Climate Change - Are Renewables Going to Make a Difference

The Dane, Bjorn Lomborg is a well known, and respected climate sceptic.......or he was. I recall reading that he was now accepting of climate change, but the following article does call into question the economic pathways most suitable to achieve a lot' with using renewable energy. Especially the economic policies used to achieve take up of the concepts.

Read here - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/bootleggers-hijack-climate-change-debate/story-e6frgd0x-1226099304031

He seriously questions the role that renewable energy systems can play in reducing fossil fuel use, and ultimately carbon emissions. Particularly the economic costs of using renewable energy such as wind and solar. Many others might agree directly with this view, and others strongly support the same general view by suggesting that carbon capture and storage must be made to function, as coal will need to play a role in stationary energy production, including electricity, for many years yet.

Here in Australia, a monster user and producer of coal, there has been a degree of support for the develpment of the zero emissions stationary energy plans developed over the past several years and formalised in a document available here -http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020

I would agree they do seem economically and conceptually feasible, but significant changes must be implemented in regard to distribution networks for example. And more investment is now going into that area, but not necessarily to meet this concept plan. Lack of vision is a serious impediment to implementation of this concept. Spain has been investing in base load solar systems successfully, as shown in the photo.

Many would argue that nuclear energy will be needed around the world to meent energy needs. And that is low carbon emissions. Recent events eg Fukishima in Japan, will affect ideas on that too.

The Chinese are moving to develop thorium nuclear reactors. They have several notable features that could lead to wider interest. They do not generally have self sustaining fission- ie need some nuclear fuel to keep them going, and they produce very modest radioactive level and relatively short half life waste products [a strong point]. Curiously, Australia has a lot of thorium resources, and even more curiously it can occur with rare earth minerals and Chinese are investing in some of the mines with rare earth/ thorium resources too. Is this coincidence??

Food Prices WILL Go Up

Mankind has enjoyed several decades of falling food prices, and relative abundance. Some even say that food prices have really been trending down ever since about the mid 1800s, although there have been some periods where that has not been so clear.

Modern agriculture has improved productivity of most farm animals, crops and even trees and enhanced efficiency of the use of inputs such that more is produced for less.

Recent trends in agricultural productivity increases are much lower, a lot of the productive land is used already, some even disappearing into urban sprawl, and new areas are far less available, or have other constraints eg clearing of rainforest, and may even be less productive intrinisically.

Malthus and his predictions are back in the spotlight.

A recent short article from the Lowy Institue in Australia, a respected academic institue has examined this issue more critically.
link is here - http://lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1565 and the publication can be downloaded as a pdf.

We need 71% more food production to feed the world population of 9.1 billion [estimated] by 2050.

So far, it does not seem to be recognised as a serious issue, with R and D expenditure on agriculture still declining, and some are suggesting that it will be difficult to again obtain the agricultural productivity gains of the past 60 years. These are years in which use of hybrid crops, the development of the "green revolution" in Asia with both wheat and rice, etc etc all took place.

Genetic modification has been embraced by some.......and strongly rejected by others.

Many scientists do think that some form of major genetic advance will be needed to ensure this food will be produced, and that there will be significant changes in how and where food is produced. Will we see more food produced within cities? Many think so, grown in novel ways too.....even vertically on walls, replacing the lawn with a food garden, food grown on building rooftops and there will be greater use of recycled water and nutrients including organic materials eg compost. These are happening in some way already around the world.

At present there is a nett movement of nutrients from farms to cities, and it just about all goes down the sewer or into landfill. That might have to change.

Science might be capable to develop new food production systems but social and cultural adjustments might be needed too. They might be more difficult.

CHOCOLATE TAX??

Here in Australia, chocolate eggs are very common gifts at Easter, with the egg representing life, as shown by the Christian festivity of the Resurrection, on what is celebrated as Easter sunday.

There has been a call by Tim Costello, the head of World Vision Australia for a tax on chocolate.



No, it is not a crazy thing, but all about the fact that much of the world's chocolate production comes from west Africa, where child slavery and related systems of indentured or sold adult slaves, do much of the work in cocoa production. it is estimated that about 97% of cocoa produced around the world involves child exploitation.


