The pain and fear for people in Japan is truly horrible. The government has lost credibility in what it is saying about the partial meltdown of the now infamous reactor 2 at Fukushima. But what is the real data?
I am currently in Canada, having spent some time in the US where Americans have been buying iodine to such a degree that there were TV ads running in the USA informing people about scams around radiation treatments.
And when they said on the news that a pool of water had one million times the safe dose of radiation - what did that actually mean? No wonder people - even across the Pacific - are worried with statements like that.
This superb graphic puts into perspective in a very easy way. Whilst the graphic makes you realise things aren't that bad (at this point in time) it doesn't take into account indirect effects of the nuclear industry - weapons and waste in particular.
I am still torn on nuclear energy as part of a solution for energy needs. Just because it is not as bad as coal* does not necessarily make it a good thing. Especially when weapons and waste are taken into account. But what, real alternatives are we going to actually take up?
* In terms of anticipated deaths, environmental impact etc - even including a Chernobyl size disaster every couple of decades, coal power appears to be worse than nuclear. This blog has useful links to other relevant data sources.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Monday, March 8, 2010
Climate change skepticism
Climate change scares me. The thing that scares me most, after climate change, is the terrifying willingness of the media and the public to not believe that humans are causing this problem.
I have started reading a load of climate change skeptic material - ordered a load of books, and reading some blogs (and tracing back to peer-reviewed references, of course).
Starting off with a quick Google of climate change, and the following a couple of links...
In one corner we have people trying to warn us that civilization, as we know it, is doomed unless we make some changes. The plus side of those changes is saving this version of society and tons of flora and fauna. The downside is economical cost, which is likely to be less than that of the recent global financial crisis. Although that was (is) painful for many, it is not as bad as the alternative - and the planet will just carry on.
These people are incredibly passionate about informing the public and policy makers to save the world as we know it. They have websites which are part of the 'establishment' Universities and government departments etc, or contribute to sites like Climate Change Australia "...devoted to the discussion and analysis of issues surrounding climate change."
Whether you agree with them or not, it is easy to see why they are trying to warn us. (No, not to keep jobs - these are perfectly employable people without a climate change gravy train).
In the other corner we have the climate change skeptics. These either deny climate change is happening, or deny that it is our fault.
They are incredibly passionate and articulate as well, (though an interesting difference in the style and tone of their language, see if you notice).
But why are they so passionate about discrediting those worried about climate change? Here is Climategate.com's mission: "...help you in your battle against the Religion of Settled Science to dispute their views on Anthropogenic Global Warming, and in addition, to battle the one-world socialist agenda, which is the movement’s leaders’ real goal."
Eh?
Climate Change Fraud (CCF) ".. is dedicated to debunking, reviewing, and responding to the shrill cries of the media and the global warming zealots who have embraced anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as an eco-religion and not as a scientific endeavor for answers..."
Oh! I see. Now that is clear.
Finally, lets have a look at the 'shrill' cries from those champions of eco-religious, one world socialism global warming zealots, Greenpeace. Their (Aussie) reason for campaigning about climate change:
"The world faces a climate emergency. Australia and the Pacific are at the frontline.
We’re suffering worse bushfires, flash floods and a drought that never seems to end. These are all signs that we’re reaching a tipping point to a climate catastrophe.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Does offsetting work?
I just took the 350 Challenge, which adds a nice green badge to this blog. Also Brighter Planet will buy some carbon offsets.
Is carbon offsetting any use, really?
Professor Barry Brook thinks so, since I got the link for the badge off his website.
Cheat Neutral don't think so. Their brilliant parody - you can cheat on your husband, just offset it - along with a trusted mentor of mine have challenged my thinking. What do you think?
(Oh, and if you haven't heard of Cheat Neutral - go for it!)
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Climate change video - great stuff
Apart from the uncomfortable chant, I really liked this.
Clever way to display graphs, clear call to action and quite motivating. Well worth the four minutes.
Check it out...
Clever way to display graphs, clear call to action and quite motivating. Well worth the four minutes.
Check it out...
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Where were you when Obama won the election?
I am in my hotel room, watching on TV with a bottle of bubbly in the fridge. I took the day off for this moment! And I will remember it for the rest of my life.
It is fantastic news that the Republicans have been booted out of the Whitehouse, and likely that we will have a friendly Congress.
Why is this good news? We have a President of the worlds biggest polluter, and the country which - until Bush with his oil pals came along - was leading action on climate change.
Even though McCain was saying some good things about climate change, the fact is that we lost eight crucial years in fighting climate change under his party and he is so disproportionally funded by the biggest polluters he would have struggled to put in real change.
Obama's fundraising income coming from so many people empowers him to make real decisions, and with a friendly congress we can hope he will use this power for tackling climate change.
