You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'climate change' category.
From sojourners:
“We can’t let little countries screw around with big companies
like this - companies that have made big investments around the
world.”
- a Chevron lobbyist, who asked not to be identified, speaking
about a lawsuit brought on behalf of thousands of indigenous
Ecuadorian peasants over the dumping of billions of gallons of
toxic oil wastes into their region’s rivers and streams. Chevron
is pressuring the Bush administration to eliminate special trade
preferences for Ecuador if its government doesn’t quash the
case.
(Source: Newsweek)
I was impressed by the way that George Monbiot, freelance writer and documentary maker, took Channel 4 to task earlier this week.
Following on from the ruling regarding the Channel 4 ‘documentary’ on climate change, George let rip with both barrels, pointing out the broadcaster’s bias against certain viewpoints, and even comically offering a documentary idea of his own, positing the idea that the moon is made of cheese. Lol.
George is unlikely to get work from Channel 4 again, because he continues to put his mouth where his principles are - good for him.
And he offers a likely answer to the question of why C4 dislike environmentalists…
“So why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? I am not sure, but it seems to me that much of its programming - whether it concerns property, celebrities or contestants seeking fame and money - is aspirational. Environmentalism is counter-aspirational. It suggests that the carefree world Channel 4 has created, the celebration of the self, cannot be sustained.”
A very insightful and reasoned piece of criticism, which is nothing less than I would expect. All his writing is worth a read, whether you agree with him or not (I often don’t). Also for any activists looking at a career in the media, his career advice page is well worth a read.
Stick it to the man George!
The increasing awareness of the fact that people around the world are starving, and its partly our fault, is leading more and more of us to recognise that we need to change our eating habits.
Most of the publicity at the moment is going towards the demonisation of bio fuels, which we already know are in danger of being described as a crime against humanity.
That is good, we have to acknowledge that switching from petroleum to bio fuels isnt enough, we must cut our consumption instead.
But we also can no longer ignore the issue of meat. My opinions on the future of meat eating are already clear, and I feel there is a growing ground swell of opinion which is supporting this view. George Monbiot writes today about the need to cut our meat consumption - he tried veganism for 18 months apparently, and turned grey… I’ve never been a vegan, but I’ve been a vegetarian for many years now, and am full of health!
Monbiot advocates what I call the ‘meat as treat’ solution: “The only reasonable answer to the question of how much meat we should eat is as little as possible. Let’s reserve it - as most societies have done until recently - for special occasions.”
Amen brother.
Meat production is hugely damaging to the environment, and continuing to over consume it is just not a viable option. It is not true to say that all cattle are grazed on grass land and so they arent harming grain stocks, which is an excuse I have heard some give. Apart from the methane emissions alone, which are huge, cattle account for a vast amount of grain and water consumption per kilo of beef.
Even for those who can write of environmental concerns as less important than human concerns, this has got to be a big issue - all over the world people are starving and food riots are happening. We need urgent action on this, if you eat meat, please consider your posistion. If you are a Christian and you eat meat, then that’s doubly true.
I have this real fear that should Barack Obama win the American election, the whole situation in Cuba could come crashing down. Essentially I am saying that the blockade of Cuba, has been one of the key factors in preserving the country from the ravages of capitalist exploitation.
I know that this doesnt make sense in terms of my feelings about the blockade generally, basically I oppose it, I think its an act of war on America’s part.
But what it has done is stabilise and bolster a number of things in Cuba, one of them being a growing environmentalist way of life, including widespread organic gardening and etc.
Should Obama win (of which more in a later post) I think he will possibly make moves to remove the blockade. If that happens, there is likely to be an economic explosion in Cuba, from increased tourism and export revenues, which could seriously threaten the eco system there.
Some people ask how Cuba became green, the answer is beguilingly simple.
Following the collapse of the old Soviet bloc at the end of the eighties, Cuba’s economy was thrown into crisis. Their markets and cash evaporated as one time communist allies became capitalists. Everything went, including supplies of agricultural chemicals.
Most people assumed that Cuba too would cave in, the Americans certainly did, tightening their blockade in the hope of squeezing them a bit more.
But instead something remarkable took place, and Cuba, instead of collapsing, underwent a different sort of transformation.
Responding to the lack of agri chemicals and shortage of imports, they began to grow food organically, and implemented one of the most progressive organic agriculture policies the world has ever seen.
The whole nation worked together to adopt a more sustainable way of life, now urban gardening, renewable energy, and permaculture practises are widespread. International support has boosted Cuba’s ability to survive and even thrive despite the blockade.
