The Planet Earth Debate
- 20 Dec 06, 06:19 PM
Edward Stourton hosts a debate on climate change, at 8pm tonight on Radio 4.
As the Earth warms up and scientists predict changes to the natural world, Edward Stourton gets together with a panel of experts to discuss how society should respond.
With the help of an audience at London's Royal Society of Arts, Edward and his guests aim to come up with some proposals for dealing with climate change.
Will it be grassroots pressure or big business which leads the way in trying to reduce carbon emissions?
Update:
Comments Post your comment
Thanks for the "Heads up!" Bound to be worth listening.
Complain about this post
Nothing has been said on population control and programmed reduction down to our environmental footprint figure from down from 2.4 to 1.00 this is more important than anything else since the global population will double in 40 years.
Complain about this post
Having listened to the debate I am amazed that the discussion was concered with all those uncertain re-newables.
That is, solar cells and wind generation.
Both need the correct weather conditions to be effective to produce any enegy.Those being sunlight and wind.
As yet no one has any idea as to the certainty of the weather conditions that will exist when global warming takes effect.
The only constant on which we are able to rely is the worldwide tidal system.
So I fail to see why wave and tidal generation were excluded from the dicussion.
Complain about this post
Climate Change, even climate chaos, has happened naturally many times before without any human influence, why are these experts so certain that this climate change is caused by us? I learnt more about human behaviour and physchology, and the wish of us all to be part of the Group, than I learnt about Climate Change.
Scientific Consensus is usually just scientific fashion, remember Y2K, the Earth is Flat, we will all die of SARS, mad cow disease is not a problem etc.etc. it isn't always wrong, but this consensus must have a high risk it is wrong, as all the evidence they use, melting ice caps, etc. has all happened before, naturally.
The predictions they make are just that, predictions, they are not facts. This doesn't make them invalid, but they are getting presented as facts.I cannot remember any scientific prediction of this type ever being remotely accurate, can anyone else?
As these predictions are about the climate I can safely predict they will be totally wrong, as the climate is a chaotic system and it cannot be predicted.
Complain about this post
The problem is the unstoppable growth in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and the only solution is to devise a method of splitting the molecules back into carbon and oxygen.
This is done on earth by plants with chlorophyl and sunlight.
Would it be possible, using genetic modification, for a micro-organism, possibly a yeast, to be developed incorporating chlorophyl. This could then be shot into the upper atmosphere where, with sunlight, it could multiply and produce oxygen and free carbon atoms which would eventually float down harmlessly to earth.
Complain about this post
Again population growth was completely ignored as an issue - cutting this is the surest way to CO2 reduction and sustainability. If we dont cut it ourselves, resource depletion, conflicts over resources, disease and migration will do it for us. Its time to stop avoiding this problem.
Complain about this post
Fran,
Of course we do have to cut population growth, and eventually population itself, but even if we stopped the population dead (sorry!) at its present level, we would still have to reduce percapita resource consumption, and that has to begin with the 1/5th of us who are sitting at the high table and consuming 4/5ths of the resources. And presently, our resource consumption PERCAPITA continues to increase every day.
I admit to sitting pretty high on that very table, in case anyone thinks I'm coming on all 'holier than thou'
Ten two letter words to live by:
If it is to be it is up to me.
Nuff said
ed
Complain about this post
Gabrielle,
I just did a 'listenagain' to the debate. Did I hear the angst of the 'burden of awareness'? When I went off to study Human Ecology as a 'mature' student, the tutor asked me, a longtime green, "Can you handle it?"
"Sure!" I replied casually, but I have to admit that all sorts of stuff I'd known for years (but not truly taken on-board) was confirmed in spades, and the awareness is a heavy burden indeed.
Keep up the good work
xx (and a hug)
ed
Complain about this post
Face it folks, regardless of the cause, and it's probably actually a natural event which has been speeded up by us, global warming is a fact, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. Defeatist? No, just a realist, because this is a global problem and would require global action, but that's never going to happen because the world is run by politicians, and they think first of themselves, and have little or no regard to the effect their actions have on others ... and how many times have you seen the US, Russia, China and India all singing from the same songbook? One final thought ... perhaps a first step could be a cull of anyone named Jeremy Clarkson?
Complain about this post
A very interesting discussion about cooling the earth's climate. I had an idea, but not being a scientist it may be useless.
