doing your part
the second coming of concience. becoming more environmentally responsible is pushed more and more everywhere you look. a rebirth of the push for change of our lifestyles, esp in north america, is much more visible to me since i came back, which is really good to see. a movement from a chic cause to a sense of duty backed with a pressing urgency. i'm really noticing that environmentalism, as an institution, is being packaged differently now to try and break thru to people, increasing knowledge and erasing ignorance. in a way i suppose it's a big business unto itself right now.
growing up i kinda thought that i was doing my part or whatever, but i'm pretty sure it was purely by association though, the hippy-esque parents, BTW, the UVic mentality; complete with 4:20 101, unshaven legs and teva sandals. the reality of the situation... apathy. watched this movie called the eleventh hour a few weeks ago, which was pretty good. once you get past the american-isms its a pretty good blend of guest spots and speaks alot to effects of consumerism and the individual contributions one can make to change. you wonder why viewing things like that aren't made mandatory. i suppose there are just too many people making money on the other side of the fence so to speak.
check this article i jacked from jacoby written by a british journalist which really shows the reality of the problems that are going to arise in the future. increase your knowledge and awareness:
British Nukes: Taking the Long View
By Gwynne Dyer
Last November, when Britain was having a public debate about thegovernment's intention to proceed with a whole new generation of nuclearweapons that would last the country into the mid-21st century, I wrote acolumn in which I mocked Defence Secretary John Reid for not even knowingwhy he wanted the weapons. How could he possibly justify such a majorexpenditure and such a provocative policy, I asked, with the lame excusethat "It is impossible in most cases to predict where your enemy will comefrom....Whether we might have a nuclear enemy in 15 years' time is adifficult question to answer, other than to say history probably suggestswe will."
I think I owe John Reid an apology. I think I now understand whyhe wanted the nuclear weapons, and why he was not willing to get specificabout it.
Some time this month or next, the Inter-Governmental Panel onClimate Change will send a draft report to the world's governments inwhich it drastically raises its prediction for the amount of global warmingto be expected in this century from the anticipated rise in greenhousegases in the atmosphere. In its last report it suggested that the averageglobal temperature might increase as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7degrees F) over the course of the century, which would have a significantbut still manageable impact in terms of wilder weather, coastal floodingand changing rainfall patterns.
The IPCC's experts now know that merely raising the concentrationof carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by 30 percent over thepre-industrial level (270 parts per million) is already producing majorsimultaneous changes in sea ice, glaciers, droughts, floods, ecosystems,and ocean acidification. They have redone their calculations on the amountof warming to be expected from doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere(the level we will reach by 2050 if we stay on our present course), takinginto account some positive feedback effects that they had not previouslyallowed for. The results are disturbing, to say the least.
The IPCC's new estimates for global warming during the 21stcentury range from a minimum of 2 degrees C (just under 4 degrees F) to amaximum of 5.8 degrees C (over 10 degrees F). The planet has not been thathot since the start of the Eocene era 55 million years ago, when a hugerelease of carbon gases of uncertain, perhaps volcanic origin drove globaltemperatures up for about 200,000 years. Natural processes eventuallysequestered most of the carbon and restored a normal climate, but duringthe long hot spell, both the equatorial regions and most of themid-latitudes where the bulk of the world's population now lives werebarren semi-deserts.
These revised estimates, in other words, are very bad news for mostcountries. If you are Spanish or Brazilian or Thai -- or American, forthat matter -- most or all of your country is going to turn into a desertunless we all cut CO2 emissions radically starting yesterday. Indeed, atleast two-thirds of the world's existing farmland would become sterile, andbillions would have to move or die.
These estimates will have no immediate impact in the United States,where disbelief in climate change is still strong. President Bush'sprincipal adviser on these matters, James Connaughton, recently expressedthe view that we may be able to double the atmospheric concentration ofCO2, perhaps even triple or quadruple it, without changing the climate.(Physics and chemistry work differently on his planet.) But elsewhere, somegovernments are paying close attention to the implications of all this.
Within the scenario of general climate catastrophe, some countriescome out relatively unharmed, mainly because they are in the highlatitudes. Ironically, they are mostly the older industrialised countriesthat bear the largest share of the responsibility for setting the disasterin motion: Canada, Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan. Some of them, withlong land borders, can expect to be overwhelmed by more numerous refugeesfrom the south if this disaster actually comes to pass, but Britain is anisland -- a very crowded island with little room for refugees.
The British government makes lots of mistakes, but there is nogovernment in the world that puts as much effort into building long-termscenarios and thinking them through. I would be astonished if there werenot some cell in London that spends much of its time modelling the futureconsequences of extreme climate change and feeding its conclusions to itspolitical masters.
The first duty of British politicians is to protect the Britishpeople. If the worst comes to pass, that could well involve a capability tostop too many refugees from swamping Lifeboat Britain. In a world wherenuclear weapons would almost certainly be more widespread than they arenow, a credible British nuclear deterrent would be an indispensable part ofsuch a policy, and I'll bet next month's mortgage that exactly thatargument got made last year somewhere in Whitehall.
