Tag Archives: Global warming

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THAT’S TRUMPED IT FOR ME.

02 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Climate Change., Environment, Humanity., Natural World Disasters, Paris Climate Change Conference 2015, Post - truth politics., Sustaniability, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized, United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

( A four-minute read)

Climate change is real and so are its effects, despite what Trump and his 22 Republican senators might stubbornly, short-sighted and nonsensical choose to believe.

Indeed, that climate change is real and caused by human activity is no longer an issue up for debate. That time has long passed.

It’s true that the train may be out of the station when it comes to avoiding climate change altogether, but we can still attempt to mitigate and alleviate the worst of the effects.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of climate change"

The fact that an agreement was achieved was a breakthrough. Never before have 195 countries agreed to some form of emissions reductions, even if they aren’t exactly binding.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump announced he was pulling United States out of the agreement, which means the US would join Syria and Nicaragua as the only nations that did not agree to the pact. Even Palestine and North Korea signed it.

In that context, Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement, the most promising global initiative addressing climate change, seems like a big deal. And it is, but not because his decision to withdraw will catapult us toward assured and quick global demise.

It is perhaps the best thing that could happen for the future of the agreement and, by side effect, the planet. After all, the accord is largely a voluntary gentleman’s agreement.

Trump’s decision might actually have a positive effect on the future of climate negotiations, freeing world leaders to pull together a stronger agreement that forces greater action.

It sends the message that the agreement is more about symbolism than action. Despite all of the fanfare that went on at the time, it seems that there are currently only 3 European Union countries pursuing climate policies that put them in line with the agreements made at the Paris Climate Change Talks.

The great majority of countries want to rig the law with loopholes so they can continue business as usual.

Some of the primary  loopholes in question, are the use of higher baselines for measuring CO2 emissions reductions and a greater use of forestry credits (tree planting as an offset). Also, 9 member states “want to exploit the ETS’s huge surplus of 100 million allowances, worth an expected €2 billion, to help them meet their emissions obligations on paper.”

In effect, the U.S. risks becoming an unreliable country run by an administration that explicitly prioritizes corporate greed, short-termism, isolationism and nepotism over science, reason, growth and global sustainable prosperity.

The response to such a senseless act by the Trump administration should be a renewed and strengthened international commitment to combat climate change and the maintenance of a global climate governance regime that will be effective in keeping global warming below the critical 2 degrees Celsius.

This will never be achieved.

Why ?

Because man down through the age has demonstrated that he is incapable of cooperate with each other in large groups.

The modern deal offers power provided we renounce our belief in a great cosmic plan that gives meaning to life. On an individual level we are inspired to constantly increase our income and our standard of living. Greed comes easily to humans.

Don’t worry,  The ecological meltdown is going to be great.Image associée

God like technology has it downside, like how or what is going to control these structures as traditional political structures can no longer process the data fast enough to produce meaningful visions.

We live in a world full of small interest groups and ruthless billionaires, we becoming chips enabled and manipulated by algorithms.

An international fund to help countries transition to green economies and cope with climate change will have an expected $100 billion US dollars per year. So far, only $62 billion US dollars has been gathered.

The whole thing will end in gridlock.

The climate change narrative is beginning to change.

There is only one way to stop climate change and that is to place a world aid commission of 0.05% on all transactions that exploit us and the world for profit sake.

For Example:  High Frequency Trading, Sovereign Wealth Fund Acquisitions, Foreign Exchange Transactions over 50,000$, World Lotteries etc.

This will create a perpetual funded world aid fund to address climate change and the inequality that drives it.

Failure to act—or worse, acting to exacerbate—climate change could have lasting implications for the entire planet. The world has already burned more than two-thirds of the carbon that is expected to raise global temperatures by 2 degrees celsius (the previous target)–a catastrophic threshold.

If developing nations followed similar development trajectories as the US, for instance, then there would be no possibility for keeping climate change under control.

Emissions targets will never be legally binding, but report cards and updated promises are binding. No penalties will be given out for countries who fail to meet targets.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: ARE WE ALL STARING AT SCREENS SO WE DON’T HAVE TO SEE THE PLANET DIE.

10 Wednesday May 2017

Posted by in Climate Change., Evolution, Humanity., Post - truth politics., Sustaniability, The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

( A Seven Minute Read)

Planet Earth is dying all around us on a scale not seen since the annihilation of the dinosaurs thanks to one species and flat screensRésultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of earth from space high resolution"

It is a story that is both a world away and yet deeply personal because of our flat screens

Humanity could soon be living on a planet stripped of much of its biodiversity — and that’s not even considering the potentially devastating effects of global climate change, which has only recently started to really kick into gear.

Our Screens provide shocking proof that we humans have to change our behaviour.

You would think irrevelent of our different belief, political and religiously, we would all recognise the value of our planet. Instead we are preoccupied with satisfying our short-term greed or power to fuel a world of globalisation that is reflected in the stock exchanges which are run by Artificial Intelligence that also runs our flat screens.

Nothing is real, it’s all entertainment.

It strikes me even if (when) we fall prey to artificial intelligence, nuclear war, GMO viruses, climate change, or an array of other disasters, that we might be better off using our massive resources, technology, and brain power to save the planet we’ve already got rather than trying to colonize others.

Science may well have the power to redeem and inspire, and indeed with the power of flat screens we are sharing the wonder of science, exploration and adventure but it is an antidote, in some small measure, to suffering and destruction going on about us.

There will be around 6.1B Smartphone Users Globally By 2020. Those 6.1 billion smart phone users works out to some 70 percent of the world’s population using smartphones in five years’ time.

In the USA there are 14,728 full power radio stations: 1,774 full power TV stations: with unofficial global figure of approximately 15,000 channels. earning around 400 billion in revenue.

 We are now on the breaking tip of a sixth great wave of extinction.

It is the kind of bad news that makes historical catastrophes like World War II or the Black Death look like picnics.

If the currently elevated extinction pace is allowed to continue, humans will soon (in as little as three human lifetimes) be deprived of many biodiversity benefits.

The principle culprits are human “reproduction, consumption in general and especially agriculture, leading to habitat destruction, burning of fossil fuels [and] spreading of toxic chemicals.” The world economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the planet’s environment with us being a byproduct.

The Zoological Society of London, has found that the number of vertebrates – mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish – on earth has fallen by more than half since 1970. In all, the report concludes, there are 52 per cent fewer vertebrates alive on Earth than there were when someone now in their forties was born.

It is the number of animals in an ecosystem that decides its health and functionality. 6.5 percent of all people ever born are alive today. Preventing a sixth great dying requires a rapid return to equilibrium.

The number of insects worldwide had fallen by 45 per cent since the Seventies, while human populations had almost doubled.

But how long does it have, and what will it take to sterilise the entire planet? There’s no shortage of potential apocalypses.

Which of them will finally render the Earth barren?Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of earth from space high resolution"

Researchers can hypothesise almost no end of threats to life on Earth.

Today we worry about the destructive power of Super Volcanoes like Yellowstone. Asteroid that could wipe out all life on Earth, the Earth’s core mysteriously stopping to rotate, the Earth’s magnetic field deflecting ionising particles from the sun, intense waves of radiation called gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), genetically engineered viruses, artificial intelligence and robots could be the end of us all, the Sun exploding in 6.5 billion years time or the arrival of an Alien life form.

All of which would be very unlikely to wipe out all life except the Sun.

Forty per cent of the planet’s forests, for example, have been felled since the 18th century, while 60 per cent of the globe’s “ecosystem services” have been degraded in the past half century alone.

In fact, the take-home message from all of this is that there isn’t a plausible catastrophic agent from outside the solar system that could wipe out life on Earth within the next few billion years.

Life’s biggest threat will come from within.The Sun will expand, and eventually swallow the Earth (Credit: AlgolOnline/Alamy)

The sun is getting hotter as it ages, and as a consequence the Earth will warm up. That means the chemical reaction between rocks and atmospheric carbon dioxide will speed up – a process that’s accelerated even more by the action of plant roots.

Eventually, so much carbon dioxide will have been removed from the air that plants can no longer perform photosynthesis. All plants will die, and animal life won’t be far behind. This could happen surprisingly soon, perhaps in just 500 million years.

Beginning around 5 billion years from now, the Sun will expand, becoming a swollen star called a red giant. By 7.5 billion years in the future, its surface will be past where Earth’s orbit is now. So the expanding Sun will engulf, and destroy, the Earth.

If that’s true, the only hope lies with us. If any humans are still around, they might have the technology to move the Earth to safety. Otherwise, life on Earth has a maximum life expectancy of 7.5 billion years.

Alien forensic scientists might well conclude that life on Earth had a hand in its own demise.

But we also can have a hand in stopping what is destroying our planet. That does not mean living less well, only less wastefully.

WE COULD DEMAND THAT GREED AND PROFIT BE MADE TO PAY 0,05% ON ALL HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING, ON ALL FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS OVER $ 50,000, ON ALL SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS ACQUISITIONS. CREATING A PERPETUAL FUND TO TACKLE INEQUALITY THE DRIVING FORCE THAT LEADS TO DEFORESTATION, POACHING, POLLUTION, WARS ETC. (See previous posts)

WE COULD REPLACE THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT WITH FAIR TRADE.

WE COULD REPLACE THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT WITH FAIR TRADE.

WE COULD ASK OUR GOVERNMENTS TO BAN FLIGHTS ONE DAY A MONTH LIKE WISE PRIVATE CARS.

WE COULD GET EVERY WEATHER FORECAST TO INCLUDE A CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT ONCE A MONTH.

WE COULD LOVE OUR PLANET NOT DESTROY IT.

WE COULD DEMAND THAT EVERY FLAT SCREEN TELLS THE TRUTH.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE TOLD YOU SO. THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT IS A JOKE.

