not flown since ‘91. I might this year, but I’m resisting.

I’m not perfect, I use a car, my job produces GHG’s (but less than it did). But, I couldn’t fly to the US and then criticse them for overusing fossil fuels.

Dear Peter,

First, I do believe you are absolutely correct about walking one’s talk. I try to do the same. You are also correct in that all of us use fossil fuels and all of us must compromise at some level what we do.

I, like you, do not fly and because of Mark’s blog, I have learned so much more about the climate effects of flying that I will discourage the idea for myself and I can share with others the same information. I even posted my ideas on how we can reduce flying here in the USA based on the wonderful dialogue I have had with others here on Mark’s blog.

From what I know about Mark, he would never fly for pure pleasure. Mark may have to fly to the USA, as you have suggested, in order to advance the cause. I know Mark avoids driving a car as much as possible for similar reasons. I am even sure Mark has thought about his own flight here. Mark has always appeared to be a person who does his best to walk his talk and I admire him for that.

On a more personal level, I did do something which offset a short flight I made in 2004. I saw some dear friends of mine but bought and installed compact fluorescent light bulbs in their homes. I also checked for energy leaks. In the final analysis, I helped reduce more emissions than my flight had cost. This was a form of compromise with a net benefit. This is a form of carbon trading and a decent way to rationalize guilt.

With his trip to the USA, I think Mark needs to be here. His criticisms are very justified and it is a different experience to see it first hand than to read about it. I feel the same way as Mark does. However, Mark may be wrong suggesting Americans are in denial. Sadly, Americans hardly even know there is a problem. You have to acknowledge the possibility of a problem in order to deny it. In that light, we have a very long ways to go.

For those living in the UK, please know that if America had your current emission levels, it would be equivalent to the UK reducing to zero emissions by 4 times. So, I think the USA needs all the help it can get.

Now, back to the idea of walking one’s talk! Again, all of us compromise at best and no one can throw a stone in the Biblical sense. You cannot even do this with Mark as he has already offset any of his lifetime emissions by his current accomplishments. If I ever fly again, I will follow the same formula. I will do more good than I cost to justify my actions. Peter, if you bought 100 compact fluorescent bulbs and gave them to your neighbors, then this would be more than sufficient to counter an air flight by yourself.

Peter, you do raise some good points and that is what this blog is all about. It is a unique forum and helps us all to think more clearly. This dialogue helps me even in sharing a response back to you. It helps me clarify my own thoughts and helps my morale. Mark’s comments are mostly correct and I would like to see more people write about it so Americans can learn the truth. I can refer people here to what Mark said so it helps my own efforts as well.

Furthermore, I live in the USA and I am delighted with what Mark said and I am not offended at all. In fact, I wish my own countrymen knew and cared about America as much as Mark does. I think most Americans are pretty good at accepting constructive criticism. We just never really get the correct message delivered to us. I think we could do so much better if all of us knew the truth. Sadly, the truth is something very missing in our current culture.

I come here to this blog to be with friends who care to know the truth and to work on the best way to solve our global problems. The USA needs help. It is a good idea for people in the UK and Europe to nurture their relations with Americans who desire to change their country to use less energy and reduce its climate impact. I do not know which country you are from Peter. It does not matter. We are all in this together.

Good luck Peter with all your efforts and you do set an example for others by your decision not to fly. That was your personal statement on this blog which was most relevant and suggested a course of action for others to follow. That personal decision represents a courageous decisive act and an altruistic act by yourself and you should acknowledge this regardless of what other people think and do. I am acknowledging it and I am grateful to your decision. You are setting the bar higher for others to follow and in that way you have become more of a leader if you know it or not.

I do not believe we can make it without altruistic thinking. Technology is not enough. As I said many times before, our values count so much and your message is about common personal values we must all develop. Our dialogue is important in refining these ideas to even higher levels of thought. This is when Mark’s blog serves a greater purpose. It has been my observation that no matter what the subject is, it comes back to our own values. Our own values really do govern the course of future events.

All the very best,

Dan

Norbert,

I think there are many other options apart from either “a market economy” and “a command and control” economy. One can just look at the different experiences of countries like the US, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, Netherlands to see that, in the real world, they are many choices that societies can make as to how they go about the social/environmental decisions they make.

Peter

then go to it!

There are plenty of contrarians jetting around the world to halt the Kyoto Protocol and convince everyone to keep emitting GHGs as fast & inefficiently as possible.

It think it’s fine if some of our illustrious anti-GW campaigners travel around with the hope of their trips leading to net reductions in GHGs.

I know Mark has qualms when he flies—he’s already expressed that in the past.

So actually the price of oil should go way down once people realize it’s EC (environmentally correct) & in the best interest of planet earth & their children’s future to REDUCE consumption of it.

See what appears to be happening to Exxon. Their price is going down.

The other day my husband came home & admitted that he bought from Exxon because it was cheaper. I expressed how disappointed and saddened I was, that Exxon is very evil, and that if he bought from them again, not to tell me about it, please. I said it was cheaper because there’s a huge boycott against Exxon. I said we are not in a financial crisis (we save a $hundreds per year from our energy efficiency/conservation measures).

He himself said he would never buy from them again.

can’t be relied upon to educate.

I’m coming to a view that what is needed is a summons for every citizen to attend a standardized 2-day seminar on climate change and sustainability.

Most people are not at all au-fait with the mainstream scientific consensus on the implications of climate change, even though there are still areas that need more consolidation e.g. conditions for abrupt climate change, 1000-year effects, 10,000-year effects.

People also need to be shown that there is a way out (of the worse effects), although it will require collective sacrifices. The UK public according to the recent Guardian/ICM opinion poll now in the main support a shift of taxation toward polluting activities.

One of the toughest hurdles in the world is going to be transforming the commuting habits of North Americans towards sustainable solutions, which will particularly hit many distance commuters by car or plane. You can’t just do this on the back of headlines and hurricanes. People need to be guided through the logical steps that lead to the case for the policies.

This to apply in as many countries as possible, as well as being added to school curricula. The principle could be promoted via the British Commonwealth, the EU, the G8 and OECD.

As you say Dan, many politicians don’t properly understand the issues.

