Simon

Photo credit: azrainman Global warming is exaggerated and is just hyped by climate scientists. It's not a big deal. That is what you might think if you listen to the mainstream media and its misinformation, or if you believe in the denier's lies and their anti-science rhetoric about man-made climate change. But that is so far from the truth that it's absurd as a recent poll among climate experts and scientists clearly show. The poll conducted by the Guardian during the scientific conference in Copenhagen earlier this year shows that 9 out of 10 climate experts don’t believe we will be able to restrict climate change to 2C: "Almost nine out of 10 climate scientists do not believe political efforts to restrict global warming to 2C will succeed, a Guardian poll reveals today. An average rise of 4-5C by the end of this century is more likely, they say, given soaring carbon emissions and political constraints. Such a change would disrupt food and water supplies, exterminate thousands of species of plants and animals and trigger massive sea level rises that would swamp the homes of hundreds of millions of people. The poll of those who follow global warming most closely exposes a widening gulf between political rhetoric and scientific opinions on climate change. While policymakers and campaigners focus on the 2C target, 86% of the experts told the survey they did not think it would be achieved. A continued focus on an unrealistic 2C rise, which the EU defines as dangerous, could even undermine essential efforts to adapt to inevitable higher temperature rises in the coming decades, they warned." The poll shows that climate experts are not exaggerating the effects of global warming but that they are actually downplaying and toning down their research in an attempt to avoid despair and inaction among the public. "It blows the lid on a very different sort of conspiracy: that climate scientists have actually been toning down their message lest the worst-case scenario becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As one respondent put it, "Great things can only be achieved by everyone believing it can be done. How do you think the second world war was won? Churchill didn't stand around saying most people think we will lose the war. He said we will fight it on the beaches." Far from over-playing their hand to swell their research coffers, scientists have been toning down their message in an attempt to avoid public despair and inaction." And this is a bit tricky. I agree that if people begin to think that it’s over and nothing can be done to halt man-made climate change inaction and hopelessness would most likely prevail. But toning down the science is not the way to go. Political leaders and people around the world needs to know the real size and dangers of the climate crisis. How else would we be able to gain public and political support for the actions that are needed to solve the crisis? Just like James Randerson, the Guardian’s environment website editor and top UK science journalist, says: "Scientists must stop sanitising their message. World leaders and their people need to hear the warnings loud and clear and follow through with radical action that matches the scale of the crisis. Only if they do will future generations look back on what is looking decreasingly likely to be our "finest hour"." George Monbiot , Europe’s leading green commentator, said a few weeks ago that it was all over but argued we can’t afford to abandon our efforts to cut emissions. Because then "our prophecy is bound to come true". With today’s political inaction the climate experts are correct that it’s over. But with real efforts to curb our emissions we can manage to stabilize the climate at a reasonable and safe level. As Climate Progress writes: "No one who reads this blog regularly or follows U.S. politics could possibly believe there is a great chance that we will stabilize anywhere near 450 ppm, anywhere near 2°C warming. But anyone who reads this blog also understand that it is not too late — not only could we stabilize at 450 ppm at a low total cost, one tenth of a penny on the dollar, we could stabilize at 350 ppm for probably no more than double the cost of stabilizing at 450 ppm." What do you think? Is it right or wrong to downplay the climate science to avoid despair and inaction among the public?

Photo credit: MK Media Productions Tamara Stark, Communications Director at Greenpeace in the UK, writes this spot on blog post about the environmental "China bashing" in the international media. "Having spent the last three years living in China, I and all of my Chinese colleagues became somewhat accustomed to what we referred to as "China bashing" by some of the international media. You know the sort of thing: the over-the-top, almost hysterical cry of "China's eating up all the world's resources!" Since China is now one of the world's largest manufacturing centres, the claim was applied to almost anything - timber, coal, or even the cobalt used to make our cell phone batteries. To a certain degree, therefore, there is a kernel - but not much more - of truth to the claim." Stark highlights the fact that most of the production that generates the waste and pollution in China comes from factories (many owned by Western corporations) producing products intended for and consumed by the Western markets. We in the West have outsourced our dirty factories to (often) un-democratic countries with shameless low wages and with a political and justice system that lacks even mediocre environmental regulations. So why is the mainstream media blaming these developing countries for the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions when it is actually our consumption that is the root of the problem? Stark continues by adding that China is currently investing more in renewable energy than some Western countries: "For example, take their investment in renewable energy. Every year, there is more wind power capacity installed in China than the UK has installed in its entire history. The UK is currently near the bottom of the EU in terms of investment, only just managing to top Malta and Luxembourg. Surely a G8 country should be doing better than this?" It unfortunately seems that the UK will lose its only wind turbine factory (and over 600 people will lose their jobs) due to a lack of much-needed investment in the green energy sector in favour of dirty fossil fuels such as coal and nuclear energy instead. While that happens in Europe the leaders of China are investing $12.6 million every hour to green their economy. China is actually investing twice as much as USA to green the economy, create jobs for the future and stop man-made climate-change. And this despite the fact that the US economy is 1.5 times as large as China’s. When a single power plant in West Yorkshire in Great Britain will produce more CO2 every year than all the 139 million people combined living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique. And when the West’s environmental footprint is several times higher than those in China who are we to be the ones pointing fingers? We should never forget that it is we in the developed world that has created this global environmental problem. We are the ones responsible. Trying to claim otherwise is just disgusting.