OK, he will be acting for America but there is little we can do here in Australia about climate change - China and India are not going to swayed by us, but America can really lead the way.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, security issues and the economy are almost irrelevant compared to the long term impact of climate change. This recession would be insignicant compared to what is going to happen to civilisation in a hotter, hungry, less watered world - except the fact that it may effect how much we invest in combatting climate change.
Now is a time we can hope - if America leads the way on climate change (again) our future civilisation has more chance of surviving.
Check out Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer. Fantastic (but scary) book.
Sean is hoping
It is fantastic news that the Republicans have been booted out of the Whitehouse, and likely that we will have a friendly Congress.
Why is this good news? We have a President of the worlds biggest polluter, and the country which - until Bush with his oil pals came along - was leading action on climate change.
Even though McCain was saying some good things about climate change, the fact is that we lost eight crucial years in fighting climate change under his party and he is so disproportionally funded by the biggest polluters he would have struggled to put in real change.
Obama's fundraising income coming from so many people empowers him to make real decisions, and with a friendly congress we can hope he will use this power for tackling climate change.
OK, he will be acting for America but there is little we can do here in Australia about climate change - China and India are not going to swayed by us, but America can really lead the way.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, security issues and the economy are almost irrelevant compared to the long term impact of climate change. This recession would be insignicant compared to what is going to happen to civilisation in a hotter, hungry, less watered world - except the fact that it may effect how much we invest in combatting climate change.
Now is a time we can hope - if America leads the way on climate change (again) our future civilisation has more chance of surviving.
Check out Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer. Fantastic (but scary) book.
Sean is hoping
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Good news on Climate Change
According to an email I just got from Christian Aid, the UK Government has committed to cutting carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. Great news for all - those in the know, know that it isn't actually enough but we also know that as things get going they should build up a momentum.
According to Gwynne Dyer's new book Climate Wars that won't stop us from complete devastation of our civilisation (tip, if you have a child or grand-child under twenty, don't read this book, you will find it difficult to look them in the eye). But he also reckons once we start trying we might make it.
Great, as a donor, to get positive feedback like that. Let us hope there will be more.
According to Gwynne Dyer's new book Climate Wars that won't stop us from complete devastation of our civilisation (tip, if you have a child or grand-child under twenty, don't read this book, you will find it difficult to look them in the eye). But he also reckons once we start trying we might make it.
Great, as a donor, to get positive feedback like that. Let us hope there will be more.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Al Gore's Commanders Intent
Jonathon Grapsas, our regional director in North America sent me a link to Al Gore's latest video about climate change. Click here to see the video.
Even though it is very US-focused and many of my readers are not in the US, it’s worth watching for two reasons:
1) It is appropriate for pretty much every country
2) They way he delivers his speech.
In the speech he calls for America to “commit to producing 100% of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon free sources within ten years.” Wow. (If you are short on time, fast forward the video to about 1:50).
It is a very clear call to action with targets, timeframe and it’s supported by his reasoning.
At first it is incredibly unbelievable – America leading the way in cutting carbon emissions and saving our planet? Bear in mind the USA is still the world’s biggest culprit when it comes to carbon emissions, and shows its leadership by not signing up to Kyoto and hiding behind the fact that the emerging economies have not signed up.
But then again, Al Gore’s speech is comparable (and directly inspired) by the equally unbelievable speech by JFK’s in 1961.
Back then, in the midst of the cold war with USSR, JFK called upon America to put a man on the moon – and bring him back safely – within a decade. For people back then, that would have been as unbelievable as Al Gore’s speech. There is of course, one key difference between Gore and JFK – which I will come back to later.
So, what has this to do with you? Well, climate change has a lot to do with all of us.
While I am sure millions of PowerPoint presentations have been improved by Gore’s movie “The Inconvenient Truth” , heads of charities (and companies like Pareto Fundraising) can take inspiration from the clear big picture goal – such clarity gives people clear guidelines for all of the actions and little decisions they have to make on a day to day basis.
And to top it off, at about the 4:50 mark, Gore begins a very well delivered call to action. The sort of call to action that we often wish our CEOs and Chairs would make when delivering speeches to potential and actual donors!
In a rather brilliant and easy to read book, “Made to Stick” Chip and Dan Heath talk about the ‘Commanders Intent’. Gore is using this same technique, articulating an incredibly clear and easy to understand vision in a directly practical way. (
Anyone wanting to help achieve the vision has enough information to help them with all decisions they make on the way.
I work on a daily basis with lots of charities, and most of them don’t really have a plan for next year, never mind a long term vision. Jonathon wrote about this in a recent blog entry : “[I often ask]... why do you need more money? Secondly, what are the organizations growth plans? Invariably I get blank stares to both questions – and often not for lack of asking on the fundraisers part.”
