Decreasing carbon emissions without affecting the quality of life

March 9th, 2010 by Paddy Morris

There are a couple of simple ideas, which if implemented could make deep and long term cuts in our carbon emissions, while maintaining (or even increasing) the quality of life for all.

In no particular order, they are:

1. Immediately Implement a 4 day week (with obvious exceptions for emergency services etc.)

In 2008 Utah,spurred on initially by high gas prices and later by impacts from the global fiscal crisis, decided to do just this. One of the most conservative states in the US (approx. 60% of the population are Mormons) implemented one of the most radical solutions to the problems it faced – a mandatory 4 day week for 80% of state employees. Hours were changed from a 9-5 5 day week to an 8-6 4 day week.The results have been startling.

  • After initial fears, 82% of employees are supportive of the four day week, and do not want to return to a 5 day week (with a 3 day weekend, who would?)
  • Sick days taken fell by 9%
  • Air pollution fell as people were spending 20% less time commuting
  • Approx. 17,000 (13% of the total) tonnes of CO2 emissions were avoided

While many organisations promoting sustainability are busy promoting radical solutions like ‘Prosperity without Growth‘ or a ‘21 hour working week‘, the simplest and fastest way to reduce carbon emissions and increase quality of life at the same time is being overlooked – the immediate implementation of a 4 day week – and we have the results from Utah to prove it.

2. Deep and Meaningful Reform of the Financial System

The repeal by the United States of elements of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 is one act of lunacy that should be reversed as soon as possible. Glass-Steagal was enacted in 1933, and as well as establishing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, it prevented banks from purchasing other financial companies, ensuring a separation of commercial banking and the securities industry. Repealing this and allowing the sedate world of mortgage lending and the heady greed of Wall Street to meet led to the unrestrained casino capitalism of the noughties, with catastrophic consequences. Bringing back the firewalls that used to exist between normal mortgage and business lending by retail banks, and the ‘exotic’ financial instruments and shady business practices of the Wall Street sharks, is of the utmost importance.

While regulating banks may not be the most exciting way of fighting climate change, we simply cannot afford to have to bail out the banks again. With the cost of dealing with the current crisis being counted in the trillions, the amount spent to date on the banks dwarfs the spending on mitigating and adapting to climate change.

With this in mind, the second element of reforming the banking system should be a tax on speculative banking transactions – a Tobin Tax. This cause is one I had the opportunity to speak to Gordon Brown about shortly before the Copenhagen Conference – you can listen to his response here at about 26 minutes 30 seconds in. This cause has recently been taken up by Richard Curtis (of Comic Relief and Make Poverty History Fame) and has led to this rather effective ad, and also the rebranding of the ‘Tobin Tax’ as the ‘Robin Hood Tax’. Using the funds raised from this to combat poverty, pay down the national debt and fight climate change would give society some return on the trillions that have been thrown at the banks.
http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

3. Reducing Obsolescence for Consumer Goods

This idea is simple – for cheaper/smaller consumer items a no quibble 5 year guarantee should be mandatory. For larger items like fridges, cars etc. a ten year guarantee.

Interestingly, I can find almost nothing on this online – no groups promoting it, no blogs suggesting it, no news items covering it as a suggested solution to climate. It seems the disposable consumer society has become deeply ingrained in the global psyche!

So there you have it – 3 ideas that could contribute to fighting climate change, and that would maintain or increase people’s quality of life – a 4 day week, a return on our taxes that have been thrown at the banks (along with measures to prevent the same mistakes happening again…) and an end to the throwaway culture of rampant consumerism with a decent guarantee mandated by law for all products.

Doing our best versus doing what’s required

March 3rd, 2010 by John Gibbons

Yesterday afternoon, I was one of a panel of four from the ‘environmental’ field who met under the ageis of Common Purpose with a group of around 25-30 senior figures from the world of business, finance, the semi-state sector and beyond. The topic of the closed session was “exploring the ability of environmental leaders to effect change by inspiring others”.

The meeting is covered by the Charter House Rules (i.e. what’s said in the room stays in the room) but it was a useful opportunity to shoot the breeze with a spectrum of people well beyond the types who might usually find themselves discussing environment, energy and sustainability issues in Dublin on a Tuesday afternoon. On the positive side, there was a good deal less scepticism/hostility to climate science than has been portrayed in our media in recent weeks.

