Blind Eye

As you have surely heard recently, scientists from around the world have declared that there is a very strong correlation between global warming and human activity. 

This information has been widely reported across the world and not many people, in the Western world at least, will still be unaware of it.

Stands to logic thought then that this report should at last, shut up the sceptics and make them come onboard.  It should also take away any excuses for inaction at all levels: at governmental levels (looking at Bush Inc. mainly), at corportate levels (looking at the aviation industry epecially but not exclusively)  and at individual levels (looking at my friends who, while chatting on Friday night at our girlie cheese and wine evening, simply rolled their eyes heavenwards at the mention of it, turned up the thermostat and discussed how their recycling obligations are such an inconvenience).

This is the thing;  there’s no longer any doubt that we are the culprits, but on an individual basis, most people (well certainly most of my friends and aquaintances) aren’t actually taking it seriously.  I really believe that most people are just thinking it will go away, that the scientists will “find a cure” or that the government will have an answer. 

So…what’s now needed to be implemented with urgent rapidity, is personal carbon allowances.  I don’t want them.  No-one does. 

But I love this wonderful green Earth and all it’s inhabitants.


5 responses to this post.

  1. In 2005 in Canada (where I live), road (car plus SUV) traffic accounted for over 12% of all greenhouse emissions. Domestic aviation accounted for just 1%. A slightly older report by transport Canada puts the greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation at about double those from domestic aviation, so it makes sense to assume that all aviation comes to 3% of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions. This raises the question: why single out aviation, and industry that has steadily increased the energy efficiency of its operations, as opposed to the automobile industry, which accounts for a far larger proportion of emissions, and which has produced much less fuel efficient vehicles over the past decade?

    If we adjust aviation emissions to allow for the “radiative forcing” hypothesis, we should also take into account the terra-watts of heat absorbed and released by millions of hectares of blacktop laid down for the personal car. Even if we do not, using the radiative forcing estimates from the IGCC, planes still pollute less than private cars. So the question still arises: why single out aviation?

    I don’t dispute the need for action on climate change. I do insist on basing the actions we take on hard facts and nothing else. Quite aside from the fact that nothing else makes ethical sense, nothing else will work.


  2. One other thing we must be very alert about is the news that we have also heard of briberies to scientists to in a way disguise their findings in this connection. The name of Exxo has been mentioned.

    I have also heard politicians saying that we should change our fridges to climate-friendly, that their cost is a little dearer than the conventional ones, but that this difference in price could be compensanted by savings in energy.

    If politicians that are supposed to be “our” representatives induce us to correct the mistakes made by scientists by again filling corporations’ pockets, we should be wise to take it into account on the next occasion we will have to vote.

    The curious side of all this commotion is that scientists are adamant that there is 90% likelihood that these alterations in climate conditions are “human-made”. When we all know that it is them, the scientists, with the support by big corporations that have led us to “blindly cooperate” with the latter.

    CFC and Tetraethyl lead were both invented by one engineer and used irreflexibly by corporations without paying any attention to their possible dangers. We all know that the system has been changed in aerosols and petrol to avoid using those poisonous chemicals.

    Why must always be us who pay for the mistakes made by corporations is something beyond my comprehension.


  3. Absolutely John. The car industry needs to be poked too. I’ve blogged before about our personal car usage, SUV’s, congestion etc. I did say in my post “aviation especially but not exclusively”.

    I can understand your need to defend flying John. I see it’s an interest of yours. What concerns me in particular about aviation compared to car industry is that the UK government is actually encouraging growth in aviation whereas the car industry is under pressure to reach its targets or face legislation. And the industry is now accepting that it needs to reduce its emissions and produce energy-efficient cars. It has made some progress. Not enough yet but at least it’s not in total denial and at least the government is providing incentives for them to reduce emissions. In contrast, the only thing the government is actively doing about air travel is backing the offsetting schemes. Well, that’s not going to reduce pollution is it! It’s going to give people and the industry a clear conscience to carry on polluting.

    We simply cannot stop global warming and continue to travel long distances at high speeds. And it’s the rate at which air travel is growing. Aviation is the world’s fastest growing source of CO2 emissions.


    Jose, you’re right of course. There’s been much bribery and corruption between the oil giants and members of government. And it’s almost laughable that the big oil giants fund their own scientists to carry out climate change research because of course they’re going to come up with self-appropriate results! Furthermore, we know we have the US government, in accordance with its own corporate agenda, being very active in it’s suppression and interference of independent scientific climate change research.

    I also agree that we shouldn’t be penalised for mistakes made by corporations but we must also be aware that many businesses are supplying in response to huge consumer demand and I feel that the only way to reduce this demand is for the consumer to change their/our enviro-behaviour.


  4. Yup, time for PCAs. I’m fed up with talking to brick walls!


  5. I agree with the last paragraph of your post, Earthpal. It would be unpardonable, now that we know, that we keep buying all that crap.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: