We asked Professor Paul Hardaker, Chief Executive of the Royal Meteorological
Society, Peter Ainsworth, MP, Shadow Environment Secretary, Dr Chris Tuppen,
Head of Sustainable Development and Corporate Accountability at BT, Paul
Golby, Chief Executive of E.ON UK, Tom Delay, Chief Executive at the Carbon
Trust and Mark Henderson, The Times Science Editor, to give us their views
on whether science, politicians or businesses can save the environment. Who
do you think has the most power to improve the health of our planet? Read
the contributions and send in your own views using the form at the end of
the article.
Paul Hardaker: Of course we need both scientists and politicians to
help protect the environment, but it goes much deeper than that. I believe
our environment faces some serious challenges from the changing climate and
the sustainable use of global resources. Whether you agree with me or not,
without the science to deliver both the evidence and the understanding, with
all its uncertainties, of the implications for mitigation and adaptation we
stand little chance of coming to well founded conclusions that are useful to
either policy-makers or the environment. Importantly, the science must be
impartial and without policy bias. It is for the elected policy-makers to
use the scientific information to inform political dialogue between
governments and with the electorate. My experience of the interface between
science and politics is that it is a difficult one. It is not enough simply
to present the evidence and expect politicians to grasp what are often
difficult scientific issues. The scientists have to work together with
politicians and policy-makers to help them through what the science is
telling us, so that policies can be based on sound scientific evidence.
Scientists need not be afraid of the political process as long as they
understand their role within it.
That is all well and good, but there is also a final, critical part to the
jigsaw - and that is all of us as citizens. In the end it is our actions
that will protect our environment. We would all hope that the scientists
will work hard to push the boundaries of their work and communicate that to
us in an understandable and informative way, and that the politicians will
be bold enough to intervene with policy instruments where they feel it is
necessary to do so; but it is ultimately about us all taking responsibility
for our environment and the impact we individually and collectively have on
it, guided of course by both the scientific and political process. It is the
priorities of people that will, in the end, make a difference.
Peter Ainsworth: Without scientists, we have no hope of cutting carbon
emissions. Climate scientists can tell us - with reasonable accuracy - what
we are doing to the environment, and by how much we will need to cut
emissions in order to mitigate climate change. Current science is now
suggesting a need to cut carbon emissions in the developed world by 80 per
cent by 2050 if dangerous climate change is to be avoided. Politicians have
a duty to take the best available scientific advice. If 2,500 climatologists
tell you with "a 90 per cent degree of accuracy" that man is
irrevocably harming the climate, that advice cannot be ignored.
For at least 15 years, the scientific consensus has been that man-made
emissions are leading to climate change. It is a shame that politicians are
only just catching up with the news.The scientific community can also help
by getting out of the lab and taking their knowledge into the media and into
politics. Margaret Thatcher was a formidable force when it came to
campaigning against CFC emissions precisely because she was a trained
chemist. Unfortunately, most politicians and journalists are not
scientifically trained - a fact that often shows when you catch some of the
sceptics in debate. Whilst it is the industrial application of science over
the past 200 years that has got us into the mess we're in today, it is
science that offers the best hope of getting us out of it. We turn to
scientists in the search for the new technologies needed to cut emissions.
The holy grails are the infamous "hydrogen economy" and clean coal
(as the majority of future emissions will probably be down to burning coal
in developing countries).
In reality, of course, politicians have no idea of the best future
technologies to slash emissions, which is why funding streams should be as
broad as possible to allow as much innovation as possible. Government money
will never be enough to create the sort of technologies we need. Private and
commercial funding is, and will remain,crucial. However, private investors
will not come forward unless they know any low carbon design will actually
be useful – to paraphrase Lord Oxborough, investors want to know that
politicians and the public won’t just get bored of climate change in the
next five years. That is why a political commitment to tackling emissions is
essential, and which is why we are supporting a robust Climate Change Bill
to place a legal burden on every Government until 2050 to produce annual
emission cuts. This will send the clear signal the business community needs
to channel money into low carbon technology.
Finally, the good news is that many of the technologies we need to cut
emissions already exist – they just need scaling up. Government can set
standards, can promote carrot and sticks and can use some of the £125
billion of public procurement money spent each year to get these
technologies onto a fully commercial footing. Politicians have got to take
the best available scientific advice, make it easy for the private sector to
put money into low carbon technologies, and easy for the public to adopt
them. Science and technology have many, but not all of, the answers.
Political will is an essential ingredient and, despite the airy rhetoric, we
have seen far too little of that from the present Government.
Chris Tuppen: The answer, for me, is simultaneously no-one and
everyone. No one sector of society is responsible for climate change, and no
one sector of society can save our planet. Businesses have to remain
competitive to survive and, from the corner shop to the largest of
multinationals, they must aim to be increasingly profitable. Politicians can
influence through national legislation and taxation regimes, but their
authority is declining as the international market place becomes ever more
powerful - not forgetting of course that politicians are always mindful of
the next election when considering long-term action. And scientists provide
the evidence for action but don’t hold the levers of delivery. Of course
citizens / consumers also play an equally crucial part. Their influence
through their voting and purchasing behaviour delivers the mandate for
action by politicians and businesses. It's only together, with everyone
sharing the common goal, that we can tackle climate change. This means
gradually but significantly changing the whole way in which we live, work,
play, learn, do business and invest.
If that's the case, what should the role of business be? At present, and until
real external environmental and social costs are integrated into the prices
of products and services, no company, no matter how well intentioned, can
operate in a completely sustainable way and survive commercially. But that's
not an excuse to sit back and do nothing. Businesses must accept the need
for change. They need to understand not only the social and environmental
consequences of their direct operations, but also those arising from their
supply lines and products. And they need to contribute to the educational
campaigns that are needed - whether run by the green movement or Government
- to change people's understanding of the role they play in climate change.
The good news is that the dialogue has begun and a common understanding is
beginning to evolve. The challenge, as always, is to put the rhetoric into
action. And the big question: can we all work together to do it in time?
Paul Golby: Anyone reading the International Energy Agency’s prediction
that China’s carbon emissions will overtake the United States before 2010
may be left wondering why they should bother trying to tackle climate
change. The reality is that the pressure on politicians to negotiate a new
international agreement for significant reductions in greenhouse gases grows
ever more urgent. Within Europe it is encouraging to see the recent
agreement by Heads of Governments for a unilateral reduction in greenhouse
gases – international agreement will only be achieved by this kind of
leadership. It demonstrates commitment to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
and gives confidence for businesses like mine that they are serious in
tackling climate change. We do however, at EU and national level, need to
see policies which convert aspirational targets into real ‘on the ground’ action
plans – they otherwise remain merely aspirations.
Let’s be clear, over the next few decades we will have to deliver a radical
transformation in how we supply and use energy. As Co-Chair of the Energy
Research Partnership, I have no doubt that research and development will
change the way we approach energy and make better use of emerging
technologies such as tidal and marine generation. To be successful, the
early commercial deployment of any new technology will need to be done at a
scale which is equivalent to hundreds of megawatts.
Yet having the technology available is sometimes not enough because businesses
like mine are left to struggle with the current consenting process. Too
often projects are not seen in the context of the overwhelming national
need. A closer alignment of energy and planning policies is vital if we are
to see the UK develop a diverse and sustainable energy mix. I believe that
it is within our grasp to move forward with tackling climate change.
Politicians have to deliver the framework for businesses like mine to
operate in, for scientists and engineers to develop new lower carbon
solutions, for businesses to develop lower carbon products and services that
customers want to buy and ultimately for all of us to create this demand and
to take a serious look at how we live our lives.
I am deeply saddened at how many people actually believe this global warming codswallop.
The saddest thing is they believe the over rubbish as well.
The Earths climate changed periodically before Industrialisation.
Quack science.
quack quack .
Scientific scepticism is suppressed that's bad.
Mcgraw, Corby, UK
YAHWEH did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Bobbi, kansas city, mo, USA
Until politicians and major global religeous leaders realise that over-population is the real problem and do something to seriously promote one or two child families, the planet cannot be saved from complete resource exhaustion.
brian marshall, Lifford, Ireland
Answer: all of the above! Climate change does not respect national boundaries. One countries emissions / pollution affects our entire planet. International coordination required: Structure > Conduct > Performance model. Only solution: Think Global and Act Local. We do not have an alternative planet!
David Bristow, Madrid, Spain
Global oil based economies are in revved position with a foot placed firmly on an accelerator pedal that has become locked into that position.
We’ve rushed at the wheel for control, only to find there is no driver, there never was.
The planet sets the course and it always will
Philip Clarkson, Naxxar, Malta
Saving from what? Not Global Warming. Only the unverified models indicate a potential future problem and they have failed to predict the lack of warming this century. We do however need to be saved from the alarmists and I am afraid there are too many vested interests so only cooling will do that.
Mike Owens, York, UK
Realistically speaking, human caused global warming is known for at least 20-30 years. Scientist kept warning politicians all this time. The result is inaction or cosmetic changes that will not avert the consequences. Too little too late. It will be planet Earth that will solve this problem.
Rick Fencl, Albuquerque, USA
To Max (London)I agree except in 1thing: what we should start doing is to change the concept that money give us happiness.We need some money to survive, but we are all educated to think:as much money as you have, the better for you. This is completely wrong. We must start for the begining.
Maricarmen , madrid, spain
I think each one of us is the most responsible stop the climate change. It doesn't assure that I will get to stop the climate change but the fact that the others don't do anything, doesn't excuse my responsability.
We need to change ourselves, without excuses, to achieve a real change.
Maricarmen , madrid, spain
I think it will be all simple concepts like Johnnygreenseeds. Maybe taking our cue from nature is a lot more logical than a billion simulated calculations from a computor. Having faith in the natural world seems to be all the world is missing today.
jason, bridges, Ney york,New york, USA
Mother Earth is not in danger- but human(e) civilisation could well be- from a new totalitarianism based on fear and misanthropic guilt. The possible death toll from global warming is speculative- that from a Green Police State, as some advocate, is beyond dispute, with 2 centuries of precedents!
Michael Martin-Smith, Hull,
This is a big subject, what is the government doing about it?. They are using it to TAX people more, where is the Taxes going?. No investments in public transport. But God said he will distroy those distroying the earth. TORNADOES, EARTH QUAKES, STORMS, FLOODS, FAMINE, FOREST FIRES,DESEASES, PLAUGES
Daphne Kenward, Cambridge, UK
Globaloney - Algore's phony "man is killing the planet" ideology which calls for everyone but him to cut back on consuming so we don't put too much CO2 into the atmosphere.
Trouble is CO2 is not a pollutant but one of the building blocks of life. No CO2, no plantlife. It's the sun, stupids.
Jarhead68, New Yawk, New Yawk
Want to save our planet, stop all wars, use the money to plant trees clean up the rivers and streams, put money in energy saving, give the money used for wars to people to insulate their homes, and put solar pannels on their roof. Invest in saving endangered animals, switch off lights.
daphne, Cambridge, UK
Well, fossil fuels can't last forever so whatever the truth is about climate change, we have to do something anyway. Doing nothing is not an option, oil will run out and we're all enjoying the symptoms of that already! Of one thing, I have no doubt... Our planet is not in danger! We are!
David, Nottingham,
Only sharing will make practical changes possible. Maitreya will call for a simpler way of life, more in keeping with the reality of the planet's situation. But the decision is man's alone.
Jaap den Haan, Namen,
Everyone should try to conserve our resources. That's common sense. Remember the fruit fly in the jar with a piece of apple experiment in science class? GOOGLE "Chemtrails" and weep! Why is the Military polluting our skies with Aluminum, Barium, and Etheylne Dibromide if we are so concerned with greenhouse gases/ our environment? How is it that the climates on Mercury, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Neptune are changing also?? An Inconvenient Fact! Can you say SUNSPOTS? SUV's, Coal Fired power plants? How about a natural cycle of the solar system that us on planet Earth have NO CONTROL over?? Just another excuse to Control the Population and scare them into more submission! Remember Chicken Little! God Help us all....
Mark Smith, Eureka, Ca. USA
"Scientists, politicians or businesses". Politicians have no vision beyond the ballot box, and businesses have a primary duty to their shareholders, which is often at odds with environmental concerns. That leaves the scientists. As a collective body, these are the people that produced atom bombs, cloning, GM foods etc, and when challenged, say that they don't have the moral responsibility for how these inventions are used. Thanks, guys.
The warnings have been given since long before I was in Greenpeace 10 years ago, and still almost no-one is taking any notice; least of all those governments whose economy is driven by massive consumption. (USA Koyoto agreement and now expansionist China)
It's down to individual responsibility. Using less, wasting less, buying thoughfully, not being driven by peer pressure and advertising, campaigning. Most importantly, active campaigning and voting with your wallet. Votes and money are the only things politicans and business are tuned in to.
Max, London,
That historical fast paced industrial wheel, coupled to our slow paced global eco stewardship, has come full circle.
Whatever we do now, about climate change will ultimately be good for the planet.
Long live the planet
philip clarkson, naxxar, malta
Climate change worries me to death, but if we all do what we can and get governments to pull their finger out and stop procasternating then with the collective knowledge we should deflect the worst effects.
This is so high profile and rightly so, but all the doom and gloom programes that state we have no hope depress people so much, me included. I am scared for my children and my so far 1 grandchild. Surely they do not need so many of these programs. It makes people feel hopeless, therefore apathy will set in as people will believe what ever they do nothing will help
Helen, Leighton Buzzard, Beds
Simplistic Pseudo scientists falling in line to a kakistocracy.
In fact where are all the scientists? they are dead of course, how can they survive without a backbone!
M. Baron, York, UK
God will 'save our planet' - if it is dying, and if it is his will.
dominic, Teddington,
Why is it that the medieval warm period and the little ice age have not been put into the government’s computer model? The government say these two anomalies were insignificant.
Why does the C02 measurements for the past two hundred thousand years come from Dome Cordordia and Vostok ice cores in Antarctica yet today’s Co2 measurements come from half way up Mauna Loa an active volcano on the Island of Molokai in the island group of Hawaii.
The hole in the ozone above Antarctica is caused by the dark winters and the polar vortex, the Artic has a hole every few years but only when there is a polar vortex.
Yes the planet is warming, but then why wouldn’t it, we are still coming out of the last great Ice Age. With the Little Ice Age taking us back colder a few degrees, we have this still to make up.
Ray Ganter, Llanelli, UK
A Call to all Scientists reading this comment, please test this hypothesis... The sun is the centre point of matter and forces applied to it by all cellestial bodies, in our solar system, it therefore emits electromagnetic radiation, that cannot burn out as current consensus leads us to believe, Light is therefore energy in its purest form a quadtratic equation in which the x and y co-ordinates are substituted with a + and the y -. an atom, dna, photosynthesis and even a rainbow can be explained through this theory.
Dino Ducci, Johanessburg, South Africa
I can only count on the things that I have available to me. My dreams and unfailing faith that, "I must make a difference". My task is to find the link to perpetual motion, in which we will at last be free from fossil fuels. I have and will continue my unrelenting task to unlock this mystery as my spirit has made it clear that this is the only answer. Every day I feel that I am one step closer. I will not stop until I uncover the only path to a future for mankind.
Robert Groff, Continental, U.S.A./Ohio
South Africa's top Economist, Predicts that Oil Barons will be pumping oil like there is no tommorow, and buying Gold. Rand to the Dollar 1 -1 in less than 3 years. Dino Anthony Ducci.
Dino Anthony Ducci, Johannesburg , South Africa
If the governments of the world wanted clean energy they can have it , Ie take a quadratic equation and subsititute the (x) and (y) with a + and a - . Theoretically it is possible. The only problem with clean energy is there is no profit in it. Ask the MD's of Shell, BP, etc. Plus the pension fund administrators and the lazy idiots on the doll who with the taxes on fuel lay around drinking booze and taking the bus. Think About it. Dino Anthony Ducci.
Dino Anthony Ducci, Johannesburg , South Africa
The Planet will stabalise itself..., Dino Anthony Ducci
Dino Ducci, Johannesburg, South Africa
Global Warming does not necessarily mean HUMAN CAUSED global warming.
Why does everyone assume that just because something is changing, it is our fault? The sun is proven to cause the global increase in warmth. During th 1600's people used to grow wine grapes in London. Imagine how hot it was then.
Justin, San Francisco, USA
Well said Alle Rednic. There are 3 things from which decisions should be made, they are evidence, evidence and evidence. Nowhere should we find "I believe never mind the evidence". That humanity has the ability to change the nature of our atmospheric environment with its output of CO2 is risible - evidence, volcanic activity, virtually perpetual (I seem to remember seeing somewhere that there are about 40 active volcanos at any one time), produces several orders of magnitude more than we do; - evidence bovine flatulence produces much more methane than we do so let's live without cattle (but not for long); - evidence, water vapour is by far the greatest contributor to atmospheric (and so, global) warming and the oceans are inconveniently not covered over to reduce evaporation, we should perhaps stop breathing (but not for long)
Peter R. Owen, BURY, Lancashire, UK
Maybe the headline quastion can be changed to "Does our planet need saving?"
I sure does! It needs saving from those who make very good livings out of peddling mendacity.
Peter R. Owen, BURY, Lancashire, UK
Global warming/climate change cannot be proved. I don't believe it is happening. A short time of warmer weather does not mean the earth is going throught a catastrophe. Ever heard of cycles? Clearly, scientists have forgotten about that word. Changing laws and adding laws over something that cannot be proven is downright wrong. Freaking out over something that cannot be proven even EXISTS is downright silly.
Crying and wailing like a bunch of fanatic idiots just does not appeal to me. Trying to save the planet- well, let's just put it this way- YOU CAN'T. It isn't OURS. It belongs to the One who created it. The earth is not my mother. The earth is not my god. I do not worship it. I do not bow down to it. I will not shed tears over it. And I certainly will not blame our excellent technology and drag it into a rut because of some misplaced squirrels.
WAKE UP AMERICA.
Alle Rednic, Villard, Minnesota/USA
Mother Nature will let us know when she needs saving from us..
Anyway, the very question is flawed. The planet will be fine. In our arrogance, what we really mean by "saving the planet" is, in reality, "saving our own skins".
And that simply isn't going to happen as one might as well ask a goat to tend the vegetable patch.
P Williams, London,
As everyone now understands, the World is in a really bad shape, with polution a major factor, we are told that it would be better for everyone if we cut down the amount of polotion we create, cycle to destinations were we would normally take the car, go by train when we would normally fly, OK, thats a great idea, we as a domestic world are playing our part in this game of Save the World.
Why does someone not tell this to the Space travel fraternity, how much polution does one of those Mega Rockets that send those Shuttles into space create, when you see one of those astronomical beasts take off , and the flames thrust from those gigantic engines,it makes me wonder why nothing is mentioned of that polution, Is it those Rockets that have created the hole in the ozone layer in the first place, taking into consideration the ammount that have been launched since the late sixty's.
I am no scientist but I think it is obvious that it hasn't helped.
Ian Hamilton, Consett County Durham, North East England
We can't, "save" the planet!
We neither put it here, nor perpetuate any of its' multitdinous systems. The fact of the matter is, we don't even understand the systems we believe we understand.
The bottom line to all of the global disaster nonsense is simply this, socialists, communists and those deluded into embracing the globalists agenda are bitterly jealous of the wealth and prosperity of the United States of America. If the U.S.A. could some how be punished and brought low, then the wonderful, socialist utopia could at long last be born and flourish, blah, blah, blah. It is all about political POWER and exerting the socialist will over the nonconformists.
It is only by the grace of God that any of us survive a single instant on this planet, and will continue to survive until HIS plan is fulfilled. So stop obsessing on all this global catastrophe tripe, take in a football game, enjoy a nice thick steak, and start enjoying your life, it is the ONLY one HERE you're gonna' get!
E. Longbottom Sr., Yuma, Arizona
Its simple if you look at the overall cause. Our planet is now well and truly overpopulated. To supply the needs of the ever increasing population will mean the production of more Carbon and the eventual limitation of all forms of todays life.
Sad ! The human race will have to face the facts and make a crucial decision before nature does it for them.
R.A. Bradley, Brigg, England
The scientist denighed fame to the man who first made electricity from sunlight many years ago because he didnt use photovoltic cells. instead he used bimetalic plates that made electricty when heated by the sun or by any other means. The politicians are working for big business and therefore if something doesnt make them a lot of money there will always be something else that will be on the agenda. Free energy is not profitabe. So inventions such as the gravity wheel and the internal steam engine will be replaced by engines that you must buy hydrogen or oil or some other fuel to make it run.. Each of these fuels will require a huge effort to produce and distribute around the world. Doing this may create jobs but does little to help the people of earth as thier lives are spent working for the man so as to be able to survive long enough to go to work the next day. If a person could spend more time tending his garden and growing his food this would reduce energy use worldwide. Peace!
nelson eugene begley, Clayton, Georgia
If a few political figures try to 'force change'... or if billions
of people decide to *MAKE* changes.
That's what will determine "success or failure" in this matter.
Smart Energy, Detroit, MI, USA
In the 1960 era I was told about the Ozone problem by an English graduate with connections to Balliol and I expect Kenny and his wife who I believe were from Liverpool and RC with good Latin. 3rd world & Pope not us. The big insulator was asbestos and that is anathema with ling and heart disease. Now, we have foam and NASA absorbers not just tiles and Ferodo brakes, clutches and fan belts etc. Not science but a foreign theoretical engineering with great Laplace transforms and exp going to zero fast.They even had extreme conditions for cranes and creep, wear, polymerisation and ringing of wine glasses.
Computers occupied whole floors of sky scapers not just desk top etc.and most of the maths was done on hand turning calculators. Much better now with Psion etc.
Where are the interesting Neutrons as proton + inverse electron decay after Nobel Chadwick, or Newton and reltherm equations as additions to dynamics, or even Dauber and group theory tables of atom , particles and Epics Bands.
Dr MI Barton MA. MBA.PhD, Oxon, UK
It seems amazing to me to see that the majority of Americans who consume half of the worlds resources and produce 11 tons of carbon emissions per person to the 2 of China are totaly unwilling to consider any change. To point the finger at China and India who want to become more affuluent is ridiculous. If the worlds gratest economic and so called advanced society cannot even consider that there is some truth then we are in fact doomed to destroy this jewel of a planet. I for one do believe that there is some significant evidence to support the view of global warming and it is a shame that future generations may see us as the worst kind of criminal, potentialy global genocide. The US needs to take some kind of lead, global warming has been accepted in much of Europe, do the Americans know something we dont, or are they victims of media and political miss information and brain washing. Please show me that you are not that ignorant of the world around you.
Gareth, Pwllheli, UK
65 million years ago, a comet or asteroid impacted the Earth in what is now the Gulf of Mexico. The remnants of the 120 mile crater are detectable to this day. This impact killed off almost 99 percent of everything that lived at that time and the impact spewed ash, polutants, dust, and vaporized water into the atmosphere at devasting levels. Many scientists believe this impact is responsible for wiping out the dinosaurs.
When I hear of talk today about "save the planet", I wonder what the planet would think if it had ears and a brain? It is a known fact that atmospheric carbon levels have been higher in the past than they are today and yet the planet is still around. We are unmistakeably emitting carbon into the atmosphere. However, to make the judgment call that this is necessarily "good" or "bad" is at a minimum, arrogant. To claim that we actually know that climate change is being caused by this is also arrogant.