The rotating small group format for the session made it possible to exchange views beyond the usual perfunctory level possible at public meetings. Most of the people I spoke with had a definite sense that there’s a problem, but were very unclear as to its scope, intensity or the range of related threats posed by energy insecurity, biodiversity loss and peak oil as well as resource depletion generally. Most were open-minded enough to appear prepared to hear the unvarnished facts. Two or three people confessed to being genuinely shocked at what they learned over the course of the afternoon. A common remark to me was how little serious media space these extraordinarily grave environmental portents actually receive.

Exchanging information is of course a two way street. The subtitle of the session was “passion & resonance”, where participants attempted to explain their successes, failures and otherwise in trying to ‘deliver change’ in this field. The consensus among the group is that you have to bring everyone along, how ever long this takes. But surely here’s the rub: how long have we actually got? If you were diagnosed with a malignant growth, surely that’s not the time to embark on an MBA or taking a couple of years out to talk to people about how this makes you feel.

Would the saner impulse not be to go directly into treatment to both stem and – with luck – reverse the disease while there’s still time? Then, once stabilised, there will be plenty of time for reflection and maybe even knocking out a book about your experiences. These thoughts came to mind on reading Al Gore’s opinion piece in the International Herald Tribune last night in which he reflects at length and insightfully on the situation post-Copenhagen, post-Climategate and with climate sceptics and their media shills seemingly in the ascendancy.

Gore has been pilloried and parodied mercilessly since he released An Inconvenient Truth almost five years ago. The ferocity of the attacks endured by Gore and others are testimony to the power of the multi-trillion dollar global energy industry, and its determination to drown out the warning calls from science in order to continue its ‘drill baby, drill’ trajectory to the bitter end. I strongly recommend his article below:

______________________________________________________________________

AL GORE:

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.

But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.

It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.

But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged. It is also worth noting that the panel’s scientists — acting in good faith on the best information then available to them — probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, the speed with which the Arctic ice cap is disappearing and the speed with which some of the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea.

Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location. For example, January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.

Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept.

The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States. Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm.

Here is what scientists have found is happening to our climate: man-made global-warming pollution traps heat from the sun and increases atmospheric temperatures. These pollutants — especially carbon dioxide — have been increasing rapidly with the growth in the burning of coal, oil, natural gas and forests, and temperatures have increased over the same period. Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising. Hurricanes are predicted to grow stronger and more destructive, though their number is expected to decrease. Droughts are getting longer and deeper in many mid-continent regions, even as the severity of flooding increases. The seasonal predictability of rainfall and temperatures is being disrupted, posing serious threats to agriculture. The rate of species extinction is accelerating to dangerous levels.

Though there have been impressive efforts by many business leaders, hundreds of millions of individuals and families throughout the world and many national, regional and local governments, our civilization is still failing miserably to slow the rate at which these emissions are increasing — much less reduce them.

And in spite of President Obama’s efforts at the Copenhagen climate summit meeting in December, global leaders failed to muster anything more than a decision to “take note” of an intention to act.

Because the world still relies on leadership from the United States, the failure by the Senate to pass legislation intended to cap American emissions before the Copenhagen meeting guaranteed that the outcome would fall far short of even the minimum needed to build momentum toward a meaningful solution.

The political paralysis that is now so painfully evident in Washington has thus far prevented action by the Senate — not only on climate and energy legislation, but also on health care reform, financial regulatory reform and a host of other pressing issues.

This comes with painful costs. China, now the world’s largest and fastest-growing source of global-warming pollution, had privately signaled early last year that if the United States passed meaningful legislation, it would join in serious efforts to produce an effective treaty. When the Senate failed to follow the lead of the House of Representatives, forcing the president to go to Copenhagen without a new law in hand, the Chinese balked. With the two largest polluters refusing to act, the world community was paralyzed.

Some analysts attribute the failure to an inherent flaw in the design of the chosen solution — arguing that a cap-and-trade approach is too unwieldy and difficult to put in place. Moreover, these critics add, the financial crisis that began in 2008 shook the world’s confidence in the use of any market-based solution.

