Climate change catastrophe by degrees 07 August 08

To show that it is possible to make huge reductions in carbon emissions, a case study of the total carbon footprint of a business is provided at

http://www.xanfeon.co.uk/page29a.html

The total carbon footprint includes everything in the business (not just the utilities footprints) and the case study shows a 50% reduction from 400 tCO2 per month to 200 tCO2 per month in the first phase of carbon reduction.

The carbon reduction programme covers the following areas, all of which have been footprinted:

utilities (electricity, fuel oil, natural gas) transport (air flights, train, underground, car) products (whole portfolio including supply chain optimisation) packaging (both primary and secondary packaging) logistics (haulage, shipping) consumables (factory, office and marketing) equipment (acquisition of new factory equipment) computers (acquisition of computers) internet services (email, data centre) auxiliary services (accountancy, legal, banking, etc) waste (produced in the factory)

By reducing carbon across all product designs as well as through supply chains, operations and infrastructure of the business, it is possible to make huge reductions in emissions … as well as huge savings. This is particularly important as oil prices are now rising exponentially and this is having / will have a knock-on effect on other commodities.

Going into the second phase of carbon reductions for this business, based on using / implementing renewable energy systems, the whole business footprint can be reduced much further.

This study has been done to show that it is possible to make HUGE reductions now without relying on new technologies that have not yet been devised or demonstrated to work. The reason that such huge reductions in emissions can be made is because our current economy, designed and built in an era of cheap, is incredibly wasteful. Moving swiftly into a very low carbon economy can be done.

Moving into a low carbon economy requires leadership and committment. It can be done.

keep up the goodwork. be sure you have ears on the other side of the world.

What utter bollocks.

Apologies for the last remark. It wasn’t exactly constructive. Mark I think that you should be more engaging with those who disagree with your views. The danger with the debate being so polarised is that when people get bored or disillusioned with this whole debate they will dump the baby out with the bathwater and other vital issues will go the same way as they fall under the banner of environmentalism. Any measures made by Government to deal with these other issues will be seen as nothing more than an exercise in tax raising. People, like me, who don’t hold your views are getting increasing angry that their voice is drowned out and history shows that this is not healthy. The Guardian lead the other day, for example, is a manifestation of this tendancy. 4 degree rise in global temperatures (maybe). Now that headline is or at least used to be tomorrows chip paper. Crying wolf once too often will do the environmental cause no good and will in the end be its ruin. You have to engage with the vast majority who are confused and bewildered by what they hear in the media.

I thought the original article in the Guardian was good (although if I was being picky, I’d ask why they had to accompany it with a picture of succulent plants in a garden in Morocco, and not something a bit more serious). On my blog, I’ve tried to link it up with your piece from June about the possible political scenarios and what they mean in terms of warming. Why do you think there’s been so little in the public debate about positive feedback – just too scary for people to think about?

http://eco-hopeful.blogspot.com/2008/08/global-warming-why-is-it-bad-thing.html

Good Luck nice site. Busby SEO Challenge

Professor Watson is correct except for one thing: his timeline is too long. The consequences of climate change are progressing much faster than predicted. The result of my studies is that unless we start very very soon, we are going to have a mass extinction that will make the Permian extinction look like a minor event. The first to go will be the energy-intensive organisms, the mammals, and homo sapiens will be among the first of those. The timeline: 2040 may be optimistic.

Mark – In the closing paragraph above you mention “latest science” that even two degrees is not enough. I have just finished reading your book, Six Degrees, and am making it mandatory reading for my students. If there is now additional info that Two Degrees is even more dangerous than you describe it in your book, I’m sure many people would appreciate it if you could summarise that for us.

Keep up the great work!

All I can suggest is,

one; let’s keep the matter in front of governments and people continously, by all available means.

two: make the point that (using a computer analogy) The Environment is not a folder, it should be an Operating System: ie a filter through which all activities must be done, without fail.

three: bring it to the younger generation’s attention, that they will certainly wear the consequences of this, to galvanise them to action.