So, as an initial exercise, each major political party should be arranging such a seminar for all of their sitting politicians, candidates and activists. There are surely enough enthusiasts around to administer and present this phase and make it viable.

Views anybody?

Dear Jim,

Paul Roberts in his book “The End of Oil” suggested that America at one time embraced higher energy efficiency in response to the Arab Oil Embargo and we even did choose smaller vehicles as a result.

So what happened? Saudi Arabia responded by flooding the world with cheap oil to get us using more oil and it worked. Our economic engine then worked to expand the economy to use more energy and people used their “energy efficiency dividend” to buy more, have more, and own larger more “efficient” houses which consume more fuel.

Real Estate is a big problem and people who have less paying jobs are “forced” by circumstances to live further away from work and since energy has been cheap, they could afford homes further away. Real Estate laws need to change so people of any income can choose to live close to their jobs. But then again, it takes time to rebuild even if people agree with this idea.

Many seek to develop mass transit and more Americans are using it and this infrastructure does need more development. Yet, the best focus would be to reduce the need for travel by placing the home place closer to the work place. It would be better to relocate people and businesses than simply build better transit.

Of course, this may be impractical to some but to visionary people, it becomes the best way to solve a problem. People all lived in small sustainable communities when we did not have high speed transport options using fossil fuel.

In the total equation, we have an element of time, an element of population growth, an element of money, and of course our technical options. We have limited time to make wise decisions on how to transform the infrastructure.

Population growth cannot be overlooked and my idea is to design infrastructure to measure an individual’s energy and emissions to assess any individual’s planetary impact. The aggregate energy and emissions from a “whole blood line” can be calculated and then we have a basis to develop penalties and incentives on progeny. Penalties would be for individuals of high energy consuming families who are proliferating more of their “kind”. Incentives would be offered for individuals within “blood lines” which offset their progeny taking responsibility for their collective sustainability for each individual in their “blood line”.

I do not believe we can limit a person’s right to procreation but we should make people responsible for their sustainability as part of a global value system on having children. This idea is more workable and relevant because it is not the extra people so much as the extra burden imposed on earth’s resources and environment.

Your ideas for education have merit and maybe a law has to be passed to make the media and politicians take the course first.

On education, I have another idea which may help and how technology can be used. I shared it once. I believe in instrumentation and I think that everyone should know their energy consumption, GHG emissions, and costs. I think we would get instant education if we had direct feedback. I have experimented with these ideas and I have discovered that when we know more information, then we naturally conserve more. In my way of thinking, I would not simply show GHG emissions in the feedback but rather how much Arctic ice we melted instead. This is something more tangible.

Feedback on energy waste can help empower what needs to be done to correct the problem and can even lead to radical ideas I mentioned earlier on population growth. I also think a label on the products we buy must show the embedded energy and a tax placed on this. For example, a means to assess the energy and emissions used to create a product would rely on instrumentation in a factory. The share of the emissions is printed on a label and when people purchase the item, a tax imposed on those embedded emissions from the product. The more products people buy that use lots of energy, then the more tax they will pay. The industry which has the least embedded emissions in their products will have a competitive edge over the others since their products will have the least tax imposed. Taxes are used to help others invest in reducing their energy usage to avoid paying taxes.

I guess in my vision on solutions, I think if everyone is part of the problem then we have to design a system which makes everyone part of the solution. The ones who have the greatest return on “natural capital” become the new millionaires. A person who rides a bicycle has more capital and is richer than one who drives a car. This is a very tall order to change but this is the kind of “new” thinking we may need to insure Greenland does not melt.

Best Regards,

Dan

Kyoto is one, but not the “end all” solution to GW. At the very least it says to me that a country cares about the future, even tho Kyoto in itself will not solve the problem completely.

We also need solutions at the federal, state, county, & city/town levels. We also need people to implement solutions in their homes, schools, churches, & workplaces.

We also need your help, Norb.

I think Pielke makes many valid points, such as growing losses from overdevelopment in hurricane-prone areas (even if hurricane don’t increase or hit land much); and the need to adapt to GW.

As with the “fallacy of single causes” used to support the view that it is the sun that causes GW (well, duh), ergo it could not be GHGs, there is a “fallacy of single solutions” as in either we should adapt or mitigate, but certainly not both.

I’ve always argued that not only should we do both, but that we could use some of the savings from mitigating (& there are lots of savings to be had) to help us adapt (build levees, hurricane-proof homes, help relocate people from vulnerable coastal areas, or whatnot).

As for the GW-Hurricane connection, the reason the scientists cannot pin hurricanes on GW is (I think) due to low numbers & the “noise” of hurricane decadal cycles or clusters (its like those disease clusters at toxic sites that don’t make the p-value muster).

One thing we do know is that hot water is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for hurricanes, and that GW is warming the oceans (on average), and there is a lag time (try heating a big pot of water on a small burner). So it has been suggested for over 15 years that GW may increase the intensity & frequency of hurricanes…studies are now beginning to come in proving increased intensity…frequency may take more time to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

To be continued…..

Peter – you are quite right to raise this, and perhaps I should have been more explicit about my own thought-process in this regard before posting from DC. You are not the only person to do so, BTW, so I know I am being watched!

There is no easy answer to this thorny question. My friend Mayer Hillman refuses to fly at all, and is very clear to anyone who’ll listen why this is. I’m somewhat less purist – I certainly won’t fly for recreational or personal reasons, but I will if I’m convinced that the good outweighs the bad; ie. if the ‘offset’ of convincing people how urgent our situation is outweighs the CO2 caused by my travel. Of course the two cannot be easily quantified or compared, so at the end of the day this is an ethical value judgement.

I don’t welcome travelling – I find it detracts from my other work on the book etc, and I will be delighted to stay at home for good once the climate campaign is won. So please don’t imagine that this is just some attempt at justifying my lust to travel overseas, far from it. I miss my family and also my vegetables need me!

In conclusion: it would be much easier to be purist, and to stay at home cursing the world. But I don’t think that’s most useful at this stage – as Lynn said, the other side have none of these scruples. We need to organise internationally at this point, and I suspect that this needs a degree of human contact.

Cheers,

Mark

The common people who know very little about science do have a sensible perspective.

They are not going to give their children poison, just because some scientist says he’s only 94% certain the poison will harm their children, so “it’s not proven scientifically.”

