Anthropogenic Global Warming - a new take

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 08 Mar 2006, 15:11

Even if I happen to disagree with the concept of AGW, I just realised that it is a pretty interesting example of something else, and very illustrative for what we can expect with regard to PeakOil.

The concept of AGW has reached pretty broad acceptance. An impressive bunch of people, some even with scientific background, are screaming BLOODY MURDER over AGW, and they get fantastic media coverage. STILL NOTHING HAPPEN!

Dear friends, would you expect any different political reaction if PeakOil got the same degree of attention, acceptance and media coverage?

I guess not. We are on our own. Forever.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 08 Mar 2006, 16:42

One difference.

PO will hammer people in the pocket.

AGW just kills people indirectly (via floods etc)

GD · Post by GD » 08 Mar 2006, 17:15

That's true TB, that's why I imagine it being a grand awakening.

That's why I think also we need good powerswitch type folk to raise awareness of peaceful, sustainable solutions, otherwise the BNP will be there to mop up instead.

Anyway, MacG - I thought you were into Bernard Lietaer, what about the rising culture?

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 08 Mar 2006, 18:31

GD wrote:That's true TB, that's why I imagine it being a grand awakening.

That's why I think also we need good powerswitch type folk to raise awareness of peaceful, sustainable solutions, otherwise the BNP will be there to mop up instead.

Anyway, MacG - I thought you were into Bernard Lietaer, what about the rising culture?

A grand awakening would be interesting indeed! My bets are currently against it though.

I have a deep admiration for the descriptive anthropological work of Bernard, but dont buy the entire kit.

GD · Post by GD » 08 Mar 2006, 21:34

Of course, you don't have to.

On the other hand, I believe there is a rich resource to be tapped in to.

I posted something along these lines earlier on a separate thread Why can't people see the underlying cause?

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 08 Mar 2006, 22:23

GD wrote:Of course, you don't have to.

On the other hand, I believe there is a rich resource to be tapped in to.

I posted something along these lines earlier on a separate thread Why can't people see the underlying cause?

Saw that. Even commented in the thread....

DamianB · Post by **DamianB** » 09 Mar 2006, 12:23

How exactly is this a new take?

I'm fed up with reading about CC and GW here on PS - is anyone else?

GD · Post by GD » 09 Mar 2006, 12:36

I think this is about the people (i.e. are we largely "sheeple"?) and how, if the CC movement has been largely inneffectual, would the PO movement fare?

IMO the PO movement will eclipse the CC movement in a big way.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 09 Mar 2006, 13:35

DamianB wrote:
I'm fed up with reading about CC and GW here on PS - is anyone else?

Not that bothered. The subjects are undeniably linked.

GD (notDamianB ':wink:' ) wrote: IMO the PO movement will eclipse the CC movement in a big way.

I think so too.

PO is a clear and present danger to peoples wallets which is something they care about. They are already being hit by rapidly rising electriciy, gas and petrol prices, and some are starting to wonder why. This is reflected in increased mainstream media attention. The media feeds people with what they are interested in, not vice versa.

CC is 30cm of sea level rise and a few degrees of temperature rise by the year 2100. In the scale of most peoples priorities not something they're going to give a lot of attention to.

..and.. most people in the UK prefer warm weather to cold...so whats the problem?

Hurricanes, melting glaciers, drought ("cut to shot of ox skeleton on cracked dusty earth") and mass starvation are things that happen elsewhere, on the telly (so long as it doesnt interfere with Big Brother or Match of the Day), not in the UK.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 09 Mar 2006, 14:26

Skeptic, GD wrote the second comment you quoted I think.

The difference imo is that AGW and the GHG Theory is not proven in my mind and I am personally very sceptical of the IPCC and their claims of a rise in temp by 2100 between 1.4c - 5.8c, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm

Wheras I am completely convinced we are about to fall off a cliff as far as Peak Oil and depletion are concerned and the ramifications of this problem for our species and future civilisation. Plus it dismays me that the vast majority of people (a mere 6 billion) are completely asleep and don't know what is about to hit them. There is no doubt that the problem of PO has been downplayed by all Govts.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 09 Mar 2006, 15:09

skeptik wrote:Hurricanes, melting glaciers, drought ("cut to shot of ox skeleton on cracked dusty earth") and mass starvation are things that happen elsewhere, on the telly (so long as it doesnt interfere with Big Brother or Match of the Day), not in the UK.

Erm, Boscastle, Carlisle, various other places affected by flash floods recently. UK farmers seeing crops destroyed by heavy rainfaill. Water shortages because of the bursty rainfall running-off instead of soaking into acquifiers. Of course the public will blame the water companies for the leaky pipes, rather like they'll blame oil/gas companies for profiteering.

I look on CC vs PO in fairly abstract terms, i.e. CC is the carrot, PO is the stick. Put another way, CC implies abstinence, PO implies rationing.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 09 Mar 2006, 15:31

snow hope wrote: Wheras I am completely convinced we are about to fall off a cliff as far as Peak Oil and depletion are concerned

I'm not convinced either way about that at the moment. We could be in for a decade(s) long bounce along a spikey plateau followed by a roll down a (2 to 3%?) per annum slope. I certainly hope so. "Falling off a cliff" sounds more like individual natural gas well depletion. Very unpleasant.

The only certainty is that Peak Oil will happen - sometime - and that we ought to be moving towards a post carbon society (peak fossil energy is the real biggie) as swiftly as we can, right now. To me that means ramping up all the alternatives, including nuclear, and also getting serious about conservation (finding ways of making do with less, and that includes lifestyle change) and energy efficiency ( making what we've got do more) . The risk has to be spread. We cant afford to be picking winning strategies or technologies now as getting it wrong would be disasterous. I cant understand how with the coastline we have so little progress has been made with wave power since the 1970's - surely the renewable with the greatest potential and reliability in the UK.

As a number of commentators have said a "Manhattan Project" level of effort is needed on the publicly funded R&D front.

I dont think we can afford to take into account the cost of 'mitigating too early' as some have proposed as the cost of getting it wrong and 'mitigating too late' is too high.

In reality we're already 30 years too late. If at some point President Jimmy Carter jumps up and starts shouting "I told you so!", I wouldnt blame him at all...

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 09 Mar 2006, 15:44

Bandidoz wrote: Erm, Boscastle, Carlisle, various other places affected by flash floods recently. UK farmers seeing crops destroyed by heavy rainfaill. Water shortages because of the bursty rainfall running-off instead of soaking into acquifiers.

Unfortunately, no big deal. Floods, like the poor, are with us always...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 960180.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/u ... lood.shtml

People just go 'tut tut isnt it awful' then get on with their lives. And everybody knows farmers are always whingeing.

Still think a big economic hit to everybody's pocket is more likely to focus people's attention .

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 09 Mar 2006, 15:56

skeptik wrote:We cant afford to be picking winning strategies or technologies now as getting it wrong would be disasterous.

I think people are aware of that risk, and it drives them to procrastinate. They don't want to make a decision that may be wrong, so they'll make no decision, hoping that some new information will come along to allow them (or their successor) to make a decision. However the decision that is overlooked is whether a decision between the options has to be done at all; the best decision to make is whether to do one or both (rather than neither).

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 14 Mar 2006, 12:51

The Government knows about PO, but is preparing the populace for it with the push to combat CC. The solutions are the SAME!

The only difference is that CC is an 'out there' problem, for which the whole globe is responsible, whereas the Govt themselves are responsible for lack of preparation for PO. So the Govt will always shout about CC, whilst putting in place policies to prepare people for PO.

Personally, I think that PO is about the only thing which can save us from CC. It might mean the end of international air tourism, but at least it isn't the end of life on Earth.