Jon, Houston, TX
Who will save us from the green tyrants?
They want to place us in socialist poverty, while the 3rd world nations are allowed to grow.
Larry Tooley, Centralia, Illinois
Farmers, Ranchers, People of the Land will save it.
Aerate and perhaps some overseeding of creeks, swales and bottoms of watersheds lengthen and long term increses hydrolic perc.
Thus slower and less runoff which helps evap up into the air whic in turn causes more dew and rain in other areas yet, which COOLS the planet just enough to balance the whole deal again.
In short more COOL factor, counteracts the heating factors of civilizations.
Mark Wright, The Valle, Magic Valley/NM
Need to reduce the population - more people, more pollution. Who is looking at this issue?
Phil, Preston,
No one will,the only ones interested are a tiny minorety or the liers looking to make money or fame.To save the world at this point would destory the world economy,at that point we all would be killing each other for SURVIVAL!To many Humans on the planet,catastrafic events will create catastrafic change.We have waited to long folks.Ask yourself what you would do with all the Humans in order to do whats needed to save the Planet.Any more QUESTIONS!!!
Jerry Whitehead, Spring Creek, NV
Shame on every scientist who remains silent when faced with the phrase "scientific consensus". There is no such thing. Those two words, put together, constitutes an oxymoron. Science is NOT and has NEVER been a democracy. What this phrase actually means is: there is no evidence, so we voted to pretend that there is. I am a scientist myself and am well aware of the fraud being perpetrated by my peers. Is this what you do for grants form the government? Is this what you do for attention? Any "scientist" who uses the phrase, "scientific consensus" should be ostracized by his peers...unless the whole of the scientific community is so corrupt. Is it?
Brian Olson, New York, New York
Only by understanding where we stand within symbiotic nature of our solar system, will we truly understand the fantastic forces of nature. All we can do for now is to stand back and admire, and help our fellow human beings have a better life.
Jon, London, UK
The planet's fine. She told me.
Dallas, Rochester, NY
Global warming is a natural event. If you do not believe so, how do you explain the end of the Ice Age long before the Industrial Age?
Dave Glick, Lake Forest, USA
Reduce all your carbon emissions, China, India and I will out do you! Any body want to buy carbon debits from me? Makes as much sense as buying carbon credits.
BobB, Chowchilla, USA, California
Change is inevitable, I have the hardest time accepting that fact. It is nice y'all want to conserve, that is commendable. But don't force it down my or other peoples throat. Let me remind everyone that what accelerated the industrial revolution is electricity. If you don't want to use fossil fuels to generate it use nuclear. Oh! I forgot the radiation will kill us, sorry. I refuse to live like a third world undevleoped peasant, if you want to fine, like I said don't force it down my throat. Carbon credits? what a crock of male bovine excrement. C'mon people use your common sense, if you want to conserve oil you'll have to give up some things and back up 70 yrs. to small centralized towns. If you want to cool the planet down quit talking so much and more action. Or quit breathing one or the other. Now for the $64,000.00 question: How are we going to stop the sun from increasing in output and causing our earth to heat up?
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Fred Reeve, Trufant, Michigan, USA
if global warming is caused by human carbon emissions how come its happening on mars
we have all been lied to and anyone who believes the al gore film should do a bit of research. 10 minutes on the internet will find you the truth that the film used very bad science fake data and misleading images
you have all been conned
col, harrogate, uk
Every TEN (10) days China adds another coal-burning plant that emits as much CO² as the city of San Diego, California. The greatest ACTIVE cause of greenhouse warming in Asia CURRENTLY is the aerosol soot in the renown Asian Brown Cloud (ABC). The ABC has caused regional temperatures to rise by 2 - 3º C leading to regional drought and glacial recession in the Himalayas.
Whatever individuals *WISH* they could do, until we stop using China & India to backdoor our CO² emissions, nothing will change.
Moreover, the predominant cause of current Arctic ice loss may be the gigatons of soot being deposited on the icepack from the expanding Russian Arctic oil fields. As the icepack is darkened by soot it absorbs more sunlight, resulting in net loss of ice.
CO²-driven Global Warming, on the other hand, occurs mostly in cool, dry areas, not in hot, humid ones (places with a relative humidity greater than 30-40%). So the Arctic may see a double-whammy effect of CO² & soot.
Lee Rodgers, Austin, Texas, USA
It's all about local community development. Take an interest in helping to strengthen your local community and see how you can help out. Help out your neighbours, have them over for dinner, take care of their kids. Everybody craves the feeling of belonging, contributing, and being taken care of. It's up to us to look after each other. Focus on what we have and what we can nurture. By giving your help, your community will change for the better.
GC, Halifax, NS, Canada
i totally agree that we ' the public' are being hoodwinked on many carbon emission issues. There are so many contrary policies - cut air travel but expand airports! it is about time everyone woke up and make this govt. accountable - they are elected 'civil servants' which means they should be working for us!!
m jarvis, basildon, uk
Bush and Cheney are the biggest threats to humanity right now, not harmless ol' carbon. They are bringing more destruction and chaos to the world than "global warming" ever could. Let's solve this problem first, shall we?
Justin, Eugene, USA
JAMES D HUNT a student at CSC in La. has developed a system that converts water to gas that can be burned in your car like gasoline. He wants to start selling these systems next year if the government will let him. It will cost $2000 to convert your car to his system and the maintenance will be about $100 each year. You can drive your car for a full year for $100 dollars. These types of technologies have been available for about 40 years but have been surpressed . The government has been playing us for decades. The government can solve this problem anytime it wants.
JOHN RUSSELL, Palm Bay, florida
The days of the Global Nationals are over. EC and upcoming No. American Union plus planning in this direction for Africa, Asia and So. America is a beginning. We need to eliminate overseas shipping and look very hard at air travel. Goring that ox is going to be tough but oversea shipping
and air travel are two of the guiltest contributors to Global Warming. Solution: Localizing production to technologies and source material found within each regional commonwealth. This means no more shipping cars from Asia to end markets like the U.S. Toyota, Honda, Nissan and the Euro-brands have set up assemblies in the U.S. But I don't know if that eliminates the oversea shipping contribution. Instead of US clothing, toys and other consumables "Made in China" these productions channels would be localized in the US. That means Chevies in the US and Chery's in China. This is a difficult approach because the U.S. will take a huge hit
and sacrifice along with other producer nations.
Fdo Favela, Los Angeles , CA. USA
well done mr smith at last people are slowly begining to see that the hysteria surrounding carbon emissions is ridiculous - the myth about man being responsible for global warming a lie repeated over and over by polititions and enviromental groups for there own agenda
al gore's film used computer predictions less reliable than the weather forcast and heart rending images that were presented out of context . this nasty little propaganda film even got an oscar.how easy it is to fool the public and stir them into a panic so that the real issues that we should worry about and act on are forgotten
people who disagree with mr gore's prophesy are called heretics and compared to holocaust deniers and opinions that don't fit in with the carbon emissions camp are not given tv space or printed in the news media
i challenge you all to read ' Ponder the Maunder ' by Kristen Byrnes . type it into google - read it - pass it on to everyone you know . it will open your eyes
c paylor, harrogate, uk
Technology already exists to halt all fossil fuel usage. Has done for years, just this technology is being held back as it would relenquish any need for the oil and energy barons. Check out Stan Deyo. He worked alongside Teller - the father of the H Bomb - and on various Government projects regarding this topic (amongst others). Before you dismiss him as a nut, you should consider how much better qualified he is to pass comment on these things than you are.
A lot of people seem to think they have it all figured out and are closed to possibilites of revelational forms of energy (and transport for that matter).
People thought the world was flat and ridiculed those who proclaimed it round. Dont fall into the same category and keep our minds open.