They intuitively go for the precautionary path of avoiding false negatives (proceeding on a dangerous path taking the position it is not dangerous, when indeed it is). Scientists have to protect their reputation and avoid “calling wolf,” when indeed there are not wolves. There is a lesson in that story for the people who got eaten by the wolf.

And if they overattribute effects to GW (such as hurricanes that cannot be attributed with sci certainty to GW), that would be the safer course than to underattribute effects. And as far as I know, no one can prove Katrina or Andrew (in 1992) were NOT caused by GW. I think that’s the type of thinking people tend to gravitate to, unless they are Russian Roulettle gamblers or paid by big oil.

squarely on the shoulders of the contrarians.

In a perfect world, everyone would be mitigating GW, and there’d be no reason to go around inspiring people to do so.

They’d be happier, healthier, freer, richer (in quality matters, not just quantity).

I dream on…don’t wake me.

Agree it needs to be easier to move closer to the workplace. I think the important things are to reduce/remove the artificial costs of moving like stamp duty (is it called that in the US?). I dislike the principle of compulsory sellers’ packs for home vendors as this is a further psychological deterrent for them.

Agree with point made elsewhere about decentralized energy, but feel this has to come about through economic instruments combined with a free market. It would be an administrative nightmare for the state to oversee how individuals install decentralized energy in their homes, I’d have thought. Re: supply peaks, I think we will see more recourse to differential tariffs and user storage as electricity costs rise.

Perhaps in the future, prices and suppliers’ tariffs will naturally encourage storage from outside peak hours as you suggest, more than currently.

On population, these are good ideas and I wonder how this discussion can be advanced. Presently there is procreational bias against those who have fewer children due to educational ability and opportunity, career potential, or a sense of responsibility. That is not a good foundation for the future.

However, politically there is a chasm between mainstream politicians who dare not enter into such discussions at all, and far-right extremists who wish to do more than stabilize society. In the meantime, are we to see professionals and the more fore-sighted lose sway as there are fewer of them or they become concentrated in various religious communities, causing society to become increasingly parochial and insular and squeezing out ecological considerations further?

In my view, population trends is the issue that dare not speak its name.

Hope you are well. Something clicked in my mind last night when I was doing a bit of work completely unrelated to climate change.

You have always said that you agreed that overall global warming was taking place, but that you didn’t think the GHG’s were the primary cause.

If not, what do you think it could be; and I don’t mean increased solar radiation.

Anything else?

just asking.

best wishes

Colin

What if, instead of flying, you were to set an example by giving your talks via videoconference? With a good internet connection and camera, you could do it without leaving home.

You might not be able to press the flesh, but you would be “walking the walk” and your example might prove inspirational. Exactly what you want.

One tends to have more respect for a leader who leads from the front.

Cheers,

Derek

The more I think about it, the more I think it is odd that people argue that the options are between a “market economy” or a “command & control” economy. In any social institution, we need rules to guide behaviour (imagine that you try and run a school without any rules!). I think the consensus is very much that modern economies need to rely on “the market”, but that this is not “unfettered”. The real debate is about rules need to be applied to the way the market operates – particularly as regard how infrasture and capital investment can be co-ordinated (inc. the banking system) and how market costs can incorporate clean-up costs for pollution.

I do not believe that we are discussing the same kinds of rules when we compare the rules needed to run a school and the rules that control the direction of markets. The rules control the behavior of schoolchildren and legitimate rules to control the behavior of markets are similar. Those rules are what you called the “rules need to be applied to the way the market operates”. I include in that definition the rules that prevent fraud, monopolies and other activities actually constrain the market by lessening its efficiency.

I disagree when you attempt to include rules that “regard how infrastructure and capital investment can be co-ordinated”. That puts government into the business of deciding the direction of markets and technological development, which has not and will not work. As much as some persons dislike profits, profits are the powerful motivator that drives innovation and progress. Governments cannot. Innovation and technological development have improved the human condition far beyond the imagination of our ancestors of even 100 years ago.

I think that the legitimate business of government is protection of its citizens against thieves, murderers and other threats to their health and well-being. Government should decide what levels of pollution, for example, are detrimental to the health and well-being of its citizens and let affected polluters decide how best to comply.

I believe that to the extent that we ascribe pollution costs to situations that have more to do with personal tastes and sensibilities than with public health and welfare, we abuse governmental prerogative. To the extent that we allow government to demand massive changes in our direction on the basis of poorly supported hypotheses, such as AGW, we threaten the health and well-being of our citizens and progeny.

which means no rigged set-up for oil companies & other polluters. Every harm to the 10th generation should be internalized & funds doled out to victims & victims’ families. A fund could be set up for the future harms.

That would make gasoline, oh, about $523.89 per gallon. Maybe more, if we go out to the 100th generation. Climate scientist David Archer figures that up to 1/4 of our CO2 could stay in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years. And given the slow recovery after the end-Permian extinction, we’re talking many thousands of year of harm from what we are emitting on May 9, 2006.

Maybe with those prices we’d see some quick thinking about efficiency, conservation, and alternatives.

Your points are well taken but not everyone needs this. In fact, I would like to see Mark fly to more places to help more people understand the issues better. I have been inspired by Mark’s writings and his blog is available for all of us. That is sufficient for me.

I think we have to allow certain exemptions. Carbon emissions from the manufacture of solar panels or educating the public come to mind. If anything we do creates net lower emissions, then we did not do any harm. In reality, unless the plane was 100 percent occupied, then the extra carbon by Mark’s weight and luggage would not be substantial. All those flight calculations usually assume 80 percent occupancy. If the flight involves important climate business, then this may be a more accurate assessment

Due in no small part to Mark’s inspiration, I have already saved enough energy and emissions for Mark to schedule as many flights as he deems necessary to influence others.

Best,

Dan

I have been busy but it does help for me to know that others like my thoughts on population. If an important variable such as population growth is simply ignored, then we cannot prevent Greenland from melting.

The first step in the process is for everyone’s carbon footprint to be measured and evaluated. This can be done with current electronic instrumentation when it comes to most of our direct energy use for heating, cooling, hot water, and transport (land, sea, and air). Embedded emissions are more difficult but if each manufacture had to label each product and/or raw material using a bar code, and the accumulated emissions (including transport) were assessed, then all purchases by any individual would include an accounting of all these embedded emissions.

