, , , ,


(fifteen-minute read)

Irreversible by 2030. 

Up to 200 million people could be displaced by climate change by 2050.

50% of all carbon emissions are emitted by the richest 10% of the world’s


Half of the world’s coral reefs have died in the last 30 years.

 At our current rate of consumption, we’d need 1.7 planets to support the

demand on the earth’s ecosystems.

Greenhouse gas levels are at an all-time high.

Have we lost all common sense!

So why are governments not enacted a simple law requiring solar panels on homes?

The main reason is.

None wants to foot the bill – GDP greed- 

it is being turned into a product to sell – Bio this Bio that  – Carbon Credits – etc.  

climate change

It’s a vicious circle.

What is required is a step towards a circular CO2 economy.

Take Air condition for example.

As the climate grows hotter, there’s more need to stay cool.

It is projected that there will be 1.6 billion new AC units to be in use by 2050 throughout the world.

Air conditioners consume huge amounts of energy and that’s adding to climate change. It pumps out heat straight into the atmosphere. Using powerful greenhouse gases called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Surely it would be not that difficult technically to add CO2 capture functionality to an A/C system. The necessary technology is already commercially available.

Once collected, water and CO2, can be converted into renewable hydrocarbon fuels into renewable synthetic oil.

Office buildings throughout cities could produce more than 120 million gallons. The same process could happen on buildings everywhere.

If this additional cost was added to the mortgage of a new home, the purchaser would actually be in the pocket, because the mortgage costs on the additional £2,000 will be less than the energy costs savings that the solar panels bring.

When will we come to our senses?Solar panels

The amount of sunlight received by the earth in one hour is more than the total energy used by the entire world for an entire year!

Solar panels and wind turbines coupled with energy storage offer better hope for tackling climate change.

Harmless benign solar panels producing useful heat energy and saving harmful emissions.

There is no valid reason to wait ten twenty or thirty years not to start using it.

It could replace current fossil fuels like coal and gas for generation of electricity that produces air, water, and land pollution.

It could be achieved in five years.

We all know.

That, Climate Change has led to an increase in flooding and hurricanes due to disturbed weather patterns.

That climate change is happening and perhaps faster than expected.

That, Higher carbon dioxide concentration is making oceans acidic and killing marine life, like corals.

That, Climate change causes extinct of species from Sub-Arctic Boreal forests to tropical Amazon forests.

That, Higher temperatures result melting of polar ice caps, reducing habitats for wildlife and also increase sea level.

That, Irregular rainfall or increasing droughts affect agriculture and livelihoods of the weaker sections of society globally.

That Emissions are blamed for the rise in global temperatures, and changes in weather patterns leading to a cascade of effects.

That, the momentum for change is currently too slow.

That, given that climate change is inevitable, we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future.

That, the worst effects are yet to come. Submersion and loss of land displacing people.

That, the current targets would put the world on track for 3C of warming, which will ultimately lock in irreversible sea-level rises of perhaps two metres.

That, the greatest difference would be to nature. Insects, which are vital for pollination of crops, and plants are almost twice as likely to lose half their habitat at 2C compared with 1.5C. Corals would be 99% lost at the higher of the two temperatures, but more than 10% have a chance of surviving if the lower target is reached.A firefighter battles a wildfire in California

Against the above background it’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now.

What we are witnessing is patchy international efforts to prevent it from happening.

On one hand, we have Sir David Attenborough, “So we have to realise that this is not playing games. This is not just having nice little debates and arguments and then coming away with a compromise. This is an urgent problem that has to be solved.


On the other hand, I am sure he would puke at hippocras of countries declaring Climate Emergency and then bailing out Airlines.

The truth is that this is a global problem that will require a global solution.

We can’t shy away from that.

The Glasgow 2020 event with 30,000 delegates could be key to the fight against climate change only if China, India and—most importantly the US, participation in any future multilateral agreements.

If the UK is not stable enough to act as a diplomatic facilitator ahead of the summit (The Conservative manifesto devoted just two pages to climate change, skirted the issue) perhaps it might be a good idea to move it to Australia where the 30,000 delegates can witness first hand the effects A HEATING CLIMATE CAN DO.

Of course, this is not going to happen.

So how might be achieved other than Boris “Get Net Zero Done.”

It will be one of the first major tests of the UK’s influence on the world stage after it leaves the EU.

Collins Glacier in King George Island, Antarctica.

The main sticking points of international climate diplomacy are well known.

There are tensions between so-called ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ countries over financial and technological flows in aid of decarbonisation, and debates over how best to support those most vulnerable to climate risks, such as island nations.

If we are unwilling to make profit pay market-based instruments need to be sensibly designed to not negate the disproportionate costs of climate change on different groups.

What appears fundamental to the success of market-based instruments to reduce emissions is how government actually spend the revenue they generate.

If revenue is reinvested in other, complementary policies—especially supporting those on low incomes—and there is a consistent political and public dialogue, market-based instruments might work like Green Government bonds.

The problem is that none of the market-based instruments can be policed and will not produce the necessary funds to tackle the problems.

Because climate change does not affect everyone equally there is only one just solution we must make a profit for profit sake foot the bill, it will produce a perpetual world fund. ( See the previous post on a world aid commission of 0.05%)

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.