[Duma]

nice to see Ben's concerned.

[Monolith]

Not to dampen anyone's enthusiasm for limiting the impact of their carbon footprint, but I can't help being amazed by how sudden all of this has come on. We've known for a long time that flying in a plane is extremely detrimental for the environment. It seems as though the public have become concerned overnight. I also wonder how many people (not neccessarily here) are demonstrating an 'empty' express concern? It has become almost fashionable to lament the state of the environment; in reality, many don't practice what they are preaching. I'm sure the increased media coverage is largely accountable for this, but the facts aren't really new.

In Ben's words: "Flew in to Bergamo airport on a cheap flight. Feel really bad about taken all these cheap flights when global warming seems such a real concern. "

I think that's the major stumbling block for pretty much everyone. Cheap flights have become a socially forbidden fruit, but ultimately we take the bait. A 40 quid return flight to Bergamo or not?

[Paz]

It's just the medias latest cause celebre, yes, with a snappy name attached to it.  We've known about all this shit ever since the Blue Peter Green Book came out when I was at primary school.

[Rice Boy]

Didn't watch it but it was the talk of the water cooler this morning,

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindl

I had to see the school nurse when I was 6 because my arse was disrupting classes so am probably up there with cows and paddy fields.

[account_inactive]

According to the swindle carbon dixoide has nothing to so with the heating up of the world, in fact the complete opposite  They claim that the sun is to blame (magnetic pull?)

[GCW]

According to the swindle carbon dixoide has nothing to so with the heating up of the world, in fact the complete opposite  They claim that the sun is to blame (magnetic pull?)

So we're gradually getting closer to the Sun?  Or is the Sun expanding towards us?  If that's the case we're all screwed anyway so it doesn't matter what we do.
Cheap flight to Font anyone?

[Paz]

We should build one or two of those big sun blockers like out of Who Shot Mr Burns then.

[Johnny Brown]

Keep bearing in mind the swindle's view is not that held by the great majority of the scientific community working in this field. With any massive media story you get a certain point where everyone knows the basics so the media can only attract more attention with nonsense and conspiracy.

[Paul B]

I was recently required to write a report for a sustainability module, I found it quite interesting to find out:

‘Some 60% reduction in CO2 emission is required to stabilise the Earth’s ecosystem and climatic changes. The Kyoto agreement in 1997 was to reduce the CO2 emission from the developed world by 5% by 2012! The Portland Cement industry accounts for some 5-8% of the total global emission of CO2.’ 2
This equates to the CO2 emissions of around 330 million vehicles3 (At this time there are only 62 million vehicles currently registered in the USA!4).

I thought that was a worrying statistic..

[widdop]

well all of this should make us think , and not for so long eather

[Paz]

Wha ever makes you think Science is democratic?

Maybe we can all hold our breath for a bit.

[Somebody's Fool]

Just out of interest, how many people on here (you all seem quite a liberal lot) read The Guardian?  I've found it gives a hell of a lot more coverage to this sort of story than other papers.  This includes things like ethical living features and what not.  It seems these days you've got a source of guilt on every third page.

I'm not saying it's not an important issue.  Like some others, I'm just left wondering why there's a sudden saturation of media coverage to a long known about problem.

Maybe when they start sending The Guardian to all those pesky Indian and Chinese power station builders we'll start getting somewhere.

Monbiot for president!

[Stubbs]

I was recently required to write a report for a sustainability module, I found it quite interesting to find out:

‘Some 60% reduction in CO2 emission is required to stabilise the Earth’s ecosystem and climatic changes. The Kyoto agreement in 1997 was to reduce the CO2 emission from the developed world by 5% by 2012! The Portland Cement industry accounts for some 5-8% of the total global emission of CO2.’ 2
This equates to the CO2 emissions of around 330 million vehicles3 (At this time there are only 62 million vehicles currently registered in the USA!4).

I thought that was a worrying statistic..