There have been some efforts to overcome the system with Greens chocolate [ based in the UK]attempting to break out of this production cycle, by introducing fair trade type policies around cocoa sales and purchases [ recently written about in Time Magazine], as have Cadbury's.








But the call from Tim Costello is new, and World Vision does have some clout in these issues. Read and hear more here -http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2011/3196200.htm .


It is not a nice issue to contemplate in a comfortable westernised society, but cocoa production does remain as one of the last areas of serious child slavery in the world.


Be aware of that fact as you eat your chocolate Easter eggs............or just about any other chocolate!!

Less Greenhouse Gas - Modest Steps and Tangible Actions Work

A lot of the debate around alternate energy, energy efficiency and even a carbon price or tax has focussed on climate change. That nebulous, end of century effect that no one is really sure about whether real or imagined, and which sceptics of climate change then have great delight in demolishing any argument to do anything about issues now. I am not a sceptic of man driven climate change, but for many it is just a difficult concept.

The ex Governator - or maybe the ex Terminator - has had quite a bit to say over the past few days, while delivering a very well received address at a conference in the US. And it offers some common sense about effecting change.

His premise is that climate change is just too abstract for most people to conceive [ apparently especially Americans] and that those wishing to effect change at grass roots level and in society need to be focussing more on real effects now, tangible things. These include:

• job creation from green jobs related to mandated renewable energy use,
• reductions in oil use and hence dependence on other countries for energy,
• energy efficiency that offers real benefits in reduced costs due to efficency improvements in homes and businesses,
• health benefits from reduced use of oil,
• vehicle efficiency improvements to reduce fuel use,

among a range of issues.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20037752-54.html?tag=nl.e703

offers a reporters view of the address.

This seems a very pragmatic approach, well wrapped in some humour too, and does offer a way forward at even local levels. Getting back to the old cliche - "act locally, think globally' a catch cry slogan of the environment movement. And implies a degree of personal responsibility, in California's case also in some areas offering state support.

There have been a number of reports available of business case studies that created quite substantial real $$ savings by embracing energy efficiency, for example and many jurisdictions do have programs to assist in taking this approach and actions.

Also read an earlier post - http://abovecapricorn.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-to-effect-climate-change-now.html

Carbon Pricing in Australia

July 2012 will see a carbon price implemented in Australia.

Is it a carbon tax? Well, yes I guess it is. But views as to using carbon tax versus an ETS have evolved and changed over the past several years, with the complexity and bureaucratic shemozzle of an ETS seen as a big stumbling block to any implementation of a scheme about climate change. A carbon tax is seen as economically efficient.

Neither is perfect.

A lot more detail still to come, and a few heads will no doubt get kicked along the way.
It is probably fair to say only the absolute diehard sceptics still subscribe to a view that climate change is not real and happening.....and maybe accelerating, even if there is some noise about normal cyclic movements in climate, sometimes attributed to changes in the solar energy cycles.

An interesting piece has been seen on the ABC web site today:[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/25/3148883.htm ]

This is a reasonable cover of the issues, without getting into the trade exposed intensive industries arguments that were discussed during the previous ETS discussions.

But this option of a tax can be done now and should send appropriate signals to consumers and industry that there is not a free ride anymore.

It should be an interesting period over the next few years as this evolves......or gets stymied depending on how the political pieces fall.

Waste and Energy Management Gone Crazy

Stick a fork in it, we're done

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Green the Capitol initiative is over at the House's Longworth cafeteria.

By Charlotte Allen
February 13, 2011

After about a month in control of the House of Representatives, Republicans haven't managed to undo as many deeds of their Democratic predecessors as they'd like. They couldn't get rid of "Obamacare," and they haven't made much headway in slashing the president's $4-trillion budget. But the GOP has succeeded in short order in one critically important venture: getting rid of the "compostable" cornstarch-based knives, forks and spoons that were a universally — and bipartisanly — hated feature of the House cafeteria operation.