03 Saturday Dec 2016

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Climate Change., Environment, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Sustaniability, The Future, The world to day., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

( A twenty-second truth read)

 

Long before the Paris Agreement I posted an open letter to the delegates, which fell on clogged ears and blind eyes.

The 2 degrees limit agreed is unenforceable, joining the ranks of 500 similarly powerless global and regional environmental agreements.

So despite aspiring pledges we are now well on the way bequeathing an fucked up planet to our grandchildren not to mention robots.

As it speeds up the world will be torched not just by the sun but by migration and water wars.

The full impact of climate change is totally underestimated. We are going to see unimaginable refugee problems never mind sea level rising. Afficher l'image d'origine

You don’t need Artificial Intelligence to realize that humanity as a whole is incapable of  acting for the common good, or that little can be achieved without someone paying for it.

These two realizations are the main reasons that there is only one solution.

What caused the problem in the first place and what continues to deny the problem must pay.

But how to implement a paying system that is fair to all.

We place a World Aid Commission on all activities that create profit for profit’s sake.

An 0.05% Commission on all High frequency transactions, on all Foreign Exchange transactions over lets say $50,000, on all Sovereign Wealth Acquisitions, on all World Lotto Draws.

This will produce a perpetual Fund of trillions to tackle climate change. It will allow poorer countries to catch up with richer.

The Fund to be managed Independently of governments with total transparency.

Global climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond.

The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted globally, and how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to those emissions.

Will it happen.  The future won’t happen on its own.

Our task  today is to create it, to preserve it for the future.

Afficher l'image d'origine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST PRICING CARBON DIOXIDE AND OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES (GHGs)

02 Wednesday Nov 2016

Posted by in Climate Change., Paris Climate Change Conference 2015, The Future, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

THERE NOT A DAY THAT GOES BY WITHOUT HEARING THAT THE WORLD CLIMATE IS ON THE VERGE OF DISASTER – A TIPPING POINT.

 As of 1 November 2016: 192 Parties signed the Agreement, 92 Parties ratified.

Done and dusted.

Not on your Nelly.Afficher l'image d'origine

Let’s cut the crap about carbon tax.

 

(Carbon tax for a broad range of fossil fuel intensive industries, exemptions which have been principally motivated by concern about competitiveness. The primary environmental objective of a tax on carbon is to set a price that reflects the “real” costs such emissions impose—accounting for the damages that are expected to arise from global warming, including effects on agricultural productivity and human health, coastal inundation, and other changes.)

The only problem is:  THAT IT DOES NOT – AND WILL NOT WORK.

Why?

BECAUSE:  It would need to operate (i.e. centuries).

Another words all countries will have to act in unison to increase the optimal carbon price periodically and continue to maintain the carbon price at the optimal level for all of this century (and beyond).

It cannot succeed unless it is global but global carbon pricing is unlikely to get implemented, let alone sustained for the time required to deliver the projected benefits.

A further difficulty that I see is. In reaching an International Agreement on Carbon Tax – how do you reflect the cost from country to country.  Is it to be a new tax or in place of an existing tax.

Can you see either happening?

The world is unlikely to agree to carbon pricing.

Donald Trump god forbid the next US President says he doesn’t believe in climate change.

With Carbon Tax : Nearly two hundred sovereign governments do not have to somehow coordinate their climate policies. The assumptions that underpin the economic analyses used to justify carbon pricing are appropriate for a theoretical modelling exercise but unrealistic, impracticable and highly unlikely to be achieved in the real world.

Future economic damages from carbon dioxide emissions can only be estimated in conjunction with forecasts of climate change.

IT WILL NEVER BE A FAIR TAX.

It’s a regressive tax that benefits big business and the wealthy at the expense of lower and middle-income earners.

There is no pledge to offset the carbon tax with reductions in other taxes.

Millionaires got a big tax break to buy a new $100,000 Tesla electric car,The

U.N.’s own report shows that aggressive emission cutbacks—even if achieved through an ‘efficient’ carbon tax—would probably cause more harm than good.

First, it is very hard to target subsidies and mandates toward the most cost-effective abatement, both because the government does not know which
technologies will be least costly and because it is hard to implement a program that is not prone to political favoritism.

Second, it is nearly impossible to preclude subsidizing abatement that would happen anyway or mandating activities that are more costly than the avoided damages to the environment. Clean energy subsidies can also have the perverse effect of increasing the overall supply of energy and making prices fall, partly offsetting the benefits of the TAX.

The amount of revenue raised depends on the level of the tax, how broadly it is applied, and other factors. Most experts suggest a tax of around $25 per ton of CO2, which would raise approximately $125 billion.

Exempting some sectors or categories of emissions sources may create perverse economic incentives.

There is a better way.

It is to deregulate so the cost of low-emissions energy can come down over time, especially in developing countries. With this approach there would be no need for carbon pricing, emissions monitoring, or enforcement mechanisms involving policing, disputation, conflicts and international courts.

According to the World Bank, about 12 percent of the world’s global emissions of greenhouse gases are subject to a carbon price — either a tax or, more commonly, a levy under a regime of cap-and-trade like that in California and Europe, in which permits to emit are auctioned among THE POLLUTING companies.