But there are two big problems with this critique: First, there is no readily apparent alternative that would be any easier politically. It is difficult to imagine a globally harmonized carbon tax or a coordinated multilateral regulatory effort. The flexibility of a global market-based policy — supplemented by regulation and revenue-neutral tax policies — is the option that has by far the best chance of success. The fact that it is extremely difficult does not mean that we should simply give up.

Second, we should have no illusions about the difficulty and the time needed to convince the rest of the world to adopt a completely new approach. The lags in the global climate system, including the buildup of heat in the oceans from which it is slowly reintroduced into the atmosphere, means that we can create conditions that make large and destructive consequences inevitable long before their awful manifestations become apparent: the displacement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, civil unrest, chaos and the collapse of governance in many developing countries, large-scale crop failures and the spread of deadly diseases.

It’s important to point out that the United States is not alone in its inaction. Global political paralysis has thus far stymied work not only on climate, but on trade and other pressing issues that require coordinated international action.

The reasons for this are primarily economic. The globalization of the economy, coupled with the outsourcing of jobs from industrial countries, has simultaneously heightened fears of further job losses in the industrial world and encouraged rising expectations in emerging economies. The result? Heightened opposition, in both the industrial and developing worlds, to any constraints on the use of carbon-based fuels, which remain our principal source of energy.

The decisive victory of democratic capitalism over communism in the 1990s led to a period of philosophical dominance for market economics worldwide and the illusion of a unipolar world. It also led, in the United States, to a hubristic “bubble” of market fundamentalism that encouraged opponents of regulatory constraints to mount an aggressive effort to shift the internal boundary between the democracy sphere and the market sphere. Over time, markets would most efficiently solve most problems, they argued. Laws and regulations interfering with the operations of the market carried a faint odor of the discredited statist adversary we had just defeated.

This period of market triumphalism coincided with confirmation by scientists that earlier fears about global warming had been grossly understated. But by then, the political context in which this debate took form was tilted heavily toward the views of market fundamentalists, who fought to weaken existing constraints and scoffed at the possibility that global constraints would be needed to halt the dangerous dumping of global-warming pollution into the atmosphere.

Over the years, as the science has become clearer and clearer, some industries and companies whose business plans are dependent on unrestrained pollution of the atmospheric commons have become ever more entrenched. They are ferociously fighting against the mildest regulation — just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart.

Simultaneously, changes in America’s political system — including the replacement of newspapers and magazines by television as the dominant medium of communication — conferred powerful advantages on wealthy advocates of unrestrained markets and weakened advocates of legal and regulatory reforms. Some news media organizations now present showmen masquerading as political thinkers who package hatred and divisiveness as entertainment. And as in times past, that has proved to be a potent drug in the veins of the body politic. Their most consistent theme is to label as “socialist” any proposal to reform exploitive behavior in the marketplace.

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption. After all has been said and so little done, the truth about the climate crisis — inconvenient as ever — must still be faced.

The pathway to success is still open, though it tracks the outer boundary of what we are capable of doing. It begins with a choice by the United States to pass a law establishing a cost for global warming pollution. The House of Representatives has already passed legislation, with some Republican support, to take the first halting steps for pricing greenhouse gas emissions.

Later this week, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman are expected to present for consideration similar cap-and-trade legislation. I hope that it will place a true cap on carbon emissions and stimulate the rapid development of low-carbon sources of energy.

We have overcome existential threats before. Winston Churchill is widely quoted as having said, “Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes, you must do what is required.” Now is that time. Public officials must rise to this challenge by doing what is required; and the public must demand that they do so — or must replace them.

Al Gore, the vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the founder of the Alliance for Climate Protection and the author of “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.” As a businessman, he is an investor in alternative energy companies.

Attack on climate science has its OJ Simpson moment

February 27th, 2010 by John Gibbons

Bill McKibben has been at the forefront of efforts to alert the public to the dangers of climate change for more than two decades. Today he fronts 350.org, a website dedicated to setting a global CO2 ceiling of 350ppm. Below, he turns his considerable talents to an in-depth analysis of the concerted attack on science, specifically climate science, in recent months, a campaign which has, he writes, been “enormously clever, and enormously effective”.

__________________________________________________

Twenty-one years ago, in 1989, I wrote what many have called the first book for a general audience on global warming. One of the more interesting reviews came from the Wall Street Journal.  It was a mixed and judicious appraisal.  “The subject,” the reviewer said, “is important, the notion is arresting, and Mr. McKibben argues convincingly.”  And that was not an outlier: around the same time, the first president Bush announced that he planned to “fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect.” Read the rest of this entry »

Ireland’s looming bird crisis

February 24th, 2010 by Coilin MacLochlainn

Back in 2002, the parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity set a target of halting biodiversity loss by 2010.

It is now 2010, the declared UN Year of Biodiversity, and although some endangered species have been saved, notably within the EU, in general species of flora and fauna are being pushed into extinction at a faster rate.

There was really little hope of halting species loss in such a short time, even though the idea had its genesis as far back as 1992, at the Earth Summit in Rio, though it didn’t get legs until the turn of the millennium.

But whatever hope there was then is now fast receding as climate change becomes the newest and most formidable driver of declines and extinctions.

One study has calculated that one quarter of Europe’s bird species will face extinction within the continent over the coming century based on the “intermediate” predictions for rises in global temperature set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (A Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds, by Huntley, Green, Collingham & Willis, 2007). However, the world is presently on course for the worst-case scenario because of higher emissions of greenhouse gases.

In general, birds in the northern hemisphere will have to move north, while those in the southern hemisphere will need to move south, to keep up with climate change. The expected increase in temperatures in most areas will rise at a faster rate than the ability of wildlife to adapt, leading to mass extinction of species, according to the science journal Nature (Scott et al., 24 December 2009, Nature 462).

The authors of Climatic Atlas warn that we can expect to see the first avian casualties of climate change in Europe by 2020. They calculate that bird populations will move approximately 500 kilometres, and in some cases up to 1,000 kilometres, mostly north or north-east, to keep within their temperature “comfort zone.”

The problem will be most acute for “specialists” with patchy or restricted ranges  – think Alpine species, for example – for they will have nowhere to go: their future comfort zones lack the specialised habitats they need. Birds such as Alpine chough, wallcreeper and snow finch could easily be wiped out, as could black lark and pin-tailed sandgrouse, birds confined largely to Spain.

The “generalists,” or birds that thrive across a wide range of habitats and temperature zones, will be able to make the transition with greater ease. Many will be forced to move by the desertification of southern Europe, but more frequent droughts will prompt them to move out of the killing zone before then.

The migration has already begun, and I don’t mean the regular seasonal journeys undertaken by many bird species, or even the extreme hard-weather movements in which birds temporarily flee a frozen northern Europe. I mean the wholesale and permanent redistribution of bird populations within Europe.

But let’s focus on Ireland. Throughout most of the 20th century there was a stability and constancy to bird distribution here, as elsewhere, and the main changes that took place were declines linked to intensive farming and drainage; for example, the corncrake population collapsed.

Climate-driven immigration into Ireland appears to have started in the 1970s with the increasing occurrence of little egret and Mediterranean gull, birds that hitherto were virtually unknown here.

The little egret, a small white heron historically distributed in Europe around the Mediterranean and Black Sea, established its first nesting colony in Ireland in 1997, and today there are hundreds here all year round, nesting in south and east coast counties. England has been similarly colonised by the species.

That’s the most well-known example, but a wide range of bird species, as well as butterflies, are settling here, while others are moving out and heading north.

Another example is the reed warbler, a tiny skulking migratory songbird that, as its name implies, nests in reedbeds. It is so difficult to see that it took some time for the penny to drop: its numbers have rocketed. First confirmed breeding in 1981, it now nests throughout the south and east and probably remains undetected in many counties.

The great spotted woodpecker, thought to have inhabited Irish woodlands up to the 16th century, was extinct in Ireland before bird recording began, and for centuries it was assumed it had never made it to Ireland in the post-glacial colonisations. No one believed it would ever return, but in 2006 a pair nested in Northern Ireland, which seemed like a freak event until many were noticed in Dublin and Wicklow in the following two years. A dedicated search of Wicklow woodlands last summer located eight nesting pairs. This was bird history in the making; the unthinkable had happened. Colonisation of the entire country is now on the cards.

