Posts Tagged 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.
Well it has been an interesting and full week. First having just moved into new premises, Celtic Lion would like to thank the kind donation of an internet connection. Here are some of the results.
Many know that having worked on the set up of the UK climate models which contributed to the 2007 Nobel Prize I have been critical of the way they were set up and the results. Change in the weather is a review of the media this week on the subject.
Stephen Hawking this week dismissed the need for God in the creation of the Universe. This is our response on the subject. Our highest ranked page of the week with over 100 views in the first 24 hours. It relates cosmology with sustainable planetary management. The contained links may be of interest.
Heard this artist on Radio 2 Steve Wright in the Afternoon. Beautiful voice, interesting background and lyrics.
Had a conversation last week about the mathematician John Nash, him of the Russell Crowe film Beautiful Mind. Here is an article from our sister site Applied Planetary Engineering, written in the ranting style of the Scottish blogosphere at the time. Again it is links within links, go as far as you want. some may not work as we have not checked for 3 years
Well it has been a big week for dog psychology for me with a guest staying. Here is our highest rated article on the subject and more. Part of Ruskin’s legacy Page 4. More than just psychology, it covers part of the history and ecology of Perthshire, so may be of interest outside the dog world. For those with dogs it may just help prevent you losing your dog.
And finally as a result of the correspondence as regards the above my friend sent me this picture. Cutest dog picture of the week. All say aahh.
Thanks, have a good weekend
Celtic Lion 07946 033503 email@example.com
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.
“It is all something of a chess game -all the pieces have to be in the right place for the game to be won.”
Somehow reminding me of Broken English by Marianne Faithful. What are you fighting for?
No I don’t think Susan is correct. This is part of the problem All this rhetoric of the ‘fight against global warming’ ‘the war on climate change’.
It is not a game, a battle, a fight or a war. People do not go into a pet shop and ask for a book on the battle of owning a puppy, or the fight in keeping goldfish, or go to Halfords and ask for something on making war on your Renault.
No we ask for caring or looking after a puppy or goldfish, or care and maintenance of a car. Anyone who using fight, battle or war in reference to climate change or running a planet, or thinks it’s a game with sides, does not understand the problem. So by default, apart from some random stab in the dark, cannot come up with answers or solutions to managing a planet on a journey to the future.
We have one planet and a long journey ahead of us if we decide to embark for the rest of the way. What we don’t want is some attempt on how to look after this planet on that journey based on some trading floor madness mentality that last year crashed something as simple as an economic system.
We can only hope nothing is achieved or agreed in Copenhagen. (It is better to have no decisions rather than a bad or wrong ones.) Then after the craziness has subsided, perhaps then we can do the job properly.
Tuesday 15th December update
A fine example
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.
Well the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference has started.
Understanding climate change is just a small part of the management of a planet.
‘…. Somehow the entire environmental situation has been reduced to climate change. That has been reduced to CO2, that has been reduced to carbon trading.
So if you don’t agree with carbon trading, you are a denier, a flat earther. ….’
Has effective planetary management been compromised for the benefit of the carbon trading markets?