There is no way that a carbon tax is going to be yielded significant reductions in gasoline purchases. It will however increase energy prices—the amount of increase would depend on the size of the tax and the extent to which it is passed forward to consumers.

A carbon tax could lead to overall economic growth, if the tax revenues are used in a way that promotes economic growth, such as cutting other taxes or reducing the deficit, WHICH WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

The road the World must travel to reduce global warming is to spread the cost fairly by making Profit for Profit sake pay (See previous Posts)

IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS RELATED GLOBAL WARMING.

HAVE A LOOK AT : BEFORE THE FLOOD.  https://youtu.be/90CkXVF-Q8M)

Before I wrap this post up.

Here is a message for Leonardo and Fisher just in the off-chance either of you get to read this post.

With your influence you could get the medium of World-Wide Television to include in their Weather Forecast a section showing the Global warming. They have a social responsibility to highlight the problem BY DOING SO THEY WOULD CREATE AWARENESS THAT COULD TRANSLATE INTO ACTION.

 

ALL SENSIBLE COMMENTS WELCOME.

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: HERE WE GO AGAIN. THE COTTON WOOL BEING PULLED OVER OUR EYES.

24 Sunday Apr 2016

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Yesterday we told that 175 leaders signed an agreement to limit future global warming be least 2%

Ban Kimoon says this is a moment in history, which I agree but signing the Paris Agreement doesn’t mean emissions will go down. Afficher l'image d'origine

Are we being hoodwinked or Shakespeare by worthless words on paper that don’t come into effect till the year 2020.

By then the great barrier reef in Australia will be a bleached dead sheet.

THE FIFTY FIVE COUNTRIES THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 55% OF THE WORLDS GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS WILL HAVE BY THEN PUMPED ENOUGH CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE TO NULLIFY ANY REDUCTIONS. 

NOT FORGETTING THE AMOUNT OF METAIN THAT THE OCEANS AND THE ARCTIC ARE GOING TO RELEASE.

HERE ARE A FEW HARD FACTS:

No country has shared a detailed, credible strategy to achieve what scientists think is necessary: Ending the era of fossil-fuel emissions and converting entirely to clean energy no later than the middle of this century.

Not one country has said where is the Money coming from. If we want change we have to pay for it and there is only one fair way of doing this. (SEE previous posts)

There are 195 countries in existence. This does not include Kosovo (disclaimer), or  Palestine or Western Sahara or Taiwan or  Greenland or many other partly recognized states .

UN Members: 193
UN Observer States: 2
Total: 195

Whether they make good on their pledges to slow dangerous greenhouse gas emissions will depend in large part on the actions in the years ahead by the world’s largest polluters.

The United States, pledged was thrown into question in February, when the Supreme Court unexpectedly put a hold on implementing a major environmental regulation aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Now it remains in limbo until all legal challenges have been resolved, which is likely to take at least another year.

China, has pledged to have its emissions of carbon dioxide reach a plateau or decline “around 2030,”

The European Union’s, pledge to cut emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030. Member states still must reach consensus in important areas on climate policies.

Perhaps the most significant pledge by India has been to increase solar power generation to 100 gigawatts by 2022, up from about three gigawatts generated in India last year. “That’s an earthshaking commitment,”

Russia has yet to make any binding pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Brazil, President Dilma Rousseff committed to an ambitious plan to reduce her country’s emissions 43 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

Indonesia, one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluters due to mass deforestation, pledged under the Paris Agreement to cut its emissions 29 percent from a business-as-usual scenario by 2030, or by 41 percent if it receives substantial assistance from the developed world.  But even with those pledged reductions, Indonesia’s emissions would still soar, nearly doubling from 2010 levels.

After a quarter-century of failed diplomatic efforts, big uncertainties hang over the climate deal even as the wording oil and gas companies continue to invest billions of dollars a year searching for new reserves of fossil fuels.

The announcement of 175 countries signing the Agreement hide’s the true position and gives the impression that the problem is being tackled.

It is already too late to eliminate the risks entirely.

We are looking at climate effects so severe that they might destabilize governments, produce waves of refugees, precipitate the sixth mass extinction of plants and animals in Earth’s history, and melt the polar ice caps, causing the seas to rise high enough to flood most of the world’s coastal cities.

So speaking up and exercising your rights as a citizen matters as much as anything else you can do.

The signing ceremony on Friday is only an intermediate step. After, countries will still have to present formal ratification documents, and the Paris Agreement will not take effect until 55 countries representing 55 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions have done so.

All the World’s a stage– and some people are desperately unrehearsed. The US secretary of state, John Kerry, holds his granddaughter for the signing of the accord at the United Nations Signing Ceremony for the Paris Agreement climate change accord in New York.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S GOVERNMENTS ARE FAILING US.

18 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by in Capitalism, Climate Change., European Union., Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Paris Climate Change Conference 2015, Sustaniability, The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

WHY?

Because they no longer guarantee life and the pursuit of happiness.

