Climate “Tipping Point” February 23, 2009

An environmental “tipping point” is a threshold where a slight change in climatic conditions causes a dramatic change in the environment, increase in global temperatures or irreversible environmental change.

As evidenced in Siberia recently, where a frozen peat the size of France and Germany combined – has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.

Scientists say this sort of event is irreversible and is clearly contributable to global warming. Recent similar news from the British Antarctic Society highlighting Antartic polar ice melt, massive fires in the Australian Southern states, and arctic sea lanes opening for the first time in centuries all point to the polar regions perhaps reaching or even passing these tipping points in the last few years.

It appears the world faces a very stark choice on climate change at a moment when the money and therefore political will to do so is ebbing away.

I think the only way we, as a society, can impact climate change, is to do it through economically viable means. Not only alternative energy, but clean energy is required, urgently and without all the red tape usually associated with alternatives of any kind.

Only by providing an economic incentive, not an economic burden, can we successfully address the world’s climate change problem.

Some regional tipping points may have been reached already; the scientific debate about the global tipping point is still raging…..when will it be reached (10 years, 50 years, the estimated are being lowered everyday), or have we already passed it?

Do something today, to help reduce your personal impact on the planet, reduce your energy use in anyway you can. There are many websites dedicated to the subject. In the meantime pressure your local or national governments to step up efforts to replace fossil fuels with clean energy alternatives. The economic times may not be ideal, but economic ups and downs generally last a few years, the last time the planet when through this type of “cycle” was over 10,000 years ago.

Think Green, Use Green Energy.

Global Warming Accelerating February 23, 2009

Climate change is speeding up; according to a recent study by the British Antarctic Society released in February 2009. India and China are building more coal burning power plants than ever before to meet their demand for energy. They rightly argue that developed nations need to offer more in terms of the global warming debate to developing nations. Specifically when it comes to the determination of carbon emissions reduction and limits, as compared to the developing world.

Why? Because developed nations are largely responsible for the current levels of climate change through GHG emissions over the last 50 years or so.

The question is with climate change starting to reach or pass the “tipping point”, a point of accelerated consequences for the planet, and the next round of climate debate scheduled to be held in Denmark, December 2009.

Are we acting fast enough to make any difference?

“A vast expanse of western Siberia is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today.
Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres – the size of France and Germany combined – has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.” …guardian UK

The politicians’ can talk and talk, each one of them seeking to benefit/protect their own country from over-burdensome regulations, and maintain the competitive advantage in terms of global trade. E.g. India and China

With the global economic crisis threatening to shift global wealth from the US and Europe to the developing world of Asia, it remains to be seen if the developed nations are indeed willing to contribute more (essentially subsidizing Asia and Africa) financially in terms of carbon concessions to Asia/Africa and stricter environmental caps on their own industry, an industry already under immense pressure from the global slowdown.

Personally I think some/all of the politicking and self-interest needs to come second to a new global citizenship dedicated to the development of a global plan to combat climate change. We need to work together to achieve the changes required. Its not important where or by whom carbon emissions are emitted into the atmosphere, we all share the same atmosphere and a carbon reduction in Argentina has the same carbon reducing effect as a reduction in Australia, Japan, India or Germany.

Think globally, act locally!

Stay Green.

Nuclear Nonsense February 3, 2009

I remember growing up in Australia (a huge uranium pit), and being exposed to the sometimes hostile debate about the benefits and disadvantages or dangers of nuclear power.

I remember thinking at the time, and now even more so, the only real issue is what happens to the waste after the uranium has been extracted. Doesn´t it remain radio-active for thousands of years ? and basically means where-ever it is dumped/stored (often government financed places in under-developed nations, desperate for money, regardless of the price) becomes a no go zone for the next 5 thousand years.

So given the debate among our politoco´s and business leaders, about the need for more nuclear energy, they state it is a clean energy!! (obviously only factoring in the input processes in that assessment, not the output), and that we need to ramp up the implementation of more nuclear power plants, to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels; I wonder have we forgotten the consequences of nuclear power , the waste?

Are vested interests within the business community and governments controlling the debate and the final decisions or has the latest economic crisis blinded us all to the long term dire consequences with nuclear power. My opinion is that its allot of the first and some of the second…..

In terms of the global warming debate and the relevance of this, when as a society did we stop thinking about future generations and become so short sighted. So selfish!

There is a mountain of evidence suggesting that nuclear power is not the most cost effective energy producing alternative we have available and that the long-term costs are not being included in financial evaluations when it comes to this particular energy source.

There is allot of nonsense in the world at the moment, so say there is allot of nonsense when it comes to the debate on climate change. It is my humble opinion that one of the biggest pieces of decision making NONSENSE when it comes to alternative energy is the nuclear NONSENSE we are currently debating.

Take some time out of your busy schedule and write your local head honcho, whoever that maybe, about this issue. Lets be a little less selfish, a little less short sighted and think about how the decisions of today have an impact for tomorrow.

Stay Green!

Climate Change, Real or Hype? January 25, 2009

The debate about global warming still seems to be dominated by the line of thinking, is it real or just environmental hype. And let’s do more study on the subject before making any drastic decisions….etc
I am surprised that we have not progressed past this point into a more constructive solution based discussion.

In a nut shell, some commentators say that we are in a 100 year cycle of global temperature change that is not due to human activity, but more a natural phenomenon.
The disintegration of the 13,680-square-kilometre Wilkins Ice Shelf about to break off in Antarctica, (scientific evidence says the ice level has not been so low for over 10,000 years) I think the argument that this is a natural pattern of climate change, or that human activity and fossil fuel dependency is not to blame is somewhat incredulous.

One of Australia’s leading Antarctic scientists, Dr Ian Allison, said the collapse was an indication of how quickly change can happen in the Polar Regions when a critical point is reached.

“This area is showing extreme warming,” Dr Allison said, “The climate models all predict that with anthropogenic [human induced] warming the biggest increases are going to occur in the polar regions”.
As a financial manager I am always analyzing risk scenarios. When I apply the same logic to the debate on climate change, it becomes a simple question of what is the risk we face of inaction, of doing nothing, debating the subject for ever.

That is, what is the worst case scenario and how do we prevent our “investment” from being completely wiped out…
The following video explains the options facing us, as citizens, in a plain and compelling way; I invite you to view it.

Stay Green!