The tableware, the color of mucus and as bendable as a pocket watch in a Salvador Dali painting (and thus unable to pierce any foodstuff firmer than the innards of Brie cheese), was the most visible manifestation of recently deposed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Green the Capitol initiative.

That was her carbon-cutting effort to use the food-service and other House operations to fight global warming and a host of other perceived environmental, health and social ills. During the lunchtime rush, you could observe dozens of staffers struggling to stab lettuce leaves and poultry pieces with fork tines that appeared to be double-jointed as well as dull.

But on Jan. 25, Dan Lungren, the GOP congressman from the Sacramento area who now heads the House Administration Committee, directed the House chief administrative officer to trash — so to speak — the composting program, which converts the dining service's cornstarch tableware, along with its biodegradable plates, trays, cups and drinking straws, into garden mulch.

It turns out that the composting program not only cost the House an estimated $475,000 a year (according to the House inspector general) but actually increased energy consumption in the form of "additional energy for the pulping process and the increased hauling distance to the composting facility," according to a news release from Lungren. As far as carbon emissions were concerned, Lungren concluded that the reduction was the "nominal ... equivalent to removing one car from the road each year." He plans to switch the House to an alternate waste-management system recommended by the Architect of the Capitol, in which dining-service trash would be incinerated and the heat energy captured. "Composting releases methane," said Lungren's spokesman, Brian Kaveney, and methane gas, as even the most warming-conscious among us have to admit, traps atmospheric heat far more efficiently than carbon dioxide, the usual bugaboo of the climate-change crowd. Lungren's stick-a-biodegradable-fork-in-it (if you can) stance toward a linchpin of Pelosi's grand green plan marks the latest skirmish in a lifestyle war that may on its surface seem purely partisan: GOP global-warming skeptics versus a Gaia-worshipping Democratic Party.

But I'd say the battle lines are really between an elite determined to impose upon a captive populace its notions of what is good for it — cost be damned — and the populace itself, which would rather not be coerced.

In Pelosi's home territory, the city of San Francisco, composting is mandatory for householders, who face a fine if they throw orange peels into the trash rather than into their city-provided composting bins.

Plastic bags are against the law in large-chain stores, and plastic water bottles are against the law in City Hall. In the name of health you can't buy a soft drink on public property in San Francisco, and soon you won't be able to buy a Happy Meal with a toy at McDonald's for your kid.

The uber-bohemians of San Francisco love this sort of thing; others, maybe not so much.

Green the Capitol was launched in 2007, soon after Pelosi became speaker. The Longworth cafeteria, catering to House employees but also serving the public, was to be the carbon-neutral jewel in Pelosi's green crown. Out went the familiar mystery meatloaf and high-fat coconut cake and in came food that was organic, sustainable, locally grown and fair-traded. I visited the Longworth cafeteria in early 2008, soon after it reopened under Pelosi's rule. Not only had food been replaced with "cuisine" (roasted corn and poblano chili, anyone?), but there was also a sea of didactic signage. One sign reminded you that the beef in the hamburgers was "humanely raised" and "antibiotic-free." Other placards touted "cage-free eggs" and "rBGH-free milk." A poster trumpeted the "pulper," a costly machine that made compostable cubes out of food waste. And then there were the recycling stations, where a lengthy set of rules instructed diners on how to separate trash items and dump them into four different slots (coffee cups in the "compostable" slot, coffee lids in the "landfill" slot).

No sooner did the cafeteria reopen than the grousing began, from both sides of the political aisle.

Some diners tried to puzzle out what turkey escabeche might be and wondered what happened to the fried chicken. Others complained about the new high prices that accompanied the new haute offerings."I just wished my pay improved" along with the food quality, a Democratic aide complained to a reporter for Politico. But the bitterest carping was over that compostable flatware. A Hill urban legend circulated that the spoons would melt in a cup of hot coffee. They don't, but they do bend readily enough to make you think you're Uri Geller.

