HearFromYourMP

Comments

• Posted by Thomas Crutchley, 06:59, Sun 11 October 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I agree that it is absolutely critical that we strike an effective deal, that every country abides by it and that we realise we must help the developing countries a lot more

• Posted by Tom Harris, 09:54, Sun 11 October 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Millions of voices are calling for an ambitious, fair, and binding global climate deal. World leaders must pass climate policies grounded in the latest science and strong enough to get atmospheric concentrations of CO2 back to 350 parts per million - see 350.org for more info.

• Posted by damonhoppe, 10:55, Sun 11 October 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I most definitely agree but an agreement that allows for a dangerously high global rise in temperature is neither ambitious, effective or fair. If you want to know what 2 degree would actually mean read "Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” by Mark Lynas.

  This book goes into detail about what a two degree rise would actually mean. Consider the following:

  China will face floods in the south and drought in the north – amplified by depleting fossil aquifers and burgeoning industrial demand for water. It is hoped that the resulting lowered crop yields, continental dust-storms and water stress will be mitigated through the construction of a vast megaproject to bring excess water from the Yangtze to the parched north.

  The oceans will become too acidic to support calcerous life, further depleting the world’s fishery stocks and corals. The demise of plankton ecosystems will diminish the ocean’s role as a sink absorbing around half of the world’s CO2 emissions.

  Crops losses, water shortages (for irrigation, hydroelectricity), grounded barge traffic and melting mountain glaciers afflict Europe as it moves to a North African climate, in which the summer heatwave of 2003 becomes the new norm. Mediterranean Europe becomes much hotter and drier, reversing current migration flows to the north. Drought and heat stress will transform its vegetation from a carbon sink to a carbon source.

  Arctic warming unleashes the melting of the Greenland icecap, as meltwater forms lakes and bores icy sink-holes called moulins onto the bedrock beneath the ice sheet, lubricating its base and accelerating glacier flow. Glaciers begin to retreat, thin and accelerate at exponential rates – much of Greenland will be gone by the end of the century, raising global sea levels by up to 7m.

  The Arctic meltdown intensifies, as lakes drain away, permafrost vanishes and infrastructure finds itself built on quicksand. A triple whammy feedback effect kicks in – earlier snowmelt (part of which is replaced by rain) causes more summer heat to go into the earth; steep, dark-colored shrubs and boreal forests encroach on once-white tundra; and melting Arctic ice is replaced by dark ocean water, raising local temperatures because of the vastly lowered albedo and making it difficult for next year’s ice to re-form. Propelled into oblivion by the ice-albedo effect, the Arctic will soon be ice-free throughout the summer. This opens up global shipping routes and huge new hydrocarbon reserves to exploitation, ushering in a geopolitical Great Game in the High North.

  Agricultural decline in India of 8% as crop yields fall in increasingly drought-stricken north, though West Bengal sees improvements; experiences refugee influxes from Bangladesh as it is overwhelmed by a stronger monsoon. The glaciers supplying Peru’s desert areas with water, including the capital Lima, will dry up – leaving it dependent on unreliable highland rainfall. Though temporary solutions like piped mountain water or desalination plants will be tried, in the end these settlements could be abandoned in favor of mountain villages, ushering in subsistence crises and upheavals. In California, smaller snowpacks (since more water falls as rain) means less water and earlier run-off in flooding will test its intricate hydraulic system to the limit – not helped by its burgeoning population and increased incidence of severe drought.

  In the warming world, US food production holds steady but moves from the Great Plains and the West, to the north and Mid-West. Yields increase in western Russia and Scandinavia; overall Europe too remains steady, with a northward shift. There is great potential in Canada and Russia, but it will be difficult to develop rapidly. In South and Central America, the staple maize will decline everywhere except in Chile and Ecuador; much of Africa will decline, particularly its subtropical belt – though rainier Congo, and mountainous parts of Lesotho and Ethiopia, will benefit. In general, the countries that contributed to GW least are also the worst off – though mountainous and equatorial regions hold the line, yields decline in the drier subtropics, inducing structural famine in the most destitute nations.

  The ongoing sixth great extinction event will be turbo-charged by climate change, which too many species are too slow, too specialized or too already-damaged to escape. It is moving north at 30km per year – much too fast for butterflies (2km), forests (1km) or beetles (0.2km) [AK: and bees?] to adapt to. More than a third of today’s species will die off, ushering in a hot, silent summer. In the coming Age of Loneliness, humans will have to try to replace nature’s prior services on an increasingly artificial and fragile world.

