Earth Hour 2008

[dibo]

most scientists simply don't agree that solar activity is a factor. governments are looking at the science. as the studies build up and the consensus grows stronger, many of those who used to be sceptics are no longer, perhaps following john maynard keynes's maxim 'when the evidence changes, i change my mind'.

then there's the simpler nuts and bolts economics of it. i'll take a nice quote from the economics editor of the sydney morning herald who wrote:

The widespread fear that the economic cost of limiting climate change will be prohibitive - or will demand tough changes in people's lifestyles - arises partly from well-meaning misapprehension, but also from the misrepresentations of the global warming sceptics. The pre-enlightened John Howard and his ministers did a lot to propagate this misconception.

It's easily done. Say I produce a study which estimates that limiting emissions will have a cost of 3 per cent gross domestic product or, in today's dollars, about $35 billion. Sounds pretty expensive, eh?

But it's not as bad as it's made to sound. The first thing I omitted to tell you was that the 3 per cent loss was a cumulative loss that takes 20 or 30 years to build up. In other words, the loss averages just 0.1 per cent of GDP a year.

The other thing I omitted to say was that it's not an absolute loss, just an opportunity cost. That is, it's not that GDP will fall by 0.1 per cent a year, but that it will grow by 0.1 per cent a year less than it otherwise would.

To put it another way, the economy will keep growing quite strongly despite our efforts to reduce emissions. The most recent study, conducted for the Climate Institute by the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University and others, finds that achieving a reduction in emissions of 20 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent or more by 2050 would involve economic growth averaging 2.8 per cent a year rather than 2.9 per cent. This is broadly in line with what other studies have found.

so basically, the science is stacking up and the cost in the end will be negligible (assuming we take the smart approach to cutting emissions and use emissions trading to create a price signal - this allows the market to direct investment into alternative energy sources, emissions abatement programs and technological change to reduce energy demand).

what's more, investment in these things ensures that we can help china, india and the rest of the less developed world to grow and become prosperous sustainably.

there is only so much fossil fuel out there. as we use more, it becomes more expensive - demand rises while supply is finite. if we can avert the problem of scarcity by tapping  non-scarce sources of energy there is an international justice to it that i personally find very attractive.

 

[skilbeck]

well i guess there is more or less of a limit that humans can cause climate change (not including the climate change potential of NOx's). There is only so much fossilised carbon below the Earth and as it is depleted the human limit of climate change is approached. if it turns out that human effect on the environment is more or less negligible then there is no issue. if it turns out otherwise then it is catastophy. Also, the source of all the energy supplied to the Earth, except in the sense of nuclear energy, originates from the sun and the reason why energy is so cheap (1) and readily avaliable is that life has a way of efficiently reducing carbon dioxide to carbon (i.e. a higher energy potential) in photosynthesis. The carbon that is fossil fuels is essentially built up over billions of years within the Earth and is being used by the human race in the space of hundreds of years. Therefore if you think of the Earth as working on Energy storage surpluses and deficits we are in a phase of massive deficits. So in order to sustainably (to the degree that the human race will exist for) overcome this problem you need to match the needs of the human race, as well as the rest of the biosphere with the obtainable energy that is inputted from the sun. This means that there is an energy balance between what is supplied to the human race and what is used.

Therefore IMO the problem of resource (carbon) depletion is more of an issue to the human race than climate change, though the solution will go hand in hand. My view is there is not a lot that can be done, except for reducing energy demands by s**tloads meaning either reducing the human population or going back to the dark ages.

all these problems goes back to overpopulation and that if the entire world was to live like those in the first world we would need 5-6 planets like earth. The horrible fact of life is that there is not enough room on Earth for us all to be comfortable. though if you think of it nature has a funny way in restoring balances to itself i.e. the black death, world war etc and it would be very interesting to see who survives and who dies i.e. natural selection sorts that out.

Im very pessimistic about the future of the human race on our planet. Lets hope it can be as pain free as possible

 

[Kareem]

i didnt participate. We our all in study/work mode in house (I had important test on Monday).
Not to mention I am already environmentally aware! I am extremely conscious of leavin lights off etc.

 

[kevrenor]

Out in Macquarie Woods - camping and walking/cycling with son and dogs - no fire just battery powered light to go to bed (probably more damaging that power station).

Climate change is constant - but as someone said, how much is it happening now and how much impact is mankind having on it?