To Tony:

The science of climate change is not a matter of personal ‘views.’ There is not so much a ‘debate’ any more about the fundamentals, but rather of how serious they will be, when, and how to address them. Most of the science since AR/4 of the IPCC is in the ‘worst than the worst-case scenario’ direction, both for global GHG emissions, as well as for climate system outcomes. Thankfully, I understand the IPCC is preparing an interim update for March of 2009, outside of their usual five-year cycle of review.

However, I agree that there is a danger in being perceived as overstating the case, even if this perception actually proves to be backwards, as I think it will, and I thank you for raising this issue of rhetorical ‘realpolitik.’ In the US, where I study and work, the discourse on ‘global warming,’ including in the field of military and intelligence planning, still generally presumes that the climatic future holds gradual change. In so doing, it ignores the actual history of Earth’s ability to rapidly and radically lurch into other climate modes in human timescales (i.e., years to decades) under far less forcing than we have already unloaded onto Nature. We simply don’t know whether these other modes are, in the end, survivable.

The danger of being perceived as ‘crying wolf’ is augmented by the (albeit disputed) possibility that we may experience a short-term lapse in warming, or even a brief cooling trend, during the next decade or so, while insidiously the planet continues to absorb heat, but keeps it in the oceans, rather than the air where we feel it.

Further, research into firmly-held views shows that presenting contradictory facts actually leads to reinforcing your “opponent’s” position, something I may myself have done here.

Finally, I think we have collectively learned some bad lessons about putting off environmental problems; so far, we have gotten away with many kinds of pollution, often by “outsourcing” it to other countries (environmental racism as ‘externality’). And those are cases where the effects are felt, more or less, in real time. In this case, however, we have only one atmosphere, only one planet, and there is a significant time lag to consequences.

I do not have an answer about how to address this communications problem strategically, except to remind us all, even skeptics, of the precautionary principle. It is the basis of the EU’s new “REACH” regime on chemicals regulation; we have nothing like it in the U.S. and so have essentially become a dumping ground for more toxic products which can no longer be sold to European consumers. While we can live with the results of our policy and let you live with yours on this account, the atmosphere is our greatest commons, and I don’t feel free to pollute it while my doing so risks your child’s future.

Thomas Alton, what are your studies you refer to? Is there any way you can publish them? It is a frightening prediction indeed, and may prompt governments into action as it REALLY would directly effect them and their families. What kind of shock is necessary to get governments globally to take action? Is it impossible for countries to reach sufficient agreement at climate summits, because so much of the world is in dire poverty, struggling to survive, and it is getting food each day that matters to people, not tackling global warming? How do we act in this situation? It is certainly easier for first world citizens, who do not need to struggle (yet) to survive on a daily basis, to debate and take action. For others, it is just not urgent or obvious enough, despite the loud cries of people like Mark Lynas and Bob Watson.

And it’s not just carbon. It’s spending our dollars on keeping ecosystems going, investing in solar technologies and so on. The website www.climatechangetriage.net raises a whole nest of questions relating to climate change

Tipping points, triage, decisions, decisions, decisions. In thelight of impending disaster, climatically speaking, use of triage as advocated at www.climatechangetriage.net seems to be the most useful tool to help governments and lay people make some reasoned decision. Since decisions we must make. As Schneider say, Not to decide is to decide

It would be of great help to non believers if somebody from the Scientific world could answer one or two questions regarding the atmosphere. Here are are few numbers to be getting on with. The atmosphere consists of 71% Nitrogen 21% Oxygen which even with my maths adds up to 99%. The remaing 1% of gasses are CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, some Misc. gases (CFC’s etc) and here come s the big one,Water Vapour. It is interesting to note that Water Vapour makes up about 95% of this remaining 1%. So, can someone please explain why a benign gas such as CO2 in such small quatities have such an effect on the climate. The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapour and we can’t do anything about it – and both methane and nitrous oxide are far more effective than CO2 as well – and we can’t do anything about that either. As 95% of CO2 is naturaly occuring we cannot do much about that either, nothing that will make a jot of difference anyway. While the Scientist are answering that, perhaps they could tell the rest of us what melted the ice 12000 years ago and not a Land Rover in site. The answer to the last question is, they haven’t got a bloody clue. There is no evidence the Hydrocarbons have any effect on global warming they never have and never will. If they do can somebody explain why it is that the Earth over the last 100 yewars has not warmed at all, yet CO2 concetrations are said to have increased by 300%. We are being taken for a very expensive ride. Eventually it will be confirmed that climate change is a naturally returning cycle that has been with us for over 100000 years and there is stuff all we can do about it. John

