Who cares wins …

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Google Buzz Send Gmail

Climategate has put a great big fat cat right in amongst the pigeons proclaiming climate change as a watershed for humanity.And by fat cat I do mean ‘Fat Cat’.

The elephant in the room ahead of Copenhagen is that whilst the governments of the world can chew all the fat they like, it is the globalised multi-national corporations that will pull the strings.

Whether they played any part in unearthing the smouldering gun, we likely will never know. Let’s just write it down as one of life’s convenient truths and move on.

Despite the blow to public confidence in the science of climate change, there is no refuting that several independent data sets support the prevailing wisdom; that the post-industrial revolution era has accelerated climate change at an unprecedented rate. That is borne out by the core samples taken from ice-fields and from the tree rings of antiquity.

However, even without such empirical evidence, can we not deduce using pure logic that industrialisation will impact the carbon and water cycles?

  • Carbon is produced by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, and by the farming and harvesting of livestock for meat; both activities that have increased enormously since England’s green and pleasant land was soiled by the fumes of the industrial revolution.  
  • Thankfully carbon sinks such as the ocean and forests absorb and store carbon.
  • However, the seas have a finite limit and as for the trees, well an area of tropical rain forest the size of Wales (or was it Luxemborg) is destroyed every year.

That all implies that we have increasing carbon production and decreasing carbon absorption capabilities.

Can we conclude then that our activities are increasing the carbon content of the atmosphere? And if we do, can further deduce that this may have an impact on the climate (?) since carbon will trap more of the sun’s heat.

Quite how it will affect climate and where … can’t be deduced logically. But from the hypothesis we can determine that it might be a good idea to look at redressing the balance somehow; especially given the enormity of the consequences.

Would you take the risk?

  • If you do something you may save the planet or you may have no impact at all.
  • If you do nothing it may not matter … or it may wipe out our civilisation.

For mine; I’d prefer to be risk averse.

Back carbon reduction. Back sustainable energy. Back green jobs.

It’s the only way you can’t lose.