I am not talking about you can’t please all the people all of the time.Afficher l'image d'origine

I am talking about when they come together in the United Nations an out of date organisation with no secure means of funding other than begging. Only when signatory nations are prepared to follow suit with firm domestic policies is a UN aspiration somewhat effective. This never happens on global issues as they are afraid of paying the political price.

On something as fundamental as changing the source of energy which is going to cost trillions. Only governments coming together will there be any effect.  They are supposed to be a trustee of the natural resources that citizens depend on for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In modern society, of course, much of the complexity in our lives is placed there by governments, supposedly acting to “help” us avoid failure or to “protect” us from failure.

Instead they are eroding our liberties by collecting reams of information from your digital footprint. Our societies where you’re free to be whatever you want, feels less and less so each year.

They are selling climate dispensations, flogging off natural resources and revenue earning industries to sovereign wealth funds for short gain profits.

Some failures were obviously. They are failing to adequately address global warming.  It seems to me that Politicians seem to think that the Marketplace will take care of it.

More visible recently were the bailing out of  high-profile banking institutions which are still considered by the government to be too big to fail without threatening the long-term well-being of consumers and the broader economy.

They have created confusing missions that are not be communicated and embraced, and are were easily undermined by rank corruption and unethical conduct, or are beyond careful monitoring through performance measurement and management. They don’t  ‘know’ enough to enable them to make effective decisions about the best way to allocate scarce resources with the top appointees unqualified to lead.

The days are gone when many economists believe in the efficient market hypothesis, which assumes that the market will always contain more information than any individual or government.

The implication is that market prices and market movements should be free from interference because markets cannot be improved upon by individuals or governments. However we all know that the invisible hand of the market place will not bring about the changes necessary.

Which brings us back to the United nations. An organisation so infiltrated by lobbying groups that it is danger onto itself.

The world is in a mess due to greed, and democracy as we know it is under attack from unbridled consumerism and Social Media. We have to accept the reality that markets are not motivated by the priority of care. Nor is it the United nations.

Why don’t we the voters demand better representation?

We must demand that the United Nations pass  binding people resolution placing a World Aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions , on all Foreign exchange transaction over $20,000 on all other form of Capitalist Activities that function for profit for profit’s sake.( see previous posts)

This is the only way we can take care of our world make Greed pay for it.Afficher l'image d'origine

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S IT’S TIME TO CUT OUT THE BULL SHIT RE CLIMATE CHANGE.

12 Tuesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

An academic feud swirls around how best or even whether to express the scientific consensus around climate change.Afficher l'image d'origine

Ever time I open the internet there are more and more articles on the subject.

It all boils down in the popular media to a much simpler message: that 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans.Afficher l'image d'origine

This is correct in as much that we live in a world of greed created by unbridled Capitalism.

We have a world meeting after a world meeting, targets after targets, without any means of financial support.  Indeed we see governments issuing exempt green certificates to polluters rather than saying enough is enough before we hit the point of no return.

Lately, the Skeptical Science researchers have been battling a rear guard attack from within the climate science community itself. Some social scientists, political scientists, climate change communicators—question whether informing people of a scientific consensus serves any purpose.

To them, climate change is no longer a debate over science.

Rather, the climate debate is now ethical and political; it comes down to what we are willing to do today to address a problem that will largely affect our grandchildren.

As a father, ” I realized that we are handing over a world to our children that is worse than the world we were given,”

We can’t wait till we get a consensus. “How do you determine who qualifies to be surveyed and who doesn’t qualify?”

Its time to cut out the bull shit.  In fact, most people are already broadly aware of the scientific consensus on climate change, but remain silent. Even assuming the consensus message does work, it will not necessarily lead to climate action by policymakers.

Our out of date Skint World Organisation the United Nations can only aspire.

Its time it had the balls to pass a world people resolution to put a World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all High Frequency Trading, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions on all Foreign Exchange transactions over $20,000 and on any other Capitalist or other World activity whose sole purpose is to make profit for profit sake. 

Then we would have the means to reverse Climate change, which is is already causing wars over water whether it be rising or vanishing.

There are billions of tons of methane awaiting to escape which we cannot escape.

This could be us>

Afficher l'image d'origine

 

THE BEADY EYE ( PART FOUR) ASK’S WHY IS THE WORLD LIKE THIS.

23 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by in Climate Change., Corruption., Humanity., Life., Paris Climate Change Conference 2015, Paris terrorist attack., The Future, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Our painting now has a wash of money, a random application of religion and the Gun with a transparent over wash of humanity.Afficher l'image d'origine

I think it would be a grave injustice to speak of the human species ( Other than ISIS and their like) as in some sense evil, even though we are destroying the environment so efficiently at the present time.

The nature of humankind is to expand its population, to gain security, to control, to alter. For millions of years that paid off without undue damage.

But then what happened was, as we developed a modern industrial capacity, and then the techno scientific capacity to eliminate entire habitats quickly and efficiently, we succeeded too well and at long last we broke nature. And now, almost too late, we are waking up to the fact that we have overdone it and that we are destroying the very foundation of the environment on which humanity was built.