So apologies to John Reid for not taking him seriously enough. And apologies to the rest of you for ruining your breakfast.
growing up i kinda thought that i was doing my part or whatever, but i'm pretty sure it was purely by association though, the hippy-esque parents, BTW, the UVic mentality; complete with 4:20 101, unshaven legs and teva sandals. the reality of the situation... apathy. watched this movie called the eleventh hour a few weeks ago, which was pretty good. once you get past the american-isms its a pretty good blend of guest spots and speaks alot to effects of consumerism and the individual contributions one can make to change. you wonder why viewing things like that aren't made mandatory. i suppose there are just too many people making money on the other side of the fence so to speak.
check this article i jacked from jacoby written by a british journalist which really shows the reality of the problems that are going to arise in the future. increase your knowledge and awareness:
British Nukes: Taking the Long View
By Gwynne Dyer
Last November, when Britain was having a public debate about thegovernment's intention to proceed with a whole new generation of nuclearweapons that would last the country into the mid-21st century, I wrote acolumn in which I mocked Defence Secretary John Reid for not even knowingwhy he wanted the weapons. How could he possibly justify such a majorexpenditure and such a provocative policy, I asked, with the lame excusethat "It is impossible in most cases to predict where your enemy will comefrom....Whether we might have a nuclear enemy in 15 years' time is adifficult question to answer, other than to say history probably suggestswe will."
I think I owe John Reid an apology. I think I now understand whyhe wanted the nuclear weapons, and why he was not willing to get specificabout it.
Some time this month or next, the Inter-Governmental Panel onClimate Change will send a draft report to the world's governments inwhich it drastically raises its prediction for the amount of global warmingto be expected in this century from the anticipated rise in greenhousegases in the atmosphere. In its last report it suggested that the averageglobal temperature might increase as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7degrees F) over the course of the century, which would have a significantbut still manageable impact in terms of wilder weather, coastal floodingand changing rainfall patterns.
The IPCC's experts now know that merely raising the concentrationof carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by 30 percent over thepre-industrial level (270 parts per million) is already producing majorsimultaneous changes in sea ice, glaciers, droughts, floods, ecosystems,and ocean acidification. They have redone their calculations on the amountof warming to be expected from doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere(the level we will reach by 2050 if we stay on our present course), takinginto account some positive feedback effects that they had not previouslyallowed for. The results are disturbing, to say the least.
The IPCC's new estimates for global warming during the 21stcentury range from a minimum of 2 degrees C (just under 4 degrees F) to amaximum of 5.8 degrees C (over 10 degrees F). The planet has not been thathot since the start of the Eocene era 55 million years ago, when a hugerelease of carbon gases of uncertain, perhaps volcanic origin drove globaltemperatures up for about 200,000 years. Natural processes eventuallysequestered most of the carbon and restored a normal climate, but duringthe long hot spell, both the equatorial regions and most of themid-latitudes where the bulk of the world's population now lives werebarren semi-deserts.
These revised estimates, in other words, are very bad news for mostcountries. If you are Spanish or Brazilian or Thai -- or American, forthat matter -- most or all of your country is going to turn into a desertunless we all cut CO2 emissions radically starting yesterday. Indeed, atleast two-thirds of the world's existing farmland would become sterile, andbillions would have to move or die.
These estimates will have no immediate impact in the United States,where disbelief in climate change is still strong. President Bush'sprincipal adviser on these matters, James Connaughton, recently expressedthe view that we may be able to double the atmospheric concentration ofCO2, perhaps even triple or quadruple it, without changing the climate.(Physics and chemistry work differently on his planet.) But elsewhere, somegovernments are paying close attention to the implications of all this.
Within the scenario of general climate catastrophe, some countriescome out relatively unharmed, mainly because they are in the highlatitudes. Ironically, they are mostly the older industrialised countriesthat bear the largest share of the responsibility for setting the disasterin motion: Canada, Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan. Some of them, withlong land borders, can expect to be overwhelmed by more numerous refugeesfrom the south if this disaster actually comes to pass, but Britain is anisland -- a very crowded island with little room for refugees.
The British government makes lots of mistakes, but there is nogovernment in the world that puts as much effort into building long-termscenarios and thinking them through. I would be astonished if there werenot some cell in London that spends much of its time modelling the futureconsequences of extreme climate change and feeding its conclusions to itspolitical masters.
The first duty of British politicians is to protect the Britishpeople. If the worst comes to pass, that could well involve a capability tostop too many refugees from swamping Lifeboat Britain. In a world wherenuclear weapons would almost certainly be more widespread than they arenow, a credible British nuclear deterrent would be an indispensable part ofsuch a policy, and I'll bet next month's mortgage that exactly thatargument got made last year somewhere in Whitehall.
So apologies to John Reid for not taking him seriously enough. And apologies to the rest of you for ruining your breakfast.
posted by miceail | 12:10 AM
2 Comments:
Stop jacking my shit!
Just because people actually read your blog doesn't mean you can steal my higher-quality material! lol
On that note, what Dyer is saying has already started. Look at food prices now - they're inflated because of the biofuel fad, and profit crops that countries are planting instead of food. When those droughts hit, it's going to be mayhem. I think I might move to Alaska...
What happened to Hawaii?
Post a Comment
<< Home