Watching Time Team last night (being a closet historian and archaeologist) it was stated that people (in Europe) only started to really impact on the environment by design no more than 6,000 years ago. That is a flicker of time.

If you think global warming is bad wait for the reversal of polarity of the poles!

Still there are many good reasons (health, philosophical, religious, neighbourliness) to be environmentally 'friendly' other that impacting climate change. If mankind is influencing it then that is just another reason.

 

[skilbeck]

yep your right Kev about reversal of the poles. The magnetosphere and ionosphere will go for quite some time. There is also the eruption of a supervolcano like Yellowstone National Park in the USA, Lake Taupo in NZ or Lake Toba in Indonesia, last time one of them erupted a volcanic winter wiped out 60% of the worlds population

 

[trev]

but

Ignoring the fact that global warming is a myth, did anyone actually bother with this left wing Greeny-rock-band neo-environmentalist bullshit last night??

Besides, what makes us Westerners so special when we do it??  North Korea does it every day of the year farkin'!!!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Global warming is not a myth. Statistically earth temperatures are rising.

What is up for debate is the amount of human influence that has contributed to this warming.

It was going to happen anyway. we are moving closer to the sun therefore making it hotter,as for switching of lights as i am currently studying electrical in my apprenticeship my teacher said that a light exposes 0.00000000000000000000001 of carbon emistions. so i don't kno what every1 is on about

 

[Bex]

Switching the lights off was about awareness. Its not a solution in itself. Earth Hour has done its job; plenty of people are talking about global warming.

As for me, I'm an Environmental Engineer so I'm clearly supporting Earth Hour and all it stands for. My family has been doing more than the Earth Hour requirements on a continuous basis for several months. We've got 100% renewable energy at home, my fridge is at maximum safe temp, the hot water service is at lowest practical temp, we're using the clothes line rather than the dryer, we're having sub 4 minute showers, we've got energy saver globes, all appliances are turned off at the wall when not in use, lights are switched off when leaving a room even if only leaving for a short time, etc, etc.

Skilbeck, being involved in mining you would be aware of Job Safety Analysis procedures. If there is a accident that has low risk of occurance, it is still considered a risk that must be controlled if death or serious injury is an outcome. So, I put it to you that, until we have better science available, it would be stupid to ignore this and hope it goes away.

I would go on, but I've just been called for my flight home. In Perth just now. Bloody red eye special. I'll be counting the carbon emmisions as I go .........

 

[skilbeck]

im not saying we ignore it, im just saying that technology is inherently environmentally damaging and i hope that the science that solves all our environmental and social justice problems comes along soon (these two are inevitably linked i.e. 2 posts ago from me), which would essentially be overriding thermodynamics or finding another energy source other than the sun as all these problems are due to there being limited obtainable energy. Those measures such as renewables while i do agree with them are essentially band aid which will delay the onset of the problem rather than solve them. But maybe there is a balance there somewhere that can delay it infinitely. methinks it is going to take a good scientific mind and a lot of thinking outside the square to find a way to put these problems to rest

 

[dibo]

We can't wait for ideas to drop from the sky; we've got to push research along to find solutions. This isn't as hard or as costly as you might think. As I was writing before: we're looking at shaving 0.1% off GDP growth for 30 years (growth set to average 2.8% p.a. rather than 2.9%).

Thats not a big ask. If we approach the problem aggressively and pour resources into finding viable and marketable solutions to our energy needs, it's quite likely that we can turn our lucky country moniker in a new direction - the clever country. We won't be hawking what we dig from the ground; we'll be selling new energy technology.

A lot of progress has been made already in spite of a basic lack of interest from corporates and governments so far (the amount spent on fossil fuel prospecting dwarfs that spent on research into renewable energy and energy demand mitigation).

Many technologies are already operating in the marketplace and will only become more viable as carbon trading creates an effective market price.

Fossil fuels will be sold at a price that factors in the external costs of climate change, while renewable energies will become a relative bargain.

Energy costs will rise thats essentially unavoidable but this in itself will drive research into technologies to reduce energy demand.

But for any of this progress to happen, we need public will to support the transition. Public support for ratifying Kyoto and for moving forward on action to combat climate change is and has been strong. Earth Hour and similar things are helping. Whether they *in themselves* save energy is moot, it's the attitutes and awareness that they're looking to work on.