educate myself about climate change

This year I am learning a lot about the theme in school. The topic is so important in these days that it is a school subject. It is interesting and also frustrating. Actually since three years I have learning by my own. I started to become aware of it when I realized the terrible conditions in the textile industry. Furthermore Al Gore did his part :) Later I got to know the “LOHAS” movement. I still have a lot to learn. While this process I try to sensitize people to climate change.

on the environment

a kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Of course as a long time vegetarian this is not exactly news to me, even if I didn’t know these exact facts. I mean it’s always seemed an expensive and unnecessary means of producing protein.

Most of the greenhouse gas emissions are in the form of methane released from the animals’ digestive systems, while the acid and fertilising substances come primarily from their waste. Over two-thirds of the energy goes towards producing and transporting the animals’ feed.

Vertical farming in the big Apple

That means there would be no shipping costs, and no pollution caused by moving produce around the country.

Some interesting ideas from the centre for alternative technology

An Alternative Energy Strategy

It takes Britain’s current fossil fuel consumption down to zero in 2 decades, and powers up renewable energy to meet the emerging demand. Sector by sector it explores the practical implications of this climate safe future: what transport systems will we be using, what kind of homes will we live in and how will industry, food and other sectors operate?

TODAY IS LIVEEARTH!!!

Broadly speaking, for northern Europe over the coming century the probability of extremely wet and mild winters, the type that can lead to rivers bursting their banks leading to widespread flooding, is predicted to increase by about a factor of five. Associated with this, the development of intense wind storms, like the famous October 1987 storm, may also become more commonplace. Conversely, the type of hot dry summer that we saw in 2003 is predicted to increase substantially in frequency.

The long predicted special warming of the polar north due to positive feedback from the lessened reflectivity of water and rock versus snow and ice is strongly confirmed by the larger temperature increases there. With the warming of north polar nights, some insect populations no longer “winter-kill”, as with the spruce bark beetle which destroyed 10,000 square kilometres of forest in the Alaskan Kenai peninsula several years ago. Similar insect problems have now cropped up with the Canadian Lodgepole pine forests which stretch from coast to coast. The expected consequences in California include an elevation of the winter snow line, with less accumulation of this key water source for release in the very dry summer months. There are regular reports of melting permafrost and tundra.

I have seen dramatic changes in coral reefs during my short lifetime. To quote a colleague in Australia (Dr Terry Done), “If we cannot save one of the most beautiful ecosystems on the planet, then perhaps we’re not as civilised a society as we like to think”.

Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.

The Royal Society has web pages on science issues, including climate change where some scientists give their views. Here is Dr Simon Lewis

The basic solution to climate change is obvious but rarely articulated forcefully: most fossil carbon must not get into the atmosphere. Currently the only proven way to do this is to leave most fossil fuels in the ground. That is no new oil fields, no new coal mines. But such apparently drastic measures are not on the mainstream agenda. Why? In my view this is because individuals, governments and companies all operate within a socio-economic system, capitalism, which, whether we like it or not, means it is difficult not to abide by the rules of this system. One central goal of this system is to realise maximum profit, or put another way, maximum economic growth must occur as far as conditions allow. This makes any measure to deal with climate change that is even perceived to have negative impacts on growth in the nearer-term will meet wide, deep and very well-funded opposition, even if it is causing very serious longer-term problems. Such a systemic problem will be difficult to solve, but needs to be solved. Clearly articulating the issues at stake is a necessary start.

Climate change – in my view