Rafa, London,
I am beginning to wonder if I am the only person on the planet who watched the programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle" broadcast on Channel 4 a few months ago, in which the concept of CO2 emissions warming the planet was entirely debunked.
The human contribution to global C02 is tiny at 0.001%. C02 levels are rising in response to global warming, not causing global warming.
There is no concensus among scientists that human produced CO2 is responsible. Of the 2,500 scientists listed by the UN, as being the concensus, many of these are clerks, and many others are simply mentioned in the bibliography. Many of the scientists refered to asked for their names to be removed from the list, and the UN refused! Clearly the UN wished to create the illusion that there was a large number of scientists who agreed with their view.
The alternative view on global warming is that it is caused by solar activity which occured 200-300 years ago, warming the oceans, and beyond human intervention.
Martin Smith, Cambridge, UK
only we can save the world by having inly one child or none at all. otherwise we breed ourselves into extinction. what ever we do is wasted of no effect whats so ever , only population
control stricly applied can be of any use
max bernstein, LONDON, uk
The Earth's doom anyway,it apparently has only has a few Billion years left when the Sun explodes.It is only timing that is in doubt.
If the Earth is warming up then it is just another cycle in the great scheme of things.
Alan Walton, Leicester, England
The most heavily populated places on earth are, not surprisingly, in the tropics or subtropics (e.g., Indonesia). To the warmth is where we humans go to vacation and retire. That's not surprising, either, as we humans originated in toasty Africa.
Simply put, a warmer earth, with the CO2 levels of earlier ages, will be a much nicer earth, with more verdant plant life. And, if a recent US Federal Reserve analysis is correct, a warmer climate leads to a longer lifespan (more than 9 years longer for people who live in warm areas compared with those living in cold areas).
Happily, the world has warmed up considerably in the past 11,000 or so years, and there's no reason to expect it to suddenly stop warming just because we've invented thermometers.
So why the fuss over global warming? Beats me. As The Economist so eloquently put it not long ago, there is an enduring belief in the end of the world.
Enjoy the world as it warms, and ignore the drumbeat of the neo-Puritans!
John Fulton, Rockport, USA / Texas
Plant cutting and global warming is the biggest worry in life cause it affects not us, but our future generations. It is the stick given to our kids to live.
It should be the government to act, like telling hi guys stop cutting trees, stop producing gas cars, instead use electric hybrid cars only, hi guys do not use plastics, bring carry bags, ban plastic covers.
We do not know, why government stop this. If this irreversible, even we might die in front of ourselves.
Clay, Jersey, USA/ NJ
Today's "Times" says that only 2% of consumers pay to offset their carbon usage. It's hardly surprising that 98% of people are suspicious about giving their money to what might be a self-serving bureaucracy run by wide boys interested only in maximising revenue.
According to figures on Wikpedia we (humans) are generating every year 1% of the total amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere. That seems already too high (my 16-year-old son agrees). Why are we pussy-footing around with games like ofsetting?
The amount of CO2 generated is almost exactly proportional to the amount of fuel used. Therefore all burners of fuel must pay a tax proportional to the mass of fuel used, which can be set higher as the problem gets worse. This obviously includes air travel.
Alan Boswell, Chelmsford, UK
Today's "Times" says that companies which manufacture patio-heaters should pay more tax. Why? they are just welding together some pipes and other metalwork. It's no worse than many other businesses.
The CO2 is emitted by the users of patio-heaters, who burn the gas, not the manufacturers. It's the users who should be taxed.
It's another example of responsibility for CO2 emissions being shifted away from those responsible. The prime example is the electricity industry, which has cleverly placed the responsibility on to householders. But it's the suppliers who choose to use fossil fuel, and they are the ones who should be taxed.
Alan Boswell, Chelmsford, UK
If the "Butterfly Effect" is true, is it possible that a single 1BB (billion butterfly) wind turbine may have some impact on Global wind patterns.. and hence the weather?
John Beeston, Bracknell,
'Political science' is an oxymoron and hubris comes before a fall. Evidential science reveals that CO2 increase trails global warming by 800 - 1,000 years due to gradual release from warming oceans. Global warming is a natural and cyclic occurrence and scientific theory (unlike that spouted by political hacks such as Al Gore), is a result of increased solar activity causing greater cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. So if you really want to think green and combat global warming, forgo the CO2 footprint reduction, carbon tax boondoggle and other assorted political solutions. Take a picnic in the park, lie back and spend a pleasantly warm afternoon dissolving clouds with the power of thought.
Thorfinnss, London, United Kingdom
Corporate greed and the worship of the almighty dollar have brought about the demise of what otherwise wasn't a bad place to survive. You can bet if the corporate dictates cannot make a buck off of the saving of this planet then it will most certainly perish.
Don Anez, Greenville, Michigan
Doctor Who will save us!
Billy McDowell, Barrow in Furness, UK
There must be laws to govern companies including the introduction of tarrifs for imported goods from overseas with low labour cost and over heads, over seas companies, can compete with our industries at a much lower level there by making it, not economic to continue.
This also makes it much more difficult to introduce "GREEN" teck as the costing and profits become squesed together.
This is bad not only for our industy but for the world, as more industry "moves" off shore to a more "friendly" economy that has lower costs and lower enviromential standards including the policing of it.
Enviromently it will be much easier to control the Emissions of industry/vehicles/people in our own country, than to allow a foreign country control over what is produced. Bring there peoples wages up not lower ours
THE FIRST STEP is to TAFFIF all goods made cheaper than ours.
Mike, Invercargill, NEW ZEALAND
A large part of the problem is that people keep buying SUV type vehicles, and the auto makers are having a horsepower war.
Bragging about 30 MPG+ makes me laugh, or should I say, cry.
I had a 1961 Rambler with a super low tech flathead 6, that I rebuilt, and re-geared with an overdrive, and it got over 38MPG at 65MPH with the engine loafing at low RPM. All I see now is 300HP, 3.7 litre V-8s and V-6's with red lines over 6,000 RPM.
Cruising at 2,000-2,500 RPM is just wasting power on moving the pistons up and down and wearing out the engine faster. Are auto makers that stupid or are they selling land yachts because the public in the USA is actually that dumb. Most of these over sized and un-needed 4 wheel drives will never see anything but pavement. After 7 years of George Bush things have not improved but have gone backwards, with no real legislation or action on gas guzzlers. Consumers may be the driving factor in the next 'real' oil crisis.
Bill Baka, Marysville, Ca
Pardon for my simplistic thinking: If the issue is that too much radiant energy is warming the Earth by getting trapped in the atmosphere due to greenhouse gases? Why wouldn't the answer be to block some of the radiant energy? What if we were to build a shield of particulate orbiting the earth, thereby reflecting the energy before it can (over) warm the earth?
Cliff Schumacker, Union Mills, U.S./North Carolina
Every one of us must be careful with use of energy and other resources.
Water Vapor and CO2 are not one in the same.
The short-term carbon cycle is not part of the climate change debate, because photosynthesis balances out decay. Volcanism releases about 130 MT of CO2 per year. This is balanced out almost perfectly by the ocean absorbtion. Fossil fuel carbon is being turned into CO2 (at the rate of nearly 30 GT/year). That CO2 has nowhere to go, nothing is taking it out at the rate at which it is absorbed.
So people think, that after releasing 30 GT of CO2 along with huge amounts of SO2, NOx, CO, particulate matter, heavy metals, and persistent organic pollutants every year into the most fragile portion of the entire Earth ecosystem (the atmosphere), that nothing will change as a result, everything will be just dandy?
Nature surely does change, we are not so naieve to believe that it does not. Mankind, however, has developed the ability accelerate those changes to warp-speed.