The trick is to get an accounting system established on energy and carbon like we do with taxation. The system of accounting would create many market incentives as the true cost of our actions would reflect on market economics. It is one way to incorporate natural capital in our collective economic systems.

The next idea of tracing aggregate emissions from progeny can help make people responsible for large families. People could choose either to limit their progeny or invest in energy/emission reductions. I would include helping 100 families of lower-income reach net-zero emissions as an option for the super-wealthy who simply must have more than everyone else to do as they wish. OK, but the price will be high!

There is a way to do anything if we have enough desire and no one has to loose in the process. In fact, no one can loose with a more sustainable future. We can only gain.

These strategies may be better than the traditional approach of humans which is fighting wars for which group of people dominate. Population growth has enhanced societies in the past by overwhelming the opposition by sheer numbers.

In the 21st century, we need better ideas than this!

Best Regards,

Dan

Actually, I think Mark should communicate via webcam or videoconference if at all possible.

I think it would:

a) be more convincing

b) be more convenient to Mark + family, and

c) produce less CO2 from aircraft and all the other sources invoked by travel and hotels etc. (the opposite to hypocrisy :-)

Many businesses could easily do the same. All those skyscrapers filled with informational workers in big cities around the planet. All horrible sources of CO2, and needlessly so.

Cheers!

Derek

I agree that video conferencing should be used a lot more instead of people flying around the planet to get to conferences. I can see this working if everybody at a conference agreed to this option. Noam Chomsky recently did a video-conference with people across different Scottish universities, which worked very well. However, Noam Chomsky is pretty famous amongst UK students – his name will get people to go to a video conference.

I don’t know who Mark was speaking to. However, I doubt that he is that famous that he can rely on large numbers of people in the US assembling in front of a video screen to hear what he has to say. For somebody trying to spread the GW message amongst people not already aware, I can’t really see an alternative to a personal visit.

Almuth Ernsting

Hmmmm. I recall going out of my way to attend a lecture because Richard Dawkins was there. However I did the same when some chap I’d never head of who was close to Pons and Fleichman’s research was in here giving a talk on cold fusion just after it had hit the headlines.

Really it was just that Dawkins was talking about memes. That it was him, had some effect.

No, I think the subject matter is of primary importance. That one is going to learn something. If the lecturer has a good name then one feels more confident that it will be worthwhile, but unlike art, science depends on substance first and names later.

Or maybe that’s just me. I hope not.

Cheers,

Derek

For me, I learned about Mark Lynas through reading his article in the Washington Post on hurricanes.

At that time, I already knew very much about the energy problem but not as much about the climate problem. I wondered if the energy problem would solve the climate problem simply because rising energy prices would force the world to change to other forms of energy and so we need not worry about the climate if we just focused on switching to alternative energy sources and increasing energy efficiency. I simply was not sure about it only because I knew so little about the climate problem.

Now, I already knew more than most anyone here even back then about global warming. When I think about 2004, many people in the USA may have not have even heard the word “global warming” and if they did, then it meant we would have more mild temperatures and it may even be a good thing. I am serious about what I am saying here. This is where I see myself and the general public back then. I never recall anything in our media about global warming let alone anyone suggest we had to be concerned. The idea of it was mostly in the abstract but not something of an immediate concern.

But still, I was on a quest for more information and this is why I would read anything that came to my attention about global warming. I found Mark’s article in our local newspaper and read it. Mark also left an email address. In the article, Mark suggested that if the USA had more hurricanes, Washington might wake up. Believe it or not, I was offended when I read that at the time because I thought why wish us disaster. Mark also made a comment on how much emissions we use in the USA clearly blaming us for the problem.

I appreciated the article but I was offended and this is what really motivated me to email Mark. I was thinking how can this person from the UK criticize us on emissions when they must have a similar amount per person? We simply have more people I reasoned.

Being mathematical, I sought to challenge Mark’s basic numbers as being irrelevant on the USA’s contribution and suggested that even if the USA cut its emissions in half, the impact would only lower world emissions by 12.5 percent and so it was incorrect to suggest the USA alone was the problem. This number was based on the fact that the USA consumes 25 percent of the world’s energy. I argued that the USA had a large population, etc.

Mark emailed me back and gave me some numbers on per capita emissions of other countries in comparison to the USA. This was one of my main points in that a per capita basis should be used and not the total emissions for an entire country since some countries simply have more people. I was shocked to learn from Mark that we have twice the per capita emission rate of other comparable countries such as Germany, Japan, and the UK. I realized my error instantly. To me, this was unacceptable. So, I emailed Mark back and thanked him for that information.

From that point, I started to research more information. That is why you sometimes see me use emission statistics in some of my comments on this blog like if the USA reduced to current UK emissions, it would be like the UK reducing to zero 4 times over. I used the numbers to create these comparisons through calculation.

I emailed Mark again and shared what I had learned researching per capita emissions by countries and said that I would commit my life to working on this problem. I also bought and read High Tide. I also read every essay written by Spencer Weart on Climate Science after I found his site doing an Internet search. Spencer Weart lives in the USA and wrote a history of Global Warming Science. His essays provide a clear overview of the science. Others have commented on this blog that his essays are of high quality. If you are curious, the site below is where I first started to learn about the science.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html Like Dr Weart, I also have a background in physics being an engineer and I have done some of my own simple calculations based on thermal inertia using the properties of ice and water to have a much better understanding of what we are up against. I have shared some of these calculations on the blog because they helped me.

So this is how I developed into a person who is very committed to the solution process. What was essential was a personal contact with Mark Lynas through email. If it had not been for that personal contact, I may not be writing on this blog today. I have made a few friends from this blog and I value my friends very much because I need their council. I would have never learned about the impact of flying if it were not for having a dialogue on this blog.

Mark’s book and blog plus his willingness to talk with others have helped because Mark inspires others to be more concerned. Spencer Weart is good with being objective with the science but a little passion is required to be motivated for action. Mark helps appeal to our emotions and this is needed.

I have to say that video conferencing is a good idea for those already focused. I only needed a brief email correspondence to help me but I was already focused on learning to begin with. Direct contact is truly needed by others who have no knowledge and little incentive to do anything. Sometimes, even this may not even help them!