The idea is to require all passenger jets to take on board a quatity of water and discharge it in the upper atmoshere while flying their regular routes. This water vapour would form clouds and cool the planet with no harmful side effects !! and little cost.
Isn't that a great idea ?????????
Complain about this post
David - I guess that's part of what Ed refers to as the 'burden of awareness'. With regard to people called Jeremy Clarkson, I kinda know what you are saying as they represent the 主播大秀 consumerist, blind drive into oblivion. However, I think a cull is the wrong option. Instead we should perhaps be grateful to them as they personify much of what is wrong with our carbon lifestyles. Can you imagine the impact JCs could have if they saw the light and decided to join the eco-cause? Or, am I being totally unrealistic?
Complain about this post
What did you think of Gabrielle's last comment about morality? Just today I was doing my rounds and non media people were telling me how depressed they feel about the future, and how big the cc message is. So many of the comments on this blog relate to how we turn the situation around - And much of this in the homes of the developed world. Governments yes, sure - they are pivitol. I bet from now, any election in a developed country will have environment high up on the manifesto. But it's all of us and the way we live our lives in our homes. What we eat, what we wear, our waste stream, water, energy - there will be a right and wrong way of doing things, and we will know what is right and wrong. I hope you enjoy our last programme on 15th Jan. The discussion is good between Jacquie McGlade (Executive Director, European Environmnet Agency; Tony Juniper, Director Friends of the Earth and Sanjayan - chief Scientist, The Nature Conservancy). They are talking to us from Copenhagen, London and New York respectively and they touch on a lot of this.
Another thought: Some say the developed world caused cc...democracies and capitalism...Can capitalism solve the problems?
Another thought: A senior consultant in IBM told me the solutions to cc have to be designed into our life..in other words energy saving, waste streams..food, transport etc all have to be placed in our lives without option. As Jacquie says in our last programme - you can design equipment that comes off stand by automatically, and as Tony says, Europe could ban incandescent light bulbs..."there are lots of easy win win wins that can happen immediately".
Another thought: we should re-connect with nature to value it more and look after it. Some campaigners think there isn't enough time...in 10 years we could be close to the 2 degrees rise in temperature and 10 years isn't enough to get populations to re-connect with nature.
And who's going to be the first global environmentalist to make all this happen?
Complain about this post
With regard to Clarkson, I have always suggested he has a well-developed sense of irony, and sometimes I think he's already onside, but as a double-agent...?
He is, after all, as laughable as Borat, no?
xx and season's greetings relayed from
ed
Complain about this post
Ed - you might be right! His sense of fun stems from a tongue firmly planted to the side of his cheek - and not just as a result of transverse thrust. He's too bright not to be on-side. I think Julian should run some close-range checks to establish the true nature of our suspected green spook. Julian - what d'ya reckon!? Looks like we might have the answer to your last question...
Complain about this post
Dear Sir,
Global warming is most likely being caused by electromagnetic interference from sources of radio- and micro-wave radiation damping and distorting the earth鈥檚 magnetic field and causing the earth鈥檚 core to heat up as it supplies the energy needed to correct the distortions. Like an electric motor or generator, if the load, or resistance, is increased, the motor will get warmer as it has to work harder. The solution to this scenario would be to use insulated cable aligned with the earth鈥檚 magnetic field for the transmission of information, instead of sending it all through the atmosphere where it alters the magnetic field.
We are being told that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the temperature of the planet鈥檚 oceans is rising as a result. What they鈥檙e not telling us is that CO2 is soluble in water but that warmer water can absorb less CO2 than cold.
We are being told that their computer models of climate change show that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global warming. What they鈥檙e not telling us is that their computer models take no account of cloud activity because that is a factor too variable and complex to be reduced to a mere computer program.
So let鈥檚 look at the facts with the benefit of common sense. The oceans, which cover three fifths of the planet鈥檚 surface and play a largely unknown part in climate cycles and weather systems, are warming up. Less CO2 is being absorbed by them, which means that there is more in the atmosphere, but the increasing CO2 is a symptom, not a cause. It is inconceivable that the oceans are being warmed from above i.e. from the earth鈥檚 atmosphere, and far more likely that it is heat from the planet鈥檚 core which is percolating into the seabed. Try heating a pan of water from above!
