Posts Tagged ‘Global warming’

Hi everyone!

This Monday, I went of on a rant about transportation, campaigns and some other stuff. Today, I red an article at grist.org. It is about the rather pessimistic tone the environmental debate have taken in USA, were the “left” wing present ideas to solve environmental problems and the right wing shoots them down, in the name of the market. This is a very simplified picture of course. And I am sure it isn’t totally like this in USA.

But it does raise a couple of new questions that I have touched before. The government need to understand that the car isn’t sacred, and that mass transit actually is a good thing. The car isn’t sacred, as the Michael Linds article that the Grist article was based on seems to assume. It is true that rich countries have a higher density of cars, as people can afford them. Does that mean that public transportation isn’t an option in the future, especially in urban areas? And the reason many drive to work from the suburbs is 1) habit and 2) lack  of descent mass transit systems. So when new suburbs are built, make sure there are bus-lines! Trains may be expensive, but buses use the same infrastructure as the rest of the traffic. This is how it is done in Sweden, at least in cities that think ahead.

Michael Lind is right on one thing though… Asphalt may not be exciting, but new and low particle emitting asphalt is something to pay out for. It reduces wear and tear on the road, noise, particles and lowers fuel consumption, and thereby CO2 and NOx…
But the bottom line is that there have to be an attitude shift. I have said that before, haven’t I. Both from the politicians point of view and from the people. I am not talking about USA here, but in general. While the European governments are less conservative and are more keen on discussing CO2, there is still to much discussion and to little action. And climate denialists and traditionalists exist here to. The difference is that religion is less of an issue in the politic game in Europe and the climate model is the norm. I am not going to harp about religion being bad, because in itself there is nothing wrong with being religious. Hiding behind it or using the argument “god wants it” is a bit medieval though, right?

Ok, I got sidetracked again… Sorry. Attitude shifts… I really think that the conservative wing, regardless of continent view environmentalists as smug, self righteous, smug hippies. And there are many of them around. You know who you are! Many seems to hate cars, or even development. But is this how most people who work with environmental issues are. Is this how most interested persons out there are? Once again, to much focus is placed in the wrong places. Get serious and see opportunities instead of sticking the head in the sand. So much could be done for the environment if one started to look for opportunities. Wind and solar power and publit transportation are some of those opportunities. In Europe, they have expanded. Why haven’t they in North America? With the oil-spill, declining amount of fossil fuels, climate change, thinning glaciers and disturbed weather, it is time to open our eyes!

Well, I’m off. I have some statistics to finish. Have a nice one, and remember to follow us on facebook and twitter, and to Commute Greener!

/

Fredrik

Hi everyone!

It is time to talk about climate change again. And Science! YAY!

I know, I have gone on about climate change before. I’m not going to repeat myself (even if I am an expert at that). A dark shadow have lurked its way into the scientific climate “debate”. While “Climate Gate” wasn’t the start, it has gotten peoples attention. And now scientists are being verbally assaulted and threatened. In my opinion that is not acceptable. Not on any level.

I actually appreciate that climate deniers exist. If they didn’t, laymen wouldn’t be interested in climate science. Media wouldn’t be as interested either. Scientists would have no real reason explain their results in a somewhat simple way so ordinary people could understand, and even though the peer review system has always been very throughout, it will have to be extra tough now. And that leads to higher quality, at least in theory.

However, the deniers have their negative effects to. The “debate” of today holds very low standard, with name calling and other childish behaviour. This is a common on BOTH sides of the fence. Just choose a random environmental forum and take a look.

But to threaten climatic scientists? What is the point in that? What have they done wrong, other then doing their job? If anyone wants the climate change to not exist it is the climate scientists. And what do you really accomplish by threatening a climatologist?  It is not like the science will go away, or that the CO2 emissions will stop affecting the climate (oh yea, they don’t believe this is true… oh well). Violence and bullying have no place in serious discussions, or in a democracy. And come on, why is this behaviour not getting more attention in media? This is a serious issue.

