tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35299834.post116855941580900915..comments2023-12-18T17:08:57.450-08:00Comments on Kev's Climate Column: Correspondence with David DrewKevin Listerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11243536863193796008noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35299834.post-1169395016482204962007-01-21T07:56:00.000-08:002007-01-21T07:56:00.000-08:00Dear Firedog, Thank you for commenting on my blog ...Dear Firedog, <BR/><BR/>Thank you for commenting on my blog and soliciting my opinion on these matters. <BR/><BR/>You are correct about what you say on the dimming effect; we currently stand at risk of the aggravating climate change by not considering the impacts of removing the dimming effect. One suggestion that has been put forward has been to inject sulphur back into the fuel of aircraft to create high level sulphur clouds to reflect heat. Maybe the solution eventually is that we have a small number of aircraft flying at high altitude injecting massive amounts of smoke particles back into the atmosphere. <BR/><BR/>The down side of this is that we need the planets full photosynethic capacity to bring down the already high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. <BR/><BR/>Though we don’t know exactly what the impacts would be today of reducing flights, one can fairly accurately predict from the experience of September 11th that things would warm, due to far quicker time it takes to lose the dimming than for the CO2 to reduce in the atmosphere. However, it can also equally be predicted that if nothing is done runaway global warming will ultimately beat the dimming effects in the long run. The longer we leave the situation unchallenged, the more likely we suffer the later scenario.<BR/><BR/>On your points about professor Sachs, it is worth pointing out that Prof Sachs is an economist and not a scientist of mathematician. Perhaps this is the reason why he does not see the paradox when he talks about sustainable development. There is simply no such thing. You can not develop indefinitely even if you think it is sustainable. We simply do not have infinite resources of space. Rwanda is classic case in point. The country developed, as sustainably as any country could, in as much as the people of Rwanda grew their own crops, were generally self sufficient and imposed a carbon footprint that was a mere fraction of someone in the developed West. However the massive population growth that they suffered caused the country to implode on its self and it is building back up to a similar problem again. Lower grow rates merely mean that it takes slightly longer to reach these problems. Specifically on climate change, he has said in the past,<BR/><BR/>“The struggle against manmade climate change is one of the great challenges of our century. If we continue on the current course, we will put societies in all parts of the world into jeopardy of falling food productivity, increased transmission of disease, heat waves, droughts, extreme weather events such as Hurricane Katrina, rising sea levels, and more. Yet the closer one looks at this issue, the more we become aware of our ability to head off these grave risks at modest cost to humanity. The problem is our inaction, including the stark lack of leadership from President Bush and others in Washington, rather than the absence of good choices. There are solutions, but only if we grasp them, individually and through government action.”<BR/><BR/>It is difficult to see how he could reconcile that position, with supporting the expansion of airports.Kevin Listerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11243536863193796008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35299834.post-1169144675513930382007-01-18T10:24:00.000-08:002007-01-18T10:24:00.000-08:00Your correspondence with David Drew MP makes for r...Your correspondence with David Drew MP makes for riveting reading. There was a Danish politician who became world famous (in Denmark) for "standing firm on his position, until he adopted a new one". Unfortunately, that is the hallmark of all politicians.<BR/><BR/>I should be interested, however, to hear what you have to say about the "global dimming" effect of aviation. 11 September 2001 gave scientists a unique opportunity to test the theory that aircraft vapour trails contribute significantly to the cooling effects of cloud cover. Almost all flights in the 48 contiguous United States were banned for three days, and a study of meteorological data for the 48 hours between 12 and 14 September at noon (thus allowing for time zones) for the whole area showed a highly abnormal, but statistically significant, increase of 2ºF in the difference between daytime maximum and night-time minimum temperatures. In other words, any limitation in the volume of aviation will aggravate the effects of global warming.<BR/><BR/>It would also be interesting to hear your views on a recent statement by Jeffrey Sachs, a highly respected academic committed to responsible sustainable development and to combatting climate change. Prof. Sachs, Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General and Director of the Earth Institute in New York, was <A JAN.” ALT="”Guardian" HREF="http://environment.guardian.co.uk/travel/story/0,,1991463,00.html" REL="nofollow" 16>quoted</A> as saying, “Finding a way to achieve economic development and environmental sustainability is the biggest challenge we face globally and it doesn't lend itself to a simple answer. <I>The climate change issue will not be changed by cutting air travel.</I>"Firedoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16196009174698395418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35299834.post-1168873926195692282007-01-15T07:12:00.000-08:002007-01-15T07:12:00.000-08:00I am a little shocked by seeing this correspondenc...I am a little shocked by seeing this correspondence and Mr Drews position. <BR/><BR/>As you will no doubt know Greens have been campaigning vigourously to stop the airport expansions - see two reports under 'Reports' on the Green party website:<BR/>http://www.glosgreenparty.org.uk<BR/><BR/>Plus various letters - use search facility on that site.<BR/><BR/>We also managed to get Stroud District Council to question the expansion in their report to the Regional Spatial Strategy. We have already made submissions on that ourselves and also plan more to the public consultations in March.<BR/><BR/>I will be raising this issue with David myself as well and hope others will also take action on this. I'll also note this website on one of my latest blog entries - great to see your column in the Nailsworth News.<BR/><BR/>Copy of most recent letter to press (unpublished): The WDP reports that campaigners have little chance of success over stopping the massive expansion plans for Bristol airport (1/01/06). Let us all hope that analysis is very wrong. The facts speak for themselves: unless the government’s decision to double the size of UK airports is reversed, the rest of its climate change programme is a waste of time (i).<BR/><BR/>Last month Greens quizzed Mayor Ken Livingstone on airport expansions and he made a dramatic u-turn and said he would rule out any expansion in the South-east, arguing that the aviation industry had told him "a pack of lies" about the economic benefits of expansion. It is time others also woke up. Why should every industry have to make cuts in CO2 emissions so that aviation can be excluded?<BR/><BR/>Incredibly Environment Minister Ian Pearson, who has a collective responsibility for this massive expansion in aviation, said this week that the Government is powerless to face down airline lobbyists! It simply beggars belief that he admits that the Government isn’t up to the job of facing down unelected industrial apologists. This is despite a recognition that climate change is the biggest single security threat facing us today.<BR/><BR/>Mr Pearson should consider resigning from the government in protest and let someone else take on this vital task (ii).<BR/><BR/>Cllr. Philip Booth, Stroud District Green Party.Philiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03135990144492521067noreply@blogger.com