The measures which are being undertaken will only result in more money for the Treasury and less pressure on an already creaky power industry. A more effective idea would be to outlaw all plastic packaging and produce consumer goods to last decades rather than months or a year or two, and then to bring an end to the politics of economic survival. Sooner or later governments which want to be seen as civilised will have to break the stranglehold of corporate greed and govern in the interests of the public at large instead of acting for and on behalf of shareholders and currency markets.
Yours truly,
Jim Lees and Cath Gould
Complain about this post
Cath and Jim
I don't really understand your opening para - do you have some references? I think many would agree with your general sentiment. Coming back to one of Julian's earlier "another thoughts", do you think capitalism can work provided there is a longer term plan - such as goods with a longer working life? Or, do you feel that the educational sea change required to alter the nature of consumer demand towards a more enlightened approach is too great? The short-term, realistic alternative to capitalism is what I'm trying to visualise. The danger is that democracy could rapidly evapourate as we become increasingly demographicaly entrapped - something that the earlier blogs have been alluding to.
Ed feels (I know he'll politely correct me if I'm wrong)that the only realistic solution will be a total economic collapse and we'll all be back to a far more communal style of living.
Julian has tried to convince us that the programmes will eventually get around to addressing the single most important issue i.e. overpopulation - I am reserving judgement on how well the 主播大秀 manage to handle that one. But we clearly also have to address consumption levels. In an era of consumer 'choice' - how can we effectively and quickly inform that choice without losing the rights we have become so used to?
Complain about this post
Julian,
Gabrielle's remark about moral duty was spot on, but needs more emphasis.
You say governments are 'pivotal', but i don't think they are likely to do anything meaningful unless the people are already onside. We do after all, practice a form of democracy, and a particularly short-horizoned form at that.
If we leave it to governments, we are abandoning our moral duty. We must do it ourselves, and if we do, governments cannot ignore us forever.
THE World is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers:
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon,
The winds that will be howling at all hours
And are up-gather'd now like sleeping flowers,
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.鈥擥reat God! I'd rather be
A pagan suckled in a creed outworn,-
so might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreath猫d horn.
ed
Complain about this post
Speaking of the :
The pivot of Tao passes through the center where all affirmations and denials converge. He who grasps the pivot is at the still-point from which all movements and oppositions can be seen in their right relationship. Hence he sees the limitless possibilities of both "Yes" and "No." Abandoning all thought of imposing a limit or taking sides, he rests in direct intuition. Therefore I said: "Better to abandon disputation and seek the true light!"
from Chuang-tzu
xx :-)
ed
Complain about this post
Greetings yet again,
In confirmation/clarification of Bob's attribution, the following:
"Though I can see no way to defend the economy, I recogniize the need to be concerned for the suffering that would be produced by its failure. But I ask if it is necessary for it to fail in order to change: I am assuming that if it does not change it must sooner or later fail, and that a great deal that is more valuable will fail with it. As a deity the economy is a sort of egotistical French monarch, for it apparently can see no alternative to itself except chaos, and perhaps that is its chief weakness. For, of course, chaos is not the only alternative to it. A better alternative is a better economy. But we will not conceive the possibility of a better economy, and therefore will not begin to change, until we quit deifying the present one."
-- in "A Continuous Harmony"
and, also:
"a people who are entirely lacking in economic self-determination, either personal or local, and who are therefore entirely passive in dealing with the suppliers of all their goods and services, including political goods and services, cannot be governed democratically--or not for long."
I have very few original thoughts, and others have so often said it better.
xx
ed
Complain about this post
Thanks Ed. Creativity doesn't have to stem from original thoughts. I for one am grateful that you bring the works of these gurus to our attention. The best (and most creative!) thing we can do I believe, is to inform decisions on necessary lifestyle changes from a platform of reasonable facts and data. It's like the difference between the 'predictions' that John Cooknell makes and proper 'forecasting'.
The most creative thing society can do is accept the biological sciences and remember that we are all bound by the same ultimate rules - regardless of the technology. As Desmond Morris puts it - "even a space ape must urinate".
Complain about this post
What are you lot on about?
I thought the programme and debate was about climate change!
I'm with Jeremy Clarkson, at least I understand him most of the time.
Have a Merry Christmas and a peaceful year to come.
Talk to you all next year.