Could all that be about to change? I really hope not. As much as I despise the blockade, and all that it means, I recognise too that it has helped preserve Cuba from capitalism, and find alternative ways of living, which are the kinds of things the ‘developed’ western world, are now beginning to take seriously decades later.
The maverick Scientist James Lovelock, who has consistently been the outspoken forerunner of climate change science was interviewed in the guardian at the weekend.
I’ve only just got round to reading it, and as is to be expected from the original science malcontent, it makes rather grim reading for those of us who are keen to make an impact on the world.
Lovelock’s view is that we have gone long past the tipping point in terms of climate change. There is no point in making the kind of consumer lifestyle changes that are promoted - switching to renewable electricity and so on.
His view is that in the next few decades there will be dramatic climate changes which change the face of the world, desertising parts of Europe, flooding parts of London, so on and so forth. There are also suggestions of a flood of immigrants coming here as climate refugees, and the notion that we may need to synthesise food… The latter I recongise is already with us, the first smacks of the fears of an old man.
Rather than advise us to cut our emissions or change our lifestyles, he says: “Enjoy life while you can. Because if you’re lucky it’s going to be 20 years before it hits the fan.”
At the same time as finding these claims deplorable, I am also aware of the massive scale of change that is needed if we really are to change the world. It simply isnt enough for middle class people to recycle, and to buy freerange eggs. Either the majority of society needs to change their lifestyles completely, or else I fear Lovelock’s predictions are likely to come true.
Over the coming years wars really will be fought over food and water, nuclear power will have to be our main source of energy - with all of its risks. People will die on a massive scale and only those wealthy enough to protect themselves will survive.
The trouble is that I dont see many people really being willing to make the necessary changes in their lives. Why? Because we’re bound into a system that is so reliant on a growing economy, that it is impossible for us to opt out.
Our very governmental systems have evolved to promote the interests of those companies which bring in the wealth, we’re busy storing up treasures on earth.
There needs to be some effort put into fiding ways we can live outside of this structure, because unless there is a way, not enough people will make the shift, and then we’ll all suffer. More importantly the first ones to go will be those who deserve it least.
The UN has admitted what looks like defeat in the battle to keep global malnutrition at bay. Essentially the organisation has said that it just does not have the funds to feed the many starving people who require its help.
The reason? Commodity prices, which are sky-rocketing. People who were just outside of the hunger gap, are now unable to afford the basic foodstuffs they need.
“We will have a problem in coming months,” said Josette Sheeran, the head of the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP). “We will have a significant gap if commodity prices remain this high, and we will need an extra half billion dollars just to meet existing assessed needs.”
“This is the new face of hunger,” Sheeran said. “There is food on shelves but people are priced out of the market. There is vulnerability in urban areas we have not seen before. There are food riots in countries where we have not seen them before.”
WFP officials say the extraordinary increases in the global price of basic foods were caused by a “perfect storm” of factors: a rise in demand for animal feed from increasingly prosperous populations in India and China, the use of more land and agricultural produce for biofuels, and climate change. (The Guardian)
Two of the big villains in all this - are meat and bio fuels. So its a stark reminder that simply switching to bio fuel for our cars, (or airlines) is no magic trick to save the world.
Its also a spur for those of us who claim that we must all eat less meat. The fact that to produce a kilo of beef requires many kilos of grain doesnt need a great deal of explanation, and it simply requires us all to cut back our meat consumption.
The upshot of all this is that the UN’s World Food Programme may well have to cut back food aid now, this in an era when we’re putting grain into our cars…
“the World Bank reports that the US has used 20 per cent of its maize production for biofuels and the European Union 68 per cent of its vegetable oil production. This change in usage has boosted prices, reduced the supply of these crops available for food and encouraged the substitution of other agricultural land from food to biofuel production.” The Financial Times.
Sobering.
Noticed any random trees popping up in the middle of previously paved areas? You could be witness to the actions of guerilla tree planters…. yeah I know, the concept has the air of silliness about it, and perhaps a whiff of futility, but the FOE initiative is aimed at highlighting the issue of illegal deforestation, and the widespread use of illegally logged timber.
So for a number of reasons, not least the anarchic part of my brain, I like this concept, and I happily encourage civil disobedience in such a good cause!
I think its fair to say that I’m not your classic royalist. What with being something of a republican and all… yeah that means something different in America, I know.
But I was fairly impressed by bonnie prince Charlie’s appearance at the alternative energy summit in Abu Dhabi - where he was beamed holographically! That’s pure star wars!!
I’m all for holographic monarchs, much better than real ones. It is not clear to me from this article whether Charlie (the young Chevalier) was speaking live, or it was a recording (I imagine it was the latter) - but its a jolly good way to avoid the air travel.