I have my own flying story to share to illustrate the absurdity of even discussing the issue of Mark’s flight here. The discussion does lead into matters of how we make our decisions and this is proving of value. I have a flying story myself to illustrate why direct contact may be needed.

I sent compact fluorescent bulbs via the ground mail to friends I have in another state as Christmas gifts a couple years ago. It cost me double than it would if they simply bought them instead but I knew telling them was not going to work. These are friends of mine who I communicate with on the phone.

I did make a flight later that year and when I arrived, I discovered that each of them placed the bulbs I sent them in a drawer. They were not even being used. I installed them and helped one of my friends seal her house and made other suggestions on energy conservation. Bottom Line: I needed to be there in person!

I have absolutely no regrets about making that flight. It was both personal and business. The emission reductions from those light bulbs offset my fight emissions. I did the calculations on it. It does not mean I plan to fly again. If I do, I will justify it on the basis of what I can accomplish. Sometimes, even our personal lives require us to take a flight based on circumstances. Funerals can be an example of this. Limited time and great distance plus complying with another person’s decisions. What is one to do?

Looking back and being fair, I could have used ground transport but we have few trains and they are more expensive than flying and the bus system is so taxing on time and personal energy that I would have had limited time upon arrival. I also would also have been tired from lack of sleep since you get awakened in the early hours so the bus can be refueled. It is a horrible way to travel and unless you have a week or more, it is a real burden to spend 4 times the time traveling than how long you are able to be there in person and also exhausted as well.

Part of the problem is our need for time in our modern society. In the past, people who traveled never did it for short durations but stayed months I think. We are conditioned to save time and easily make decisions to do that even if it increases energy and emissions. Wasting time still may seem worse than wasting energy or creating emissions and I suspect this may be true in the UK and elsewhere. Like all other discussions on this blog, this is just another insight into human behavior which may have to change. We hate to sacrifice our time.

I think the question to fly or not may depend on particular circumstances. Flying like driving or using our computers or any other form of energy derived from carbon sources are choices we make. Am I using too much electricity for my computer in writing for this blog or should I spend my time on something else? I ask these questions. We have many options to consider.

The questions on how we limit ourselves will never go away. I do think that we should stray away from judging others on their carbon use to justify our own decisions. I say this because there are people on this planet who live in poverty and own no car or a computer let alone have any hot water, etc. No matter what we do, we can find someone who can shame us on the energy we use and the emissions we create.

Another insight is that we do not know precisely what we have to do to prevent Greenland from melting. There is always uncertainty in knowing if what we do is really helping. It may be easy to say:

“If others are not helping enough, then why should I since Greenland will probably melt anyway so it may not matter if I fly or not.”

It is so easy to rationalize our behavior based on what others do or do not do and this also includes those we see as leaders of the cause.

This problem with uncertainty about knowing the true benefits of our efforts is important to solve and I believe we need to quantify climate change on an individual basis similar to the carbon trading concepts. It is so difficult to do this but not impossible and I think it could help if we all knew our personal limits defined in a way where we can manage our climate impact within our limitations. Until then, we have to let our own conscious be our guide.

Doing something to offset a flight seems to be a decent way to rationalize it. If everyone thought like this, then flying might even help save the climate by eliminating power plants from people conserving more energy. In the process, people who fly more frequently may have to reduce their flights or they would be living outside in a tent.

Maybe, this idea needs some development. How can a trading scheme be created to help people who must fly so they build up the rest of the world’s renewable infrastructure? If a person contributed extra money for financing renewable projects to justify their flight emissions then maybe this would eventually solve the flight emission problem or the emissions other sources.

This is just another way to look at it.

Best Wishes,

Dan

Thanks for the response. I was a bit confused by your first paragraph, but I think I get the gist of what you are saying. You believe in a fairly minimalist government which provides some social rules, makes sure that polluters pay etc. – but believe that “the market” will be the best judge of investment etc. Human happiness/wellfare etc. would be maximized by letting people & business get on with it.

My comments would be:

1) I do believe that markets/business are a great way of allocating resources, but that they often need to be guided to trade at the right level. In particular, do they treat common natural resources appropriately – particular (but not exclusively) when they are a common resource? I think we are going to see a lot more of this in the near future with – fish in the oceans, clean water, the atmosphere, biodiversity etc.

2) I think there are certain needs that are not met well be the private sector. For example, pharmaceutical companies are doing a great job with many illnesses – particularly chronic “western” diseases such as with diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension, cancers, etc. etc. But there are extremely important areas of healthcare (AIDS, malaria etc. in the developing world)where they are not well placed to help develop drugs, as there is little profit incentive for them to do it. That is why GSK needs to collaborate with other agencies in these fields – http://www.gsk.com/responsibility/cr_issues/dev_world_challenges.htm. – or the Gates’s are funding HIV vaccine trials – http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

3) Large infrastructure projects – and sometimes, to get things done – requires an appropriate government investment. On a massive scale (& potentially very risky when they get it wrong), governments are the ones to build the pyramids, build the Channel tunnel, send man to the moon, etc. Personally I am very wary of too much of this (probably like you), but, sometimes things need to be top-down to make things happen (rather like Diamond suggests in his book “Collapse” when societies can choose to survive).

Peter

I’m really very impressed you were able to not only overcome your feeling offended, but have also gone on to take action – which should be most efficient in the US.
You probably have an advantage. Examining the facts and making decisions based on them is routine to engineers.

Your own experience seems to support my theory, in that you were convinced without a personal appearance.

He gave you personal interaction (e-mailed you per-capita emissions.) I suspect this is the most important thing – and entirely achievable via electronic means.