The invasion was attributed to a three-fold increase in great spotted woodpeckers in England and Wales over the past forty years, which is presumed to have forced this highly sedentary bird to seek out pastures new. But that increase in itself has not been explained. I believe global warming is behind it, and that birds in France and Spain moved northwards, spilling birds into Britain and then Ireland. Feathers have been collected from the nests to try to trace the birds’ origins using DNA profiling.

The Climatic Atlas, which uses climate, bird and habitat data to simulate potential future distributions, shows great spotted woodpeckers moving hundreds of kilometres north, abandoning the Iberian peninsula, colonising all of Ireland and even occupying Iceland within the century. This time-frame starts looking a little conservative now that we already have woodpeckers here.

The atlas provides a window into what we might expect to see turning up in the coming decades. A long list of potential settlers includes honey buzzard, short-toed eagle, kentish plover, little owl, tawny owl, hoopoe, green woodpecker, middle spotted woodpecker, lesser spotted woodpecker, woodlark, tree pipit, bluethroat, black redstart, cetti’s warbler, fan-tailed warbler, savi’s warbler, melodious warbler, dartford warbler, firecrest, marsh tit, willow tit, crested tit, nuthatch, short-toed treecreeper, serin, cirl bunting. Ireland currently supports around 153 breeding species, though some of these are rare or irregular breeders.

Some potential newcomers have already begun nesting here sporadically, including little ringed plover, lesser whitethroat and (reportedly) hobby, while some of Ireland’s extinct birds have made a return (e.g. marsh harrier and the above woodpecker) and still more are on course for a comeback, e.g. corn bunting, montagu’s harrier, turtle dove, bearded tit.

Others are projected to multiply and spread from a low existing base – including gadwall, pochard, goshawk, grey partridge, quail, nightjar, yellow wagtail, redstart, garden warbler and pied flycatcher – although their resurgence could be hampered by ongoing losses from habitat loss, hunting and other pressures on the continent and further afield. Some are already so depleted that there is a question mark over their very survival, never mind their making it to Ireland.

We can also expect to see an upsurge in visits by migrants relocating to other parts of Europe, for example spoonbill and glossy ibis, a number of which are in Ireland at the moment. These species are unlikely to nest here but may well become regular visitors (as their potential future ranges will be nearer to Ireland).

Turning to potential losses, Ireland’s more northern or boreal species, breeding here at the edge of their range, will be lost as breeding species as they retreat further north. The extent of the projected losses is alarming and includes species as common as long-eared owl and black guillemot – which are very hard to imagine being lost to Ireland – as well as northern eider, common scoter, red-breasted merganser, goosander, golden plover, dunlin, common gull, arctic tern and twite. However, some of these will continue to visit coastal wetlands as winter visitors.

Other northern species may be driven to the edge of survival as breeding species in Ireland, including merlin, red grouse, woodcock, redshank, common sandpiper, black-headed gull, little tern, whinchat, ring ouzel, siskin, redpoll and crossbill.

The loss or depletion of many of these species has already been signalled by some range contractions towards the northwest of Ireland between the early 1970s and early 1990s, when the last two atlas surveys were carried out. (Another atlas is scheduled to be completed next year.)

All this doom and gloom is based on modelling studies and it must be said that some factors that could not be computed may result in different outcomes (as indeed could an immediate end to further carbon emissions). For example, a species such as tawny owl, which is widespread in Britain, does not migrate and would be reluctant to cross sea water; so we could be in for a long wait for that one, though it is projected to occupy most of Ireland. There will also be a time-lag in habitat change, perhaps of a hundred years, as trees (for example) are long-lived, and this could tide birds over, temperatures notwithstanding, until the climate change problem is sorted out, though that is unlikely to happen quickly enough.

I should mention that two new species became established in Ireland prior to the 1970s. The collared dove arrived in 1959 and is now ubiquitous on lowlying land. It was not driven here by climate change but was still filling its natural range and had not yet reached its climatic limit. The same may be true for fulmar, here since 1911.

The situation is fluid, dynamic and unlike anything we have experienced before. How will birds cope with their rapid relocation or, in the case of the residents, the competition from outsiders? These questions are exercising the minds of conservationists, who may fear that their life’s work up until now has been in vain (more on that in a future piece).