Who says that the planet has not warmed over the last 100 years? If you live in the UK John, you cannot have failed to notice in the last 30 years how much our climate has altered. Much warmer, fact! When did you last see an icicle in the winter? When did you last see snowfall on the ground for more than 48 hours in England? Frozen river? Canal? Shall i gone on or do you think it’s the same as 100 years ago? You dont need science on the warming issue, you can see it! Everyone know the planet goes through cycles in temperature, but it’s the extremeties that count.

Carl The problem is that there is a huge difference between Global Warming and Climate change. Climate change is much more of a local event, and just because we have had less snow in the last few years does not mean that the Earth has warmed up everywhere. In fact there has been no warming globaly since about 1940, and none is expected for the next 10 years, even though CO2 is said to have increased. Have a read of the Oregon Petition which will explain all. Either that or read John Coleman on his Web site who feels the whole thing is a complete scam. To quote from the petition ” We are being jerked around by the same stuff that has been jerking us around for millions of years” John

Thanks John, when I read your comment just a moment ago I thought great no problems then. But then I started to think! Dangerous I know but stay with me a moment if you will. If the world has experienced no warming since the 1940’s why are the world’s glaciers in retreat? Why are the ice caps melting? I am no scientist, clearly. But i do know when ice is warmed it melts. So if the ice is melting, and it is, and it’s not because it’s getting warmer, why is it melting? When the galciers that supply the rivers that give Lima,for example, it’s fresh water disappear where will 9 Million people get fresh water from? Answer they won’t ! Result. Failing crops, hunger,civil unrest on a massive scale etc. Dominoe!

I think from what I have read and studied that it is now too late to stop catastrophic climate change. Very soon scientists will be repeatedly telling us this . How will mankind accept it and what will the consequences be for all of us living with a doomsday scenario. ?

Colin, Mankind of course will not ultimately survive as a species, but dont expect us to vanish any time soon. We are already witnessing the reaction to climate change as it happens. Let’s hope that the tipping point has not been passed yet of course, it is NOT too late to at least slow the process of mankind induced global warming and there are many things that can be done to protect our life on earth for many generations to come. However, it is time to prepare our thinking and planning for your doomsday scenario as a worst case possibility. The first people to suffer and die is likely to be those whom already suffer the most on our planet. The poor in much of third world. Glacial retreat alone threatens the water supplies of central and southern Africa as well as much of the Indian sub-continent and indeed as I alluded to before South America. The same can be said of the West of the USA and Australia and much of central China but I suspect wealth and power will see those people displaced but not lost. Money ulitimately will dictate where humans survive and live successfully perhaps 100 years from now. But I think Mark has covered these points in his books very well. It would be interesting Mark to see a forecast global map of population centres 50 & 100 years from now? I think we will see huge movements of poeple as water runs out, crops fail, coasts begin to vanish under rising tides. I wonder has anyone in the scientific community already prepared likely scenario’s relating to where people will live in a future between 1 & 6 degress warmer? If not not perhaps it might be an idea to look at that demographic and the resource able to support it etc etc? In pictorial format of course. Interesting isnt it?

The Oregon petition is a discredited hoax. It was perpetrated by the same Robinson who’s non-peer reviewed manuscript the Wall St. Journal based a phoney article on. This whole thing is a joke in the climate science community. Ask a real climate scientist. The nonsense about warming ending in 1940 is pure rubbish. Come on. Try getting your information from actual climate scientists. Nuclear energy: What’s wrong with it. One of nuclear’s biggest problems is water. It takes billions of gallons to cool a single reactor

Every nuclear power plant will require at least $500 million to dismantle it, when it has outlived it’s useful life. More radioactive waste.