• “Mark helps appeal to our emotions [...]”
  - he can via webcam too.
• “video conferencing is a good idea for those already focused.”
  - surely, anyone attending a lecture of his will be interested, whether in the flesh or not?
• “Direct contact is truly needed by others who have no knowledge and little incentive to do anything.”
  - I’ve had people make direct contact with me in an attempt to convince me to join them in chanting “Hare Krsna”. As in the previous argument, this only works if one is in the mind to do so.
• “I have a flying story myself to illustrate why direct contact may be needed.” You go on to say how you needed to be there to install fluorescent bulbs that your friends hadn’t.
  - Does Mark have to do anything physical? He could demonstrate things equally easily, and provide video-footage of a Tuvaluan high tide lapping at someone’s front door, easier.
  WRT your example, supposing you’d phoned them up and (with a smile in your voice) asked them to install the bulbs while you were on the phone? Friends would do it. Suppose you’d told them how nice it is not to have to change bulbs again for years? That you needn’t flick them on and off so much. That they don’t heat-damage fixtures. That they can be brighter, cheaper and vastly better for the environment. You might even convert your friends to be as enviromentally- conscious as yourself.
  They could “spread the word” – efficient and effective.

It’s that simple
(and because of Jevon’s Paradox; difficult.)

Cheers,

Derek

Peter,

I would like a list of your top 10 books which you have read. Paul Robert’s Book on the “End of Oil” was excellent. I loved Natural Capitalism which was mentioned by others here. I remember a book you mentioned once on renewable energy but I do not recall what the title was.

If you could think of the 10 best books Americans, in particular, should read, then I would be grateful.

Would you suggest “Collapse” is a good one?

Best Wishes,

Dan

Your first paragraph is a good synopsis of the points that I tried to make.

You ask if markets treat common natural resources appropriately, to which I would answer yes, they do in those cases where the markets control the resources. When resources are common resources, they are no longer subject to market forces. If all have access to a resource, but none owns the resource, then all have reason to exploit the resource to the maximum extent possible. Owners of resources seek to preserve them to ensure that they will be available for future use and will provide future profits. I think that ownership of the fisheries by the fishermen who depend upon them for their income would work better than government husbandry of the fisheries.

I also think that ownership of mineral rights encourages miners to extract minerals by the least expensive means available without regard to the future value of the land above the minerals. If mining companies had to purchase the land at market value, extract the minerals and then sell the land, they would have incentive to minimize damage to the land.

I agree that abuse of the atmosphere is probably beyond market control and to some extent so is abuse of fresh water; though water is more constrained and more amenable to ownership.

I do not know what “biodiversity” means or why I keep hearing the term bandied about.

I agree that there are many diseases of the third world that receive little of the attention of the drug companies, though I do not think that AIDS is among them. It appears that AIDS research is well funded and that researchers are making excellent progress. It also is true that the US FDA and National Institutes of Health are working to develop vaccines and cures for many of the less well-know illnesses of the third world. I do believe that economic development of those countries would provide the profit motive that would encourage the drug companies to become more active. I also understand that the burden of these diseases places an intolerable strain on the economies of the affected countries and makes economic progress difficult.

The western democracies could take one simple action that would reduce the burden of malaria in the third world. That action – lifting the ban on the use of DDT in malaria control programs – could reduce the incidence of the disease remarkably quickly. I consider the refusal of the West to allow use of DDT in malaria control programs to be a crime against humanity.

I agree that most of the large infrastructure projects, such as those you listed, must remain the responsibility of governments. However, I think that private enterprise could do much more than is currently the case. Private ownership of roads has become more common in the US, for example. I wonder if private enterprise could have built the Channel tunnel. Private enterprise did build the Eiffel Tower you know. The advantage of private enterprise conduct of such projects is that few, if any projects that are solely ego enhancement projects (i.e. flying to the moon) receive funding.

I have to agree with your logic on your counterpoints to me. “Being there” is not always necessary as you suggested and I think you proved your case and I will leave it at that.

However, I think you cannot prove that “being there” does not contain some tangible benefits which at times can be more helpful than any other mode of communication. The Kyoto conference may not have been as successful if done totally by electronic means. Maybe it was important for people representing entire countries to all “fly” to one location to work out the document in order to achieve a greater success.

As I reflected more on your thoughts in the last few days, I came to understand one important aspect of Mark’s visit here which he wrote about on his blog. To quote Mark below:

“I’m currently in Washington DC … and am grateful for this opportunity to renew my sense of sheer disbelief about the situation that this country has got itself into…. there is no sense at all that difficult decisions are likely to be taken at any time in the foreseeable future. Even the most radical proposals due to come before the Senate are watered-down versions of Kyoto which have not a hope of stabilizing – let alone cutting – emissions.

This is a country in the throes of denial. As the American New Yorker journalist Elizabeth Kolpert writes at the end of her excellent book ‘Field Notes from a Catastrophe’: “It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essense, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.” … Sitting here in Washington DC it is not at all difficult to imagine such a process. I can see it happening, in front of my very own eyes.”

So Derek, in Mark’s essay, he said he was “grateful for this opportunity to renew my sense of sheer disbelief …” and to end with “it is not at all difficult to imagine such a process. I can see it happening, in front of my very own eyes.”

On a personal level Derek, I am so glad Mark not only saw it first hand but wrote about his direct experience here. I think this will help Mark in the long run. In my mind, I felt his personal experience here and his blog report helped me in that others may get a clue as to how desperate our situation is in basic awareness.

Also, I have sent his blog report via email to others here. Some of them include people who work directly with Congressmen. I said in my email: “This is what others think about our efforts overseas” and included a link to Mark’s post. He replied back, that this might be useful. I hope so.

Mark’s book “High Tide” was done based on “being there” as Mark traveled the world to report what he found. I do not think his book would have been effective if he was not there in person. Mark has a unique talent to be able write about his direct personal experiences which make his traveling more beneficial than those who come to the USA simply to shop at stores because the prices are lower than in the UK. I would never fly to another country to shop for products because they are cheaper than those nearby in my own country. There is such an enormous distinction here when criticizing Mark and not mentioning those folks in the UK who make such flights. I think you can see my point here.

Yet, on another level, I can identify deeply with your need to see leaders “walk their talk” in maintaining a low-carbon profile which was what your original post really was about. We have leaders in “environmental groups” here who are deeply concerned about global warming and even lead Kyoto-type efforts here and fly on personal trips without a second thought and hate compact fluorescent lights because of the quality of the light. They believe in solar voltaic electricity but have invested in none themselves nor even the light bulbs which are more affordable for lowering the load which would be equivalent to a solar voltaic supply at over 50 times the cost of a replacement bulb.