Its time to add a healthy dollop of Earth to our canvas.

One frequently quoted piece of evidence against a Christian green ethic is the command to our first parents to ‘fill the earth and subdue it’ (Genesis 1:28).

How should we interpret this?

Does this mean we should be thrilled at increasing populations?

Well, to start with, ‘filling’ is not the same as over-filling. We should also remember that it is only in the last 100 years, that over-populating the world has become a real prospect.

In giving us “dominion”, God appointed us as His stewards or care-takers, and will hold us accountable for the way we discharge our responsibility, just like the husband-men and talent-holders in Jesus’ parables (Mat. 25:14-30, Luke. 20:9-16).

It does not matter whether you are a believer or not the ‘State of the Planet’ makes clear that we are unique in terms of our destructive potential, and we alone must change our behavior in response to moral beliefs and challenges.

People with or without religious belief can (and do) recognise and accept that we have a role as Stewards. It is agreed by ALL RELIGIONS that humans are not simply answerable to future generations for their management of nature, but that they are answerable to the one God who created them in his image so that they would manage the earth on his behalf.

The key or ethical argument – an argument of stewardship, an argument of handing on a world as rich as the one we inherited does not need any religious belief.

The rate at which species are becoming extinct as a consequence of human activity is staggering.

The problem is all around us and we are all part of the problem.

The problem now is recognising this fact. It can be the first step in becoming an active part in the solution

Human beings have created derelict industrial sites, open-cast mines, scrap yards and polluted rivers and beaches. Our current actions are producing greater and more rapid changes than ever before.

There is some pallet of colors to pick from. Soil erosion and loss of fertility. Deforestation Water-quality pollution Waste. Generation and global toxification. Human and cultural degradation.  Alterations of earth’s energy exchange with the sun – green house gasses keep in too much heat resulting in global warming.

Our life-styles tend to keep us isolated from the awesome power and beauty of creation. Consequently we loose sight of its wonder, and as a result, we have a poorer understanding of the mess we ARE ALL IN.

Most of us are disconnected from our actions and their environmental effects.

We seldom if ever see our food growing, because it comes from shops. Few people who buy petrol from garages have ever seen an oil production platform or refinery. We may claim to deplore environmental damage, but by acquiescing in the system makes us accomplices in the crime.

We can just continue with the inevitable consequences of ignorance and greed, thoughtlessly bending the world to creating more bits of garbage to amuse ourselves…

No matter which course we take knowledge does not lead automatically to action.

The time has come… to destroy those who destroy the earth.

Why is it that the activities of our one species, aiming at no more than living in reasonable comfort and avoiding hunger, should cause such devastation on the rest of the natural world?

The answer is in our back ground wash, and how it has being applied with greed and corruption of power by all societies.

By now we  should understand which of humanity’s activities inflict the greatest damage on the diversity of animal and plants of this planet.

But the problem is we are self centered and look like remaining so.

Afficher l'image d'origine

Afficher l'image d'origine

The average American consumes 40 times as much energy as the typical third-world inhabitant and the average European some 20 times as much.

One European uses as much energy as 20 Bangladeshis.

In short, a change to our societies, our economics, and our politics and our world organisations is needed.

Here is a snap shot of what the Paris Climate Change Conference 2015 is up against.

Qatar :

Qatar’s carbon emissions per capita are the highest in the world and three times as high as the United States’. Qatar, gas prices in Kuwait are among the lowest in the world, while GDP is among the highest. This, coupled with a lack of public transit infrastructure, makes road travel the sole means of mobility for both citizens and businesses moving goods. According to the Global Footprint Network, the average Kuwaiti uses 22 times more resources than the country provides per person.

Ireland:

A fuel farm on the outskirts of Dublin, Ireland, grows rapeseed (canola) plants to ultimately make biofuel.

In 2008, however, Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions per capita were the second highest in the European Union.

Agriculture is the largest source of emissions, but emissions from vehicles have more than doubled since 1998.

However, there have been improvements in recent years: 2009 was the second year in a row in which transport emissions declined, and an increase in renewable sources of energy in the early 2000s reduced emissions from the energy sector by 10 percent in 2009.

The United Arab Emirates:

Despite being the world’s fourth largest oil exporter (behind Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran), the United Arab Emirates has publicly pushed for a renewal of the Kyoto protocol (the agreement among industrialized nations to cap emissions), announced a plan to increase renewable energy production, and even launched a 1-gigawatt concentrated solar generation project.

Yet Dubai, a city of 1.5 million people (many of whom are immigrants seeking their fortunes, like the workers pictured above), the world’s largest shopping mall, and an indoor ski resort, currently gets all its energy needs from the burning of natural gas, which is why it ranks third on Global Footprint’s list.

Denmark :

A Danish farmer surveys his Christmas trees shortly before they are sold in December 2008.