Complain about this post
In her book, Planet Earth the Latest Weapon of War, Dr Rosalie Bertell, an international acclaimed scientist, said that US and Soviet military projects involving nuclear detonations in the upper atmosphere and the use of powerful electromagnetic fields in the upper atmosphere ...was a major cause of climate change. Electromagnetic fields being generated in Alaska are 60,000 times greater that the Earth's own field. Perhaps we should read the book and check this out before we over-react with home energy systems. Maybe we only need to ask Uncle Sam to desist? And why Star Wars in the first place - the current war is on terrorism?
I have read that climate changes are also taking place on other solar planets (changes in radiation, magnetic fields etc) as the solar system itself is currently travelling through a "denser" section of space. Perhaps the govt's scientists could check this out too - with NASA.
As co-incidentally with climate change we are reaching "peak oil" we should look really really hard at alternatives like nuclear FUSION and the more bizarre ideas like "antigravity", "zero point force" and "torsion energy" - which an oil led political economy would naturally seek to suppress and ridicule. Check this stuff out thoroughly with some funding.
With govt nearing 50% of the economy why not ask govt departments, schools, NHS etc to pioneer energy saving technology in space heating and transport - rather than the homeowner and individual car driver? This would include joined up policies which decentralise services and control so we don't all have to drive to one regional hospital, for example.
Can we pay countries like Brazil to STOP deforestation? I would be happier to pay a green petrol tax if it was going straight to Brazil - assuming adequate corruption controls.
Waste. Review all opportunities for reducing wasted energy - overheating in hospitals and hotels?
Payment - there is only one possible source for payment - me and you, as consumer and taxpayer. Any penalties imposed on corporates will simply be passed on. But tax air travel way before the car driver as there are much greater benefits, more affordability and doesn't impact on basic needs so much.
Complain about this post
Dear Grumpy - I'm sure you're no more so than most, I'm afraid that I know little about the science of the effects of EM on the atm. As erudite as Dr Bertell may be, I'm not going to read her book unless you can either make the relevant bits available on-line or can sell the benefits via some decent references. I can see the sentiment, but unless you have the necessary proof sources to support your claims you will run the risk of being accused of quackery.
As a total aside, but while on the subject, quackery that is. For general interest only - and nothing on this occasion to do with CC - the word apparently originates from 'quacksalver / quicksilver', the old name for mercury. Mercury was used extensively as a cure for syphilis - although it also had some fairly nasty side-effects (including death). However, back then - you might have had cause to 'call for the quack'.
Christmas / winter solstice cheer to one and all.
Complain about this post
I've just listened to the programme on Saturday night. We at the Centre for Sustainable Engineering consider, based on the existing and developing technologies in our database, that there is plenty of scope in technology to eliminate carbon emissions in both developed and developing worlds. Deployment is relatively slow because the economy is not geared to reach the tipping point for step change cost reduction. As an example, the rebate on biofuels is about 10p / litre too little to trigger massive investment in production and distribution infrstructure and vehicle engine adaptation. In the last 18 months, we have seen what could be achieved when the oil price went up; investment in biofuels accelerated, particularly in the US, as seen in the big rise in corn prices there. The return on a significant boost to low carbon energy, in the form of raising the bar of standards or other economic reforms, would be massive from about year 3 onwards. It is the downturn in revenue for government in Years 1 & 2 which the government and others are too afraid of.
One of the biggest anomalies is that the cost of infrastructure for central power generation and gas distribution is borne by companies, who then pass it down the chain and get their return over many years. They also get a subsidy for upgrading, as recently announced by Ofgem. With microgeneration, the balance is completely opposite: the user has to bear the cost of the investment. The government should reverse this and incentivise generation and supply companies to invest in micro and distributed generation.
Technology has caused the problem through the Industrial Revolution, and technology can deliver solutions, usually without consumers noticing. It just needs the economic framework to be shifted, for both big environmental and economic benefits.
