Thanks, busy tonight with steam trains;) aluminium smelting and integration of wind energy into the national grid.
In #57 I pointed out I was tortured. One reason I was told was because of my work on predictive systems to be able to determine when floods and economic collapse would occur, related to complex systems but a whole generation or more than anyone else. I was told there was fear if I wasn’t stopped, so many sustainable jobs would be created. The area would lose grants from the Government for creating jobs.
Though I had been stopped I still had to try and prevent people dying and the collapse of the planet’s ecological life support system.
Part of this was being involved in setting up of the new generation of UK climate models and contributions to UN reports, which was where the agenda for the 2005 G8 came from, climate change and Africa and the climate change/ risk assessment the UK Chief Scientist gave global publicity to.
What my honest intention was, was to use climate change only as an example of the total global ecological and environmental imperative. Unfortunately what has happened is politics and the media have become obsessed with ‘climate change’, I assume because it is easy to say and people can pretend they understand it. The real danger is ecological life support system collapse.
If we take CO2 emissions are related to energy use we have to look at what this energy is used for. Energy is the way we manipulate resources. Cutting down forests, extracting ores and minerals, processing and producing consumer goods etc. Then all the flying and traveling people do in the administration of the whole production and consumption process. So we have resource inputs, and the outputs from the economic system, waste and pollution.
If we go to a low carbon economy, in respect of our manipulation, processing and consumption of resources. It will make no difference, we will still die. All we will do is still destroy the ecological life support systems of the planet, just emit less CO2 while doing it.
Also if CO2 does cause climate change, having got rid of the ecological processes which would adapt, respond and control, it will only be much much worse than current predictions.
At present the media only give mainstream space to one narrow extreme view of planetary management. The consume till we die, shop till you drop school.
Two things also need to be considered. Quantity and quality of life. The narrow perspective extremist political system we have now talks in terms of having to reach ‘climate change’ only targets by 2020, 2050.
Prince Charles and Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation, who have both quoted or referred to my work, consider we only have 96 months.
Now this is based on the climate only model. More realistically this could be reduced to 40 months taking a whole earth system model including pollution, species extinction, population, increasing consumption.
There fore peoples quantity of life will be affected. They and their families will die in a great extinction as the planet can no longer support the demand made on it.
Then there is quality. If some survive. No birds to sing in the morning. No holidays, polluted seas, burnt and chopped down forests, no animals left to watch, no woods to walk in.
What will be the quality, meaning and enjoyment of life for those who remain?