Earth Hour in ED

[SeanMacGabhann]

Just for clarity - I'm not saying Earth Hour is worthwhile. My arguments so far have been on the "something needs to be done" side, but this isn't going to be one of them

[snorky]

The moral dilemma of AtomKraft has once again been in my thoughts- and I am probably more in favor than not in favor at the minute, given strict rules and as an explicit interim solution until cold fusion or whatever

Not something I would have considered a decade or two ago

[brum]

snorky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> There is no "nature" - we have to get away from

> this idea that there is is this godhead like

> magical force that can sort itself out

hmmm... I don't think referring to nature's equilibrium necessarily equates to me saying that there's a god-like force at work. The whole world functions because it is equilibrium, if it didn't then the planet would die. Remember, humans have only been here for a tiny interval of earth's life - and as long as we don't destroy it first, the earth will be here long after we've gone. Global warming may well have been accelerated by human intervention, but it certainly isn't a new phenonemon. Over time, I believe that things balance out, just as it did after the last major temperature shift - the ice age 10,000 years ago. We may think we're important and that the earth revolves around us, but really we're just a blip on the earth's timeline. That said, I'm all for saving the earth's natural resources from further destruction and maybe we can slow down the acceleration into global warming - so I support any initiative that raises awareness of this, such as the Earth Hour.

[Marmora Man]

Any road - what sort of evidence would satisfy a sceptic ? Assuming you would accept evidence long before it was manifestly too late. Does your thinking include any element of "better safe than sorry?"

I prefer to balance risk and action appropriately - and I do not think the risks as set out are yet well evidenced nor the proposed actions comensurate. Too many respected scientists, and importantly informed scientists from the appropriate scientific fields, are still sceptics.

Lindzen Senate Testimony

Beware the precautionary principle - it is that which so often persuades people to do the wrong thing from the mundane to the global:

Don't let the kids play outside they may get run over / meet a paedophile / get bitten by a dog

Don't use the tube - it's a terrorist target

Don't eat meat - you could get BSE

Don't sail the Atlantic Columbus - the world's probably flat, you'll fall off the edge.

Let's spend 10% of world GDP for next 30 years to head off a possible climate threat for which evidence remains thin, "just in case".

You did indeed refer to the law but your own words were "piety and fervour" which I took (and take) to suggest... some sort of religiosity

Sean, I did mean to draw a comparison about style - you would surely not deny the degree of faux religiosity / evangelical zeal that many climate change proponents bring to the debate. I did not mean to equate Climate Change with Christianity / Islamism / Hinduism / Atheism etc.

One is a scientific thesis that should be properly tested and evidenced - the others are irrational belief systems.

BTW - I agree with Brum the Earth, like many other natural ecological systems has a self regulating / self correcting feedback mechanism. Not managed by some superior / supernatural "force" just by the impact of the laws of science.

[Mick Mac]

Yes Brum

I have said for a few years now that if there had been scientists around before the last Ice Age, they would have said there was something we could have done about it.

I think its a nonsense or arrogance to think we can in any material way impact or prevent global warming. What we do may have an immaterial impact but its too big a problem for us to be solve/impact.

It typical human arrogance to think we can solve / control everything.

The earth made us, we did not make it.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Some fair points MM on oa precautionary angle, and generally I am of a less cautionary bent. But on this one I'm afraid we will disagree

And I'm not going to be convinced by a geezer (Dickie Lindzen) who thinks active, never mind passive smoking and attendant risks are overstated. Especially one who may well have links to the oil companies

[charliecharlie]

Earth Hour is just about making a collective comment... of course it is not going to change anything significant in terms carbon emissions

however, if you look hard enough you can see East Dulwich glowing brightly on this satellite image

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_seLsFzEp4kI/RqHkBme8jFI/AAAAAAAAABc/MHJjfBNAl10/s400/googleearthnight.jpg

[Ted Max]

If Lord Grey had powerpoint...

[Huguenot]

There's an irony in climate change deniers comparing the environmentalist movement to religious zealots.

Show me a room of climate skeptics, and I'll show you a room of creationists and free marketers. All three belief systems involve the abdication of responsibility to one god or other: Natural Cycles, the Almighty, the Free Market.

