Archive for category ecology
Should the Terms Climate Change and Green Be Banned to Allow a Better Understanding of Managing a Planet
1) ‘Climate change’ is a problem. It is too simple a soundbite. It gives the illusion that if you say it, work with it or think you understand it all will be well with the world. Start moving away from ‘climate change’. Replace it with planetary management etc. Change the paradigm. Remember talking about climate change is about as useless as taking a car for an MoT road worthy test and only being concerned about the tyres. These may be OK for another 10,000 miles but you can still run into the back of a bus on leaving the garage because of not understanding the importance of defective brakes, suspension or steering. Climate change needs to be dropped back and more inclusive, accurate, useful and representative concepts need to be explored to.
2) ‘Green’. Get rid of this and put it in the trash bin with Climate change. Never ever use this term. If you can’t explain what you want to say without using ‘green’, then you don’t understand the subject well enough you are communicating. Remember green is the colour of a field of cabbages or a coat of paint. It is a superficial concept and leads people to believe they have an understanding of what lies below, if they just say ‘green’. There was once a political party called the Ecology Party. When it changed its name to the Green party I never bothered with it again. If you use the term ecology, people may be inclined to ask you what you mean by it. If you use green, they may assume they know what it means, and further and deeper communication opportunity is lost. No one has given the subject of contemporary mainstream economics a colour, such as purple. So why do it with ecology and its application to sustainable planetary management. Ban ‘green’ and allow effective dialogue, communication and understanding to begin.
3) Once we have banned terms such as ‘climate change’ and ‘green’ from our vocabulary, then we can start finding other more useful concepts for communication. We need to express the importance of our relationships with the planet, the environment, other organisms and other organisms. Ecology is the study of the inter-relationships of organisms and the environment. Ask yourself am I an organism. If you are, then ecology applies to you. Use cultural concepts to engage people with ecology. Say to a western media savvy audience, Have you seen Star Wars? Can you remember what ‘The Force’ is? Obi-Wan Kenobi, “It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together”, It also takes ecology out of a terrestrial context, eg the heavier elements for life could only have been produced in a supernova explosion. Consider other cultural concepts which may relate to ecology. Laws of Karma?
For me I would not kill off bio-diversity, I would kill off climate change and green. Then using the alternatives of communication, we can explain bio-diversity and all the other important concepts essential to the continuance of life.
The news today is covering Stephen Hawking saying God did not create the Universe, check out William Crawley’s blog at the BBC.
Now to me the question is, who will create the next one? Most likely us, or some evolutionary descendent of ours. As long as we survive, which isn’t looking too hopeful at the moment if we don’t stop the collapse of the Earth’s ecological life support systems.
Creating a Universe, a proper big one, is an important aspect of sustainable planetary management. To have a vision of creating a new Universe, also creates an attractor point in the future on which to put the trajectory of global development on.
You can’t create a Universe if you can’t manage a planet first. This is what the philosophy behind our entry into the competition to run the Millennium Dome was about, a centre of excellence in global environmental management. This would have the ‘critical mass’ to divert the current headlong dash of society towards chaos and extinction.
To find out more about applied planetary engineering visit our background site where the outline proposal to run the Millennium Dome was placed. For a quick intro try Jamais Cascio’s excellent site, Open the Future, where some of our comments have been placed. Jamais then contacted us to find our views on the ethics of Geoengineering.
The beauty of understanding how to create a new Universe, is that apart from it involves us managing our planet more sustainably, it leads to the technologies of time travel and inter galactic flight. Brilliant.
May Celtic Lion recommend an interest in Omega Points to relate Hawking’s work with modern planetary development and engineering strategy.
Well it has been a rapid day on climate in the press. These are the press I have been reading and if possible placed comments on.
Telegraph: Questioning the leadership of the UNEP IPCC. Having been one of the scientists who was involved in setting up the UK climate models, and hence contributed to the Nobel Prize discussed here, many of you know I was critical of the way the models were set up. Seems on the global scale my views since 2002 are now being reflected in different ways.
Guardian: Two here and both I have commented on. First is Clash of the Titans. This is about a future debate between former Chief UK Scientist Sir David King and former Chancellor Nigel Lawson. This is pro and against man made climate change. I think they are like a couple of children who don’t understand the challenge. Have commented on this.
The next is on Andrew Simms 75 months before we cross a no return threshold as regards climate change. Again I have commented as Celticlion.
The sensible practical view we have been pushing for the last few weeks.
Good interview with the delegate from Tuvalu. Sensible stuff.
Over in Copenhagen the summit goes on. The Guardian reports, Climate Change Talks Stall
So what is going on there. Talk about losing 5 hours of negotiating time as African nations walk out. Negotiators working through the night ahead of heads of state arriving. Activists pushing for an agreement. What sort of agreement seems to have been forgotten, just as long as they get an agreement.
Does it all seem bit of a lash up?
If it was so important shouldn’t there have been a bit more planning, a bit more of a measured approach, abit more forward thinking prior to the conference.
It’s looking like Changing Rooms or 60 Minute Makeover with everyone rushing to get ready for the ‘reveal’. Quality goes out of the window as priority is given to getting something done, anything, by some deadline.
Just how long have they had to prepare? What are we going to end up with? Any decision, even if it is the wrong decision?
Population is a major problem, but unfortunately it needs long tern planning to resolve. It has been left too late.
Every time I here about climate tipping points I have to say, no! These are climate only models that say things need to be done in 20 years or 10 years.
Climate models are a simplified abstraction from reality. Imagine taking your car for an MoT and they only check the tyres. You are told they are fine and will last another 20,000 miles. The next day you drive into the back of a bus. Because they didn’t check the brakes, and they were shot.
Climate models are as they say on the tin, climate only models and predictions. They are as the name says, restricted in scope. The danger is whole planetary ecological system collapse which will happen sooner than the climate only scenarios.
We need a strategy on 3 factors.
Reduced birthrates now to ensure reduced consumption in long term 40-50 years.
Resolve the climate issue so we know what it is doing and it relationship with ecological systems. Carbon trading will not be successful if there is a relationship between CO2 and increasing temperature and/or extreme weather. This is the 8-20 year scenario.
The most important is the ecological system collapse. All decisions of the G20 must be reversed. Consumption must decrease to preserve the ecological life support systems. Those who are old enough remember the Apollo 13 mission. When the life support systems malfunctioned, they shut down all none essential systems to reduce the demand on what remained of the capsules life support system.
Planets are the same just a bigger scale. And we have no other home or oasis to reach. We have to shut down demand on Earth’s systems now. Then restore the functioning up to preexisting levels. It is not just about carbon emissions. The planet is losing the ability to absorb carbon due to damage to ecosystems. Same with pollution etc.
Demand on ecological systems must be reduced immediately, otherwise recommendations on climate change or population control will be meaningless. As we as a planet will not get to the point in time when such policies have any beneficial affect.
Ecological, climate and population systems all need to be addressed. But if we don’t act now immediately on ecological collapse. Anything we do on climate or population will never have any benefit. The system will have collapsed long before, and us with it.
Copenhagen should be about defining the best possible trajectory for this planet.
It must fail and should fail because it is flawed. Decisions are being based on those attending having one eye on reducing economic deficits. Caused by the very same Governments not even understanding how to run an economy. Having got that wrong they now want to run a planet.