This is not to be taken as too harsh a criticism of course – please remember that most charities exist hand to mouth, are understaffed and have boards made up of brilliant, caring people who are rarely business leaders. In fact, boards are more often experts in the cause (health care, development, human rights etc) or they are motivated, well-intentioned people with a connection to the cause.
If you don’t know what your charity (or business, or even personal) vision is, then have a crack at your commander’s intent.
Oh, the key difference in the speeches? JFK was President after being fairly elected. Just imagine if Al Gore had been President for the past eight years.
Even though it is very US-focused and many of my readers are not in the US, it’s worth watching for two reasons:
1) It is appropriate for pretty much every country
2) They way he delivers his speech.
In the speech he calls for America to “commit to producing 100% of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon free sources within ten years.” Wow. (If you are short on time, fast forward the video to about 1:50).
It is a very clear call to action with targets, timeframe and it’s supported by his reasoning.
At first it is incredibly unbelievable – America leading the way in cutting carbon emissions and saving our planet? Bear in mind the USA is still the world’s biggest culprit when it comes to carbon emissions, and shows its leadership by not signing up to Kyoto and hiding behind the fact that the emerging economies have not signed up.
But then again, Al Gore’s speech is comparable (and directly inspired) by the equally unbelievable speech by JFK’s in 1961.
Back then, in the midst of the cold war with USSR, JFK called upon America to put a man on the moon – and bring him back safely – within a decade. For people back then, that would have been as unbelievable as Al Gore’s speech. There is of course, one key difference between Gore and JFK – which I will come back to later.
So, what has this to do with you? Well, climate change has a lot to do with all of us.
While I am sure millions of PowerPoint presentations have been improved by Gore’s movie “The Inconvenient Truth” , heads of charities (and companies like Pareto Fundraising) can take inspiration from the clear big picture goal – such clarity gives people clear guidelines for all of the actions and little decisions they have to make on a day to day basis.
And to top it off, at about the 4:50 mark, Gore begins a very well delivered call to action. The sort of call to action that we often wish our CEOs and Chairs would make when delivering speeches to potential and actual donors!
In a rather brilliant and easy to read book, “Made to Stick” Chip and Dan Heath talk about the ‘Commanders Intent’. Gore is using this same technique, articulating an incredibly clear and easy to understand vision in a directly practical way. (
Anyone wanting to help achieve the vision has enough information to help them with all decisions they make on the way.
I work on a daily basis with lots of charities, and most of them don’t really have a plan for next year, never mind a long term vision. Jonathon wrote about this in a recent blog entry : “[I often ask]... why do you need more money? Secondly, what are the organizations growth plans? Invariably I get blank stares to both questions – and often not for lack of asking on the fundraisers part.”
This is not to be taken as too harsh a criticism of course – please remember that most charities exist hand to mouth, are understaffed and have boards made up of brilliant, caring people who are rarely business leaders. In fact, boards are more often experts in the cause (health care, development, human rights etc) or they are motivated, well-intentioned people with a connection to the cause.
If you don’t know what your charity (or business, or even personal) vision is, then have a crack at your commander’s intent.
Oh, the key difference in the speeches? JFK was President after being fairly elected. Just imagine if Al Gore had been President for the past eight years.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Great stuff from Get Up!. How expensive is petrol?
GetUp! are an Australian mob fighting on many fronts for social justice and they are doing brilliant work. Recently they ran a fundraising appeal with very specific targets: Give us $50,000 and we will place our new advertisement in x newspapers. Such a specific target, and great proposition it worked brilliantly.
Their latest is about petrol (gas for you N Americans) and the fact that everyone is grumbling about the price. The Government set up a scheme called Fuel Watch. "FuelWatch provides prices for all types of fuel from most ... retailers and from 2:30pm each day we give you tomorrow's fuel prices!" A ridiculous knee jerk reaction to 'keep prices down' by basically highlighting where you can go for cheaper fuel.
So GetUp! are trying to raise $50,000 to place their Fuel Watch ad.
Funny but also brilliant fundraising.
Their latest is about petrol (gas for you N Americans) and the fact that everyone is grumbling about the price. The Government set up a scheme called Fuel Watch. "FuelWatch provides prices for all types of fuel from most ... retailers and from 2:30pm each day we give you tomorrow's fuel prices!" A ridiculous knee jerk reaction to 'keep prices down' by basically highlighting where you can go for cheaper fuel.
So GetUp! are trying to raise $50,000 to place their Fuel Watch ad.
Funny but also brilliant fundraising.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Prof Flannery, climate change and our trip North from Vancouver
I hate the cold. Despite the smile in this picture, I like to be warm.
But James Huitson, Regional Director for Pareto Fundraising based in Hong Kong, loves the cold north of the world. He told us we really need to visit Whistler, north of Vancouver. So we did.
This trip was a day off, no work, no charities to meet, no world to save.