These Gods are relentless and work in mysterious ways.

All three systems involve ridiculously elaborate arguments based on technicalities, and an impoverishment of self-determination. It's an approach based on fear: if I accept that in my choices I have an impact on the future that befalls us, then I would also have to take responsibility if things go wrong. Woah! It's the guilt they're so scared of.

To refuse to do anything about what is without doubt the most well supported scientific agreement in humanity's history - that we are responsible for the detrimental change in our environment - is to say that we should allow HBOS to fail to teach us a lesson about the Free Market. No matter that millions would starve.

Deniers don't care about the pain and the misery this would cause because they crave it.

Deniers, Free Marketers and Creationists are the flagellants of the 21st century: whipping themselves into a frenzy because absolution can only be found through suffering.

To actually do something about it is to much like real hard work.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Pass the salve, Hugenot.

[Huguenot]

;-)

I love the redundancy of the climate skeptic argument...

"I know we've been crapping on our own doorstep for centuries now, but unless you can tell me exactly what the shite weighs then I shall simply continue as usual

"BTW, can anyone tells me why my cat's dead and my children don't like me?"

[????]

To actually do something about it is also too hard work for 99% of those who go on and on about it too......I believe in climate change, I think posturing, off-setting flights etc, gesture stuff, is as much denial as denying it exists and much more hypocritical.....I'm just being MaCawberish and hoping something will 'come along'...

edited due to gob faster than typing skill syndrome

[Huguenot]

It's not as hard work as we think...

The first real target has to be the 'energy gap' - the difference between what the UK consumes compared with generation. It's expected to be 20% in the next 5/6 years.

It's bad news, as energy providers (e.g. the Middle East / Russia) have us over a barrel (as it were), and this is one of the major sources of international conflict. They use it as negotiation leverage over all sorts of nasty issues like human rights abuse. Reduce the reliance, and we increase our bargaining power.

Average energy consumption in the UK is measured in KiloWattHours. The average UK household annually uses 18,000 of that in Gas, and 3,300 in Electricity (take this to be a 3 bed ED semi for arguments sake). If you're using much more than that you need to target insulation and consumption (e.g. loft cladding, double glazing, lights off not in use, turn TV off at plug).

Try and get it down by 20%?

Second target is source: renewables cost 20% more than fossil fuels. Don't target your supplier based on lowest price (otherwise you just get fossil), but upon price of renewable energy vs. fossil, and the share of supplies coming from renewables. Be prepared to pay 10 quid a month more for renewables. It's only a couple of pints after all.

Next target is transport: next time it's a 50:50 call, just go public or by Shank's pony. Really.

Don't buy a second car, get Streetcar and share the footprint for construction.

Finally is lifestyle: just buy seasonal local veg, apples instead of oranges.

Do that, and in 4/5 years your bills will be less, society will be happier, and you'll have a greener world.

[PeckhamRose]

Thanks everyone for contributing to this post. I do not read daily newspapers and enjoy catching up on the opinions (and links to the relevant articles) and have learned who to trust, opinion wise.

As I said, if I see all the lights go out on Gherkin, Tower 42, and surrounding tower blocks, and across at Canary Wharf all of which I can see from my flat, I'll turn mine off. Or maybe I won't.

[Huguenot]

So if everyone jumps off a cliff will you do that too?

::o

[charliecharlie]

good, very good! Huguenot. I like you list of tips... it's too easy to just say my small contributions don't add up enough to make it worth bothering... that's just a lazy and weak argument...

I try to

do one big energy saving project to my house each year

I have a car but I only do 3,000 miles per year and use public transport a lot

What about trying to stick to European wines (as well as not buying veg that come from Argentina for example)

we know that air transport accounts for 5% of global emissions but people often say "shipping isn't a problem"... they are wrong... shipping accounts for 2% of total global emissions...

Don't have anything on stand by (how many little glowing clock do you need in one household?)

Get a composting bin (super cheap via Southwark as subsidised)

Grow your own and if you get a glut, give the surplus to friends and neighbours

Get your milk delivered (glass bottles are then recycled) I would like some better data on this one, as I think am doing the right thing here but not sure...