One more imponderable prompted by a reading of the Climatic Atlas: how will Iceland cope with the expected influx of so many northward-driven birds? The country lost its entire forest cover within centuries of the Vikings settling there in the ninth century. Are its habitats suddenly going to become hospitable to a large proportion of birds abandoning the south? Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

Permafrost retreats further north

February 23rd, 2010 by James Nix

Buried in the ‘Weather Eye’ page of our paper of record again…

Climate change forcing frozen soil retreat

Mon, Feb 22, 2010

THE PERMANENTLY frozen ground known as permafrost is retreating northward in the area around Canada’s James Bay, a sign of a decades-long regional warming trend, a climate scientist has said.

When permafrost melts, it can liberate the powerful greenhouse gas methane that is locked in the frozen soil.

The amount of methane contained in permafrost around James Bay is slight compared to the vast stores of the chemical found in ancient, deep permafrost in the Yukon, Alaska and Siberia.

The southern edge of permafrost in the James Bay area has moved about 130km (80 miles) north of where it was 50 years ago, Serge Payette of Laval University in Quebec City said in a telephone interview. Read the rest of this entry »

Now there’s an App to zap the sceptics

February 17th, 2010 by Paddy Morris

The always useful site Skeptical Science, with its handy list of the most common arguments used by climate change sceptics and detailed rebuttals of them, is now available as an iPhone app.

So next time a discussion occurs and one of the old reliable arguments like ‘it’s the sun’ is trotted out, this app will give you the information needed to rebut the argument, and also allow you to report the arguments used, so skepticalscience.com can maintain an up-to-date list of the most common arguments being used by sceptics.

The highly regarded site is operated as a pro bono public information service by Australian physicist, John Cook.

The handy iPhone widget is available for free from the App Store or  www.skepticalscience.com.

Do you believe in miracles?

February 15th, 2010 by John Gibbons

Bill Gates is for many the Dr Evil of the corporate world. His Microsoft behemoth has had a stranglehold on the world’s personal computer market for the last two decades, and wrung hundreds of billions out of users in the process. All of which makes Mr Gates ridiculously rich.

So rich in fact that his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is now possibly the world’s largest private charity. It recently pledged a staggering $10 billion to help develop and deliver vaccines for children in the so-called developing world. However, Mr Gates may have had something of an epiphany recently, in terms of his understanding of where the real threats lie. Read the rest of this entry »

Copenhagen & beyond: where now for the EU?

January 27th, 2010 by Joseph Curtin

The EU was marginalized amid the realpolitik which dominated at Copenhagen. As a consequence the Copenhagen Accord neither conceptually nor substantively reflected the EU’s negotiating position.

In a recent policy brief (available here) I argue that this failure must lead to a reevaluation of its modus operandi at international negotiations. This is particularly true if Europe wishes to match its rhetoric of leadership on climate protection with real influence.

The extent of the EU’s failure an be gauged from both the extent to which the Copenhagen Accord fell short of the Danish Text which was leaked at the start of the talks, and by the reaction of EU leaders to the Accord. Read the rest of this entry »

Pachauri should go?

January 25th, 2010 by James Nix

Claims that Himalayan glaciers would have melted by 2035, and that there would be a rise in hurricanes, typhoons and other extreme weather events were never properly peer reviewed before inclusion in the IPCC’s reports.

So-called ‘grey’ literature was used in contravention of the IPPC’s own rules. While the claims are not central, they were high-profile. Agencies linked to IPCC chair Pachauri obtained funding using these claims. Yesterday Charles Clover (author of ‘The End of The Line‘, an investigation into overfishing) called on Pachauri to go (see below). Today there are more reports of monies obtained on foot of wrong material. Read the rest of this entry »

OMG, what if the deniers are actually right?

January 19th, 2010 by John Gibbons

Fat chance, of course, that the climate change deniers/liars from the assorted propaganda factories will, in the end, miraculously turn out to know more about climate science than, well, all of climate science. But hey, when we’re told that natural disasters like flooding can “boost the economy” (wow, lucky old Haiti, then?) we have to admit that anything is, in theory at least, possible.

