>I know that I can be a little thick but can some one help me to get >this problem with climate change. Perhaps the rapidity and direction >of climate change has been affected by human intervention but so >what? Nothing in nature is constant and natural systems must have >evolved to cope with change. Man is probably the most adaptable of >animals. With more energy in the system weather events will be more >extreme but wouldn't that mean shorter droughts as well? OK moving a >desert is going to alter realestate prices but does that mean that >world wide productivity will be reduced? Storm surges will probably >make some Islands uninhabitable but there is plenty of room in >Australia for those near us and by the looks of things those >Islanders with money have already come here, it's just a matter of >taking the rest. I'm not in favour of the things that have caused >global warming, nonrenewable resources should not be wasted but is >this real or just a supporting argument for sustainability? >The literature on this is so vast I can't read it all so has anyone >come across the stuff I need, something that doesn't simply assume >that change is bad or count the cost of moving uphill in $US. >Thanks from Harry.
Where've you been Harry? Real-estate?? Bangladesh, for instance, isn't some insignificant little island. A sea rise of only one metre (very conservative estimate) would turn tens of millions of Bangladeshis into refugees. They're already seeing the effects there. Judging by your current performance with Afghans, will Australia be welcoming them all with open arms and gift-wrapped new lives? What it means is highly unstable weather conditions, varying widely from place to place - shorter droughts, longer droughts, droughts in places where there've never been droughts and no strategies for surviving them, same with floods, same with heat, same with cold. That'll leave millions or billions of people out on a limb, as well as many or most of our food crops facing climates they don't know how to grow in, along with altogether new opportunities for pests and diseases, of crops, livestock, people, and everything else, to expand into new target populations that have no local immunities or defences against them. That and much more - read disaster upon disaster. Catastrophe. It's all happening already. This might help to explain your confusion: http://www.prwatch.org/prwv4n4.pdf Also these: http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/ New Scientist | Environment Report | Climate Change http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climatetrends.jsp New Scientist | Environment Report | Climate Change - Global climate trends http://climatechange.unep.net/ Climate change: UNEP.Net, the Environment Network key issues Introduction to climate change Causes and evidence Environmental impact Social and economic impact Solutions and abatement Conventions and treaties "Climate Change 2001" at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change site - three sections, "The Scientific Basis", "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability", "Mitigation": http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/index.htm Keith >--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13450 > > AlterNet -- > > Energy Scandals and Climate Tragedies > > Michel Gelobter, AlterNet > > June 24, 2002 > > > > The controversy over the recent release of the 2002 Climate Action > > Report by the Environmental Protection Agency is just the latest in >a > > series of environmental controversies to hit the Bush >Administration. > > > > Before people were left to try solving the riddle of President >Bush's > > actual climate change position, they witnessed a series of > > energy-related scandals that dogged Washington. Whether it was >Enron, > > the California energy crisis, or the deliberations into the > > Bush-Cheney Energy Plan, troubling signals emanate from the White > > House with disturbing frequency. > > > > Take, for example, the release of documents tying Energy Secretary > > Spencer Abraham to meetings with donors, whose campaign >contributions > > to both parties since 1999 topped $29 million. The payoff from >those > > meetings was almost a thousandfold: legislation embodying $27 >billion > > in subsidies. > > > > Believe it or not, this rich harvest is dwarfed by a decision the > > Bush Administration has already implemented: the U.S. withdrawal >from > > the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Had the U.S. respected our > > commitment to action on this critical issue, recent studies, > > including our own, have shown that the net cost to American fossil > > fuel industries could have been more than $45 billion a year. By > > contrast, estimates of the benefits of good climate policy to the > > economy as a whole range as high as $120 billion a year by 2020. > > While our economy took the hit, the energy industry walked away >from > > the President's policy with its biggest payday ever. > > > > So while the fossil fuel industry cashes in on our climate >reversal, > > who pays? First, the vast majority of American businesses. If the > > U.S. adopted a policy to internalize the climate-related costs of > > energy use, it would spawn a vast "double dividend." Redirected > > investments would spur employment and send new investments where >they > > belong, in companies fueled by workers and innovation instead of > > dependence on foreign oil. > > > > Furthermore, the reversal of American climate policy devalues other > > industry groups relative to fossil fuel. Because fossil fuel use is > > subsidized by bad climate policy, we use more of it than we should. > > Energy industries artificially appear to be better investments than > > they really are and attract capital investment that could be used > > more productively in the rest of the economy. > > > > A second victim of the energy industry's climate subsidy is our > > national security. Adopting the Kyoto Protocol could reduce by 2020 > > our dependence on oil by over 25%. There may not be a linear > > relationship between this number and the geo-political risks >created > > by our dependence on oil-producing states, but we sorely need the > > flexibility that independence would allow. > > > > Because global warming is, after all, global, its effects threaten > > our security in the long-run as well. The U.S., which represents 4% > > of the world population, emits 25% of the carbon dioxide from >fossil > > fuel, and we are historically responsible for over 35% of >greenhouse > > gasses presently trapped in the atmosphere. As the impacts of our > > emissions become more clear with time, our reputation may grow from > > pariah on climate policy to responsible party for the natural > > disasters that climate change will entrain. Barring rapid action on > > our part, events like the submersion of 57% of Bangladesh in 1998 >or > > last month's rapid breakup of Antarctic ice may increasingly be > > linked to American energy policy, whether or not these events are > > directly connected to climate change. > > > > Global warming is happening right here, right now, and there is no > > shortage of impacts on our own people. The elderly trapped in > > unprecedented urban heat waves, America's arctic populations facing > > dwindling fish catches, and farmers in the South and Southwest > > dependent on an increasingly volatile climate are all paying the > > price of our delay and inaction. All told, the United Nations > > Environment Program calculates the worldwide cost of inaction at >$300 > > billion per year, as coastal property disappears, buildings are > > damaged, and species' habitats are irrevocably altered. These are > > costs we will now pass on to our children, our children's children, > > and the world for generations to come. The President's reversal on > > climate is the gift to the fossil fuel industry that keeps on >taking > > from the rest of us. > > > > It is a testament to our democracy that, despite their millions in > > contributions, the energy industry still faces significant legal >and > > political hurdles to getting their way on many other fronts. With >its > > inaction on climate change the Bush administration has scored a > > windfall for an industry with enormous clout. Unfortunately, it has > > also laid the groundwork for a human and environmental tragedy of > > unprecedented proportion. > > > > Michel Gelobter is the Executive Director of Redefining Progress, >an > > Oakland, Calif.-based nonprofit that works to ensure a more > > sustainable and socially equitable world. Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
