a sunday muse
In case there is any doubt left in the world, the last two days of rain have finally washed away the last vestiges of support for the rather silly idea that mankind’s addiction to carbon based energy is somehow heating up the planet.
What’s that you say? Two days of rain doesn’t make for a cooling planet? What about the IPCC predictions of global warming of at least 2 degrees this century? Well if that news was alarming then surely the responsible governments (notably China and the US) would actually do something, I mean it sounds drastic, rising sea levels, increasingly disastrous droughts and storms, melting glaciers, rising cases of tropical diseases…
I hear you. But as we know, courtesy of the little inside disclosure job done on the East Anglia Climate Unit, the climate scientists are just cooking the books to ensure the continuation of lucrative government research funding. Makes sense doesn’t it? I mean everyone’s on the take so who can blame the scientists for fudging things occasionally. So there you go, the science is bunkum, its just some sort of intellectual conspiracy designed to baffle the poor people and con governments into handing over money to keep scientists in work…
Really I didn’t expect a socialist world government to take over post Copenhagen despite the assertions of Planet Janet. Aside from questions over the science, or rather the assertion that what we do know is sufficient to accurately predict the future which is in itself a claim deserving of some scrutiny, I think that things will change anyway but not necessarily because of collective action on AGW. The reason I suspect has more to do with the complexity of the modern world and its utter dependence at root level on carbon based energy.
Brian Davey at Open Democracy writes a refreshing argument about the world post Copenhagen. He argues that overarching policy instruments fail not because of their intent, but instead, they fail because of their complexity. A global agreement at Copenhagen would have been a plan too complex to succeed even if the political will existed. A more likely constraint on carbon emissions is simply supply, that is, the easy and cheap availability of oil and gas. As these reserves diminish we will naturally release less carbon into the atmosphere which, while it sounds attractive in terms of AGW, also implies that less convenient energy will be available for general consumption.
The argument about carbon based energy supplies is far less controversial than the science of AGW. Known reserves plus possible new discoveries only give us a limited timeframe. Then there are recovery costs. Simply put it is completely certain that the world will run out of oil,gas and coal before long and it is just a matter of when. A gradual decline in cheap energy, or it’s corollary, a continued climb in the price of convenient energy will do more to undermine the “business as usual” scenario than any convoluted government carbon pollution reduction scheme.
I suspect certain sectors of the economy are awake to this potential and are busy lobbying government to get financial subsidies to offset their expected cost increases under the guise of doing something about carbon pollution. No such luck for the average punter who is increasingly caught between higher energy costs and fewer lifestyle options. Fortunately their is some hope and it is nicely espoused by Brian who writes
there are no magic bullets for this situation. The assumption of governments is that there are large scale solutions for large scale problems but this is not so. The problems have to be solved one house, one street, one neighbourhood, one farm, one forest, one region at a time.
This solution is already taking shape. In Canberra we have a wonderfully inspiring little organisation called SEE-Change who are helping people adapt to a low energy sustainable future and I’m sure other similar organisations exist, because realistically, they are our best chance. It is time, post Copenhagen, to stop expecting someone else to clean up our mess and start preparing for what will happen the best we can. Surely that’s a better thing to believe in than any doom and gloom scenario.
With its thickish device sandwiched between heavy covers with some sort of mock leather finish the whole thing reminds me of a half size executive diary. It feels relatively substantial but not overly heavy and I was surprised by how bookish it actually felt to hold. However inside the covers is where the action takes place and the small grey screen occupies less than half the footprint of the device with its adjustable black on grey print. The screen is not touch sensitive but with the large font size I saw, it seems reasonably crisp and eminently readable in a variety of lighting conditions. Not sure about daylight but I did try it under strong lighting to get these pictures.
A week ago the Libs looked like a rabble, then they spent the week proving it and now, after a bit of a break and a nice night’s sleep they wake up an elect TONY ABBOTT as their leader?
