A 60 to 80 per cent drop in greenhouse gas emissions is needed now if we are to avoid an irreversible slide into a gravely changed world.

A number of scientists were interviewed about how they feel about the progress made and expectations for Copenhagen to deliver real and immediate action.

Overall they are struggling to be optimistic. The consequences of insufficient action now are probably unimaginable. What are the consequences of a 2C or 2.5C in your life? Food, water, shelter, the good life. All at risk.

Here are the interviews.

Take care!

Swine flu connection with climate change?

By contrast, climate change, a demonstrated global problem with severe consequences over decades at least, is still struggling to raise such levels of awareness. Its reality is still disputed by some. Measures to contain its cause, high levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, are kept to a minimum to ‘save economies.’

Awareness raising

Perhaps we can draw some public awareness raising lessons from this incongruent situation. Whereas it is probably too long a bow to draw in suggesting a connection between swine flu and climate change , this kind of pandemic threat follows a pattern we might actually see in a climate change-asssociated event of this nature.

The World Health Organization states there is already much evidence of associations between climatic conditions and infectious diseases. And, from a multitude of causes, some infectious diseases are on the rise now. For infectious diseases such as Dengue fever, malaria, cryptosporidium, and salmonella climate-change-related rises in incidence are projected.

Linking swine flu and climate change

The same conditions that risk a pandemic of swine flu, play a role in climate change-caused infectious disease. Crowded populations, huge numbers of air travelers, world trade in potentially infected goods, etc.

So, “what lessons”, you ask. Swine flu in humans is a virus that jumped the species barrier. It means that therefore there is little immunity to the virus in humans. But how it jumped the barrier bears relationship to the kind of thinking causing global warming. For one, it’s about faith in technology and the quick fix.

Medical/technical developments in organ transplantation have meant the use of immuno-suppressant drugs for transplantees for their lifetime. This means, in turn, a greater risk of virus-hopping between species as the human immune system is ‘down’ permanently.

Further, more widely-spread lowered human immune responses come from the hitherto indiscriminate use of antibiotics. Not only in humans, but in producing meat too.

Technological responses to ill-health have been spectacular, for relatively few people, while putting many at risk. By contrast educative, preventive measures in healthy living, alleviation of poverty, and preserving or building clean water sources are far more sustainable strategies for vast numbers of people. But of course, the pharmacological industry would miss out… hhmmmm…

Global warming can be pinned down too in materialistic over-faith in technology and disconnection from natural processes. Haven’t we sought to exploit the Earth, razed forests and polluted oceans, often merely for financial profits? Even now, we think technology in managing climate change, rather than changing behaviors and ways of thinking.

The main lesson appears to be, have faith in the power of natural processes, interfere with them as little as possible and build inherent capacity for resilient good health. Be that of your body or the Earth. We are closely connected after all.

The Earth Day flag. We are all world citizens now!

Back then overpopulation was a huge concern. It is certainly back on the agenda in 2009. And where the environment was a big motivation then, few people were concerned about global warming.

Earth Day is about celebration of the beauty of our world and also about saying “no.” “No” to over consumption, to exploitation of people and natural resources, to worship of Economy over respect for Mother nature.

It’s not just a matter of saying no though. Daily personal positive actions all year round are probably the best way to celebrate Earth Day. They are the only things that will move the necessary mountains towards a truly sustainable world within which it is a joy to live.

Ex Australian Democrats Senator for South Australia Sandra Kanck has called for Australia to adopt a “one-child” policy for reason of environmental stability.

The ex-MP, who championed euthanasia and abortion legislation, when in Parliament, heads a group called Sustainable Population Australia Inc.

This group Aims and Objectives are:

* To contribute to public awareness of the limits of Australian population growth from ecological, social and economic viewpoints.
* To promote awareness that the survival of an ecologically sustainable population depends on its renewable resource base.
* To help promote policies that will initially lead to stabilisation of Australia’s population by encouraging near replacement fertility rates and low immigration rates.
* To promote urban and rural lifestyles and practices that are in harmony with the realities of the Australian environment, its resource base and its biodiversity.
* To advocate low immigration rates while rejecting any selection based on race.
* To help promote policies that will lead to the stabilisation, then reduction of global population.

Population reduction policies are necessary if we are to see a sustainable future. But what sort? Do the aims justify means such as one-child policies?