Be creative, reuse stuff in a clever way

Buy second hand furniture... you can still pick up stylish mid 20th century piece for less than the Habitat equivalent

Discuss it... influence people gently when ever you can

[re]claim, [re]create, [re]cycle, [re]duce, [re]make, [re]mind, [re]source and [re]use.

Do what you can folks... all the small contributions add up to one hell of a lot!!!!!

[Huguenot]

Hot off the press PeckhamRose...

Nelson?s Column, the Coca Cola signs in Piccadilly Circus, the National Gallery, National Theatre, Hayward Gallery, V&A museum, GLA buildings, and the revolving London Eye will be dimming for the hour.

As you can see, it doesn't seem to include the Square Mile, but I wonder how many lights they'll have on at the weekend anyway?

I guess we have to be reasonable about security lighting - but I don't think this is a technical challenge, more about awareness?

[Huguenot]

Apparently HSBC will by turning the lights off also - so will be worth watching Canary Wharf to see if they're true to their word. They could probably do with the cash.

Here in Singapore they're turning off the Merlion, which isn't particularly impressive at the best of times. Hmmm.

[PeckhamRose]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So if everyone jumps off a cliff will you do that

> too?

>

As predicted, you missed the irony.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Pedant's corner writes:

fixed that for you PR as I don't recall you predicting it

;-)

[Townleygreen]

Well said, Huguenot. I too believe we CAN sort global warming. And we must. For our children's sake.

Let's hope those damn politicians who are going to be meeting in Copenhagen at the year's end can come up with something more effective than Kyoto.

If they don't, I hope those f***ing climate sceptics meet their grandchildren when things get really nasty on this planet, later on this century.

Except the sceptics will be in hell, the children in heaven. Maybe.

[Marmora Man]

Show me a room of climate skeptics, and I'll show you a room of creationists and free marketers. All three belief systems involve the abdication of responsibility to one god or other: Natural Cycles, the Almighty, the Free Market.

Hugenot ? while I don?t consider name calling a rational form of debate - you get me on two out of three. I?m a libertarian (therefore free marketeer) and a sceptic but not a creationist tho?, more of a Dawkinite atheist. My scepticism arises not from any abstruse belief in ?natural cycles? but in the relative absence of rational science in much of the debate ? however, I would posit that every organism, organization, system or collection of ?things? is subject to certain physical laws that tend to bring those organisms, organizations, systems or collections back into equilibrium except and unless the feedback loop is malfunctioning ? and, I agree, mankind can be an agent that upsets the feedback loop and has been responsible for damaging, for example, the cod and herring fishing in the Atlantic and North Sea ? but mankind can also reverse its actions and restore the equilbrium. I believe that real science and scientific research will ensure the survival of mankind and the planet; not some well meaning gesture politics.

Furthermore I?m a climate change sceptic (and I note the relatively recent change from ?Global Warming? to ?Climate Change? necessary since the warming element hasn?t been too obvious over last few years) because there is a lack of properly researched hard evidence of abnormal changes. Too many of its proponents are not qualified in the field of meteorology, glaciology, oceanography or other related subjects. There are too many loose statements that don?t hold up to proper, ?Popperian? scientific analysis.

The hypothesis of global warming / climate change has some strengths and should therefore be tested. It should be possible to construct experiments and tests that will test the hypothesis and thus demonstrate the case. I haven?t yet seen a clear exposition of the hypothesis and necessary associated experiments or tests.

Nevertheless your second posting, with less name calling, on what should be done was a better argument and as most of the actions you propose are sensible and do not involve the entire country wearing a hair shirt I can support much of what you say. It is possible to be a climate change sceptic and still live rationally and sensibly:

The 'energy gap' - expected to be 20% in the next 5/6 years. AGREE ? let?s invest in relatively carbon free nuclear power stations now.

It's bad news, as energy providers (e.g. the Middle East / Russia) have us over a barrel (as it were), and this is one of the major sources of international conflict. They use it as negotiation leverage over all sorts of nasty issues like human rights abuse. Reduce the reliance, and we increase our bargaining power. AGREE ? home produced energy is best.

