Oh goody, it looks like chump can afford to increase my gardening wages.
It is often more rewarding to be presented with an argument one fundamentally disagrees with than have ones views comfortably reinforced. So while I gladly welcome rational argument against what is now a distastefully religious green movement (with non-believers seemingly vilified and suppressed), this trio of links about the aforementioned swindling & specious slice of anti-GW rhetoric in my view throws it out of contention:
(links quite similar, perhaps choose one or two)
http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
http://www.climatedenial.org/
A misleading polemic, then, not a thorough scientific refutation at all. So in this case gentle vilification is imho entirely justified, as long as it is directed at the content not the idea of dissent itself.
But it piqued my interest in the subject. I found this frighteningly comprehensive blog "How to talk to a global warming sceptic". Fortunately it is split into easily digestible parts and littered with source references.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
After that and some other light digging I must say I am, as I was before, convinced, worried and mildly guilty about GW and my contribution to it, though not as panic-stricken as some might like. Like many, I'll do my bit to live cleanly (at least as far as I can understand the implications of my actions - the web of consequences runs deep) up to the point where practical inconvenience outweighs the salve to my conscience. I doubt that is enough, though, which is a problem (time to acquire speculative plots of cheap Icelandic real estate?
)
I dug up some graphs, although sadly they stop at 2000.
CO2 by category; CO2 per country; Types of energy
CO2 per capita; Greenhouse gases by type
Ideally of course we reduce emissions in all categories, but it struck me that switching wholesale to nuclear power would be easier, less objectionable (to us - though I may underestimate the irrational fears it is apt to induce) and far more effective than, say, chipping ineffectually away at the fringes of transport. There seems to me to be a disproportionate effort concentrated on the evils of transport when a greater % of CO2 belches out of power stations. In fact there seems to be a general concentration on topical details (wince at a bit of superfluous packaging here, pop in a low energy lightbulb there, tax the gas guzzler everywhere) at the expense of more expansive systemic remedies such as nuclear (& other non fossil) power. Nuclear power stations can make hydrogen for transport by the way and act as desalination plants. I'm not denying that every little counts, for a second, I just think there are bigger fish to fry too.
There's the pesky issue of the nuclear waste of course. Half the dengenerate atoms are still partying after 500 years. But afaik a minuscule amount of it is produced compared to the land we have in which to bury it, deep down in a safely sealed glass case. Is that so bad? I dare say the cost of conversion would soon be recouped in the reduced running costs too (no more expensive oil to pay for) but I admit that is only a guess. So why are we not more reliant on nuclear energy? I know I'm woefully ignorant, but it does seem a blindingly obvious thing to go for. Typing with thirteen fingers is just an added bonus.
Edit: I later found a couple of threads on this subject. Apart from one or two excessively rabid treehuggers the content is solid and very convincing (for me) in favour of nuclear.
http://www.foe.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2496.0.html
http://www.foe.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1507.0.html
Incidentally, it is dangerously easy to employ the pointy finger against a certain obvious group the majority dislikes. SUV drivers are a wildly popular target and I suspect as much of an emotional as a rational one; for some reason they're easy to hate and it feels righteous to do so. The government knows this which is why the 4x4 tag is so emphasised in their tax scheme, despite the fact that of the 290 vehicle models that fall into bend over band G, only 35 are actual 4x4 off roaders. But we cheer cause all we see is the headline inconveniencing of the given hated minority.
How many of us have actually added up all the unpleasant things we do to the earth and its creatures during the course of a daily, realist life? There are many less obvious crimes than ttaking up more room on the road and using amore petrol to do it, even if the pushy fur gilet and accent that could notch wood may grate. The virtuous beard who cycles 10 miles to buy an extra metre of biodegradable loft insulation might sit down to feast upon battery chicken then decide to rear several children. But that's another topic. My point is just that it is easier to accuse than examine in detail our own behaviour, especially when the environmental consequences of some of our actions are so difficult to fathom. If the car journey is >3 miles is it better to recycle 5 wine bottles or bury them in the neighbour's garden? Do I allow the cat to provide 10% of our electricity only to learn that the production of the extra food and amphetamines needed for this required 11%?
However what is worse than finger pointing is the fatalism that seems to be growing in popularity. "There's nothing we can do, it's all too complicated, the science is probably wrong, they're just finding another reason to tax us, even if we change the Chinese won't and who are we to suppress their development etc.... therefore let's not change our comfortable lives one iota and see what happens." Fact is, there is plenty we can do, even though for most of us a practical level of self-flagellation is unlikely to be sufficient for the most ascetic treehugger. Anyway I don't want to lecture, as I'm certainly no saint.
Finally as ever a humorous emission from Boris, who recommends we spifflicate some cows, provided a welcome tonic to this casual, erm, air-freighted bottle of superficial wine led introspection.
http://www.boris-johnson.com/archives/2007/01/greenhouse_gases.php
He's got a point about the methane, although it lingers in the atmosphere for only 10% of the time that CO2 does. Expect a new tax on steak any time now. And one on fun soon after.