Corey Johnson, Selinsgrove, PA USA
I have read views that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and that while man is contributing to it, the degrees of warming in historic times have been greater than now without the icecaps melting. I also read that global warming is influenced far more by solar cycles than the contribution of man-made carbon dioxide which tends to follow not lead the rise in global temperatures. Let's get some real balanceinto the debate and not be swayed by the mantras of those academics who are working to ensure that their next grant is secured !
Rod Plinston (Mr.), Reading, U.K.
pop culture....just two words.....our planet will eventually save itself, and or get rid of itself through a natural cycle. how many years away this is, we have no idea. it seems to me that we hold ourselvses in great standing when it comes to global things, at least the media and hollywood do. we should be concerned with taking care of ourselves and our planet but not to the extreme of holding the economy hostage. with e-cars, and e-everything,( e is for environment), we will save the planet, or will we? it seems that there is a buck to be made by getting on the "e" bandwagon. once again, as history has shown, things of this nature fall under the money and or power catagory.
ed, safford, az
Some of you people really need to cheer up and be a little more positive. The debate about how much we influence the planet is irrelevant. To expand indefinitely we need to use more resources than our planet has to offer, even if we recycled everything, including us. We are about to enter a new phase of technological development. Within 100 years we will be mining the asteroid belt for minerals and obtaining the fuel for cold fusion from space: I am just one person and I can tell you how. These new technologies will make lots of new ‘Microsofts’. The future of the planet lies in the hands of the innovators who develop these new technologies. The key innovation will be the use of private and public companies for political purposes. Those innovators that choose to act politically on a global scale, using their commercial success as vehicles, will be the catalyst for change. The only problem for the world is how to evolve the political system of nation states into a functioning and just global governance system. Presently there is only one culture (which needs to remain nameless) that would not ‘fit’ into this overall structure; all other cultures respect the principle of sovereignty and reciprocity in international relations. So I would say our problem is a political (organisational) not ecological.
Zened, London,
Global climate change is a normal cycle of events. The entire
universe is constantly changing. Some places are getting hotter,
some places are getting colder. The fact that heat and cold want to cancel each other out is obvious. The human race is contributing to this change but not causing it. The human race causes nothing in the Universe. We are a result of the universe, not the cause of it.
The fact that even planets die is obvious. One day our Sun will go nova. So what if the Poles melt! Enjoy the show, because there is nothing we can do about it. We will consume all the oil on the planet before we choke ourselves to death and the Earth will cough.
Loren Eisley was right, we are planet eaters.
J, Madison,
This CO2 is very selective, UK spring was only as warm as 1945 and not as warm as 1893. May temperatures have declined over the last few years. Oops, if CO2 has increased 3x faster than predicted why isn't the temperature shooting through the roof. Maybe it doesn't do what they say it does and all this a big scam. No, couldn't be, could it?
harbinger, swansea,
When all hell breaks loose at some in the future,who will the surviors be ? religion will not be the survior of anyone.only those who know how to make it on self satisfaction of producing for thwmselves.also the human race will sex itself out of excitence .
afbecker, appleton, wis.
I have to laugh at the people who have been sucked in to the man made global warming scam, for that's what it is.
I have not seen any proof that the warming that we are experiencing is nothing to do with man but a natural cycle of the planet.
The problem we have is that politicians, even if they don't believe it see it as another way of raising taxes.
And as for the UK buying French wine rather than wine from here well we'll just have to drink more here to keep our award winning growers in business, and sit back thinking what they're missing over there.
Paul, Auckland, New Zealand
Anthropogenic Warming (A.W.) is not established to the extent many think. A consensus is not a substitute for a proven event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model. Case in point: The Sun, pro A.W. camp claims to have accounted for Sun's effect by measuring Radiant Output. They totally exclude on these models, the strength of the Sun's Magnetic Field which impacts on the ability of cosmic rays interacting with the Earth's atmosphere & the resulting generation of clouds in the atmosphere.Sunspot activity strongly correlates with levels of Carbon 14 and Berrylium 10 isotopes found in tree rings and ice cores. Therefore, accurate, long term reconstructions of sunspot activity can be made with low margins of error. The reconstructions of sunspot activity correlate strongly with almost every reconstruction of global temperature.
Angel Rosario, San Diego, USA / California
Please, spare me. Why won't all of the "scientists" accept the fact that 97% of the CO2 in the air is a result of water vapor? And of the remaining 3% only 1.2% is from fossil fuels? We couldn't affect the world climate even if we fired up every used Volvo in the world. We don't have the technology or the knowledge. We need CO2 anyway for plant photosynthesis. I learned that way back in 6th grade. So get off your political grandstand, stop preaching the end of our economic future, and hey, Bush is OK. Republicans are OK. I like Democrats. I like Brits. Why don't they like America? Or me?
Greg Ruge, Anchorage, Alaska
I don't buy into all the hype and conscience-soothing self-depravation, but I'm sure we're definately not being good caretakers of the planet.
If you think about it, technology got us into this mess - and unless you want to go back to the stone ages, technology will have to get us out. Politics is all nice and good but at the end of the day nothing will get better until we as individuals change how we collect and consume energy - and no amount of legislation (short of totalitarianism) can change how customers behave that dramatically.
I'd say that engineers and businesses have to step up their efforts to develop *practical*, decentralized methods of energy collection. Things like Plasma Converters - which are the closest thing to an environmental and economic win-win I've ever seen. There are things like these all over the place... but we're being lazy and not looking for them seriously and are unwilling to sacrifice some sacred "convenience" to implement them.
Chris, Cochrane, Alberta
The Planet is fine, its the human race that is at risk, so can we drop "Save the Planet" and start admitting its the bipod, selfish, short-lived and short sighted creature who needs to be saved from itself
Dave Edwards, Berrow,
I agree with ciuiwop that nature is in the main responsible for global warming and this is a natural progress which we may be affecting slightly. More importantly we are wasting vast amounts of energy that we will need at some point in the future. White goods are now expected to last only 3-5 years and are produced to only last this time. We can build products fridges, cars, TV's that will use less energy and last 20 years at least but the companies would not make as much profit and so it does not happen. My car is 18 years old, going strong and does exactly what is needed i.e. A to B so I do not need a new one; why do more modern cars start to seriously rust away after 5 years?
Joseph Kellie, Edinburgh, Scotland
i disagree with David intheUK, London, the majority of CO2 emisions are naturally caused.
98% of all carbon dioxide emmisions are natural, mainly consisting of the sea heating up and releasing CO2 and volcanoes releasing CO2
ciuiwop, London, UK
Assume CO2 is responsible.
But maybe not.. Look at the rate of deforestation in the Tropics from 1850 to now ...
The three biggest contributors to CO2 emissions are:
1. Burning the rainforests - 30%
2. The US of A - 25%
3. China and India
Invest heavily in:
1. Stopping burning the rain forests, and replanting - you get a double benefit - less CO2 produced and more carbon sink
2. Clean, efficient power technologies in China and in India - you get a triple benefit - less CO2, less energy consumed, and better return on assets in the West
3. Reimport clean technology in the West
David intheUK, London,
Putting the question as you have done is a bit like asking which element is more important in the formation of water, oxygen or hydrogen. But let's go with what you've given us. Only a broad range of scientists have the possibility of making disinterested searches for the knowledge and understanding of the problems involved in climate change and the implications of possible solutions. Business people and politicians are inherently conflicted and forced by their professional obligations -- fiduciary obligations to investors and the consent of the governed, respectively -- to compromise the truth and at times actively to mislead the public and even to corrupt the science, as they have both done in with regard to such issues as tobacco, AIDS (denialism), and, yes, global climate change. Both groups, however, are equally essential and as essential as vigorous and adequately funded scientists.
Alexander, San Francisco, California
No one will. Eventually we'll eat up all our resources and perish, just like every other overreaching organism in a finite, petridish-like environment. That is, unless disease or some other form of predation/balance starts first. People have proven themselves, as a rule, utterly unable to 'think globally and act locally." As a species, we just don't have the discipline for it.