Interesting also to note his comments: “Scientists are now saying that the problem of climate change is now so grave and so urgent that we have less than 10 years to slow, stop and reverse greenhouse gas emissions. Common actions are needed in every country to protect the common inheritance that has been given to us by our creator…”
Cant disagree on that score Charlie boy - round one to you.
Politics of the environment have long been associated with hippies, ‘new agers’, wiccans and others who combine a reverence for the earth with spiritual aspects - the earth as divine for instance. But many people from many faiths and none recognise a spiritual aspect to care for the physical world around us.
Quite an interesting piece on the Guardian where a former Jain monk, turned anti Nuclear activist, turned enviro spirituality guru talks about his beliefs. I like the suggestion that those who say ‘you’re being unrealistic’ should evaluate where realism has got us all thus far. But I’m somewhat hesitant to agree with the whole of what’s said - mind you that’s true of most things.
I’m not into the gaia type theories, but I am interested in reflection of divinity in all of creation, and this should in my view be one driving force behind our care for the planet.
I am not a real student of Australian politics, and I suspect most people who read this stuff arent either.
But one thing (or rather one person) made me particularly interested in the outcome of the recent Aussie poll - and that was baldie old Pete Garrett.
I’m on record as being a fan of Midnight Oil, who I rate not just because of their guitar riffs and catchy lyrics, but because of the passionate social comment that lay behind much of their output. A few years ago when the Oils split up, Pete donned a suit and tie, and went into politics.
Now he’s the Australian minister for the environment. I reckon that can only be good news for the land down under. On the other hand of course, power has a funny habit of changing people, and my sincere hope is that Pete will stay true to his beliefs and principles.
I tried to get hold of him to interview him once, couldnt get through boo-hoo. I did see the Oils in concert though, and I thought they were excellent, even though Pete was wearing a jumper… not very rock and roll.
So I’m expecting a lot from the guy who said: “it belongs to them, lets give it back” and “don’t turn back the ships of freedom” amongst a myriad of other progressive, and environmental statements.
Come on Pete, I’m rooting for you.
Did you know that of the World’s ancient forests, 80% have now been destroyed? And half of that amount has been in the last 30 years?
Me neither, until today. Read it on the guardian site of course - fascinating stuff, horrifying too.
Make no mistake, we destroy forests at our peril. Also, as someone who believes in a created universe (without specifying method) I believe that there is something very wrong with destroying our surroundings. Seems like our ever warming earth agrees with me.
Also didnt know that Russia is home to one fifth of the world’s total forest area! Blimey!
an interesting post on treehugger goes some way towards explaining why meat is relatively cheap - although strictly speaking the stats they look at are applicable to the US not the UK, it is still worth looking at ways of cutting meat consumption here… I think I may have mentioned this before…
A strongly worded attack on Bio Fuels by Jean Ziegler (U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food) is reported on Treehugger, he has called for a five year moratorium on the use of bio fuels, something which George Monbiot also suggested some time ago.
But as far as I know Monbiot has never claimed that bio fuels are a crime against humanity! The idea is based on the fact that poorer people spend a higher proportion of their income on food, so food price rises hit them harder…
I wrote a few thoughts about bio fuels as part of a longer post on transport in the Green My World blog recently. Whatcha think?
an interesting thought from Rob Bell, ‘Green is the new seatbelt’… what he means is that a few years ago nobody wore a seatbelt, and nobody thought it was important to! Now it is illegal not to wear a seatbelt, and all of us - save a few die hards - recognise it’s a good idea.
his perspective is that in the coming years green will become the new seatbelt, the new thing we all recognise we need to do/become.
he’s probably right.
on the today program the other day - last week actually - said: “societies have to make choices, as to whether they want more material well being, or more tranquility. They cannot have both.”
I think it came the same day as George Dubya made his ‘historic’ announcement that America was going to lead the ‘war on climate change’ or whatever he calls it, just so long as, that war on climate change doesnt impact on America’s material well being of course…
I have finally begun posting stuff on the green my world blog.
After setting it up, I had a crisis of confidence about how to approach the whole issue - whether to advocate small scale personal lifestyle changes, which have little effect in isolation, or to go for larger societal issues.
I opted for the former, as this was my original intention, and so I have now posted an article about something which has been described as ‘the single most effective thing that the average person can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions‘ - I have blogged around this subject before particularly after a post on Steve Taylor’s site. If you are interested to read more, my original post is here, and my follow up to Steve’s post is here.
The new green issues blog is beginning to take shape - green my world is the concept, here’s hoping it will help one or two people lessen their impact on the environment!