When I revisited the Longworth cafeteria last week, three years later, I could not help noticing that although the flimsy cornstarch tableware was still in use — it will be retired as soon as the stock on hand is used up — a sea change had otherwise occurred. The sermony signage was gone, as was much of the art-food: the purple Peruvian potatoes and the "panzanella station," where you could build a salad out of arugula, figs and large wedges of stale bread. The salad bar these days is, well, a salad bar, with trays of chopped olives, shredded carrots and garbanzo beans to top the lettuce. Serious efforts have been made to cater to the needs of House employees who can't afford Armani suits. Among the stations with the longest lunchtime lines was one labeled simply "BBQ." Its special was a $5.50 pulled-pork platter with two sides (including classic mac and cheese) and cornbread.

The years from 2006 through 2010, starting with the Democratic takeover of the House and ending with the party's rout after two years of Barack Obama's presidency, were four years of an effort by a know-it-all liberal elite to impose sweeping and extreme social and fiscal measures on a centrist-to-right public: four years of turkey escabeche, so to speak.

Now, with a GOP House and divided government, there seems to be a return to normalcy, and it's beginning with the promise of knives and forks that work.

Charlotte Allen is a Washington writer.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
----------------------------------------

A stern reminder of what can go wrong with crazy ideas poorly implemented and totally out of touch with community ideas.

I am sure a program - a sensible program - could have been implemented in the cafetaria. And afterall, what would be wrong with ordinary plate and cutlery use, and washing them, with a sensible waste management program to handle the organic wastes? It is generally wiser to wash and reuse equipment rather than single use.

As for menu changes, are not they best organised with users views considered? If Jamie Oliver can do it for communities in the US, maybe he needs to be asked about the menus?

Oh well.......it is the USA I guess.

Are Food Users Expectations Unrealistic in Terms of Prices Being Paid?

The following article is based on material collected at the recent 2020 Summit in Canberra, Australia.

It highlights the often unrealistic expectations that consumers are placing on food production, while demanding lower prices for food, something the world in the developed areas has expected and enjoyed for around 100 years. But meeting what are probalby unreal expectations in overall food safety, quality and availability does remove significant food from the consumer........and at what cost? It is all very well to say "lets all eat fresh natural food" but often that may not be possible except at impossibly high prices, or even technically impossible in some areas of the world.

Sure.......food needs to be safe; it mostly was 40 or 50 years ago, yet many consumers demand still higher yardsticks. Is that always necessary? Simple things such as washing fresh foods before use in clean water [where available, as it is mostly in developed countries] can do a lot to remove problems just before consumption.

Recent comments this week by the UN and related agencies, specifically related to food production and availability also add to this conundrum.

The article prompted a lot of comment. What do you think?


Consumer expectations on how food is produced have become unrealistic, according to the chief executive of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, and there will need to be a trade off if food prices are to be affordable in the future.

Dick Wells was a rural delegate at the 2020 summit in Canberra on the weekend, and said while consumers rule, there's been "a disconnect" between them and the people trying to produce food and fibre under safe, clean, profitable conditions. Mr Wells said experience shows, in other industries as well, that to underestimate the capacity of the community and community outrage, even though it may not be based on sound science and evidence, can make the operating capacity of an industry very difficult. "The most recent example is of course the mulesing issue, with PETA and so on. I think people underestimated how they could marshal consumer outrage to create a backlash against industries," Mr Wells said.

"The frustration for us all in these sorts of things is when you understand the industry and the science behind these things, there's sound reasons for doing them.

"But there's a disconnect, and as a scientist that's one of the things I learnt – I used to think there was a logical process of evaluation and acquisition of data and decision making and that was the right answer. But science is only one part of the equation."

Mr Wells said increasingly consumers are "ruling the world". "They're increasingly expressing their wishes through big retailers who are seeking to supply them with the goods they want," Mr Wells said. "So in terms of quality assurance, its gone well beyond safety and gone right back up stream to how food is produced. "And it includes all these soft issues which are really quite challenging for us in agriculture, but at the end of the day consumers are still not prepared to pay any more for better upstream performance and this is the frustration for industry."

