I don’t have children, but I do have 9 neices and a nephew. As of today, I have a grand-nephew. I hope we can leave him a good world to live in.
Sometimes I feel pessimistic about the future. Then I find a blog like this one. It may even have a truly brilliant post like this.
Perhaps the most inspiring aspect of this blog is that the author is just a student. She aspires to be climatologist. It gives me hope for the future.
Categories: Global Warming
Tagged: Global Warming
 | Ray Ladbury on Cyclical? Probably not.… |
| Ray Ladbury on Cyclical? Probably not.… |
 | Jim Bouldin on Cyclical? Probably not.… |
 | Sergey on Cyclical? Probably not.… |
 | Joseph on Cyclical? Probably not.… |
 | David B. Benson on Open Thread #17 |
 | dhogaza on Open Thread #17 |
 | Riccardo on Open Thread #17 |
 | Gilles on Cyclical? Probably not.… |
| Gilles on Cyclical? Probably not.… |
| Gilles on Cyclical? Probably not.… |
 | Spaceman Spiff on Cyclical? Probably not.… |
 | Kevin McKinney on Open Thread #17 |
 | Hank Roberts on Open Thread #17 |
| David B. Benson on Not Computer Models |
28 responses so far ↓
Curious // August 18, 2009 at 7:20 am |
I share (your view on Kate’s blog&post and) that hope for the future… However, action must be taken today.
Living in the EU, this news gave me (even further) hope for the future:
EU greenhouse gas emissions fall for third consecutive year
European Union emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases (GHG) declined for the third consecutive year in 2007, according to the EU’s GHG inventory report compiled by the European Environment Agency. The EU-27’s overall domestic emissions were 9.3 % below 1990 levels, which equalled a drop of 1.2 % or 59 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent compared to 2006. The EU-15 now stands 5 % below its Kyoto Protocol base year levels.
——————-
Press release
EU-27 Emissions Graph
Summary Report
Full Report
Data (Annex 11)
——————-
“In March 2007, the EU leaders endorsed an ambitious climate change and energy plan to limit EU greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 % by 2020 (from 1990 levels) and achieve, by 2020, a target of 20 % of total EU primary energy use through renewable energy.”
“The 15 pre-2004 EU Member States (EU-15) have a joint emission reduction target of 8 % below 1990 levels by 2008–2012 [...] levels [...].
Most EU-12 Member States (that joined the EU since 1 May 2004) have targets of – 6 to – 8 % from their base years (mostly 1990)”
“The IPCC calls for global emission reductions of about 50 % by the middle of the 21st century. This implies 60–80 % reduction of emissions by developed countries”
“A post-2012 international agreement is being negotiated within the UNFCCC, [...]. The aim is to reach an agreement at the climate conference that will take place from 7 to 18 December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.”
Press release
————————–
“We now have the measures to deliver on our commitment to cut emissions 20% by 2020. But this can be only a first step. The latest science is telling us that developed countries as a group must reduce their emissions 30% by 2020 to prevent climate change from reaching dangerous proportions. The EU is committed to a 30% cut if other developed countries commit to comparable reductions under the Copenhagen agreement”
Press release
Barton Paul Levenson // August 18, 2009 at 12:17 pm |
Tamino:
Congratulations.
I frankly expect efforts to control AGW to fail because of the power and money behind the opposition worldwide. The best you can do for your descendants is to teach them farming and make sure they move well inland. And make sure they understand firearm safety from an early age and learn how to shoot, as they’ll need to defend their farms. If their religious beliefs include occasional fasting, that will be a valuable discipline.
Deech56 // August 18, 2009 at 12:30 pm |
Congratulations, Tamino. I hope you have lots of opportunities to spend time with all family.
As of this summer I have a new granddaughter and have been having similar thoughts and worries. That’s why we fight the good fight. Your blog is a big part of it.
Andrew Dodds // August 18, 2009 at 1:30 pm |
BPL -
Have to agree that after seeing the ‘debate’ over healthcare in the US recently (The fact-free assaults on the NHS being a somewhat scary highlight), the idea of getting action on an issue that doesn’t hit people as immediately and has similar corporate interests acting against it looks hard.
Actually getting the fact that it’s possible for any developed country to reduce emissions in the 75% region*, whilst improving energy security and having negligible lifestyle impact, into the heads of people is a very, very difficult task – and some of the more ‘green’ people don’t exactly help.
As far as stocking up on guns and retreating to rural hideaways goes.. not only is this strategy doomed if the worst does happen (Ask any ex-Zimbabwean-farmer), but represents a deliberate disengagement from the political process, which effectively ceded the debate to your opponents and makes the worst more likely.
==========================
* Getting an 75% reduction..
- All-Nuclear electric grid (~-40%)
- All electric housing (Including heating, best with extra insulation..) (~-15%)
- Widespread EV use (+- Hybrids/Diesel) (~-10%)
- Electrification of industry (~-10%)
And this is all before touching aircraft usage, and introducing more advanced synthetic fuels. There is absolutely no scientific reason why an advanced industrial economy *requires* the use of fossil fuels; it’s just, ultimately, energy in one form or another.
Mark // August 18, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
“I frankly expect efforts to control AGW to fail because of the power and money behind the opposition worldwide.”
All that evil requires is for good men to do nothing.
A fight to defend your country from a far more powerful country is doomed to failure.
Does this make defending your country pointless?
NO.
Just because you’re doomed to fail doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try.
Mark // August 18, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
“And make sure they understand firearm safety from an early age and learn how to shoot, as they’ll need to defend their farms.”
Yeah.
That worked well for the Iraqis.
Someone with a bigger gun came along and took it all.
Dappled Water // August 18, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
Paul Barton Levenson, you and I are in agreement on this topic. I’ve already taken steps myself, but hope like hell a miracle happens, so my children and grand children don’t have to suffer.
I find it quite remarkable that the majority of society are completely oblivious to the impending catastrophe. You scientists must find it incredibly frustrating knowing what you know.
Personally, I’m making the most out of the next few years (10 to 15 ?) and enjoying it while it lasts.
Dano // August 18, 2009 at 7:43 pm |
I am a fatalist/occasional glass half-full guy (but half-full of groundwater tainted by big ag).
The best we can do, IMHO (YMMV) is give a good education to the young, so they can adapt to a less-rich, resource-depleted world. I also don’t think we can overcome the dim-bulbery in this country wrt policy. But individuals and small groups can still make it.
Best,
D
Brian D // August 18, 2009 at 9:14 pm |
All that evil requires is for good men to do nothing.
I find it hilariously ironic that a similar quote was said by, of all people, Edmund Burke, the “father of modern conservatism”:
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.
.
Aside from this, I echo the congratulations (tempered with the hope that they’ll have a world worth living in…) and the encouragement from ClimateSight.
Barton Paul Levenson // August 19, 2009 at 10:41 am |
Who says either that I’m doing nothing or that I’m advocating doing nothing? Is either of you familiar with the amount of time I spend on this board and many others fighting with denialists? My climatology web site? My editorial letters? My research? My carbon-restricted lifestyle?
I do a hell of a lot, thank you very much. And I intend to continue doing so. I just don’t think I’ll succeed. Excuse me for having an opinion.
climatesight // August 19, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
Hey Tamino,
Thanks very much for the link – it’s brought an enormous amount of traffic to my site.
Congrats on your grand-nephew.
Kate
george // August 19, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Barton.
I have to say that I am not hopeful.
This issue is not being decided based on good science and what is best for humanity as a whole.
And, when it comes to solutions, even people who are supposed to be on “our side” are ignoring the good advice of people like James Hansen and the economists who originated the “Cap and Trade” idea (for SO2 emissions) when they say that it is ill-suited to solve the problem of carbon emissions and that a carbon tax would be a much better approach.
“Cap-and-Trade’s Unlikely Critics: Its Creators
Economists Behind Original Concept Question the System’s Large-Scale Usefulness, and Recommend Emissions Taxes Instead” (Wall Street Journal)
Here’s another economist who has studied the issue in some detail who also has concluded cap and trade is NOt the way to go and will “waste another decade”
Hansen is obviously not an economist, but he has a very good BS detector and (unlike some politicians) is not willing to settle for half measures that he knows will not be sufficient and which may actually be counterproductive.
Besides, one does not need to be an economist to see that a carbon tax is far simpler, far easier to enforce and probably (far?) more likely to yield the desired emissions reductions goal.
The cap and trade system is ripe for abuse and as we saw with the housing bubble, if there is the potential for abuse and lots of monetary incentive to do so, there WILL be abuse and it will undoubtedly be serious AND rampant.
Mark // August 19, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
“Who says either that I’m doing nothing or that I’m advocating doing nothing?”
I’ll say you’re advocating giving up.
Here:
“The best you can do for your descendants is to teach them farming and make sure they move well inland.”
If you prepare for failure you’ll get it.
You can bet your bottom dollar that those you talk of here:
“fail because of the power and money behind the opposition worldwide.”
Will not be assuming that they will fail.
Barton Paul Levenson // August 20, 2009 at 11:05 am |
Mark: “I’ll say you’re advocating giving up.”
You say all kinds of things, Mark, but many of them bear no relation to reality.