Feel free to post comments about subjects you’d like me to discuss, it will probably contain less of my opinionated ramblings, but they will of course continue here 
I am thinking of doing a new blog, entirely devoted to simple ways of greening up your life, I know there are others out there, but none of them are doing exactly what I am thinking about, so I may crack on with it in the next couple of weeks.
Watch this space - I’ll let you know how it goes on
I came across this old post from Keith at under the acacias.
Perhaps due for an update, and maybe renaming: “wwjb - what would Jesus buy?”
I read on treehugger about this box which will eliminate our Co2 emissions from the exhaust pipes of our cars - so that’s a good thing isnt it!
Of course along the lines of what has been being discussed over at greenguy (et tu Kyb?) this has only limited value. Worst case scenario: “I can keep driving, consuming fuel as much as I like, because it doesnt pollute anymore… hoorah! Get the hummer out of the garage again!”
On the other hand, for those of us (including me) who still need to use a car from time to time, this could be a good way of cutting our footprint.
And nice to think that algae are doing something useful for once… instead of just being green scum!
is good, went to see it this morning with the girls, a lorra lorra laughs chuck, and with a somewhat less than po faced look at environmental destruction and the American way. Doh!
says that Monbiot is wrong about ethical consumerism. For what its worth, I say that the green guy is wrong. Read all about it!
One of the first things I learned as a tabloid reporter, was that people always want to assign blame. If ever there is a big problem, a killing, a disaster - the cry goes up: “who’s to blame?”
So its kind of inevitable that in the almost aftermath of the flooding that has dominated the summer people are already demanding to know whose fault this is. The government who ‘knew’ the danger was coming? The polluters who have ’caused climate change’? Who?
An article this morning says that scientists have found a human fingerprint on the flooding : “
Chris Huntingford a climate modeller at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Wallingford, said: “It has now been confirmed that the burning of fossil fuels has altered rainfall patterns at the global scale. Next we need to understand how these observed large-scale adjustments translate to local changes in extreme rainfall events.
“These highly regionalised estimates of rainfall will be essential in aiding governments to prepare for what might, in some circumstances, represent dangerous climate change.”…”
I kind of wish the scientists would make their minds up. They used to tell us that climate change was going to leave us with wet winters and hot dry summers. My wife - a prescient person if ever there was one, has long declared she thinks the weather will become wetter in the winter, and wetter in the summer. She had no evidence for this claim. Until now 
But the reality is that yes, there is more water in the atmosphere, but that hasnt made it rain in buckets. That is down to freak weather… these things happen every now and then. There is nobody to blame for the freak weather (unless a supervillain somewhere is controlling the weather) freak weather happens.
So what about the floods, are they inevitable? Well here’s the thing. Joni Mitchell sang: “they paved paradise, and put up a parking lot”, she could have sang: “they paved/concreted/decked/tarmacked paradise, and failed to maintain ancient ditches and dykes, which combined means that while there are lots of parking lots, there isnt anywhere for the rain to go.”
She could also have added that conventional farming techniques have damaged the soil structure, making it less able to hold water, which simultaneously means that we use more water than we should, and that when it rains the water isnt retained in the ground, and it puddles up instead.
The reality is that the kind of development we consider necessary to keep us at the dorefront of economic growth is not compatible with working hand in hand with nature. Its time more of us got hold of living in harmony with the earth, and quit paving paradise, and needing more parking lots…
George Monbiot has a good groan about ‘ethical consumerism’ which I have always said is an oxymoron - yes buy ethical products but only if you are going to cut your consumption overall…
The eloquent Mr Monbiot says it better than I: “…Green consumerism is becoming a pox on the planet. If it merely swapped the damaging goods we buy for less damaging ones, I would champion it. But two parallel markets are developing - one for unethical products and one for ethical products, and the expansion of the second does little to hinder the growth of the first. I am now drowning in a tide of ecojunk. Over the past six months, our coat pegs have become clogged with organic cotton bags, which - filled with packets of ginseng tea and jojoba oil bath salts - are now the obligatory gift at every environmental event. I have several lifetimes’ supply of ballpoint pens made with recycled paper and about half a dozen miniature solar chargers for gadgets that I do not possess…”
Cut consumption… lets not prat around telling everyone how green we are by consuming our way into the future!
I see on Treehugger that apparently a shrinking glacier is threatening the very existence of the Ganges, the holiest river in the Hindu religion.
I’m not sure what the effect of the drying up of the river would have on Hinduism, but I can imagine this will get a mixed response, some will doubtless say its prophetic, others will say it could prove a turning point for India’s attitude to climate change…
Interesting.
Recent Comments