[backstop]

Markos - you wouldn't believe the amount of spin that's gone on over Climate Destabilization.

For instance, Blair took on Mrs Thatcher's "Green Headscarf" in declaring a goal of a 50% cut in the UK's GHG output by 2050. But, given that we need a global cut of over 60% just to stop adding to excess airborne GHGs, i.e. just to stop making the problem worse, he has actually been proposing to let the problem worsen for two generations.

Yes, he cannot directly acknowledge peak oil - to do so would be to gut investor confidence. Instead, he and other politicians are content to see this idea trickle out (not least through websites such as this one) and start to gain mainstream media coverage.

Be in no doubt as to the seriousness of the climate issue: we lost around 27,000 people in last summer's 250-year heat wave across Europe and we're only just beginning the curve of intensification. Blair still cannot speak of the scale of the threat as it is too embarrassing: nothing serious has been done despite governments knowing for over a decade that the destabilization is becoming self fuelling due to numerous positive feedback loops.

Thus he and other politicians are in one hell of a bind: both peak oil and the climate issue are emerging into public awareness at once.

Various lobbies are trying to steer public opinion to their advantage, for instance nuclear has been waiting for this position for years in hopes of making a come-back, despite being a lousy investment either for replacing oil supplies or for reducing GHG output in the next two decades.

Similarly the coal industry has hopes of major growth though its expansion, particularly across developing countries, would greatly accelerate Global Warming.

The point at which I'd take politicians seriously is when they acknowledge that Kyoto offers little further potential benefit and start to discuss publicly its successor: the global policy framework of "Contraction & Convergence."

See: www.gci.org.uk.

regards,

Backstop

[MarkR]

Someone really ought to let Tony know that maybe encouraging all the leccy companies to switch off their coal plants and replace them with NG. isn't such a great plan.

That big huge pipe they're building to carry gas from Norway to the UK, well, you'd never guess why they're building that.

[nailud]

Markos101 stated:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'ll also expect - and remember this - that the Bush adminsitration if it is voted in again after November will suddenly take a big 'climate change' stance and start trying to cut fossil fuel usage.

[Markos101]

I wouldn't be too sure - I read on the Guardian website not so long ago that the US Bush Administration have been pressuring Blair to take up nuclear, but they haven't been too public about it. Perhaps this was something to do with Bush's 'Hydrogen Economy' idea.

...Mark

[Permanently_Baffled]

I read that Blair wants to raise energy as 'top of the agenda' at the G8 summit next year. Given the tone of his climate change speech we might see some new energy policies coming out of it if they really believe peak oil is imminent.

But I won't hold my breath!

PB

[Markos101]

The fault with the political system is that people don't like being told to conserve or to cut down their consumption. It's like taking heroin from the heroin addict (although not as serious an addiction!). Therefore, any politician who comes on the television and says 'cut your consumption everyone - it's time to reduce your "standard of living"' knows he/she is going to get voted out of office.

So the monetary system is failing, but the political system can't adapt to this either.

Mark

[Permanently_Baffled]

I agree with what you say Mark about the political unpopularity of conservation, but what he could do is encourage some forms of energy over others via taxes and subsidies. After all PO is going to enfore conservation when it costs £10 a gallon!

Why not remove all the tax on bio fuels?, ok there will be some loss of revenues while it gets established but then once it is there you could reintroduce the tax.

Why not encourage with subsidies public transport to be fuelled by renewable/alternative fuels(bio diesal, Bio gas, natural gas, fuel cell,ethanol,EV). It will be more expensive but then when PO hits next year it will look a bargain!

For me, the government could (if it had the will) introduce measures to ensure that while the availability of cheap petrol declines that there is at least a minimum renewable infrastructure to fall back on. There isn't anything he can do to maintain the luxury of 2 cars per household , but if he can keep us fed, watered , secure and some public transport to get about(or to work) then we can maybe avoid a hard crash in our standard living(it will go down but over time!) After all transport represents 65%-70% of our oil consumption so when people can longer afford cars they can at least jump on the bus and find some food on the shelf.

ffs Blair , step aside give me a go I will sort it out! Come on Markos lets start a coup!

[fred2]

Blair should have stated, publicly, that it was about time the Bush regime signed up to Kyoto. This would have done him a lot of good, politically, here in the UK. Rather than being seen as Bush's poodle. And the timing would be good, with an election due in 2005.

Until the US can be made to seriously address the CO2 problem and related issues, nothing of significance will happen globally. The US is the #1 worst contributor to the problem, and until it faces up to its responsibilites, they cant expect others to.

It is truly sad that a single country that is less than 10% of global population may well turn out to be the one that is single-handedly responsible for destroying the place for everyone else.

[backstop]

fred2 - You're mistaken in the detail both of your recommendation of action for Blair and of your critique of the US .

Kyoto was gutted in several years' negotiations in order to keep the US on board. It ended up as giving a cut in global CO2 output that is probably less than the margin of error. Also, it offers no structure at all for the equitable allocation of emissions rights in future amongst all nations.

Thus pushing the US to sign up to Kyoto would merely give the fossil status quo a further reason for delay.

What is needed is to bring the US on board the widely recognized climate policy framework of "Contraction & Convergence" - Contraction of GHG output over an agreed period down to a sustainable level; and Convergence of each nation's GHG output to per capita parity over an agreed period. (More info at www.gci.org.uk)

With regard to US culpability, it's not 10% of global population but less than 5%, that is emitting about 25% of global CO2 output, beside its other impacts.

