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

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