I agree Gerhaush,
I sense a massive disconnect between the reality of most people's
lives and the discussions going on in the media and forums like this.
I'm not a climate scientist. I was a sceptic until several years ago
when I addressed my doubts by studying, I've been reading the science
since. I work in an office in the UK (nothing scientific - just a
callcentre backoffice), and those people I know only know GW as
something that's on TV before they change channel to watch something
more interesting - like Big Brother.
Before we even get to the issue of persuading the Chinese and Indian
populations (together with millions elswhere) that they need to stop
aspiring to the sort of carbon intensive energy wasteful lives we in
the "developed" world currently live. We need to persuade people in
countries like the UK that we need to change the way we live.
Here in the UK from what I see the majority of people want: more
holidays a year in warmer countries, patio heaters, less road traffic
so they can drive more with more ease, greater choice of goods and
produce from around the world, cheaper goods and produce from around
the world.
In short they want what they already have, and more, and they want it
now.
Out of everyone I know, one person has given up driving, started
walking, reduced electricity consumption, etc etc. That one person is
me. Since I ditched my scepticism on GW most people I know now live
further from work, earn more, buy more goods from abroad and indulge
in luxuries like Patio heaters. People think nothing of flying to
European Cities for the weekend - the average seems to be 2 holidays
abroad per year.
If our emissions have stabilised in the UK, as far as I can see it's
mainly because our heavy industry has died and we now import from
other countries, like China.
I have read this thread, but I don't think the idea of even a global
stabilisation of emissions growth rate is a realistically attainable
prospect.
And as we're adaptable enough for the wealthy consumers to side-step
even the worst reasonably forseeable impacts of climate change, short
of cracking fusion, I think we'll stride through 2xCO2 and beyond. The
US may have undergone massive economies during WWII, but Germany also
managed to source up to half of it's oil needs from coal, and there's
more than enough of that to follow BAU emissions throughout this
century. Furthermore in terms of EROEI surely coal is the cheapest bet
for an alternative base energy supply as gas/oil deplete.
As for making people change the way they live, they need to vote for
it first. And as a Lovelock style cataclysm seems highly unlikely, I
don't think they'll be motivated by any of the reasonably expected
consequences of GW.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