We know from the Chinese experience that negative values ascribed to females, and to people who have a disability, are hard to separate from such policies.

It seems unfortunate that Ms Kanck should have been the person to publicly advocate a one-policy. A sustainable world needs caring values that model acceptance of diversity, limits and interdependence.

Such values are difficult to separate from the other pet policies she stood for when in Parliament. So how can we separate prominent people like Ms Kanck from what Sustainable Population Australia Inc stands for?

I look forward to their voice on this issue.

Source:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/22/2549917.htm

(9 Billion People + Climate change = ???

Sir David Attenborough, famous environmental expert and BBC presenter of nature films, says 9 Billion people by 2050 will have a highly destructive effect on the Earth’s eco systems.

Sir David is patron of the British Optimum Population Trust (OPT) which has been pleading for reduction of the British population by at least 0.25 per year. Keep it to two children only, it advocates to new parents.

Reportedly Sir David has his critics, who find reducing population advocacy hard to swallow.

And, yes, there is a danger of forced population reduction measures, such have been operating in China. In general these have left uneven demographic scars with a lopsided male/female population ratio. In particular many Chinese parents must grieve for the children they never had.

But the Optimum Population Trust says it opposes forced population reduction measures.

Climate change is at the top of the public’s agenda right now as a major global threat to life on Earth. But are we ignoring the world’s population explosion as another global threat?

Yet, underlying deep approaches to climate change bear simularities to dealing with over population. Education is a known powerful tool to lift people out of poverty and reduce numbers of children they have.

Education, about our human nature as interdependent with each other and our environments, is essential to a truly sustainable world, in which it great to live and grow.

The double whammy climate change/over population is a powerful stimulus towards a better world, or an abyss. (Still) our choice I think.

Population Clocks

World 6,773,447,266

08:48 GMT
(EST+5) Apr 15, 2009

We may install any amount of solar panels, build our own wind generators or convert our cars to electric… But without that vital ingredient: a change in thinking about ourselves and our place on Earth, we would still be in great trouble.

What do you think?

G20 Leaders Are here To Help

The G20 – the world’s richest 20 countries – summit is over.  What has it achieved for the global economy and for a sustainable planet?

Well, share markets have risen everywhere after hearing the G20 meeting resolutions.  That’s one (early) vote for its success.

But since the economy is only a subset to a whole, sustainable planet Earth  on which we may live well, has it really adddresssed this vital dimension?

First, its reported runs on the board:

• It trebled the lending power of the International Monetary Fund to $1 Trillion. That’s important to get credit flows happening again.
• Poor countries will get some of that money. Besides just being good for them it’s good policy to stop a further global economic crumbling in these regions.
• Tax havens will be named and shamed.
• Bankers’  salaries and bonuses  will be cut.
• Each country will get rid of “toxic” assets.
• No further trade barriers to be put up, as a boost to free trade.
• The financial stability Board will monitor whether banks and others are taking excesssive financial risk.
• A $250 Billion pledge in trade credits issued by the World Bank.

Spot the gap!

What’s missing here?  Yup, you spotted it…

Where are the commitments to phasing out high-CO2 emission-based power plants, manufacturing and transport?

What about growing demand for more consumer products, from developing nations, and just plainly from a growing world population with a heavy eco-footprint?

Underlying the G20 resolutions, as humble old me sees it, is the same thinking that caused us to land in the global warming mess: Growing economies are good.  All we need to do is make sure the financial world keeps on grinding away as it has done, bar some tweaking.

I still think Michelle Obama has it right. Dig up your garden, reduce spending, rely on your local producers … Whoooah! So that’s it! Good Lord!

We cannot have that!

That means people won’t consume, ever more, from China, Japan, Europe, wherever. “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle really means: Reduce the worst pimples on the face of the financial system with a make-over; Reuse the guts of the financial system; and Recycle rhetoric about what’s good for us.

OK, I’ll try to hold on to the body of a rich banker when we are all floating together in rising oceans and you can find a G20 Leader to hang on to. After all, we’re all in this together.

It’ll be allright. Don’t worry. They’re here to help.

Aww…, too cynical? Perhaps  The Communique did include one sentence on the renewable energy White Elephant: “We have today therefore pledged to do whatever is necessary to build an inclusive, green, and sustainable recovery.” That’s it. Hope it means something!

Green investing in renewable energy and infrastructure is unstoppable with Peak Oil around the corner.

Still need a garden though…