Single-handedly responsible it is not: there are quislings in every nation's politics and commerce at all levels who'll take the money and personal power in exchange for unquestioning obedience to the system. They are not only pissing on their own children, they are pissing on ours too.

There is also a manipulation of public opinion that uses Bush as a lightening conductor.

Consider, if people around the world take their contempt for Bush and focus it instead onto the decision-makers serving the global status quo in their own countries, they'll raise their effectiveness by an order of magnitude.

Sooner the better.

regards,

Backstop

[fred2]

My understanding is that it is the US that primarily scuppered Kyoto and what it stood for. I understand that the US govt. has also stated that not only are they not prepared to sign up to that treaty, but, much more significantly, they have stated that they are not prepared to agree to ANY limit on their own production of greenhouse gases.

In that case, we cant really expect developing nations such as China that are now contributing to the problem, but didnt cause it in the first place, to accept limits themselves when the biggest culprit says 'stuff you'.

It is this attitude of the US, exemplified by the Bush regime, that is why, in my view, they are single handedly responsible for preventing the key nations from agreeing an effective strategy.

Absolutely, the US cannot single handedly solve this. But they do hold the means to effectively veto a solution, and they are doing that.

Due to Iraq, Blair is in a slightly special situation regarding Bush: Bush owes him a favour. Direct criticism of US climate policy from Blair could force him to respond.

[JackBob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('fred2', 'M')y understanding is that it is the US that primarily scuppered Kyoto and what it stood for...
It is this attitude of the US, exemplified by the Bush regime, that is why, in my view, they are single handedly responsible for preventing the key nations from agreeing an effective strategy.

[fred2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JackBob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('fred2', 'M')y understanding is that it is the US that primarily scuppered Kyoto and what it stood for...
It is this attitude of the US, exemplified by the Bush regime, that is why, in my view, they are single handedly responsible for preventing the key nations from agreeing an effective strategy.

[JackBob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('fred2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JackBob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('fred2', 'M')y understanding is that it is the US that primarily scuppered Kyoto and what it stood for...
It is this attitude of the US, exemplified by the Bush regime, that is why, in my view, they are single handedly responsible for preventing the key nations from agreeing an effective strategy.

[JackBob]

Here's a few links about it:

http://www.pacificlegal.org/view_SearchDetail.%20asp?tid=Commentary&sField=CommentaryID&iID=104%20-%2014k

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=519%20-%2018k

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-06-12-kyoto.htm

JackBob

[RIPSmithianEconomics]

If you can't frighten people with East-Asia, then use Eurasia, and then when that runs dry, then there's always Goldsteinism. Then you are right back to East-Asia.

[MonteQuest]

Looks like the environment can go pound sand as far as these guys are concerned. (sigh)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ASHINGTON - Rising global temperatures will melt areas of the Arctic this century, making them more accessible for oil and natural gas drilling, a report prepared by the United States and seven other nations said. Such a change would threaten coastal cities, change growing patterns for vegetation and destroy habitats for some wildlife, but an energy-starved world would have new areas for oil and gas exploration, according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report.

[backstop]

Monte - certainly it's a good example of quite how ruthless they are ; yet they're also myopic to the operational consequences of such warming.

Shortly after Ivan took out 30% of GOM production (plus an undeclared loss of plant in $) there was yet another report of production being obstructed by unprecedented weather events (rains) this time in Alberta.

While big oil is self insured (bears its own losses) the smaller companies doing the mopping up on a lot of smaller pockets and remains tend not to be so. Instead they face steeply rising plant insurance costs as weather losses multiply globally.

Thus the industry faces both the physical loss of predicted production and inexorably rising plant insurance/replacement costs. As yet they seem too stupified to realize that they're heading over a financial cliff.

From this perspective the question is of how much damage they'll achieve, both physically and in delaying the alternatives' development, before they fall.

regards,

Backstop

[Geology_Guy]

It is not in human nature to change. Humans will only change when faced with certain death on a large scale.

[savethehumans]

Yeah! Who needs polar bears, anyway? And all that methane going into the air from melting permafrost? Well, we can always live underground, right? And the dreamed of Northwest Passage will be opened to ships! So what if they don't have any cargo to tow, cuz the oceans are fished out and the natural resources are all gone? Go ahead, Dubya--drill that oil! The pipeline'll collapse regularly as the ground sinks (probably atop Alaska's underground cities), but your oil buddies can't say you weren't trying, right?

The future's soooooooooooooo bright, and I forgot my shades!

[Annatar]

I found this comment on the Yahoo! Messageboard, in response to the above article:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')lobal Warming/Cooling Normal!
by: kenrf48 (M/North Plains Oregon)
11/08/04 05:52 pm
Msg: 27 of 31

Ok you science majors. Check out the history books you have written with theories about the the earth being tropical(remember the dinosaurs). Then, there was an "Ice Age" right? Then came global warming that has been happening since the last Ice Age. Really, this has been going on for all the billions of years you think the earth has existed. Personally, I think the earth is a little over 6,000 years old, God created it, and, he is in charge of it. If He wants to melt some of His ice in the next century, He will. It would be more wise to try and figure out what He wants of us rather than to try and figure out how to stop the ice from melting. He loves us and will care for us, no matter what.