The Little Things Count

As you may have heard there's a rather large meeting in Copenhagen between world leaders and delegates from almost every country on the planet.

What's it about?
Climate talks will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark between all members of the United Nations - which is 192 out of 195 countries.
The number of leaders planning to come to the December 7-18 talks has risen to 98 (possibly more by now) out of the 192 members of the United Nations. Most world leaders will attend on last two days of the talks, Obama recently changing his mind about when he would attend.


Why is it a big deal?

Many scientists believe this is the last chance we (as humans) have to do something about climate change, and it needs to big.


Islands are already disappearing and some of these nations, such as the Maldives are now carbon neutral as a result. These island nations will need to evacuated before 2050 if the IPCC's predictions prove true. Although, Dr. James Lovelock's predictions are much worse, which is discomforting considering he's a climate maverick, inventor, and the most important scientific thinker alive (he's done for Climate Science what Einstein and Newton did for Physics).
These predictions, of a 6c rise by 2100 are why there is a need for action. There are two choices we currently have:

1. Do nothing.
2. Do all we can, now.


What are the consequences of these two choices?

Say we do nothing, and the worst predictions are true, we will be unprepared and social and economic collapse would occur in a heartbeat. It will become the survival of the fittest and there will likely be climate wars.
We do nothing, it doesn't happen - HAPPY DAYS!
We do all we can and it IS true, we are as prepared as possible and strong enough to tackle whatever nature throws at us - we can survive, even though socially and economically strained beyond comprehension.
We do all we can and....! Nothing. Ooops! Massive cost, for what? Nothing, although we are being very nice to the planet.


Which is more of a risk to you?

THIS is why it's a big deal: what happens at the coming climate talks has the potential to change the course of the human race 50 years down the line. Also, we cannot be certain of anything! Gamble with the future of a race? Hmm, would you take that risk?



What are they aiming for?

They are aiming to do as much as possible, but as often is with politics, some countries will refuse to climb aboard until another country does first. The current argument between industrializing nations such as China and India, is that the developed countries who went through the same process had no restrictions and it's their fault emissions have risen so much and they aren't doing enough themselves to be 'cleaner'.
Developed countries counter with "we need everyone on board for this to make a difference" and the US & Canada often refuse to agree upon a deal until India and China do, these are the largest polluters in the world, following one another and getting nowhere. This is what worries many, as if that happens in Copenhagen, a lot will have been lost.

Climate scientists are convinced the world must stop the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and start making them fall very soon. To have a chance of keeping warming under the dangerous 2C mark, cuts of 25%-40% relative to 1990 levels are needed, rising to 80%-95% by 2050. So far, the offers on the table are way below these targets.

As for the stolen e-mails? 1,700 UK Scientists have signed a statement saying climate change IS due to human activities.
Climate skeptics misrepresented both the content and the significance of the stolen e-mails, quotes were also cherry-picked from the sources.

The Met. Office has released temperature records to debunk these claims. Which is a considerable amount of evidence, if one reads the article here.


The best way to get world leaders to come up with a climate deal that is fair, ambitious, and binding is to:

1. Sign the TckTckTck petition.
2. Raise your voice at Hopenhagen.org.
3. Educate yourself about basic climate science.
4. Educate others.
5. Write to your local government, environment minister or national leader.
   

What the experts say:

First of all, we're looking at climate change on a scale that hasn't happened in 650,000 years, maybe more. Second, we're looking at climate change that's happening much more quickly than ever before, which will make it much harder for ecological systems and for humans to adapt. But third, we must recognise that the Earth has been through some truly horrific climate changes in the past and ask the question why we would willingly bring such change on ourselves.
James P. Leape - Director General of the WWF.

A lot of the people who are campaigning against action on climate change - because they say it's not true or it's not to do with people, and even if it is to do with people, then we shouldn't worry about it because it's going to do so much damage to the economy that we should let the pollution just carry on emitting from power stations and vehicles - the people who say that mostly aren't coming from a scientific perspective.They're working in a political context, and what they're trying to do very often is to protect a particular industry.
Tony Juniper - Executive Director of Friends of the Earth and Vice-Chair of Friends of the Earth International.

30 years ago we were talking about the little ice age that was coming, and now it's warming and I think there's a lot of misinformation out there.
Peyton Knight - Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs for the National Center of Public Policy Research.

If the system Gaia is compromised - and it has been compromised quite a few times in the past - we know what happens. The carbon dioxide in the air builds up, and the temperature goes up with it, and it can go up by as much as 8C (14.4F). Gaia will respond as it always does. It has a goal, and it has had from the beginning - to keep the planet habitable for whatever life forms happen to be in its contemporary biosphere. It will respond to what we are doing, global change, by moving to the hot state that it was in the last time - 55 million years ago - and stay there for anything up to 200,000 years, slowly sinking back to normal.
Dr. James Lovelock - distinguished scientist and originator of the Gaia hypothesis.