Newt, Cincinnati, USA
Food for thought:
Mars had water too, as well as Earth, once. What if Global Warming is what happened to Mars in the first place to wipe out all civilization and leave it the barren wasteland it is now? Are destined in the future to become another Mars?
Kathrine Jones, Muncie , Indiana
I object to the idea that it's a given that the world needs saving in the first place. Yes the planet has warmed up over the last couple f centuries, but why do we assume the planet's ideal temperature is what it was in 1800 and any deviation from that is a catastrphy?
Jody, Valparaiso, IN,
IDIOTS! Governments can't do the limited number of tasks they are supposed to do let alone try to unravel the mysteries of an everchanging global weather plan. Corporations would do more if consumers would show more support that the standard lip service most give while refusing to sacrafice anything of their own, (look to Al Gore and the Hollywood Elite). Where does this guilty feeling come from? Do we think we are so powerful that we humans started the thaw of the last ice age? Notice the use of last ice age, tempertures rise and fall on this huge orb we live on. Concentrate on what we know, lessen the load on land fills by recycling what you can, do what you can for what you have control over and dont be so narcistic to believe that you have the power to stop warming or cooling on a global basis. One day the sun will burn out, people will likely try to blame themselves for it and a column like this will have people like us ranting. The only constant is change.
Dennis, Toledo, Ohio
Run, run, run the sky is falling. Global warming caused by mankind. Another fairy tale like the tooth fairy and UFO's. How gullible some people are to believe such nonsense. Listening to a has been politician that is now a weather expert is sheer folly.
George, Ogden, USA
There is no point planting millions more trees if there is not enough atmosoheric CO2 to nurture them! CO2 levels need to increase to feed the plant life that an ever larger human population needs to survive! The AGW (anthropogenic climate change) lobby is playing a very dangerous game by insisting that we cut CO2 levels which are only just sufficient to nurture the plant life that humanity needs! The AGW lobby have played the media and politicians like a cheap fiddle. They use dramatic pictures that the media loves and use threats and smear campaigns to silence any opposition! The media has now been co opted by the AGW lobby and they all now parrot any line they are told. Disaster stories sell newspapers and increase viewing figures! Scientist who try and tell the truth are smeared , denied platforms and denied funding. The fact that the lobby cannot tolerate open and democratic debate on the issue should ring alarm bells with any thinking person. I pray that the truth will come out!
stephanie clague, Larnaca, cyprus
How can serious people really believe that by using computer models, which are as inaccurate as our TV models to forecast weekly weather, that a small number of "experts" can either accurately forecast the next 30 years weather or really know that man is causing the warming of the earth? This is much too serious of an issue to decide upon without, serious open debate--pro and con--which we have not had! Those who are con, are not asked for their opinion or if so, the opinion does not get enough coverage in the public arena We do not want to burn too many books of dis-believers, do we? Also, I am old enough to remember that in the 1970's, when media and weather "experts" were forecasting the beginning of a new ice age!
Clark Hallmann, Zürich, Switzerland
We each play a role in the devistation of our planet. The citizens, the politicians, science, and business. Personally I believe major corporations are responsible for much of the waste, contamination, and abuse of our mother ship!
Business is the biggest waster of all resources. Just consider the tones of paper, plactic used in packaging and junk mail. The quality of products is low, profits high. People have to continually purchase replacement products.
Government should kick start the alternative energy arena. Example; New Mexico individuals could generate power consistently through wind/solar .Why not tax cuts, rebates, and lower prices of solar/wind to make it available privately to all income levels?
Public transportation - In the Midwest/West is not set up in a system convienient for users. Railroads need a serious rebirth!
We need everyones ideas, and contributations..but Corporations have a strangle hold on government, science, money and the populas.
Michelle Lafaye, Grants, New Mexico
Who will save the planet from the globalphobiacs ? Oh the hysteria. The earth is not fragile. Then again we humans and our SUVs probably destroyed Mars and not the sun.
Jack Fisherkeller, Lagrange, il. USA
Please NO MORE Global Yawning discussions
Batb, yorktown, NY
The Earths climate is changing. it HAS ALLWAYS changed, it WILL ALLWAYS change. The unintelligent take the Canutist stance and believe that somehow we control nature (though Canute actually wanted to demonstrate that humans DO NOT control nature) The intelligent realise that the Earths climate is going to change (note: we could be having `some' effect on the rate of change but past climate change has occured much faster ) wether we like it or not, and think about ways of adapting to the changes. Regardless of what the climate does, we have a rapidly growing global population (extra 77 million humans a year -the REAL hockey stick graph) set against a rapidly reducing set of resources of all kinds, Land,fuel,water,food all of which we are mucking up because our numbers are growing like never before. If we cannot control our numbers we will literally eat ourselves out of house and home. The only unknown is how fast or slow we do it.
Peter East, Grays, Essex
I agree with John Pownall from Bridport: It is up to us all to make a difference to the problem of Global Warming and to protect our planet. Every little thing we do can make a difference, so we should be aware of our actions and the consequences of those-and hopefully these actions will always be for the best.
zoe jessep, leipzig, germany
We are witnessing the natural change of a dynamic gobal weather system. No-one can control it.
Carbon is a primary element of the universe. It is a consituent of all organic life. It comprises less than 1% of our atmosphere. It is not possible to control carbon with legislation. It is not the cause of weather change.
Wake up, people.
Mark, London, UK
Responsibility is with all of us.The "Us" we mean, is humanity. Not just we in the west. Every one of us has a role to play.The richer the individual, the greater that individual's power to consume the fossil based energy behind modern materialism, and the greater that individual's personal responsibility.
Yes, we may have expectations of opur politicians, our press, and our public sectors, but what they do will merely reflect what we want. We have to want to make the changes, if we want to have them made.
JOhn Pownall, Bridport,
Climate change is not the issue, over exploitation of available resources is; individual people are the only hope. Be less selfish, reduce waste, use less. Think before you buy that new thing . . do you need it or just want it. Try to reduce your impact on the earth's resources. Most individuals in the UK should be able to have a comfortable lifestyle on £100.00 per week if they think carefully about how they use it and co-operate with others to minimise wastage, we all live extravagant lifestyles compared to even 50 years ago! If we don't act now our civilisation will disintegrate within the next 100 years.
gabriel, Leicester, UK
Politicians are generally motivated by what get's me through the next election. A few concerned ones were disregarded until recently - think the UK in the 1930s.
Business is generally motivated by profit and minimum compliance with the rules in order to maximise profit - for the shareholders/owners.
Scientists are funded by politicians who generally do not understand in any clear detail what scientists are saying.
Journalists are motivated by a good story.
Go Watch Al Gore's Movie! Planetary consequences are coming. There is your story.
Events could happen within a decade - Read up on past events(like plus 10C temp rise in a decade) ice is melting faster than the models predicted.
NASA/Russia could put up sunshades - it is possible.
Engineers can save the world. Big aluminium foil mirrors to send enough solar energy elsewhere?
George Harrison, Billericay, UK
As a scientist I get bored with the question if the climate change is man made or not, it happens and we have to adept. The question is not "Who will save the planet" it is " will we be able to adept to a changed planet". Earth has gone through many changes since life appeared first. People have to understand that climate is not a continuum but is similar to a buffered biological system. Therefore we have to understand that once triggered a change can not easily be stopped or reveresed. The available data of past climate transfromation indicate that the climate once triggered to get to another level, may it be a warm or cold phase, will go to this new stable phase. The unpleasant and therefore ignored truth is that climate data of the past indicate that such changes occur within decades and not as announced by most specialist stretches over hundereds of years. Life as such or Nature will survive that changes the questions is if we will.
M Roth, Basel, Switzterland
People will not give up the love of nice things that capitalism has seduced them with. Capitalism (or madness!) = debt (future exploitation of resources). Debt being paid and sustained = climate change and more exploited resouces at an increased rate. I'll bet there is more debt in the system than oil to pay for it.