He said if you were to poll consumers, most would say they are most concerned about issues like environment and welfare. "But give them an opportunity to pay more for better upstream practice and they won't do it. "So the evolution has got to come with better communication and understanding to consumers about how our food is produced to reassure them that we produce food in a way that deals with a whole range of certain standards. "It's a trade-off. People are worried about grocery prices but you can't keep putting costs and expectations on upstream producers like farmers and others and then expect to absorb the cost."

But Mr Wells was cautious about labelling consumer expectations too high "because they rule".
"I think some of them are unrealistic…because they become ideological or philosophical.

"Take for example GM canola oil – we can show that there canola oil is no different from a GM plant, and the DNA in them has identical chemicals. "But the ideological argument has been 'I don't want oil from a GM crop irrespective'."

Mr Wells said the farm sector had always been product-focussed rather than service-focussed, but those sorts of ideological views had nothing to do with the product. "It's really about providing food service which encompasses all those other values and that's really challenging for an industry that's been supply-chain oriented.

"I think the challenge for us is to actually have responsible processes to try and understand consumer trends, even if they're irrational, and put in place processes about reassurance and quality control, even if it goes back to things that aren't making us any more dollars. "It's going to become a licence to operate rather if we do it in those ways rather than potentially an advantage in the market."

partially sourced from : Rural Press National News Service, Parliament House Bureau, Canberra.

Crisis in the Drylands

[ partially sourced from Scientific American Magazine - January 17, 2008, original text written by Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University, and added to by the author of the blog]

Sound economic solutions, not military ones, offer the most reliable route to peace for undeveloped nations.

The vast region of deserts, grasslands and sparse wood­lands that stretches across the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia is by far the most crisis-ridden part of the planet.

With the exception of a few highly affluent states in the Persian Gulf, these dryland countries face severe and intensifying challenges, including frequent and deadly droughts, encroaching deserts, burgeoning populations and extreme poverty. The region scores at the very bottom of the United Nations’s Index of Human Development, which ranks countries according to their incomes, life expectancy and educational attainments.

As a result of these desperate conditions, the dryland countries are host to a disproportionate number of the world’s violent conflicts. Look closely at the violence in Afghanistan, Chad, Ethiopia, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan—one finds tribal and often pastoralist communities struggling to survive deepening ecological crises. Water scarcity, in particular, has been a source of territorial conflict when traditional systems of land management fail in the face of rising populations and temperatures and declining rainfall.

Washington looks at many of these clashes and erroneously sees Islamist ideology at the core.

US political leaders fail to realize that other Islamic populations are far more stable economically, politically and socially—and that the root of the crisis in the dryland countries is not Islam but extreme poverty and environmental stress.

The Washington mind-set also prefers military approaches to developmental ones. The U.S. has supported the Ethiopian army in a military incursion into Somalia. It has pushed for military forces to stop the violence in Darfur. It has armed the clans in the deserts of western Iraq and now proposes to arm pastoralist clans in Pakistan along the Afghan border.

The trouble with the military approach is that it is extremely expensive and yet addresses none of the underlying problems. Indeed, the U.S. weapons provided to local clans often end up getting turned on the U.S. itself at a later date. Tellingly, one of the greatest obstacles to posting the proposed peacekeeping troops to Darfur is the lack of a water supply for them. Given the difficulty of finding water for those 26,000 soldiers, it becomes easier to understand the severity of the ongoing and unsolved water crisis facing the five million to seven million residents of Darfur.

Fortunately, much better solutions exist once the focus is put squarely on nurturing sustainable development. Today many proven techniques for “rainwater harvesting” can collect and store rain for later use by people, livestock and crops. In some areas, boreholes that tap underground aquifers can augment water availability; in others, rivers and seasonal surface runoff can be used for irrigation.

Such solutions may cost hundreds of dollars per household, spread out over a few years. This outlay is far too much for the impoverished households to afford but far less than the costs to societies of conflicts and military interventions. The same is true for other low-cost interventions to fight diseases, provide schooling for children and ensure basic nutrition.

To end the poverty trap, pastoralists can increase the productivity of livestock through improved breeds, veterinary care and scientific management of fodder. Often pastoralists can multiply their incomes by selling whole animals, meat products, processed goods (such as leather) and dairy products. The wealthy states of the Middle East are a potentially lucrative nearby market for the livestock industries of Africa and Central Asia.

To build this export market, pastoralist economies will need help with all-weather roads, storage facilities, cell phone coverage [skipping fixed lines usually], power, veterinary care and technical advice, to mention just a few of the key investments. With crucial support and active engagement of the private sector, however, impoverished dryland communities will be able to take advantage of transformative communications technologies and even gain access to capital from abroad. New trends in microfinancing are enhancing this capital transfer even NOW!

Today’s dryland crises in Africa and Central Asia affect the entire world. The U.S. should rethink its overemphasis on military approaches, and Europe should honor its unmet commitments of aid to this region, but other nations—including the wealthy countries of the Middle East and new donors such as India and China—can also help turn the tide.

The only reliable way to peace in the vast and troubled drylands will be through sustainable development.

Australia has a significant contribution to assist this process, based on the knowledge, skills and attitudes developed by our farmers, graziers and scientists in coping with the vicissitudes of the Australian climate, information often directly transferable to others. And no, we will not do ourselves out of trade or options. In fact increased options are lilkely to develop.

Several commentators on this original article in Scientific American were critical - very critical, but a few, probably those with direct experience in running development programs, responded quite positively.

These thoughts are worth contemplating.....deeply.

One has to ask, who thinks of Norman Borlaug as a great scientist? Who you ask? Yes, Norman Borlaug, credited with the first Green Revolution, improving rice, wheat and barley, and bringing adequate food to many developing countries. Yet development is painful and slow still, with the issues identified by Sachs as crucial. Indian farmers, large and small are enthusiastically embracing GM [GE] cotton, with fantastic results [see this blog too]. Combine new yield aspects and safe living environments and we can make things better.

Green Fatigue - Do YOU Have this Condition Yet?

There is a new contagious condition developing rapidly in the developed world..........green fatigue. Overload with environmental issues, climate change and no immediate fix in sight [nor is there lilkely to be one either] are, along with rampant consumerism, prime causes of the condition.

In a world of instant gratification, green fatigue cannot be cured instantly, hence the dilemna. Can we do anything meaningful? Why bother....NIMBY! Who cares anyway? A cohort of people all who have had a diet of the instant fix are now confronted with a condition that requires patient, thoughtful, continuing and slow efforts to remediate. Hence the green fatigue.

Analysts in the UK say few people are taking action to deal with the threat of climate change, although over the past 12 months the vast majority have come to accept that it poses a real threat to the world.

Opinion polls reveal much confusion among the public about what Britain should do to combat the problem. There is every reason to believe the same situation occurs in Australia given the inaction by the previous government. A backlash is now a real threat, said Phil Downing, head of environmental research for Ipsos Mori. 'There's cynicism because on the one hand we're being told [the problem] is very serious and on the other hand we're building runways, mining Alaskan oil; there's a lot going on that appears to be heading in the opposite direction.'

This is particularly evident in the huge public resistance to green taxes. 'There's a cynicism the government is using the green agenda as an excuse for hitting motorists and people who want to fly,' added Downing.

In short, 2007 may have brought final acceptance of the danger of global warming, but it has not triggered demands for urgent action. However, Chris West, head of the government-sponsored UK Climate Impacts Programme, believes there are signs it is starting.

'The people who before were saying, "It may or may not be happening, who cares?" are now saying, "This is something we'll have to deal with - but how do we do it?"

And the people already accepting the fact and struggling with how to do it are actually getting fed up with how difficult it's been to do something and are finding their own ways of dealing with the issue.'

Barbara Young, chief executive of the Environment Agency, agreed. The 'vast majority' of British businesses 'are still not into sustainability and climate change', she warned. In the UK, people have made no noticeable changes to their behaviour and are taking increased numbers of car journeys, going on more flights, pumping out more carbon dioxide and using more electricity to heat their homes. At the same time there is deep antagonism towards green taxes and the introduction of wind farms to the countryside to generate carbon-free electricity. But we do at least understand the danger we are in, experts added.