Widespread use of compact fluorescent lighting can prevent a nuclear plant or better yet, ... a coal plant. The excess heat from incandescent bulbs has to be taken out by mechanical cooling which if reduced would prevent some of the peak loads which occur in the summer and likely to increase due to GW induced heat waves.

Many people here may own a hybrid and may drive it so much that it does not matter what the fuel efficiency is. If they sold their older car to a poor immigrant who was originally taking the bus, then I wonder what the actual carbon accounting truly is.

So, I have similar emotions as you have expressed. Somehow, I think it goes with the territory and we all have to separate our feelings from our actions. I know that many would like the USA to set an example. I would like that to. I hope it will happen because I think we need it to happen.

Mostly for me, I want our collective actions to prevent Greenland from melting. I care about rising sea levels inundating the UK as much as I care about the hurricanes hitting us here. I always get a morale lift when I participate on this blog.

When I am most depressed, I come here and write. At least I know someone will listen and respond back kindly which is quite often more than I get here. I truly appreciate this. One other thing which motivates me is seeing into the eyes of decent young people who will have to suffer the most for our actions if we do not achieve success.

Thanks for the dialogue Derek. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did and I also hope it has been of equal benefit to you and it has been a benefit to all those who are reading it. I often think of the anxiety we all must feel about GW/CC yet we can never seem to escape our contributions to the problems we seek to solve. If you want to respond back, then I will give you the last word on this discussion.

Best Wishes, Dan

Hi Dan,

Well since you ask, here are a few I like .. and most of them are American!

1. Collapse by Jared Diamond (a fabulous book; and I also loved his Guns Germs & Steel)

2. Plan B2.0 by Lester Brown (I am reading this at the moment and it seems promising)

3. End of Oil by Paul Roberts (which you know about)

4. The Future of Life by E.O. Wilson (also his book on Consilience is interesting)

5. Renewable Energy by Godfrey Boyle (a practical guide to what is possible; a very useful book to argue against nuclear)

6. Capitalism as if the world matters by Jonathan Porritt

7. Half Gone by Jeremy Leggett

8. The Weathermakers by Tim Flannery (although he writes well, I didn’t go along with some of his analysis)

9. High Tide by Mark Lynas, of course

10. Against the Gods by Bernstein (an entertaining & useful book about risk)

(Also, good are “Something new under the Sun” by McNeil; “Environment & Statecraft” by Barrett & “The High Price of Materialism” by Kasser.)

How about you? What would you recommend?

BTW, take a look at this link, especially the second half of my letter encouraging people in my (old) village to move to renewable energy:

http://www.amberley.info/letter.html

Peter

There was a terrific example of ‘calling wolf’ several years ago (1998 I think) when heavy rains around Easter caused massive flooding in central England. There was someone who’s job it was to issue flood warnings, but they had to judge the cost of hundreds of thousands of people evacuating the area unnecessarily, and the cost of not evacuating when they should have. In particular, they had to consider the risk of false alarms making people skeptical and blase about future warnings. On this occassion, the person decided not to issue a flood warning (specifically, they didn’t make a flood-mitigation order, which might have prevented the worst consequences). That person got fired, because it turned out they made the wrong decision. But what else could they do?

My point is, some decisions are a matter of judging the balance of probabilities and consequences. Sometimes you’re right, sometimes you’re wrong. But sometimes, you can’t risk it. If you get a letter from your mortgage provider saying you’re falling behind with your payments, you don’t sit on your a**e and argue about it up to and beyond the point your house gets repossessed, you make damn sure that your mortgage gets paid. Unless you don’t give a monkeys about losing your house.

It’s a lot like that with Hurricanes. If they get more intense and you can attribute that to global warming, fine. But who cares? The people who are at risk from hurricanes, that’s who. You can argue your tits off about whether or not hurricanes are getting more frequent or more intense, and argue them off again about whether or not it proves global warming is real. But hurricanes have been around forever, they’re only a problem now because so many people chose to lead lives that are vulnerable to hurricanes – a lot like people who decide to farm the fertile lands arounf volcanos.

You might think I’m being a clever dick. But I worked 15 years in atmospheric research and I found it was full of dimwits. On one project people were seriously debating ways of detecting and predicting storms that might cause flooding – in the middle of the ocean. I’m not kidding, these guys were even boasting about techniques that could successfully predict floods in the middle of the ocean. Thousands of miles from land!

Hi Dan and Peter. Not for everyone I know but reading a pile of books does it for me. I put together a list of books for my local Green Party last year. Here it is edited down but updated. (I’ve omitted those already listed by Peter.)

The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney. Mooney is both very young (under 30) and very bright. He exposes the “collusion of special business interests with the anti-intellectualism of the religious right”. (From the book jacket.) Mooney covers a number of issues including AGW/CC. He clearly “gets it” and given the resistance of the Bush administration to the scientific consensus this is a very useful contribution both to the debate and to the political task of getting serious action to reduce CO2 emissions. His website here http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/ has a link to a very recent debate he had with Naomi Oreskes. Well worth investing half an hour of your time if reading the book is too time consuming.

The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer R Weart. Weart goes right back to the early work by Arrhenius the Stockholm scientist. He also, very usefully, weaves plenty of politics into the story. In the process he also explains the firming up of the theories explaining GW. The inception of the UN body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the late 80s is covered. Weart concludes “The hypothesis proposed by Arrhenius in 1896 – denied by almost every expert through the first half of the twentieth century and steadily advancing through the second half – was now as well accepted as any scientific proposal of its nature could ever be.” (p191) All this is dealt with in very measured tones.

Ecological Debt – The Health of the Planet & the Wealth of Nations by Andrew Simms policy director of the New Economics Foundation. Incorporating a development perspective into the GW/CC debate Simms argues “If you take more than your fair share of a finite natural resource you run up an ecological debt.” (p 88) And with reference to fossil fuels “ … there is no more fundamental issue than the distribution of wealth in a carbon constrained world economy.” (p99) He also covers the history of GW, makes the point that this is an intergenerational issue and explains Contraction & Convergence as a solution. An approach to the issue which brings the vulnerability of the “less developed world” into sharp focus.