Target insulation and consumption (e.g. loft cladding, double glazing, lights off not in use, turn TV off at plug). All done in my household.

Second target is source: renewables cost 20% more than fossil fuels. Don't target your supplier based on lowest price (otherwise you just get fossil), but upon price of renewable energy vs. fossil, and the share of supplies coming from renewables. Be prepared to pay 10 quid a month more for renewables. It's only a couple of pints after all.

Two points:

1. There is too much faith in renewables ? wind power cannot provide for all of UK?s power needs. If it weren?t for the subsidy it would be even more expensive than it already is. Far better to subsidise scientific research to identify better and more efficient energy sources.

2. If the user has to pay a premium it should be for a discernible benefit not just to feel good. Better to use the power of the market to get renewables (if you really believe they are better for us) to drive down the cost.

Next target is transport: next time it's a 50:50 call, just go public or by Shank's pony. I do this all the time ? cycling into work 3 days a week and using public transport on other days.

Don't buy a second car, get Streetcar and share the footprint for construction. A second car doesn?t, of itself, increase carbon footprint. The total mileage of a family / individual does. So it?s possible to own several cars but travel less than 12,000 miles a year in total. Nevertheless in London owning a car is of questionable financial benefit ? so a free market approach would suggest it will reduce over time.

Finally is lifestyle: just buy seasonal local veg, apples instead of oranges. AGREE ? we do this.

[Marmora Man]

Let's hope those damn politicians who are going to be meeting in Copenhagen at the year's end can come up with something more effective than Kyoto.

Scientists will do more for us than ever politicians will. Copenhagen will generate only fudge, hot air and confusion. Hugenot's post offered up suggestion for individuals to follow and, despite my climate change scepticism, I agree with him that the task must start with individuals - you seem to want the politicians to do it for us.

[Huguenot]

Apologies for the name calling - I believe I was merely flipping back the 'religion' coin that had been tossed in my own direction ;-). I felt it was reasonable to draw parallels to clarify my point.

I can see your point MM - however recent history demonstrates the feedback loops can't work left to their own devices.

As you highlighted, the credit crunch was a case in point, as was North Sea and Grand Banks fishing. Human communications channels are too fogged with confidence issues, misdirection, politics and criminality to allow them to work.

In the case of the credit crunch we had the Ostrich Effect, and in the Grand Banks we had fisherman blaming short supply on over-aggressive government quotas and easily supported racial issues. People simply didn't believe the scientists until it was too late. Some fishermen still don't!!!

We are in exactly the same cycle now. Despite overwhelming belief within the scientific community, there are those who deliberately fog the issue, there are those who stand to gain in the short term from the status quo, and there are those politicians who prefer to follow than to lead.

Scientific solutions take 20 years or more to develop, significantly longer than it take people to suddenly wake up to no gas - as they did in several ex-socialist republics this Christmas.

The idea with 'gesture' politics is to raise the consciousness of the body public against the individuals that would rape and pillage our environment in their own short-term interests, and to increase investment in research before it's too late.

Politicians require votes, and votes need public conviction. Gesture politics? More like empowerment.

[woodie]

isnt this designed to grow? slowly but surely more and more cities take part untill we are actually able to control our climate somewhat. just like a greenhouse. you turn the heat down for a bit, regulate. turning off is just about the only quick fix there is potentially, i would have thought. if it is found to be effective and is done more, great! k every saturday for an hour. who cares? if its shown to work voila. roll on the future. I can see metallica being a problem! watch that and turn everything else off. Still a drop in usage. In my head full of poxy, Ive been waiting for this for sometime. I believe turning off to be the simpleist solution. unfortunately world wide though to really ht the spot.Maybe even almost oblligotory.Licsence to stay on given to esseantial places..hopspitals etc.

part of the whole one world thing. Your actions beneficial to other nations. The other day at a school i looked at the amazing variety of faces sat in the school hall. Quite incredible. In this particular hall no skin colour or facial types predominated. Right there in front of me was 'one world'. On us already. To be worked on.

my 1/2 p. enjoy your candles. actually pub sounds good. candlelit pub. rawr!