Denmark’s carbon emissions are half that of the United States’, but its cropland (the amount of viable land that can be used to produce crops)  requirements are much higher. Because so much meat is eaten per capita in Denmark, the country must import a large amount of grain—so much that it would take up 215,000 square feet (2 hectares) of land per person, or 2.5 times more land than the country has.

United States :

New York City twinkles at night, with Fifth Avenue and Broadway clogged with cars.

If everyone lived like the average American, the Earth’s annual production of resources would be depleted by the end of March, the Global Footprint Network’s report said.

Americans’ love of road trips, suspicion of public transit, and growing energy demands fuel the country’s high per-capita carbon emissions.

Belgium :

A Belgian farmer drives his tractor in this undated photo.

Belgium’s biocapacity of cropland is extremely low, so much of its food must be imported. This begins to explain Belgium’s high ranking on Global Footprint’s list.

Australia :

A lumberman cuts down a karri tree, a type of eucalyptus, in Western Australia.

Australians emit 28.1 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per person, one of the highest per-capita rates in the world. In addition, the country’s demand for wood, food, and pasture uses the equivalent of 753,000 square feet (7 hectares) of land per person, nearly four times greater than what is available on average around the world.

Canada :

Canada’s biocapacity is 14.92 hectares per capita, 5.5 times average global consumption. So if the world’s resources were as abundant everywhere as in Canada, we’d have more than enough to go around.

Even so, Canada’s cities are energy hogs. The country has the seventh highest rate of carbon dioxide emissions per capita. Total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada rose 24 percent between 1990 and 2008.

The Netherlands :

Sheep near a village in the Netherlands will go toward feeding Dutch citizens, yes, but for the most part, the Dutch consume more than they produce.

The small country, with its high population density and relatively little land area for crops and pasture, consumes six times more resources (energy, food, and more) than it is able to produce, and about three times more than the Earth overall is able to sustain.

God only know what China, India, and Russia and the rest of the world would add.

What ever it is we must spread the riches of World more evenly.

This can only be achieved by making Profit for profit sake create a World Aid Fund ( see previous posts) to tackle the Inequalities, Correct the damage to the climate, and protect what is left.Afficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origine

We all know that there is little point to any thing if we are not alive.

Its time to change from selfie square heads, and like button pressers to searchers.

Where there is poverty we must find it. Where there is pain we must find it. Where there is abuse we must find it. Where there is modern day slavery we must find it. Where there is inequality we must find it. Where there is pollution we must find it.

In fact its time to find what is of value to us all.     

Don’t be a square head contribute. All comments are valued.

http://go.ted.com/CjNh

http://go.ted.com/CjNk

http://go.ted.com/CjNs

http://go.ted.com/CjN3

You might think our canvas is now completed but you be wrong. There is one more color to add and that is Woman.

THE BEADY EYE WRITES AN OTHER OPEN LETTER TO THE PARIS SUMMIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

31 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by in Climate Change., Environment, European Union., Humanity., Natural World Disasters, Politics., Sustaniability, The Future, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

31st August 2015.

Dear Delegate,

When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time.

There is no point in spending a lovely week in Paris talking about what should be done about Climate change and coming up with an agreement to cut emissions by placing A Price Tag on carbon.

The true financial costs of climate change is away beyond any price tag or unenforceable agreement.

What value do we place on the ocean’s coral reefs and the myriad animals they support, and how do we weigh their loss against other values? What price tag do you put on a species of bird or fish or mammal which, once gone, will never return?

How does humanity weigh moral accountability if our own carbon emissions contributed to that destruction?

Isn’t it about a sustainable planet? A sustainable and biologically diverse planet?

Most likely our descendants will be left to adapt to a warmer world where greater climatic uncertainties, depleted resources and human migrations, amongst other, will be the norm.

If climate change affects not only a country’s economic output but also its growth, then that has a permanent effect that accumulates over time, leading to a much higher social cost of carbon than any price tag agreed.

The economic damage caused by a ton of carbon dioxide emissions – often referred to as the “social cost” of carbon – will actually be far higher than any of us can imagine.

There is no solution to an event that is all ready taking place.

There can only be a change to the event or a confinement to the end result.

If there is no solution to how the world is going to finance this change your and you fellow delegates might as well go home and bask in the sunshine of an agreement that is as porous as the paper it is written on.

In his fascinating book “Catastrophe: Risk and Response”, published in 2004, Richard Posner argues that we do not do enough to hedge against catastrophic risks such as climate change, asteroid impacts or bioterrorism.

In light of the “competition” of existential risks, how much should humanity invest in the mitigation of climate change?

The answer is:  Human extinction is a risk we all share—and it would be an unprecedented event that can happen only once.

Growth at all costs is the mantra of the technological world we live. Climate policies that require public sacrifice and limiting economic growth are doomed to failure.

Believe in the current pledge-and-review mechanism is a farce.

From current projections we know that climate change will pose a serious challenge by 2040 for many organisations. Putting a true economic cost on these risks can act as a catalyst to taking action today in order to help organisations better prepare for the future.

There is only one way to achieve this and that is the creation of a World Aid Commission or tax on profit   for profit sake.