Pat Thomas, editor of the Ecologist, said reports about conditions at the North and South Poles - including the breaking up of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the opening of the North-west Passage through the Arctic, and studies which suggested the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by 2013 - had been particularly important in changing public perceptions. In addition, changes in seasons, campaigning films, storms, floods and media reports about spreading droughts helped convince a once-sceptical nation in 2007 that global warming is real and man-made. In Australia, evidence of hot dry conditions throughout most of the country reinforce the issue of climate change.

Recent opinion polls now indicate that nine out of 10 UK citizens believe climate change is occurring and is being driven by human activities - in particular increases in industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Publication of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change latest reports on global warming were also important.

In 2007, the IPCC declared it now believed it was more than 90 per cent likely that climate change was being triggered by humans; that natural systems on all continents are being affected; and that humans have eight years to avoid the worst effects impacting on the environment. 'The IPCC's message wasn't tremendously different [from past reports], it's just that its evidence was very much better,' added West. Other influential events included the Australian drought and the forest fires that swept through Greece and California. Then Britain suffered its wettest summer on record and some of its worst flooding for decades. Thousands of homes were devastated and billions of pounds worth of damage caused.

'This is the stuff of climate change, so we'd better get ready because there's a lot more where this comes from,' added Young. 'The reality is that the physical impacts of climate change have probably been with us for some time.' Or as Thomas put it: 'People are now experiencing climate change in their own lives.' But if these events were crucial in convincing the public that man-made climate change was real, imminent and potentially highly destructive, there has also been considerable difficulty about how it, the public, can deal with the problem. This is a real problem as a now willing public are confused as to how to act and what to do.

The report by Ipsos Mori that found that almost nine out of 10 people believe climate change is happening also revealed that there was a lack of understanding about what should be done to counteract it. In particular, it was discovered that there is a general reluctance for people to do anything significant on their own.

Although 70 per cent thought 'the world will soon experience a major environmental crisis', virtually nobody said they were prepared to do anything about it beyond trying to reuse plastic bags and recycle some rubbish.

The problem in the UK is heightened by the government's own failure to halt rises of carbon dioxide emissions, despite its pledges to cut them drastically. Traffic on UK roads rose in the first three quarters of 2007, peaking at 132 billion vehicle kilometres between July to September. At the same time, numbers of flights worldwide rose 4.7 per cent to nearly 30 million during 2007.

In Britain, carbon emissions have risen in five out of the 10 years that New Labour have been in power and are now 2.2 per cent higher than they were in 1997. By any standards the government is doing very badly when it comes to taking effective action to deal with carbon emissions. There are some encouraging signs with more people taking action into their own hands, for example by insulating their lofts to cut fuel bills, or by joining movements like Transition Towns where communities agree to reduce their dependence on coal, oil and gas. Businesses are investing in more eco-friendly products in expectation, said Richard Lambert, the CBI's director-general.
'They are ahead of the consumer.'

Whether the public becomes more proactive in 2008 when it comes to climate change depends on several issues, added analysts. A key factor will be the weather, said West. 'If we have a nice average year, whatever that means, people will say: "Climate change: what of it?" But if we have either an extreme heatwave or more flooding, I think there's going to be a cumulative effect.
The next time we have a national-scale weather-related emergency, people will say: "Enough ... we can't allow this to be normal". In a way, if that happens, it makes our job easier, but clearly I don't want to wish a disaster on anyone.'

In a way, green fatigue has arisen in the ordinary consumer, tired of messages but with no way to respond, and often not knowing how to respond, or having to make decisions to even respond. A dumbed down society, now having to think and adjust.Duh! A bit hard heh!

Those a tad older remember the days of taking your own bag to the shops, reusing newspapers to wrap the vegie peel and brown paper school book covers and so on. Even a small home vegetable patch. So a brain readjustment is not so tricky, and green fatigue rarely strikes hard; afterall it is life.

For those whose find last week's new MP3 player / phone / gas guzzling SUV is now oh so passe, that a new one is required ........well, it is a might more difficult to escape the green fatigue.


[sourced partially from www.guardian.co.uk ]