Explanation of Gaia: In simple terms, the whole of planet Earth - biosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere - can be thought of as one giant living organism. Here 'living' is meant in the sense that the hole system appears to have evolved together and to be self-regulating. Mechanisms which keep conditions stable are described as homeostatic. The Gaia hypothesis suggests that it is the interactions between living organisms and each other and with the atmosphere and oceans, that have kept conditions more or less stable for the last 3.6 billion years.


Considering that the climate has remained stable since humans developed civilisations, we have formed a very intimate way of living with the current climate, but since the 1700's the levels of greenhouse gases have been increasing, that is undeniable as they are produced during the combustion of fossil fuels. With increased global industrialisation in the last 100 years and the global population increasing ten-fold since the 1700's and its set to increase by 40% t0 50% by the middle of the century - these greenhouse gas concentrations are going to increase and the blanket of greenhouse gases will get thicker. Which will, in turn, increase the amount of solar radiation reflected to the Earth's surface and re-radiated into the atmosphere - which is very simply the global warming phenomenon.
Increases in populations come with increases in greenhouse gas emissions, just look at how China's emissions have changed in the last 20 years (although still very far behind the USA and Canada per person, considering there are 3 times as many people in China though...) and everyone realises the population growth that has occurred there. We can't control populations so to an extent we can't control our emissions enough to stop global warming. But we can definitely slow it down. It is possible to reduce the effects significantly but scientists say we have 15 years to act before it's too late.
With the many skeptics still out there arguing against the cause of climate change - it is unlikely that we will be able to do enough unless they realise how detrimental climate change will be to the human race as a species if left unchecked.
The media is also playing a role in the understanding of climate change as they like 'sensational' stories on global warming because there is a lot of attention on it. So many scientists aren't being heard. Funding even seems to find its ways only to scientists who are willing to promote certain scientific models and studies. Until this changes we don't have much hope of stopping global warming.
This by no means constitutes dsicontinuing our own individual efforts to reduce our carbon footprint, become more energy efficient and in all, environmentally friendly. There are many things we can do to make our homes energy efficient, with a little investment. Is that investment worth it? In the long term is it yes, hundreds can be saved each year by spending a few hundred $'s or £'s once and it is worth buying high rated appliances for the home to further reduce your energy bill.
But, this alone is not enough, as well one doing the above, and that outlined in the list below, we need our governments and organisations take more action. Canadian Liberals and UK Conservatives 'going green' to try and get more votes is all very well but they have a vested interest in 'going green' which weakens their credibility as a potential ruling party. Will they really do what they promise when they come into power? Or once they are in power will they find the resources and money aren't available to achieve their 'green goals'? This is why if and when I'm confused as who to vote for in an election, I vote for the Green party. I still go out and cast my vote - which is better than not voting at all. It's unlikely that a green party will come into powe anytime soon but it would be nice for them to have more of an influence in government.
What would you do? Vote for a minority party that supports alternative energy and the environment? Or, Not vote because you remained undecided between the main parties or can't make sense of campaigns by other parties?
We live in democracies, we still have a voice and in numbers the echoes ripple through government, so I would encourage your support of online petitions, and 'green' charities.



20 Ways You can 'Go Green'.
1) Turn it off when not in use (lights, television, DVD player, Hi Fi, computer etc.)
2) Turn down the central heating slightly (try just 1 to 2 degrees C)
3) Turn down the water heating setting (just 2 degrees will make a significant saving)
4) Check the central heating timer setting - remember there is no point heating the house after you have left for work!
5) Fill your dish washer and washing machine with a full load - this will save you water, electricity, and washing powder.
6) Fill the kettle with only as much water as you need.
7) Unplug your mobile phone as soon as it has finished charging.
8) Defrost your fridge/freezer regularly.
9) Do your weekly shopping in a single trip.
10) Hang out the washing to dry rather than tumble drying it.
11) Go for a run rather than drive to the gym, or of course run to the gym.
12) Fit energy saving light bulbs.
13) Use the bus or a train rather than a car.
14) Reduce your consumption of meat.
15) Don't buy bottled water if your tap water is safe to drink (especially if it has been shipped from far away)
16) Buy local fruit and vegetables, or even try growing your own.
17) Don't buy fresh fruit and vegetables which are out of season, they may have been flown in 18) Try to buy products made closer to home (look out and avoid items that are made in the distant lands)
19) Recycle as much as possible.
20) If you have your own printer, use recycled paper and have your cartidges refilled instead of throwing them away.