What Can We Do About Climate Change?
February 7th, 2007The science data is in and we now know how much mankind has contributed to destroying the planet we live on. I’ve never been a big fan of the media and certainly don’t imagine I ever will be, not in this lifetime anyway. I don’t watch fear mongering television and rarely read the newspapers for the same reason, however a few of my Aussie friends here in Bangkok have alerted me to some current big news going on back home. The Australian of the year award was recently given to scientist and climate change expert Tim Flannery. Tim is a top bloke and without placing blame on any particular politician, corporate giant or country he has informed Australians and the rest of the world that we have gone past the point of no return. He’s not a doomsday merchant, he wants to help but the problem is already too way out of hand, you can’t put a Band-Aid on a cut the size of the Grand Canyon, it’s not going to stop the bleeding. Big Arnold said the same thing to Californians but is anyone listening?
The world is getting hotter and hotter, 19 of the worlds hottest 20 years have occurred within the last 26 years. Is this a fluke? Sadly I don’t think so and so do most of the world’s foremost authorities on global warming and climate change. Australia is in the grip of its worst drought in 100 years or has this drought actually been ongoing for 100 years but we haven’t truly realized it up until now? Almost every city in Australia has water rations and this is not going to get better. The reason for this is due to greenhouse gas emissions decreasing the availability of a natural cycle of water.
While we continue to burn coal and use traditional methods to produce electricity we are effectively speeding up the deterioration of life on this planet as we know it today. So what do we do? I don’t have the answers and I try to look at it from both sides. I don’t blame the leaders of the giant polluting nations like Australia, United States, China and so on because they as individuals are not to blame, we are all collectively to blame. Besides, has playing the blame game ever worked before, it’s one of the reasons I try to avoid the media as much as I can because whenever the media reports on world events there always has to be someone to blame and this is a sad state of affairs when we have to live in a devastating global community of blame.
So the way I see it is we have to get together. I have mentioned in several of my previous articles that everything in the universe is made up of energy and all energy is connected so that means from a quantum physics standpoint we are all connected. Now we need to connect on the global and physical level. The problem is, looking at the big picture, if we take the steps advocated by Australian of the year Tim Flannery we need to decarbonise the economy. What will this mean in the short term using Australia as an example? It will literally cripple the economy overnight and of course this is far from good in fact it’s devastating but the alternative is to keep going for now and for a short while of say 20-30 years things will seem to deteriorate only marginally while we continue to pollute but mostly things will remain relatively ok. Then what happens? Then we are at the point on a biological disaster, which in a nutshell means too many people and no where near enough resources just like I mentioned recently in my post “Reigniting the Malthusian Dilemma”. So that multi million dollar harbor side apartment you just bought in the middle of the Sydney CBD will be worth nothing if you don’t have any water to drink and if you haven’t got any water to drink neither do the plants and animals you like and need to eat. If this was 100,000 years away I wouldn’t be writing this article but we’re talking about a threat that’s going to be of dire consequence within the next 50 years. I’m 36 now and although I’ll be 86 and an old man then, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. It matters if you are 86 now, it matters for those who will come after us.
If you are walking down the street and you see a little old lady trying to cross the street but she’s having enormous difficultly getting to the other side, will you help her cross the road? I’d say the majority of us would answer yes to that question, of course we would and we wouldn’t expect anything in return, our reward would be to see the little old lady safely on her way. Well the planet we live on is that little old lady and if we want to continue on our way we need to help our planet and we need to do it now. So what’s my suggestion? Read on.
We all agree that something has to be done, we are fully aware of what the problem is. We know nuclear power costs more to produce but is a safer alternative in regards to the environment. Wind and solar energy are also more expensive alternatives than burning fossil fuels but once again harmless to the environment. Tim Flannery suggests harnessing heat from the earths crust to be used as an energy source. This geothermal energy is used effectively in other countries but yes it would cost a lot to get up and running, a real lot, in the billions of dollars but what choice do we have. Empirical data has given us the knowledge we need, we know not only what is about to happen we also know roughly when its all going to fall apart, so how can we sit back and do nothing?
As I have pondered this topic for some time now and read the information on hand I have been perplexed on finding a workable solution. I’ve read about a bunch of politicians who once rejected the idea that we were in trouble now jumping on the climate change political bandwagon to try and secure more votes for their own personal gain. Maybe they want to buy another water side mansion on Sydney Harbor… ha-ha, sorry couldn’t help that one. Jokes aside my own original plan is if we are serious and I’m talking about everyone on the planet jumping on board to help in this global problem, we ask our governments to hold a referendum on climate change, we all take responsibility for what we have collectively done to our planet and we pay the piper. So what is my bottom line argument here? We pay up. We pay an equal percentage according to our own net worth as individual citizens to build the new infrastructure we need to combat climate change. It’s not going to be a small percentage either it is going to be a huge one but if we don’t do this, what will be left of this beautiful planet in just 100 years or less?
So maybe you’re thinking why should I pay more than some other guy just because I’ve got more money than him? Good question, why should you? Maybe because you can, maybe because this is important, maybe because this is the most important thing that has ever involved every single species of life on our planet.
I’m not an expert on climate change and I truly don’t know the best route to take on this but holding a referendum in all countries and asking the citizens if they want to commit to a treaty to curb global warming now, is the best solution I can come up with. If the world united decides to turn its back and let the chips fall where they may, well so be it but I’m not ready to give up yet even if I will be dead before the environment completely collapses. If we all came to an agreement worldwide that we each had to pay 50% of our yearly income to tackle this monster wouldn’t it be worth paying the money? I’ve never asked for feedback before on any of the many articles I’ve written although I do get quite a lot on some of the stuff I write, however I’d love to hear what you feel about this issue. Maybe you have some tips on more efficient transportation, maybe you feel we need to take shorter showers, maybe you think the engines in cars just aren’t big enough or maybe you hate getting your hair wet and have never been a big fan of rain anyway. I respect everyone’s right to an opinion and would like to hear what you have to say. The biggest changes always have to start on the smallest levels, collectively we have a better chance of making a difference.
If you find this site helpful, please leave a donation for John
Other Related Posts:-
February 11th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Global Warming should be the new religion, with all sect members focussed on saving the planet and certainly not car bombing others into hate and further destruction.
To suggest anything other than “Man caused it” is heresy and in fact there is little room for theories to the contrary. Theorists like Svenmark in his books “The Manic Sun” and “The Chilling Stars” express inter alia, opinions about global cooling and even quote scientifically established cooling in parts of the Antarctic continent. However, a study of the empirical data now available since the Malthusian Dilemma opined more than two hundred years ago tell the simple facts that we are consuming too much, too quickly and will choke the life out of our fragile planet sooner rather than later.
The answer rests with all of us in our own small way, to donate more, drive hybrid, plant trees, consume less and above all to stop whinging about everyone else.
The first saint of our new religion should be the author of the Malthusian Dilemma who has been dead for two hundred years and our first high priest the veritable Dr Tim Flannery. The high alter of this religion is the future of our children and our own back yard.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:05 am
I agree, that whatever it takes lets make the change. I really hope that people will see the conclusion before it happens and the ones that hold the power to make real politcal change will really begin to shift their focus on this important issue. This to me, is more powerful than “The War on Terror”. The planet is all we have and everyone has somthing to lose. There are many alternatives to combustion fuels and natural gas energy. The planet holds many answers to the problems at hand, we need to heed to the them and follow through. Less blaming and more solutions.
Tim