Why you should not care about the climate change debate.

As we pass the very unsettling milestone 400ppm of atmospheric CO2, more than ever the climate denialists are turning up the heat of their campaign. A completely irrelevant campaign. After all, that is not really the issue.

Sure, to argue that CO2 is not a problem is in essence saying that it is acceptable, necessary – and in fact unavoidable – to pollute, to squander non-renewable resources for short term gains, and deplete all our planetary ecosystems for our economy and business to prosper. An we don’t need to be scientists to understand how unethical and morally corrupt this point of view is.

The real issue is not climate change.

Climate change – whether it is happening or not, and whether you believe it is man made or not, – is simply a symptom. And it is only one of many.

The real issue is that we can not continue doing business as usual: we need a healthy ecosystem for our economy to exist, and for us as a species to exist. So besides the obvious ethical and moral hypocrisy embedded in pro-pollution arguments, we know that fossil fuels are a temporary source of energy and will – by choice or by force of nature – be phased out within our lifetimes. We know that waste and consumerism are phenomena with a limited lifespan, and will also change.

So ultimately, 400ppm or not, our current business and industry models are wrong, and by choice or by force they will undergo profound change within our lifetimes. To argue against this is as clever as the guy in that famous cartoon sawing the branch off on which he is sitting…

And the Enemy is…

A headline on a news site this morning declared that the Australian military is not doing enough to prevent climate change. Wow!

Sure, it became clear from the article itself that that was not what the journalist meant, but it also highlights their limited understanding.  And that highlights the point how poorly as a culture and community we are understanding the problem.

Let us hope for the sake of all 7.1 billion people that industry leaders and legislators don’t miss the rapidly closing opportunity for effective mitigation (it is too late for prevention) of the plethora of social, economic and ecosystemic problems that are looking increasingly likely. If we allow the situation to deteriorate to the point at which martial law becomes a necessity, or armed conflict over food, water or habitable locations is allowed to take place, then I seriously doubt that any long-term human evolutionary success story is likely.

We can not “fight” climate change, and if we have to fight each other over the left-overs then we have missed the point, and lost it all. The “enemy” is within us, embedded within our culture and practices. Lets instead work together in a rapid and wellness-driven push for replacing harmful business with good business.

Respect, unity and cooperation is the only way we can “do battle”, and win.

If you agree with this view, share it, make a comment. I’d live to hear your opinions on this.

How to change the future in 15 seconds.

Yes, you read right. 15 seconds and a few mouse clicks. Here is how:

Last week one of the most respected advocates for change in human activity posted a wonderfully optimistic article. You can read it here http://paulgilding.com/cockatoo-chronicles/victoryathand.html. So my suggestion is  you can share it!

That is it!

There are a few other goodies that I believe are must-reads – like Bill Mckibbens Rolling Stone article from last year http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719.

I think it is slowly beginning to sink in across all industries that nobody can afford the damage-bill of continuing the proliferation and use of fossil fuels. Even the ones that we call “clean” – but that is stuff for another blog.

No country is wealthy enough, no economy is powerful enough to challenge the laws of physics. And slowly but surely large investors, governments and insurers are backing away from anything to do with the now termed “unburnable” carbon. Lets encourage them further, and in doing so you will be helping the emerging industries and truly sustainable efforts to accelerate in their innovation, implementation and deployment. This will inevitably create an industry greater – and very different – to the one it replaces. And that is good for us all.

So go ahead, help your economy prosper, change the game, read and share.

What was Your Doha Climate-Talk Wish?

So another round of Climate Change Talks is over, and its back to business as usual.

In fact, so usual that the appalling failure to come up with anything at Doha ended up being barely commented on by the news media, more a footnote than a headline. No bigger headline than Durban, Cancun or Copenhagen.

There is a frightening side plot possibility to this, and it is not the melting permafrost.

It is the melting confidence in global governance, be it through its political title or corporate position. History informs us that this invariably leads to mutiny, and that is not a desirable outcome.  At a time when we are about to face our most serious global challenges in history, we can not afford weak leadership.

So what is required?  What is possible? What could have been the outcome instead?