Natural Capitalism – The Next Industrial Revolution by Paul Hawken, Amory B Lovins and L Hunter Lovins. Dismissed by some as techno-optimists these (American – US) authors are part of the Rocky Mountain Institute. Amory Lovins seems to be the highest profile of the three with a well established track record in consultancy; recently to the US government on energy security. They say “Natural Capital refers to the earth’s natural resources and the ecological systems that provide vital life-support services to society and all living things. These services are of immense economic value; some are literally priceless, since they have no known substitutes. Yet current business practices typically fail to take into account the value of these assets – which is rising with their scarcity. As a result, natural capital is being degraded and liquidated by the very wasteful use of resources such as energy, materials, water, fiber, and topsoil.” So they understand GW and the end of oil. They advocate “whole system thinking”, argue strongly that there is money to be made from tackling CC and have drawn up proposals for a Hypercar – light weight, alternative fuel powered etc. Feels like a compilation.

The Carbon War by Jeremy Leggett. I’ve mentioned this below. It really does bring home the extent to which big coal and oil worked very hard to deny the problem of AGW/CC. Their big budgets and malign political interference with the science have resulted in us losing so much time. This book was first published in 1999!! It’s hard to find in the shops or even at Amazon but call Amita at Solar Century on 44 (0)20 7803 0100 and a copy can be had for a fiver. Bargain!

The Heat is On and Boiling Point by Ross Gelbspan. 1997 and 2004. The first parallels Leggett somewhat but from the US perspective. I found it very interesting to understand how Gelbspan came to discover AGW/CC for himself. Another reminder that big coal and big oil put so much effort into throwing us off the scent. How do these people sleep at night?

Douglas Coker

Thanks Douglas. Looks very interesting. Reading these books challenges me to look at the world through new eyes.

I am not that much of a book worm and the reason I asked is that the books I read which were recommended on this blog were quite good. I read much on the Internet which is loaded with websites. My background in engineering makes me spend time thinking about ideas others may not have considered. I spend time thinking up these ideas and try to develop them more to see if they have merit. All the books and instruction I received from formal education are still serving me today and I have many reference books plus the Internet to look up facts I may use to do some calculations.

Yet, I do need to broaden my knowledge. There are four books I read mentioned by you and Douglas. They are “Natural Capitalism”, “The Discovery of Global Warming”, “End of Oil”, and “Boiling Point”.

My Mother is reading 2 books of interest which are “Garbage Land”, and “Field Notes from a Catastrophe”. She shares with me what she reads but I plan on reading those 2 books as well and I am very interested in “Field Notes from a Catastrophe”.

Natural Capitalism – The Next Industrial Revolution by Paul Hawken, Amory B Lovins and L Hunter Lovins

This book may be overly optimistic in terms of the implementation of great ideas but it is mostly realistic in what can actually be done. I found this book to be very information dense and a pleasure to read. In a way, it is our collective pessimism which has prevented us from moving forward. We actually need a little optimistic thinking to move us out of depression. Natural Capitalism reminds me of the power of our own ability to solve problems. It gives so many real-world actual examples to prove to us that we are much more capable than we realize.

I have been thinking more from a systems perspective after reading this book and I am always looking to how ideas can be combined to make them work better. This was one central theme I found throughout the book which in other words was for us to think more deeply. As an example, why not combine offshore wind energy with wave energy using the same footprint and infrastructure. Both ideas are better combined than done separately.

I found this book very helpful to encourage deeper thinking outside the box so to speak. I always believe we can limit our thinking. As I have said before, sometimes it is not the answer we seek but in the questions we ask. So instead of worrying about finding the correct answer, we need to always know first if we are asking the right questions.

The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer R Weart

I read the online essays which were more substantial than the book. This is where I received my education on climate science and I recommend it to be a good place for anyone to start who is new to climate science. Spencer seems to be very objective and this makes his writing most credible to me. I see no spin and the historical perspective is extremely helpful as this science is still evolving today.

End of Oil by Paul Roberts (This book added more depth to my own knowledge and I liked his use of the terms energy density, and energy-efficiency dividend as applied to the USA. I felt, as you did Peter, that he was balanced. I also liked the information on how oil and coal were formed and the history of how we went from wood to coal and then to oil based on energy density).

Boiling Point by Ross Gelbspan was not as informative for me. Ross focuses on the political issues. He points out the need for better governmental policies.

The next 2 books I plan to read were given great reviews and we already bought them.

“Field Notes from a Catastrophe, Man Nature and Climate change” by Elizabeth Kolbert is very well written. Elizabeth is a gifted writer and Mark has even quoted her. She is very eloquent in her use of language and I believe I will gain a unique philosophical perspective which can help us imagine the future similar to Mark’s approach with “Six Degrees”. Her purpose, I am sure, is to help raise our degree of concern so we are motivated to take action now.

“Garbage Land, On the Secret Trail of trash” by Elizabeth Royte is about how the garbage industry really works. Elizabeth provides many details of how these companies operate in the USA and what really happens to what we throw away. She gets into the economics, the politics, and the environmental harm done by toxic substances in our trash.

I was also recommended the book, “he High Cost of Free Parking” by Donald Shoup. This book is about ideas which help get people to use mass transit versus driving solo in their vehicles. Evidently, parking must be priced higher to create a disincentive in order to reduce traffic congestion forcing people into other transport options.

Thanks Peter and Douglas for your book recommendations. I am interested in buying “Collapse” and “Renewable Energy” for sure. “Capitalism as if the world matters”, and “The High Price of Materialism” both sound interesting because our culture is so wrapped up in materialism and it seems we have to modify our habits to be more conserving to say the least. “Ecological Debt” recommended by Douglas sounds to be in the same category of altruistic thinking versus greed. The book, “Carbon War”, mentioned by Douglas seems important since we can still run up against those who minimize the climate risk and appear to be credible. It may add additional insight to supplement the book “End of Oil”.

And of course we have to mention “High Tide” by Mark Lynas and his next book “Six Degrees” should be even better. I think that Mark’s “Six Degrees” will be at the level of the highly esteemed “Field Notes from a Catastrophe”. We still need to imagine what failure has in store for us. Since we cannot experience the pain of tomorrow, we need to imagine it. This is what Mark helps us do so we know what we need to avoid. We need to know what is at stake so we can avoid complacency by internalizing the mantra that “Failure is Not an Option”!

Best Wishes, Dan