In that spirit, here’s a cartoon of the nightmare scenario that might unfold should the whole thing turn out to be, speak it softly, a big ol’ h-o-a-x…..

big hoax cartoon

Reporting our changing world

January 16th, 2010 by James Nix

I nearly missed the report below. In yesterday’s the Irish Times the near one-third rise in arctic methane emissions wasn’t reported in world news; rather it was on the bulletin page, a fine page – no quibbles here – but a page dominated by weather forecasting, the crossword, chess and cartoons, and, simply put, not the world news pages. Could a 31 per cent in methane emissions in the arctic between 2003 and 2007 be world news?

It’s not the first time. I did a quick check back, just honing in on late 2008, and found some similar instances. Read the rest of this entry »

Plimer vs Monbiot

January 13th, 2010 by James Nix

From the website of Australian TV network ABC. Click here to view the debate.

Transcript

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Here is some background notes to tonight’s debate. When Professor Ian Plimer’s outright denial of man-made global warming was championed in the UK Spectator magazine earlier this year after the publication of his book Heaven and Earth in Britain, the magazine’s editor promoted the idea of a great public debate in London between Professor Plimer and the Guardian’s George Monbiot. Monbiot is a renowned champion of climate science. In the end, George Monbiot’s key condition for the debate, that Professor Plimer first answer in writing a series of questions about claims in his book was not met, the debate was cancelled. And tonight, with no preconditions, George Monbiot joins us in Copenhagen and Ian Plimer is here in our Sydney studio.

Thanks to both of you for being there. Read the rest of this entry »

Repeat after me: Weather is NOT climate!

January 7th, 2010 by John Gibbons

Oh dear, here we go again. An editorial in the Irish Times yesterday was headlined ‘Global cooling’. It began: “So much for all of that guff about global warming! Are world leaders having the wrong debate? We are experiencing the most prolonged period of icy weather in 40 years and feeling every bit of it”.

In fact, what the above piece illustrates is the hazards of conducting climate science by looking out the window. The good ol’ Daily Express took it a degree or three further yesterday in its screeching front page headline: ‘SNOW CHAOS – And they still claim it’s global warming’.

I could spend another thousand words trying to unpick this silliness, or instead hand over to the excellent Peter Sinclair, who runs an intriguing YouTube channel called ‘Climate Denial Crock of the Week’. The clip below is from Feb 2009, but it perfectly illustrates the recurring problem that as soon as the temperatures plummet, the deniers start banging loudly on their tin drums, and many folks in the media who really ought to know better, just take a peek out through the net curtains, see the snow and experience an almost instantaneous 50-point drop in their IQs.

Over to you, Peter…

An archive of Peter Sinclair’s excellent series can be accessed by clicking here.

Copenhagen – a new framework for climate chaos?

January 5th, 2010 by Joseph Curtin

The original intention of Conference of Parties (COP) 15 in Copenhagen was to complete negotiations on a new international agreement on climate change to come into force before 2012. What emerged was a slim three page Copenhagen Accord with a couple of blank appendices.

To the dismay of many EU countries, not even this rather watery three page Accord managed to secure the unanimous approval of the COP. A handful of countries, including Sudan and Saudi Arabia, refused to sign, and the COP thus only succeeded in “taking note” of its contents.

Legally it remains unclear how a non-binding Accord will function. “Takes note of” according to Yvo de Boer, head of the UNFCCC, “is a way of recognizing what is there without going so far as to directly associate yourself with it”. Read the rest of this entry »

The world’s looming water crisis

December 29th, 2009 by Graham Strouts

Peak Water‘, by Alexander Bell (Luath Press 2009, Hardback 208 pp)

If oil supply peaks and begins to decline times will be hard. Standard of living will decline and people may go hungry but they will be able to adapt by powering down and making do with less.

If water supply – for domestic use but also for irrigation – peaks and declines people have no option but to migrate. UK journalist Alexander Bell spells out his thesis starkly in this fascinating and clearly written book: many of the world’s major regions are past or on the brink of peak water and face growing populations with declining supplies.

The rich world will not escape the catastrophic  effects of this as they depend on vast quantities of “virtual water” imported for the most part from the global South in the form of food  and goods. They will also have to deal with increasing numbers of water refugees in the future. Read the rest of this entry »