Today the European Parliament voted 550 to 49 in favour to ban the trade of all seal products (such as fur and omega-3) within the European Union. The new EU-wide legislation is meant to send a clear signal to Canada that their annual commercial slaughter of seals is "inherently inhumane." "The legislation follows lobbying by animal welfare groups, which have long argued that the clubbing of seal pups by hunters is barbaric. Canada kills about 300,000 seals annually off its east coast - the biggest such hunt in the world." Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for the Environment, welcomed the new ban and said that the new legislation "addresses EU citizens' concerns with regard to the cruel hunting methods of seals." Caroline Lucas, MEP for the Greens in the UK, said that "today, nearly one million seals are slaughtered annually in commercial seal kills around the world", and that this new legislation will help end "one of the most vile examples of animal cruelty." The new ban will come with exceptions for Inuit communities and other indigenous peoples from Canada and Greenland which will be allowed to continue their traditional hunts. But they are not allowed to participate in any large-scale trade of seal products within EU. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) applauded the new legislation and said it was a major victory in the organizations 40 year campaign to end Canada’s commercial seal hunt. "The Parliament has hammered the final nail in the coffin of the sealing industry’s market in the EU," said Lesley O'Donnell, Director of IFAW EU. "MEPs clearly heeded the tens of thousands of emails, postcards and messages sent by IFAW supporters from across Europe." "From Mexico City to Milan and all the way to Moscow, the world is uniting in opposition to commercial seal hunts,” continued O’Donnell. “A complete collapse of Canada’s commercial seal hunt may now be inevitable." Canada and Norway have warned that they will take the European Union and its 27 member nations to the World Trade Organization if they agreed on a ban on seal product imports. It is feared that the new EU ban will overshadow any other topics during the EU-Canada summit in Prague this week. The summit is meant to launch negotiations for a new economic and free trade agreement between Europe and Canada as well as strengthening efforts to build a low-carbon global economy.

The Swedish company Flygbussarna (shortly translated to The Flight Busses), who offers bus services to and from all the major airports in Sweden, has made this very cool advertisement installation next to a highway in Sweden. The installation is made out of 50 cars stacked together and painted to look like one of Flygbussarna's busses. It is designed to advertise Flygbussarna’s bus services and to highlight the fact that it’s much more environmentally friendly to travel by bus than in a car. "50 cars or 1 coach? If everyone travelled with public transport instead of by car the environment would be much better off. So don’t just take the coach because it’s cheaper – take it to reduce your carbon emissions." This installation is part of an advertising campaign with the slogan "it's smart to be cheap" and will be featured on Flygbussarna's "anti car" homepage. Check out the slideshow: Also check out this picture, taken by the Press-Office City of Münster (Germany), which demonstrates the amount of space required to transport the same number of passengers by car, bus or bicycle.

Photo credit: blmurch Kristin Halvorsen, Finance Minister in Norway, has together with her Socialist Left Party proposed a plan that would forbid the sale of new cars that run solely on gasoline after 2015 in the country. According to her proposal new cars, bought after 2015, which only uses gas as their power source would be illegal. New hybrids, cars that run partially on gas, on the other hand would still be allowed to be sold in Norway. And cars already on the road would be unaffected by the new proposed law. "The financial crisis also means that a lot of those car producers that now have big problems … know that they have to develop their technology because we also have to solve the climate crisis when this financial crisis is over," Halvorsen was quoted as telling Reuters. The proposal has already met some resistance in Norway where the skeptics say the proposed ban would undermine the country’s economy (Norway is the world's number six oil exporter). But Halvorsen says that won’t be the case: "Not at all ... we know that the world will be dependent on oil and gas for many decades ahead but we have to introduce new technologies and this is a proposal to support that," she said. Halvorsen said that the resistance to the proposal in Norway is mostly based on misunderstandings: "A lot of people are very fond of their cars, it's like a member of the family," she said. "A lot of people thought that this proposal also would go after the cars we already have. That is not the case, it's the new cars that are bought after 2015." The Socialist Left Party in Norway is not alone with proposing a ban on cars that only run on gas. In Sweden the green party (currently the third biggest party in Sweden) has proposed a similar ban on gas cars by 2015. And one of the right-wing parties (Centerpartiet) in Sweden have proposed, just like Halvorsen, that cars that only run on gas would be banned, but not until year 2025. I think this is a great proposal from Kristin Halvorsen and the Socialist Left Party. The auto companies are too greedy and to slow to adopt to a more eco-friendly business fast enough. And as you probably already know, time is not on our side anymore. No, instead Governments around the world need to introduce legislations like this one to speed up the process of moving towards a more environmentally friendly and sustainable future. If we don’t and let the corporations and auto companies decide when and how we won’t have the slightest chance to win over man-made climate change. And I don’t see this as being impossible to accomplish. There is 6 years until 2015, cars that run partially on gas are still allowed and like Halvorsen says: cars already on the road would be unaffected.