Climate change is a diversion. When oil runs out what will we eat? 6.5 billion people all relying on oil. There is loads of oil out there but most would take more energy to collect than it would provide - Thermo-dynamics.
The Suns energy is absorbed and stored by organisms over 100's OF MILLIONS of years. Leaving life a stable environment and leaving rich energy (oil,coal - carbon) deposites. We release it in two hundred!
Capitalism and (so called) democracy is our problem. The people of developed/developing world won't volunteer to vastly decrease thier standard of living. They must be forced (through stealth or violence).
Our leaders are well aware of these issue
Ben M, Bedford, UK
We need a new socio-economic system based upon the principle of progressive utilization. For decades people have been talking about the gap growing between the rich and the poor and its getting worse. The horrible fact is we require a crisis before we decide to move our collective arses. Talk of Jesus coming to pick up our rubbish and run our manufacuring sections is plainly wrong. We have already been provided with the physical, mental and spiritual capacity to bring about a new era where everyone 'moves together.
Without a system that seeksgrowth through balance then it won't be pretty especially for out children.....
Craig Walter, Adelaide, Australia
The planet will be fine - once humans pollute themselves out of existence. Pollute with filth, heat, chemicals, radiation, buildings, people, negative energy. The planet will recover when humans are gone.
Faye, Aurora, Colorado
The facts are stated unequivocally in Genesis: God created the heavens and the earth. He will create a new heaven and a new earth when Jesus returns. That is the answer all politicians and others are searching for . . . God created and He will save. But He asks that humanity be good stewards of His creation.
Jeannie, USA
Jeannie, cleveland,
You Brit's and a couple American's, have swolled the Bait dangeled out by former U. S. Vice-President Algore. All who believe ths dribble have the IQ of a Nail Clipper.
Midway Mac
Neal Real, Cowtown, USA
I think that we should stop meddling in things that we know very little about. The solutions put forward by various self interested groups are based on man made computer modelling and human interpretation of data,which is based on human logic. History is littered with such mistakes. Every modern crisis has a political author looking for his fifteen minutes,or increased sales and greater recognition.
Justin Case, Preston,Uk.,
As evolution is as 'unprovable' as creationism, how is it that those who believe in God (a large majority, by the way) do not turn to him ('him' being the best word of description, 'she' or 'it' are equally inadequate) for understanding and wisdom? Is our pride so great that we cannot consider this primary factor of our existence? I am not a big fan of religion. Denominational dogmatism, while largely rooted in righteousness (distasteful to the politically correct {i also am not a big fan of politics}) results in formalism, blinding man to what is going on beyond the box of his perception.
History proves, when individuals (what the world is made of) are 'right-hearted', God leads and heals. Consider carefully 2nd Chronicles 7:14 "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." Isn't the healing of our land what we want?
Kurt, Haverhill, USA
Aren't we ready for a 'world government' specifically dedicated to averting any situation that might result in the complete collapse of mankind?
Seems like a fairly sensible precaution, given that any minor chance of extinction is a grave situation.
Mark, Woking, UK
I wonder if Andrew Robinson and others who subscribe to the view that climate change has not been significantly affected by man, but is solely a natural effect, know that they are actually the doom-sayers. If man has had a significant effect, then there is a hope that we can use our advanced technological know-how to try to, at least, ameliorate the effects of climate change. However, if this is simply nature taking its course, there's nothing we can do about it and we are doomed whatever we do!
Indeed, modelling climate change is difficult and "dissent is the native state of the scientist". But, like the weather, we pay attention to the forecasts, knowing that there is some probability that they might well get it wrong. However, that probability is now so low and weather forecasts have become so remarkably good. The crucial question is, what is the probability that the climate models are right? And if that is high, rational beings should then act on it.
Dick, Durham, UK
My fear is that mankind's inability to deal with climate change reflects an inherent limitation in our species' capabilities.
Such a short termist outlook bodes ill for humanity to survive the next few millenia, as we try to establish an extra-terrestrial presence.
Mark, Woking, UK
I think only world people can say the Earth where they live, understanding the problems around the pollution that's killing our wonderful planet and the various appeals from scientists, politicians and the other subjects cited in this article: this is the only way to save the Earth.
Raffaele, San Severo, Italia
When I read the reports about climate change I am saddened by the reaction of people to change. As I see it air travel is bound to increase,the number of cars will also increase, reducing the carbon emissions will only be effective in the short term until the amount of vehicles double so that the emissions match. Another fact that is not considered is the poorer countries will start to modernise and in the process produce more carbon, eg China which at the moment is one of the worst carbon producers in the world.
As an alternative I would suggest producing more carbon dioxide users TREES, This idea is green and much more friendly than the monstrous wind turbines which blight our countryside, help global warming by planting a tree.
John E, Oxford, Oxon
It now seems like a good time to start investing in carthorses and tree farms ,any ideas how much tax
the goverment will charge on them.
george william taylor, hull, uk
The planet isn't at risk and doesn't need saving. Just us, and some other species, for some of whom it is already too late. The planet itself will still be here in 6 milliard years when the sun bakes it, and it will probably look much the same then, regardless of whether the human race lasts
100 years or 10 million.
The only thing that can give us longer survival is a universal
change in mindset, which seems a remote possibility. Therefore, at the moment, we need to buy time. Businesses have a different attitude to risk than public
policy makers, and have to react to changing circumstances much faster. Therefore, at the moment, we must place our faith in businesses to buy the time we need.
Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK
I only have one thing to say, or write as the case may be. "The key drivers for environmental change" are each and every one of us.
Simple.
Safine, Yorkshire, England
Peter Ainsworth asserts that 2,500 scientists have told us that "man is irrevocably harming the climate" with 90% certainty.
Unfortunately for his argument, the truth is that just 21
scientists "led the writing" of the Summary for Policymakers (published in February), they do not reflect the breadth of climate science, and ALL rely heavily on climate modelling in their work.
What's worse is that climate models are highly unreliable as predictive tools.
Criticisms of the IPCC from Emeritus Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox through politicians like Lord Lawson to renowned climate scientists like Profs Roger A. Peilke, Sr and Richard Lindzen, are only now just really starting to filter back into the journalistic mindset.
The problem has been the supposed authoritativeness of the IPCC and the intellectual mess caused by notions of scientific consensus.
As Jacob Bronowski said: "Dissent is the native state of the
scientist".
Consensus is for politicians and diplomats.
Andrew Robinson, Norwich,
At the stage that mankind has already reached, to a large degree caused by politicians chasing personal popularity, hence always saying "Vote for me for more more more".
The Earth has reached the stage when nature will take over and maybe 50% of humans will fall victim to bird flu.or
the plague as in 1349.
Just as then, time for the survivors will be far better.
DAVID VINTER, LOUTH, LINCS., UK.
The published views above are informative and not too far apart.
To change people's behaviour, we first have to change their attitudes. Education alone will not do it. Legislation and policing of the key issues will be required.
My fear is how these issues will be handled politically. Politicians in the main will follow their political instincts and, in my opinion will toe the global corporate line.
The scientists and allied agencies need the legislative power to drive forward the needs of salvation. Getting all the participating parties to participate and work together towards a common goal may be a bigger challenge than the saving of the planet.
Douglas , Crawley, W Sussex UK
Sir
Save?
We have just ...Sister Earth
Is there anybody out there?
Gliese 581c, has a radius 50% larger than this planet.. According to theory, a planet the size and mass of Gliese 581c .. The sun is thought to be about 5 billion years old and halfway through its lifetime as a “main sequence” star. After that, it is expected to become a red giant, as the hydrogen that presently comprises it is exhausted and the sun switches to burning helium instead. At that point, the Earth’s atmosphere and water will be boiled away, leaving the planet uninhabitable… 150 light years away. The planet, called HD209458b,
Sir;
After spending on this, we will kick this out like Pluto. Right?
Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania