Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Jonathon Porritt

wonder why moderate "fear" impacts of global warming not to alienate people

So here I am, writing this on a flight out to join the forum for future colleagues in New York (I know, I know ...), thinking, as always, how to manage the defense challenge that awaits us.

in the day, the British media is racing in recent data on the extent of Arctic sea ice melt during the summer. Superlatives abound: "The worst ever", "unprecedented", "no known comparison of at least three million years, etc., but what caught me across the cover was the testimony of some of the scientists involved: shocked, horrified and surprised, because they are clearly the prospect of a summer ice-free Arctic by 2030 - decades earlier than scientists had predicted a few years ago

A comment from a researcher at the University of Cambridge sea ice says it all: "It's amazing .. is disturbing, frightening, physically we have changed the face of the earth "

fear. A word that is desperately simple, yet serious difficulties for effective use -. Especially the United States

In his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, presidential candidate Mitt Romney has mentioned climate change once, and use quotes around it to show his contempt for Barack Obama's position is slightly compromised.

is election time, and both parties are still a lot of money lobbyists from oil, coal and gas. Money speaks louder than scientific or basic reason. Just check the official platform of the Republican Party of Texas: "We strongly oppose efforts by extreme environmental groups to stop and stop the oil and gas believe that the EPA should be abolished We support free continue to use and build .. incandescent bulbs. We strongly support the immediate repeal of the Act endangered species the. We are strongly opposed to the inclusion of dune lizard sage brush as threatened or endangered. "

Now that's scary. Especially if you're a lizard dune sage brush.

I feel bad about it. And yet, having just read the last dam formidable Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester, taking part in the vast majority of climate scientists by their inability wise to say what he really is: "Contrary to the allegations of many climate. skeptics, scientists repeatedly and seriously underestimate the consequences of their analysis, it is to avoid 2 ° C, "impossible" results in "challenging but feasible", while "urgent and radical" appears as "challenge" - all to appease the god of the economy. clear, climate change commitments are incompatible with economic growth in the short and medium term. "

is good in this area. One way or another, many of us are involved in the game by the horror of accelerating climate change. Even I do with my own children, who began to wonder how, after 40 years of efforts to bridge the gap between what should be done and what is being done and collapsed in despair!

"never too late," I said. Not as in "never too late" to avoid a shock to the system pretty terrible, but "never too late" to prevent the total collapse of apocalyptic.
I spent much of my summer reading books for people with this line of demarcation, including the recent renovation of the original (1972) limits the growth analysis by Jorgen Randers. This time, must deliver his point of view rather bleak Norwegian 2052, and here is his conclusion.

Find best price for : --Jonathon----Porritt----Jorgen----Texas----Cambridge--