Would you rather have a one percent tax increase on everyone in the country or kill one percent of the population?  This will not work as the cost of collection and administration, or culling, would out weigh any benefits.

The solution is a Universal 0.05% commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions (over $20,000) on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions and on all Drilling Wells.  

This will create a perpetual Fund to tackle the world problems.  

 

The expected loss to society because of catastrophic climate change is so large that it cannot be reliably estimated.

Climate policies should flow with the current of public opinion rather than against it, and efforts to sell the public on policies that will create short-term economic discomfort. People are willing to bear costs to reduce emissions, but they are only willing to go so far.

The Dangerous Underestimation of Climate

Change’s Cost and the

financing of any agreement is self-evident.

 

 

The Beady eye looks at what is needed to come out of the Paris Summit on Climate Change.

13 Monday Jul 2015

Posted by in Climate Change., Environment, Humanity., Politics., Sustaniability, The Future, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Climate change is the ultimate global collective action problem, requiring cooperation from every government in the world.

It’s over twenty years since the first treaty, signed at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, when countries agreed to limit their emissions of greenhouse gases. 

Here is the reality:

We are the first generation to understand the consequences of a high carbon economy on the planet, on future prosperity and, in particular, on the most vulnerable around the world. Let us be the generation that stands up and takes the responsibility conveyed by that knowledge.” Christiana Figueres, executive secretary, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 2014.

So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late. And how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren.” US President Barack Obama, Georgetown Address, June 2013.

I was very struck by the fact that the impacts of climate change are undermining a whole range of human rights: rights to food, safe water and health and education. But it is also displacing people, which is very likely to cause not just human distress but potentially conflict. So for me it’s a very, very serious issue of human rights.” Mary Robinson, UN special envoy for climate change, 2013

Climate change will amplify existing social, political and resource stresses, shifting the tipping point at which conflict ignites, rather than directly causing it. Climate change is likely to increase the frequency, scale and duration of humanitarian crises. It is also likely to change patterns of migration, making border security an ongoing concern, especially in the developed world.” UK Ministry of Defence, Global strategic trends out to 2040.diesel global warming ny

We have just 5 months left until the Paris Summit. How likely is it that it will be meaningful and make a difference to climate.

What should be in it? 

A world Agreement; ( anything less is worthless.) 

The international agreement that has a clear legal basis that works for different national constitutions.  (All agreements are broken, so perhaps an agreement tied to World Trade/ and Arms deals might be enforceable.)

This agreement should be supported by a clear, shared accounting system and robust, transparent monitoring and reporting requirements.

It must be seen as fair for all. The agreement must allow for comparisons of national contributions, using appropriate indicators of national responsibilities and capabilities, to encourage ambition and ensure that climate action links with strategies for poverty alleviation and sustainable development.

The Agreement can not be seen as static. It should be for five-year cycle, with a ratchet mechanism over time built into the system and a clear, long-term goal.  Why? Because carbon targets will need to be revised in the light of emerging science. It should move towards a goal to phase out pollution from fossil fuels by 2050 and phase in clean energy technologies.

It will need financing to support actions on adaptation and mitigation.

The agreement should include commitments to scaled up public finance, to support adaptation and mitigation action, aligned with other public finance for development; and wider efforts should be made to secure private sector investment in the low-carbon economy.

Any new agreement covering forest protection, land use and agriculture should be properly financed, have clear rules for emissions accounting and involve local communities in decision-making. It should ensure better biodiversity, ecosystem protection and restoration, and include support for sustainable agriculture and increased climate resilience.

Here what at stake:

The uncompromising Math of Global Warming, Pollution will if we fail to act early will guarantee that we are leaving humanity with more dangerous climate change such as more frequent extreme weather, more droughts, heat waves, and floods.

Even in the face of planetary catastrophe, 195 governments in a room can be just incompetent. Amidst the thicket of complex policy talk, we need to define the red lines of the agreement and organise the press and politics around them.

Our top focus – a clear commitment to a world without carbon, powered by 100% clean energy.

That is what will put the fossil fuel industry on notice, and shift private investment massively into renewable energy. New power plants, buildings, city designs, and lifestyles are being formed as we speak. How these are built could lock us into decades of increasing climate pollution as many of these last for several decades at a minimum.

A prime example is in the electricity sector where the emissions of power plants that the International Energy Agency projects could be developed in the next two decades would be larger than the emissions of coal from the beginning of the industrial revolution and eat up a huge chunk of the amount of carbon that can be emitted by all sectors.

The current targets aren’t deep enough to address climate change and most countries only made commitments through 2020. So there is a need to deepen and extend the emissions reduction commitments.

The scale of this crisis demands action that goes beyond consistently “kicking the can down the road”. 

Once we have an agreement in hand then we can engage in serious ethical consideration over whether or not to act.

Will any of this happen?

Not a hope in a world that is driven by Capitalism.

The only way is as I have said in previous blogs is for Capitalism to contribute by placing a World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all High Frequency Trading , on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over $20,000, and on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions.

https://youtu.be/anfbjiShjP8