Ray Ladbury // August 20, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
Mark and Paul, Regardless of the future we face, the greatest gift we can convey to our progeny is the ability to think and analyze the world they are in rigorously. That is a task for which Tamino is eminently qualified.
Tamino, like you, my wife and I are nonbreeders. My wife has often commented that it seems to be the nonbreeders who exhibit the greatest concern for the planet’s future. Perhaps we are like the worker bees among social insects, realizing that our future lies not with children of our own but with the species. Whatever the case, I take great pride in the accomplishments of my nieces and nephews. I have a niece who is now majoring in physics at Berzerkeley. I hope she will have a world to study.
Ray Ladbury // August 20, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
Brian D., There is nothing wrong with conservatism. Ideology that ignores reality is unfortunately what passes for conservatism in the US these days–and that is fatal.
Mark // August 20, 2009 at 1:21 pm |
“Mark and Paul, Regardless of the future we face, the greatest gift we can convey to our progeny is the ability to think and analyze the world they are in rigorously.”
One other thing: decide that our own self-worth is worth more than all the comfort conformity may bring us.
As an atheist, this is the one life I have. I have no second chance, no trials, nothing. Just this one brief instant of awareness.
And compared to eternity a life lived well for 40 years is just as long as a cowardly life lived 80.
And I would rather live well than long.
Mark // August 20, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
“You say all kinds of things, Mark, but many of them bear no relation to reality.”
Likewise, oh Confusion of Carp.
george // August 20, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
Ray’s wife says:
I have a theory about that: I think it’s because we (the nonbreeders) need something to worry about. We don’t have kids of our own so we feel the need to worry about other people’s kids.
…and then, of course, there are those who don’t even worry about the future of their own kids.
The latter are without a doubt the most worrisome of all. These types are often (if not usually) the very ones who cause most of the headaches for the rest of us. They make up a large part of the “Gimme mine and screw the rest” class.
Mark // August 20, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
“I have a theory about that: I think it’s because we (the nonbreeders) need something to worry about.”
That’s a theory, indeed.
I have a theory that that is a load of horse-puckey, mind.
I think that it could be that not having to think of SPECIFIC children (your own) helps keep the thoughts rational.
You aren’t involved in the “what will generations to come be working under?” quandary as a PARTICIPANT albeit removed by time, but can approach it as a moral issue since it could all go pear-shaped and the difference is for you naff all on a personal level.
E.g. you don’t have to worry that your children won’t get a nice job at the oil refinery or afford a flash car that you couldn’t have (and that your dad couldn’t even contemplate).
You don’t have to worry that your first-world children will pay for the first-world grandparents’ actiions just so some others’ third-world children survive.
After all, if it’s their kids or yours, whose children get priority?
Dave Andrews // August 20, 2009 at 9:09 pm |
Mark,
“I think that it could be that not having to think of SPECIFIC children (your own) helps keep the thoughts rational.”
That response is absolute rubbish and could only have been written by someone who has never experienced the joy, frustration and huge amounts of worry involved in bringing up your own children.
At the same time, that does not mean we ignore the plight of other children around the world, Indeed, if anything, having your own kids makes you far more empathetic to the plight of children everywhere.
And we are certainly a lot less cynical than you. Perhaps because we actuyally havew astake in the future and want it to be good for all!
george // August 20, 2009 at 9:09 pm |
Mark,
My “theory” was meant as a joke.
You know, of the kind you are not supposed to take seriously. :)
Mark // August 25, 2009 at 12:29 pm |
“My “theory” was meant as a joke.”
george, the problem for your credibility is twofold:
1) no “I kid” tags
2) there are denialists out there who HAVE said just exactly that
Mark // August 25, 2009 at 12:31 pm |
Dave, that response was one who has an overinflated sense of how rational they are.
“Won’t Someone Think Of The Children!!!”. A trope because it REALLY DOES EXIST.
Paediatricians being harrassed as kiddie-fiddlers because the mob can’t tell the difference in spelling.
george // August 25, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
Mark,
Whether a joke is understood as such depends on two parties: the person telling it and the person on the receiving end.
Does Dave Letterman hold up “I kid” signs whenever he says something tongue in cheek?.
As far as denialists actually saying that
I’d like to see that.
Do you have a link?
Mark // August 25, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
“Does Dave Letterman hold up “I kid” signs whenever he says something tongue in cheek?.”
Dave Letterman doesn’t host a blog where you really DO get people that say stuff like that *and are not kidding*.
As to your request for links, no. Please start again and work out what was said about denialists.
george // August 25, 2009 at 6:48 pm |
Mark,
That you have taken my joke so seriously is absurd.
Mark // August 26, 2009 at 10:29 am |
george, that you find it absurd is itself absurd.