The smoking gun
De Smog Blog has just commented on the issue that many climate change campaigners have been too scared to traverse. Weather events are random, and you can’t pin any particular one to climate change. There was some muted media discussion on hurricane Katrina and its links to climate change before the focus moved to the US government’s strategy for protecting New Orleans from hurricanes, rather than limiting the hurricanes themselves through a climate protection policy. This time the event in question is cyclone Nargis, about which Sunita Narain of India’s Centre for Science and Environment said:
“The victims of these cyclones are climate change victims and their plight should remind the rich world that it is doing too little to contain its greenhouse gas emissions.”
De Smog Blog picks up the story:
There is no proof whatever that the devastating strength of cyclone Nargis is related to climate change. There is no concrete evidence that the deadliest tornado season in a decade can be linked to global warming.
There is a smoking gun, and it has human fingerprints all over it. The case against the fossil-fuel-burning culprits has certainly been proved beyond reasonable doubt, but because the worst offenders are rich and influential, there is still no one up on charges.
In New Zealand the smaller scale of this debate is the individual droughts and storms that settle upon our shores at more regular intervals. We’ve always had droughts; every few years we have a flurry of concern about emptying hydro lakes, the occasional storm passes through some innocent town or suburb taking telephone poles and livelihoods with it. Insurance companies, farmers and governments wrangle over who picks up the cost. At what point as these events become more regular - first slowly, then with increasing pace - do we start attributing them to our own failure to care for the planet?
It is an important question to answer if we are to underline the urgency of the threat we now face if we don’t act comprehensively. When do we start counting the causalities of climate change? The worst part of this is that we already know what all the solutions are and what we need to do to mitigate the damage.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Excuse me Frog,
do you know if the NZ Greens attended the Global Greens conference in Brazil this month? I haven’t heard anything and was wondering if we took part.
Counting the casualties of climate change is indeed a momentous, difficult and controversial issue…though one that must be discussed.
A few more catastrophic natural disasters affecting the economically developed world and we will be on our way to considering it perhaps.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Yep, Keith Locke was the (sole) NZ Green MP there (one will do - the Greens are conscious of the carbon emissions from flying lots of people half way round the world).
I’ll ask him if he can post something on frogblog re the discussions at the Global Greens conference.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I always love hearing from Keith Locke. Hopefully he can spare the time!
May 13th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Thanks toad,
I’m glad there was some representation and agree with just sending Keith. Hopefully it was worthwhile - I’ll keep an eye out for his comments.
Video conference needs to make a serious come back… it could result in higher rates of participation while creating less pollution.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Ash
Oh yeah..I can really see our pollies giving up their baubles in favour of a video conference.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
May 2008 is the date that the green movement peaked.
tinyurl.com/3l9me3
Take careful not of what is happening in the UK, frog. The hairshirt approach is losing traction now that economies are tanking and people have more pragmatic concerns.
“Gordon Brown, Ken Livingstone and 300 Labour councillors were not the only casualties of the local and London elections. No one seems to have noticed, but the other big losers were those people who care about the environment.”
BTW:
Boris Johnson (Conservative) 1,043,761 votes
Sian Berry (Green Scam Party) 77,374 votes
Change the frame to positive before it’s too late….
And reign in the ban/social agenda/communist brigade….
May 13th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
BB
That’s why I vote for people with integrity - not pollies.
Quit your trolling and accept that it’s a good idea.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:43 am
“one will do - the Greens are conscious of the carbon emissions from flying lots of people half way round the world” I didn’t realise that a 747 produces significantly less carbon emissions when it is only carrying one person rather than lots of people. IMHO toad’s perspective on air miles is as flawed as the concept of food miles. A systems analysis approach needs to be applied to transport emissions and fossil fuel consumption.
As an infrequent flyer, about once a decade, I really haven’t needed to give this issue much thought till now. I think air travel has gone the same way as car travel. Both began as tools of business and toys of the rich. Then economies of scale made them recreational vehicles for the masses. Only then did either become a serious threat to the environment through sheer numbers. As long as governments see votes in protecting mass access to these recreational vehicles they will continue to threaten the environment.
If Kieth had been travelling to the Rio Carnival then he would have been committing an environmental sin but travel for a valid reason is different.
I also see no merit in the argument that air travel needs to be excluded from carbon taxes or trading schemes because the demise of the airline industry would have serious economic repercussions and cause mass unemployment. Sure the banks stand to lose a lot of money but the expertise in aerodynamics, aeronautics and avionics that would become available to the renewable energy sector would be invaluable. I say treat air travellers and car drivers the same as industrial polluters. The activity that will be curtailed isn’t essential or productive. Set the capital and intellectual resources free to find an essential and productive use elsewhere. Hopefully renewables will be that elsewhere.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:34 am
BP, Johnson is going to cut London’s carbon emissions by 60 per cent from their 1990 levels by 2025! I know it’s *usually* reasonable to assume the right will make environmental cuts, but in this case did you even know thats what he wanted to do?
May 14th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I spose frog could have mentioned research like this: http://www.groen.be/folders/docPage/NATURE03906.pdf
Emanuel found a close correlation between hurricane intensity and sea surface temperature, with a “marked increase” in intensity since the 1970s.
I have difficulty reading the paper myself, but I take his word for it.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:49 am
re: johnson, now that I look, admittedly there were quotes like this one being bandied about:
and some pessimists:
May 15th, 2008 at 7:17 am
the “deadliest tornado season in a decade”!!!, gee thats such a long time. Its about the same time as the globe has been officially cooling.
it is bullshit correlations like that that give the climate change movement a bad name.
stick to real science assessments and STOP playing chicken little. You will get more credibility