Climate change and the Status Quo
global warming - by akuppa
By Nick Jones
Students don’t need to concern themselves about climate change, we can leave it to the governments and policy-makers. But it may take more than politicians and scientists to change anything.
Some things are not worth worrying about; climate change is too large an issue for most of us to appreciate. As students, it is hard to see what effective actions we can take to ‘do our bit’ and for some, just as hard to see why we should. After all, we are trying to live our lives and focus on our studies and other interests, as right we should, these take priority – let the decision makers sort it out the mess.
Of course little things do add up, you can contribute to significant savings in money and carbon emissions, and we should not shirk our responsibilities, but the scary numbers climate scientists are publishing are getting scarier; big changes need to be made. As David MacKay, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, says “if everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little.” This is a global problem and we need global answers.
The Big Changes
Relatively recently scientists have started to publish targets for reduction in carbon emissions, ahead of the COP15, the Copenhagen meeting where it is hoped the governments of the world will agree to and set firm targets for global carbon emission reductions.
The fairest decision would be to use the global per capita system and allow the richer nations to buy emission allowances from nations that have lower emissions. The per capita system is derived by dividing the global carbon emissions equally per capita, under the assumption that every one has equal rights to emit carbon dioxide. However, industrialised countries like US with a per capita carbon emissions of almost ten times the average of 2.7 tons per person per year will use up their fair 'allowance' in ten years.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, uses a system of scenarios composed of related mathematical models. Each of the 46 complex models are composites of many models tackling the everything from population growth, social changes and economic growth, ocean cycles, and gas exchange between the different layers of the atmosphere. These models are used to create four predicted pathways, each based on a varying a range of factors including global population growth rates and rate of conversion from fossil fuels to non-fossil energy sources. Models and predictions are just that, estimates of tomorrow. There are no seers. But these are not solely guesses either. The IPCC suggests that to avoid the worst climate change, industrialised nations need to cut their carbon emission by 40% (from 1990 levels) by 2020. One has to ask: is this achievable?
Yet the IPCC figures are considered too constrained by the governments and Schellnhuber, chief climate adviser to the German government, is one of a growing number of people who say that industrialised will have to make even more dramatic cuts in their greenhouse emissions; in the order of 80 to 100% by 2020. In order to ensure global carbon emissions are reduced to safe levels the US has ten years for a complete reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The UK and other industrial European nations 15. Is this level of change conceivable?
Schellnhuber, while admitting that these numbers are terrifying, hopes that the governments can agree to plan, "a Green Apollo Project" that will use these ten years to make the zero emissions achievable. Putting a man on the mean was an amazing ten year programme, but it was limited to certain scientists, and this plan will have to be a global effort.
Closer to home
St Andrews is regarded as one of the ‘greener’ universities, and it deserves this reputation: It has implemented several schemes to reduce the carbon footprint of the university, and of course save money too. It has done this by, from the obvious, switching to more efficient lighting, to installing better insulation and to switching to more efficient refrigerator controls. It also has begun feasibility planning on several other projects including ways to generate electricity from wind and solar energy, notably the Kenly wind turbine farm.
We are contributing just by paying our fees, and maybe even, hopefully, slowly learning to think about our carbon footprints through the Universities awareness campaigns. Of course we can trust governments to act now for long-term benefit, and we can assume the university is doing everything it can; no need for us to go out of our way or put any pressure on them. We can stop worrying, go on as before. Safe in the knowledge that the status quo will be maintained by the politicians and the others in positions of responsibility. Yes?
Reinforcing the basics
Buy less 'stuff', eat locally produced food, save energy when you can (turn off the lights/PC), think about your carbon footprint when you travel and write to your local/home state politician. Reduce ignorance and raise awareness. Did I mention: write to that politician
Learn more
Not Stupid: a great resource for finding out more. http://notstupid.org/
David Mackay's clear and matter of fact look at alternative energy. http://www.withouthotair.com/
Students don’t need to concern themselves about climate change, we can leave it to the governments and policy-makers. But it may take more than politicians and scientists to change anything.
Some things are not worth worrying about; climate change is too large an issue for most of us to appreciate. As students, it is hard to see what effective actions we can take to ‘do our bit’ and for some, just as hard to see why we should. After all, we are trying to live our lives and focus on our studies and other interests, as right we should, these take priority – let the decision makers sort it out the mess.
Of course little things do add up, you can contribute to significant savings in money and carbon emissions, and we should not shirk our responsibilities, but the scary numbers climate scientists are publishing are getting scarier; big changes need to be made. As David MacKay, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, says “if everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little.” This is a global problem and we need global answers.
The Big Changes
Relatively recently scientists have started to publish targets for reduction in carbon emissions, ahead of the COP15, the Copenhagen meeting where it is hoped the governments of the world will agree to and set firm targets for global carbon emission reductions.
The fairest decision would be to use the global per capita system and allow the richer nations to buy emission allowances from nations that have lower emissions. The per capita system is derived by dividing the global carbon emissions equally per capita, under the assumption that every one has equal rights to emit carbon dioxide. However, industrialised countries like US with a per capita carbon emissions of almost ten times the average of 2.7 tons per person per year will use up their fair 'allowance' in ten years.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, uses a system of scenarios composed of related mathematical models. Each of the 46 complex models are composites of many models tackling the everything from population growth, social changes and economic growth, ocean cycles, and gas exchange between the different layers of the atmosphere. These models are used to create four predicted pathways, each based on a varying a range of factors including global population growth rates and rate of conversion from fossil fuels to non-fossil energy sources. Models and predictions are just that, estimates of tomorrow. There are no seers. But these are not solely guesses either. The IPCC suggests that to avoid the worst climate change, industrialised nations need to cut their carbon emission by 40% (from 1990 levels) by 2020. One has to ask: is this achievable?
Yet the IPCC figures are considered too constrained by the governments and Schellnhuber, chief climate adviser to the German government, is one of a growing number of people who say that industrialised will have to make even more dramatic cuts in their greenhouse emissions; in the order of 80 to 100% by 2020. In order to ensure global carbon emissions are reduced to safe levels the US has ten years for a complete reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The UK and other industrial European nations 15. Is this level of change conceivable?
Schellnhuber, while admitting that these numbers are terrifying, hopes that the governments can agree to plan, "a Green Apollo Project" that will use these ten years to make the zero emissions achievable. Putting a man on the mean was an amazing ten year programme, but it was limited to certain scientists, and this plan will have to be a global effort.
Closer to home
St Andrews is regarded as one of the ‘greener’ universities, and it deserves this reputation: It has implemented several schemes to reduce the carbon footprint of the university, and of course save money too. It has done this by, from the obvious, switching to more efficient lighting, to installing better insulation and to switching to more efficient refrigerator controls. It also has begun feasibility planning on several other projects including ways to generate electricity from wind and solar energy, notably the Kenly wind turbine farm.
We are contributing just by paying our fees, and maybe even, hopefully, slowly learning to think about our carbon footprints through the Universities awareness campaigns. Of course we can trust governments to act now for long-term benefit, and we can assume the university is doing everything it can; no need for us to go out of our way or put any pressure on them. We can stop worrying, go on as before. Safe in the knowledge that the status quo will be maintained by the politicians and the others in positions of responsibility. Yes?
Reinforcing the basics
Buy less 'stuff', eat locally produced food, save energy when you can (turn off the lights/PC), think about your carbon footprint when you travel and write to your local/home state politician. Reduce ignorance and raise awareness. Did I mention: write to that politician
Learn more
Not Stupid: a great resource for finding out more. http://notstupid.org/
David Mackay's clear and matter of fact look at alternative energy. http://www.withouthotair.com/