Complain about this post
'Windfarms' have nothing to do with farming - apart from lining the pockets of landowners with land in the right place. They are a vile 'blot on the landscape' and their sole purpose is to make money for the companies who own and operate them. They cannot possibly have any impact whatsoever on 'global warming' because they can't have the slightest effect on the world output of so-called 'greenhouse gasses'. In fact the whole question of the UK's contribution to global CO2 emissions is irrelevant, being less than 2% of the world total. Thus if the British Isles reduced its output to zero - obviously impossible - then it would be replaced in less than two years by increased emissions from the US, China, India, Malasia, etc. and the 'Globe' would carry on warming regardless of any and all countermeasures we may take. Anything the UK could do is akin to chucking a housebrick into Loch Ness - and claiming that the water level has risen! In fact the 'negative feedback' effect will largely mitigate many of the imagined problems. eg. so far this winter I have by this time burned less than 25% of my usual central heating oil requirements. A warmer climate will extend the growing season and crop diversity - thus reducing 'food miles' and also benefiting the economy. Natural vegetation will flourish and absorb vast quantities of CO2. and we wil consume less food and thus need fewer livestock to provide us with all those extra 'winter calories' we need just to keep warm. Roll on 'global warming' and let's use our ingenuity and intelligence to turn it to our advantage instead of wasting time and money on futile attempts to counter it!
Complain about this post
Worse yet, the starting construction soon in the middle of the Solway Firth (national scenic area, unique wildfowl area, etc., etc.) is entirely for the financial benefit of foreign investors, the only British money in the whole project is the 拢10,000,000 grant from taxpayers largesse to to come and harvest our resources and sell them back to us at full retail prices.
!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
ed
Complain about this post
The link "You can listen again to the Planet Earth debate" is broken.
It points to this URL:-
rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk/radio4/wed2002_20061220.ra
but reports 'File not found'
If the link can be mended, I would like to listen to the debate.
Many thanks
Ian Norman
Complain about this post
Can anyone inform me of the reduction in sea levels that (the ever increasing number of) rivers which have had the amount of water they discharge to sea, drastically reduced. I am told two dams a day are being built worldwide, average land rainfall six inches per annum, 3000 years for the sea to be completely (rain) recycled. How much can/does it offset ice melt?
Complain about this post
Ed Iglehart #26
The firth of fourth
He went up north
To fetch a pail of water.
The fourth of firth
He fell to earth
And died there shortly after.
Julian Hector #12
If I were you, I'd move to higher ground. How about some nice beachfront property...in the Swiss Alps.
Nothing's happening until you get the cooperation of the government of the United States of America. And that can't even begin to happen until Europeans stop bashing America with their insanity.
Complain about this post
Why will nobody address the real issue which is the global human population?
Complain about this post
NATURE'S PAST EXPERIMENT
An experiment of nature on the effect of intense global warming has already occurred in the Eocene 38-55 million yrs. ago.(1) There were no massive extinctions comparative to that of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) period defining the Mezozoic/Cenazocic eras at 65Myrs. At the Paleocene-Eocene divide, paleo-stratigraphic results show that there was deep water benthic foraminifera mass extinction associated with the increased temperature and hence dysoxic (less oxygenated) waters.(1) But most of the marine and terrestrial extinctions occurred with the cooling at the end of the Eocene, and into the Oligocene epoch.(1) The conseqences of the present warming are unknown in regards to extinctions. However nature already has conducted one experiment in regards to intense global warming, with seeming not overwhelming catatrophic results.
1. Hallam Tony, Catastrophes and Lesser Calamities Oxford Univ Press, 2004, and references therein.
Other favorite sources consulted.
2. Raup David M., Extinction: Bad Genes or bad Luck?, W.W. Norton, 1991, and references therein.
3. Stanley Steven M., Extinction, Scientific American Books, 1987, and references therein
Complain about this post
Global warming.I have my own thoughts on the warming of the planet. The core of earth is the same tempreture as the surface of the Sun, What keeps it at this heat?.I belive it is surrounded by Oil,which is being keeped cool by water,which covers 2/3rds of this planet.If we remove the Oil,which we have been doing for endless years,then something must take it's place,water,which evaporates when hot,so the heat from the core is moving out,Heat rises,steam finds it's weakest piont to escape,slates on the sea bed move, the earth gets warmer,Ice starts to melt.Sounds familiar?Makes sense to me. Regards William Hill in Warwickshire,UK.
Complain about this post
Look. The world is going to be fine, short of some idiot physically blowing it up. The world is not dying, the world is changing yes and the larger landbased mammals like humans are going to have a bad time.
The World is not going to die, just the humans.
Good riddence to the selfish monkeys.
Complain about this post