The action list is too long to discuss here, but a few things are so obvious they need no further explanation. One of these is the use of fossil resources as fuels.

Doha could have delivered a framework to phase these out with simple strategies.

Here is my suggestion: Start with the subsidies.

In 2012 the total (global) subsidies supporting fossil fuels were over 5 times those allocated for clean energy. Now imagine a simple rollback over 5 years that could reverse this ratio. Not only would it remove a grossly distorted financial model that makes fossil fuels falsely affordable, it also removes the crippling market disadvantage faced by clean energy right now.

Then next year another problem could be addressed. Over 5 years we could set up a series of tipping points that instead of leaving us rolling backwards (Think about this: fossil fuels is legacy technology from the late 1800’s! ), build upon one-another and steer us forward towards ecological balance, and away from our current trajectory towards ecological collapse.

I’d like to invite you to leave a comment, sharing your future-building thoughts and ideas. What would you have liked to see as an outcome from the Doha Climate Talks?

We need a Hero!

As the 2012 Doha Climate Change Conference nears its end (and it looks like it will boast the same results that have plagued every previous climate summit), one thing is becoming increasingly evident:

The people and organisations who have the resources to drive the necessary changes are not going to do it. Not this time, and probably not the next time either. Most likely not any time until they are under severe duress, or simply when their authority and influence ceases to be relevant.

As a parent I am worried where things are heading. How will my kids will live when they reach my age?.

The outlook is not good.

Lets face it, the same process of analysis, comparison and probability that we generally refer to as science has provided a reliable foundation of knowledge that makes it possible for you to read this post.
It enabled us to build Lamborghini’s, space shuttles and hearing aids.
It enabled us to create iphones, implant artificial hearts, and extract drinking water from the air. There are a thousand and one things within your arms reach right now that were only possible because someone somewhere observed, tested and proposed a “most likely result”. If science was not reliable none of that would be there.

So when science advises that by pumping pollutants into the atmosphere we will most likely bake ourselves (and everything around us), its worth taking that advice as seriously as someone saying “Stepping over that cliff will cause gravity to continue doing what it normally does”. Unless you happen to be Clark Kent, you cant afford to ignore the advice.

So then, what next?

Continue reading “We need a Hero!”

The Skeptic’s Ethics Dilemma

Assume for a moment that global warming was not a problem, and that atmospheric CO2, methane and ocean acidification were not man-made problems. There would still be a gigantic elephant in the climate-denialist’s room. So large in fact, it is all-encompassing.

No, it is not about the nature of the evidence supporting these claims. Neither is it about the methods and arguments used to discredit science. Nor is it about the means by which these views have been promoted to the world. In fact, not even the conflicts of interest by the promoters are the part of the elephant.

It is this: every single argument rejecting climate change effectively proposes that the deliberate and known destruction of our ecosystem is acceptable.

That is a problem about ethics, not about global warming.

So then, could we then still condone industries that are “using up” finite resources such as petroleum for generating energy when it has in fact far more important uses (like polymers and plastics), and there are other energy sources available? Can we justify a farming industry that globally generates a net negative nutrient budget and is empoverishing the soil? Can we continue to manufacture products and distribute them in packaging designed for a dead-end disposal that leeches toxicity into the water table?

I don’t think we can. I certainly can not. And I doubt that you, or any other moderately reasonable and responsible Homo sapiens who cares what their life will be like when they turn 93 can.

Our ecological crisis is not about climate change, that is simply one of many accidental byproducts of our chosen behaviour. There is no need for scientific evidence to refute or support this.

Let us instead argue for a change of behaviour that ensures perpetuity and prosperity for our and future generations. It is our choice, and we already know how to.

And if our ethics are solid, then we also know why.

The Way of the Wheelie-Bin

Every week a waste contractor drives by my house and collects the contents of a 240 litre garbage bin. Every other week it also collects the contents of a second 240 litre bin, filled with what we loosely term “recyclables”.  More about that another day.  For now let’s just explore the first 240 litre weekly bin.

To begin with, absolutely everything that I have used to fill that bin is stuff I have paid for. And I am also paying someone to take it “away”.

Ok, it seems obvious, but why is this significant?

Continue reading “The Way of the Wheelie-Bin”