No big issue stuff, just relaxing.
We had a great time, saw lots of beautiful nature, a bear, eagles and fabulous forests. The bear was just ambling along a ski-run (with no snow) quite content being so close to humans.
Very exciting for us, and with no threat to either because we were 30ft above him on a chair lift.
As we went further up the mountain, we saw lots more and with occasional snow on the slopes but with the sun out we were really quite relaxed.
However, I began to notice more and more sick trees. They seemed to look really bad and began to disturb me.
This photo shows such a sick tree.
These sick trees seemed to be everywhere. I asked Christine, the bus driver on a stretch of mountain why there were so many sick trees.
"Oh, that is the Pine Beetle. It is having a devastating impact on our trees."
We continued to have a nice day, and got back to Vancouver on a great train journey, tired but happy. I'll come back to the Pine Beetle in a bit.
Anyway, this morning, I was walking to the office listening to one of my favourite shows - ABC's Science Show (7 June 08) I recommend listening to it. In this particular one, Prof Tim Flannery author of the great book The Weather Makers (please read it), talked about the growing urgency of the need for action against climate change. No news there, but the one thing that was new for me was his call for last minute emergency action including 'injecting sulphur into the atmosphere'.
For those who know me well, you may have heard me mention this before - but I grew up in the 80s when the biggest threat we were told about was the impending nuclear catastrophe. A terrifying movie, Threads, scared me to death as it was set in a local town, Sheffield, in England. The plot is basically Sheffield gets nuked.
Following the nukes, the survivors suffer a Nuclear winter. The soot and ash that is ejected into the atmosphere causes temperatures worldwide to drop.
A crazy idea, but with such a learned bloke as Tim Flannery suggesting we need to do something radical the question is raised - how far do we need to go? In that particular edition of The Science Show they are talking about how we need to cut carbon emissions by not 30% or 40% but 100%. Which would be the least devastating?
The answer does not rest on individuals cutting their emissions - though this is important - the key is going to be industry and, therefore, legislation.
Back to the Pine Beetle. According to The Science Show, the milder winters experienced in British Columbia are not killing them off like they are meant to, and with greater populations surviving more trees and destroyed. And in another of those feedback loops of devastation, this causes the release of more carbon...
Click on the poll to vote for for or against my version of a nuclear solution to climate change.
But James Huitson, Regional Director for Pareto Fundraising based in Hong Kong, loves the cold north of the world. He told us we really need to visit Whistler, north of Vancouver. So we did.
This trip was a day off, no work, no charities to meet, no world to save.
No big issue stuff, just relaxing.
We had a great time, saw lots of beautiful nature, a bear, eagles and fabulous forests. The bear was just ambling along a ski-run (with no snow) quite content being so close to humans.
Very exciting for us, and with no threat to either because we were 30ft above him on a chair lift.
As we went further up the mountain, we saw lots more and with occasional snow on the slopes but with the sun out we were really quite relaxed.
However, I began to notice more and more sick trees. They seemed to look really bad and began to disturb me.
This photo shows such a sick tree.These sick trees seemed to be everywhere. I asked Christine, the bus driver on a stretch of mountain why there were so many sick trees.
"Oh, that is the Pine Beetle. It is having a devastating impact on our trees."
We continued to have a nice day, and got back to Vancouver on a great train journey, tired but happy. I'll come back to the Pine Beetle in a bit.
Anyway, this morning, I was walking to the office listening to one of my favourite shows - ABC's Science Show (7 June 08) I recommend listening to it. In this particular one, Prof Tim Flannery author of the great book The Weather Makers (please read it), talked about the growing urgency of the need for action against climate change. No news there, but the one thing that was new for me was his call for last minute emergency action including 'injecting sulphur into the atmosphere'.
For those who know me well, you may have heard me mention this before - but I grew up in the 80s when the biggest threat we were told about was the impending nuclear catastrophe. A terrifying movie, Threads, scared me to death as it was set in a local town, Sheffield, in England. The plot is basically Sheffield gets nuked.
Following the nukes, the survivors suffer a Nuclear winter. The soot and ash that is ejected into the atmosphere causes temperatures worldwide to drop.
A crazy idea, but with such a learned bloke as Tim Flannery suggesting we need to do something radical the question is raised - how far do we need to go? In that particular edition of The Science Show they are talking about how we need to cut carbon emissions by not 30% or 40% but 100%. Which would be the least devastating?
The answer does not rest on individuals cutting their emissions - though this is important - the key is going to be industry and, therefore, legislation.
Back to the Pine Beetle. According to The Science Show, the milder winters experienced in British Columbia are not killing them off like they are meant to, and with greater populations surviving more trees and destroyed. And in another of those feedback loops of devastation, this causes the release of more carbon...
Click on the poll to vote for for or against my version of a nuclear solution to climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)