Global warming is the best model of explanation of what is happening with our globe. A majority of the scientists agree. This does not make the climate change model 100%  true. Science doesn’t work that way after all.

If climate change is all a big fake (what a relief that would be) we may have gotten a better world with our technological and social changes anyway. If it does exist like a majority of the climate scientist’s studies say, do we have any choice but to act? Can we afford not to?

In the Swedish environmental law, there is a principle about being carefulness and risk minimizing. If there are any risk at all that something that may endanger the environment or people it must be minimized. The same applies here. Magnus posted an entry with a video about this a while ago. Take a look at it, it does have a point.

Video for: What is the worst thing that could happen?

That’s all for today folks. Drop a line, follow us on twitter and facebook, and as always: Commute Greener!

I’m off

Fredrik

Hi!

To conclude (?) my series about environmental problems, I think we should talk about Climate Change and Global Warming. If you haven’t heard those expressions you have been living under a rock the last decade.

Global warming and climate change basically mean the same thing; a change of the distribution of weather over a long period of time. In my opinion, global warming is a sloppy way of describing what happens, as it is easily misinterpreted. I don’t know how many times this winter I have gotten the question; ”but it is freezing outside, and we have 1.5 meters of snow, shouldn’t it be warmer with global warming?” The answer to that question is; not necessarily. That question concerns local whether variations, while global warming affect the whole planet. Variations in local weather are NOT a good indicator of global warming, even if you can see some indications like warmer summers, more rain etc. Global warming means that as a whole, earth gets warmer. That in turn means that already wet areas like Sweden and parts of North America get wetter, while dry areas like North Africa get dryer. Some areas get colder, while other gets warmer. But added up there is a net increase in temperature across the globe.

But it still has to be said: The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon.

No, settle down, it is still me writing; I haven’t been kidnapped and replaced. Put down those torches and pitchforks!

But the statement stands. The natural climate gasses have always existed, and without them earth wouldn’t be habitable. The planet would be to cold. Solar activity, deviations in Earths orbit, continental drift and many other factors play a big part as well in climate variations. But the anthropogenic global warming, our addition of greenhouse gasses, causes a disturbance in the natural balance. Because of this, the planets temperature will change at a faster rate. Almost all scientists agree on that. Some don’t, but they are in minority, and in my opinion they usually fail to see the bigger picture. They focus to much on their own area of expertise. This is what makes the issue so complex; if the scientists don’t know for 100%, why must we act? Well, science doesn’t work that way. Nothing is ever 100% sure. Scientists are always trying to falsify theories rather then verifying them. They are always working around models that offer the best explanation to a problem currently available. When a new scientific report is released, they take that into consideration. But a single report is often not enough to break the whole model.

The IPPC report makes it quite clear that climate change exists. If you haven’t red it, do so. At least read the summary. It is really interesting, if a bit to complex to get the full picture. There have been much opposition against it as some errors were found, and of course the “climate gate” scandal. That a few scientists faked data (which they didn’t according to the hearing) and the fact that there are a few errors and sloppy reference writing is not enough reason to say that it is all bull. On the contrary, with so many authors I am amazed that so few errors have been found.

Ok, I got sidetracked. Sorry about that. What can we do about global warming, and why should we not “wait and see”. Well, can we afford to wait, with all the flooding, droughts, starvation and melting glaciers? No, we can’t. Carbon emissions must be cut drastically. Commute Greener! is a good way to start, as is turning of the lights and the other usual tips. But more have to be done. Better technology, an attitude change and some creative outreaching to developing countries will be needed. And I personally think that it the change will have to come from the grass roots, from companies and organisations of private persons. The politicians won’t act in time. 10:10 is a very good example of what can be done, as is the “bike to work” movement. You who use Commute Greener! and are trying to change your habits are doing a good job. An important job. Keep it up. And remember to drop by at facebook and twitter, and to follow us on youtube.

/

Fredrik