I know a few PhD climatologists, and it seems that as a subgroup of scientists in general they have trouble agreeing between them what percentage of global warming is due to anthropomorphic effects, so for someone to say that a 60% reduction is required just seems to be another worthless number into a field that is already full of poorly suported statistics.

[Yossarian]

size 11...

[Paul B]

I know a few PhD climatologists, and it seems that as a subgroup of scientists in general they have trouble agreeing between them what percentage of global warming is due to anthropomorphic effects, so for someone to say that a 60%

yeah, I dont think thats the only flaw to what the agreement said either...

[Johnny Brown]

I know a few PhD climatologists, and it seems that as a subgroup of scientists in general they have trouble agreeing between them what percentage of global warming is due to anthropomorphic effects, so for someone to say that a 60% reduction is required just seems to be another worthless number into a field that is already full of poorly suported statistics.

No offence to you personally, but this is just the kind of nonsense that stops folk getting serious about reducing emissions. It gives the impression that because experts can't agree on details they don't agree on the broad issue or its seriousness.

Look at the basics - we are digging carbon out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere. That carbon was removed from the atmosphere over a vastly longer period than we are returning it. Its original removal helped cool the earth and allow ice ages, we are putting it back at 100,000 times the rate it was removed. You don't need to look at a thermometer to know that is going to cause warming.

[Stubbs]

I agree completely JB, I was just trying to illustrate how complex and poorly understood field atmospheric science is, but this doesn't seem to stop newspapers reporting numbers as facts rather than estimates.

[Johnny Brown]

There's a better thread on UKC about this, good link here if you really want the SCIENCE

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities] more good stuff

[bigphil]

I watched that climate swindle programme last week and as an environmental scientist who is aware of lots of different climate change evidence I thought it had an interesting angle.  The programme raised the possibility of a different cause of climate warming by suggesting that it was due to sun spot and solar magnetic field activity and that the coincidental rise of carbon dioxide is just that, coincidental.

The data presented showed a closer correlation between sun spot activity and temperature than carbon dioxide has.  But, the data sets are limited and the time span of correlation is generally no more than a few hundred years so its not possible to go back over the larger times spans that atmospheric carbon concentrations can, which is millions of years.  Interestingly and perhaps crucially, the programme did not deny that climate change is happening, whatever the source.  It does pose a questions though, what if it isn't driven by carbon?

I'm not suggesting that everyone stop doing their bit, and I for one will continue to do what I can, but it does raise the spectre of not actually being able to do anything about climate change even if we wanted to.  Scary stuff.  Its what bugs must feel like.

I did think the whole conspiracy theory about keeping developing nations down economically was a stretching things a little though, as I'm sure if that was the case George W would have jumped on the climate change bandwagon long ago.

[Johnny Brown]

The SCIENCE link above has a detailed analysis of the programme by climate scientists. The info on the politics of the makers is also interesting.

[SA Chris]

Even if it not the Carbon Emissions that causing climate change, surely any initiatives to reduce pollution at any level are going to be beneficial in the long run? Regardless of the emissions, fossil fuel is a limited resoursce and the sooner dependency on it is reduced, the beter it is for the planet in the long run. Likewise reductions in landfill sites, improvement in public transport, encouragement to use smaller cars etc.

[Houdini]

35 soon.  Don't drive, won't drive.  Only two longhaul flights in my life.  No property, fuck-all, nothing.  That's my footprint, right there. 

Knees are fucked from walking so much mind...

We're fucked, it's too late and we're all going to die!

[widdop]

35 soon.  Don't drive, won't drive.  Only two longhaul flights in my life.  No property, fuck-all, nothing.  That's my footprint, right there. 

Knees are fucked from walking so much mind...

We're fucked, it's too late and we're all going to die!

well im 60 only one longish flight ,but  i have had longer to fart than you .

[Houdini]

I think the carbon ass-print of all those nags you shoe may have a more damaging effect that your own 

[widdop]

I think the carbon ass-print of all those nags you shoe may have a more damaging effect that your own 

good one there ,   though  getting iron red hot shoe making makes horses ,near top of the list ,mile for mile they probely compare with a fighter jet .