  Two degrees is a doomsday scenario for the majority of the worlds poor population. If you think that is fine because we will have a Mediterranean climate think again as we depend on those other countries for food imports.

  If people continue to vote for politicians who ignore climate scientist and put there personal interests before their civil and moral duty to the people then we have no one but ourselves to blame for this destruction!

• Posted by barry Davies, 16:03, Sun 11 October 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  The whole so called global warming issue, the globe has been cooling consistently since 1999, it is a natural phenomenon, was based on a single piece of research which has been since proven to be faulty. The only reason we hear so much about it is that the governments are making a fortune out of it.

  They should be honest, we clearly will need different fuels for the future, because fossil fuels by their very nature are finite, this should be the object of the government, not just another rip off, by a corruption ridden parliament which is hell bent on handing over power to the unelected corruption ridden democratically deficient eu.

• Posted by damonhoppe, 09:01, Mon 12 October 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  The previous message sounds like a UKIP supporter as they both deny climate change and want us out of the EU, which is the source of most of our environmental legislation. Check out their website.

• Posted by Carolyn Withnell, 09:02, Mon 12 October 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  The climate of the world is paramount for everyones survival, we have to start working together, one world, one people. The developed world taking the lead to reduce ommissions but helping the developing world to grow within sustainable targets. Everyone - turn off electrical appliances and turn down where you can. The power of the individual is effective when we work together. "Wrap up and switch off!"

• Posted by Nicola Barron, 15:35, Mon 12 October 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  It is so confusing to decide for myself what I feel is the reality of a 2 degree rise in temperature; is it acceptable? is it catastrophic? is industry and the burning of fossil fuels to blame? is it avoidable? I don't know the answer to any of these questions. What I do know is that I would generally support any move towards greater protection of our planet, our future, and our children's future. The fact that the topic of the environment is finally being discussed at all political levels is to be applauded. Within these discussions, the answer to some of our questions may be asked, and hopefully, hopefully, solutions to impending global catastrophe may be found.

• Posted by damonhoppe, 12:55, Thu 15 October 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I can only reply to your questions from both a scientific point and a philosophical one as these are my areas of expterise.

  1) From the point of view of science it is difficult to give exact perdictions as to what will happen with each degree rise. My first climate model simulation which I designed with the best of my knowledge back in the early 90's predicited a maximal system tolerance of 1.5 degrees.

  It is important to remember that the ecosystem is a feedback system so the affect of increased CO2, methance, CFC's, etc is amplified by its affect and if not held in check what is known as a 'run away' climate change event can occur.

  That is back then 2 degrees was considered a catastrophic system event and we were calling for a limit to 1 degree. Since then our climate modelling technqiues have greaterly improved and tacking advantage of pararellel discrete event simultation and distributed processing via the internet scientist were able to run more sophiscated models. New factors had to be taken into consideration and new critical variables were now able to be modeled. The conclusion was that the old models were far to optomisitic and we are exceding the maximal value of the system tolerance. We have a window of about 10 years to take vital measures to prevent us reaching the system tipping point. A two degree rise is beyond the system tipping point which means the climate can not stablise at that temperature due to oceanic methane release et al.

  All of this is easily avoided with very little effort.

  On the basis of this I found it impossible to sit back and watch events unfold and gave up my scientific career to campaign for enivornmental protection measures.

  2) The philosophical part of the problem is with concern to ethics. That is the justification for taking action to tackle the problem. According to ethics it is the ethical duty of every person to live their life wihtout harming others. This places a limiting factor on what is acceptable and what is not acceptaible behavoir. It is the condition of possibility of living as a community. According to so called neo-liberalism (of which most governments subscribe). There is no such thing as community only the indivudal and therefore no ethical obligation to the other exists. Thus it remains the policy that economic activity must be liberated from the constraints of regulation. This world view champoined by the Bush/Blair adminstrations has prevented any action on a host of things in addition to climate change such as poverty, human rights, enviromental protection, financial regulation (leading to the banking crisis), et al. It is hoped that with the election of Obama in the US their now maybe an opportunity for a change in this world view and thus one is hopeful that an agreement is possible and that governments will be made to take action to regulate co2, pollution etc.

Commenting on this message is now disabled.