Nuclear power doesn’t give us energy independence. We import 65% of our oil and 90% of our uranium. And now Russia is being lined up as a future source of 20% of our uranium.

“The United States and Russia signed a deal that will boost Russian uranium imports to supply the U.S. nuclear industry, the Commerce Department said Friday….” “The new agreement permits Russia to supply 20 percent of US reactor fuel until 2020 and to supply the fuel for new reactors quota-free.” “So if, under a President McCain, we build a bunch of new nuclear reactors—they could be fueled 100 percent by Russia.” “I can almost hear Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin saying, “Excellent.” http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/20/14125/7761

According to Argonne National Laboratory, an airliner crashing into a nuclear power plant could cause a complete meltdown, even if the containment building isn’t compromised. Think the twin towers disaster was bad?

The more nuclear reactors are build all over the world, the more fissionable material there will be, which can be stolen by terrorists and used against us. Just look at the concern over Iran’s nuclear program. How many times may this kind of scenario be played out if nuclear energy proliferates all over the world?

The transportation of radioactive waste from all over the country to Yucca Mt. is potentially dangerous, as well as expensive. “In the United States, current surcharges on nuclear power are too low to cover expected disposal costs. In addition, the US government foolishly absorbed all risk for an on-time opening of a repository for commercial nuclear waste—despite longstanding technical and political challenges associated with making this happen.” from eoearth.org

There is no accountability with nuclear power. The Price-Anderson Act places most of the liability for nuclear accidents on the backs of taxpayers, not the nuclear power industry.

A nuclear power plant costs about $4,000 per kilowatt hour to build, compared with $1,400 per KWH for wind energy.

Wind and solar are much quicker to get up and running than nuclear or coal. And both can start generating power before large wind or solar farms are completed, because they are modular in design

Nuclear power is heavily subsidized. According to Earthtrack, Federal subsidies to new nuclear power plants are likely between 4 and 8 cents per kWh (levelized). http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ten_most_distortionary_energy_subsidies

If you want to know more, read “The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy” pdf online. It’s a real eye opener. http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear

“The world’s endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste.” “Shortages of uranium – and the lack of realistic alternatives –leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.” Are you ready for peak uranium? How about some more wars over fuel?

“Every stage in the process produces lethal waste, including the mining and leaching processes, the milling, the enrichment and the decommissioning. It is very expensive. It is a terrorist target and its enrichment processes are stepping stones to the production of nuclear weapons.”

A much better solution is solar thermal power plants with heat storage using molten salt, water or oils to store heat 20 times more efficiently than you can store electricity. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/index.html Excellent article on solar thermal.

I guess there is no need to make any forecasts or calculations, it takes only to catch a glimpse of TV-set out of the corner of an eye to see what is happening in Australia, see the real threat of a human factor and its consequences.

It’s quite obvious that this pyromania becomes part and parcel of global quotidian reviews. Perhaps this is this global temperature increase that causes people’s mental state and social behavior. A definitive connection is to be revealed.

So the Greens have decided that Nuclear power is a good thing and is necessary to avoid the energy gap. This is something that the rest of us has been aware of for the last twenty years. They might now admit that CO2 emissions have got very little, or even nothing at all to do with climate change. Having just read a survey carried out by a climate expert, it is interesting to note that of the large number of well educated people who were asked about how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere the estimates varied between 60% and 5%. The actual figure is at the moment 0.0389%. Do people really think that this amount is going to finish us off. The main cause of climate change is the great big shiny thing in the sky, and the slight changes in earths orbit. John

It may seem that four degree change will lead to not so vivid chnges but in reality it will cause catastrophical damages in many regoins on th eEarth and especially it will make great sufferings to the poorest parts of the world… Many programs are taken but people all over the world do so little to prevent the warming…

Mark I think that you should be more engaging with those who disagree with your views. The danger with the debate being so polarised is that when people get bored or disillusioned with this whole debate they will dump the baby out with the bathwater and other vital issues will go the same way as they fall under the banner of environmentalism. Any measures made by Government to deal with these other issues will be seen as nothing more than an exercise in tax raising. People, like me, who don’t hold your views are getting increasing angry that their voice is drowned out and history shows that this is not healthy.