Comments

I know I live in the south, but it's supposed to be 70 degrees this coming weekend, 15 degrees above normal (and it was nearly 60 on Christmas). Makes you wonder. On the other hand it was nice when my Azaleas bloomed in early December.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at January 2, 2007 12:34 PM

Well, global warming is occuring... the big question is whether or not the solutions favored will lead to greater poverty, and whether the problem is bad enough to justify the risks of said solutions.

Posted by Joe Marier at January 2, 2007 2:00 PM

Happy New Year Tom, and fellow bloggers!

As I write this at 700ft above sea level in central Scotland, we have had one solitary frost so far this winter.

A friend of mine (a noted authority on eco-psychology - that is, mankind's relationship to the eco-system, of which, he argues, we are part and not above/beyond) highlighted several months ago, the now-famous oeuvre of Al Gore,
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=an+inconvenient+truth&pl=true).

I wondered what your view is, Tom - regardless of the precise science, this climate change issue is shaping up as probably the biggest 'disruption' of all, and at the very least a huge business opportunity?

Posted by Stephen Spencer at January 2, 2007 2:32 PM

And the cycle continues to turn. One of the great calamities of the 14th century (in addition to the 100 Years War, the Black Plague, etc.) was the beginning of a mini Ice Age, which culminated some 325 or so years later with the infamous "Year Without a Summer." Global warming may well be happening, it does happen in cycles, after all, but the question really is then to what extent mankind is responsible (if any) and what can be done (should be done?) to reverse it.

Posted by Mike at January 2, 2007 2:55 PM

And the Al Gore "global" film is hilarious - he of course invented "global" and "Internet 3.0".

Mike is correct above - climate goes in cycles - politicians Pelosi & Kennedy & Gore & Clinton & Kerry though prefer to tax affluent & rich to make "global" fun for all.

Posted by sean_cool at January 2, 2007 4:26 PM

I hope Mike is right, because the possibilities, to combine successfully the targets of global economic growth with real ecological sustainability, are probably very low. The large oil companies satisfy only the risen higher demand for more raw materials, they are however not the actual cause of the problem.

Posted by Horst Schueberl at January 2, 2007 4:26 PM

"And the Al Gore 'global' film is hilarious" What - do you think he made up all the facts and figures he uses in the film? He points out several times that the amount of CO2 in the air directly correlates to temperature and the levels of CO2 have never been higher. You will notice that, much to the shock of scientists, a very large ice shelf broke off recently that was never supposed to. Glaciers are melting. There are a lot of things that are happening that point to a real problem comming our way.

It is always pointed out that the solutions may be economically infeasible. If the present predictions are true and the ocean does rise 20 feet, the base of the new ground zero memorial will be under water as will a large part of the rest of NYC and a very large populated area of Florida will simply disappear. Would that be economically infeasible to you? What price can you put on that if you are wrong? Events like that and the increased strength of bad weather patterns can create massive unemployment also. Look at New Orleans.

It is a wonderful but frustrating part of human nature that when we don't want to face a particular problem, we can simply ignore facts or deny their truths. With this kind of mentality, I am glad that I won't be alive when it all hits the fan.

Posted by Al at January 2, 2007 5:07 PM

1. the point IS that warming is real of course - it is just A Gore framing it as USA failed politicians like him being a key part of a solution set - NOT
2. Eliminate humankind pollution gases as .01-3% of the solution - rest is Mother Nature?
3. Love to eliminate pollution but Chindia is just getting started - takes me 2 weeks to detox after Bejing visit of 1 week
4. "global" is too important to be pols' football ... and A Gore too low-energy/flakey to be spokesman

Posted by sean_recycle at January 2, 2007 6:02 PM

"'Global' is too important to be pols' football..."? The problem seems to be that the guys who've owned the ball for the last few years haven't been willing to put it in play in any meaningful way. Let's give credit to Al Gore for his dropkick - and let's hope this particular game doesn't go into sudden death.

(Tomorrow morning I'll go out and look for the apple blossoms that Tom snapped. I'm just across the street, and the daffodil shoots are up in front of my house.)

Posted by Maureen Rogers at January 2, 2007 7:00 PM

NW super rain because "el Nino" did not materialize as projected?? Global warming is entertaining, at best.

Posted by J D Duncan at January 2, 2007 8:17 PM

Where there are people, there will be poop.

We all need to revisit our priorities and "re-imagine" a world where we might be willing to let go of some of the luxuries and comforts so that future generations get a cleaner planet.

Posted by Adil Mulki at January 3, 2007 3:46 AM

Some of the comments above remind me of the debate around smoking - 50 years ago (maybe less) people generally had their heads in the sand over the link to cancer and other grim consequences. 30 years ago it was still OK to smoke almost everywhere. In the early 80s I remember travelling on the London Underground, where it was permissible to smoke in the trains! Then came the King's Cross disaster (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/18/newsid_2519000/2519675.stm) and cigarettes were finally banned from the stations, as well as the trains.

To this day (when smoking is banned in enclosed public places here in Scotland) the debate goes on as to whether or not smoking is as bad for you as the scientists would have us believe. Duh!

If our response to climate change is proportionate in pace and we continue to waste time arguing over the degree to which we are responsible (I can't deal with those who say that we aren't responsible at all) then we are surely undermining our grandchildren's future, if not our children's.

But I don't think we should take an overly pessimistic stance either. If we proclaim 'the end of the world is nigh' I suspect most people's response would be, 'might as well enjoy it while it lasts then!' As I hinted in my previous comment, I actually think there are huge opportunities for us all here - but only if we accept that the answer lies not (solely) in using greener sources of energy, but in using LESS.

And... consumers are looking to businesses (politicians they've almost given up on) to offer them green, ethically based products and experiences.

What an opportunity for business to change the world for the better!

Posted by Stephen Spencer at January 3, 2007 5:38 AM

It's been interesting to note what the reaction has been over in the UK to the recent decision to increase taxes on air travel and the decision by several of our broadsheet/Berliner papers to run more environmental columns and come up with green travel solutions. At least one travel magazine is now carbon offsetting the flights that it takes in the name of research and publishing the figures in every issue.

Changes can be made, but only if one is willing to make them. My road rescue organisation has just been 'fired' over the last week for sending me a bill that was £75 higher than the cover I've got elsewhere from a more environmentally friendly concern which practices carbon offsetting principles and believes in lobbying for better public transport rather than road building.

I've also bought a bike to keep at my flat for local journeys and use around town (there's another at my girlfriends place) and so only use my car when I have to on journeys that can't be made on public transport. Electricity consumption at my flat? Around £2.50 per quarter as I don't have a fridge or freezer and don't have a TV set going 6-7 hours a day. My laptop gets used for watching DVD's and I live across the road from two supermarkets (which is why I don't need a fridge or a freezer...).

The car by the way was carefully chosen - a 1360cc Peugeot rather than a SUV or other gas guzzler. I'll buy a Prius or a Honda hybrid when I can afford one, but for now, this is the more economic solution (along with the bikes).

And by the way, yes I have seen the Al Gore movie, and whilst I don't think it's perfect, I have promoted it by featuring it in the Christmas presents article I contributed to the magazine I work for...

And finally? If everyone made one small change at a time, it would help matters immensely.

Posted by Keith Rickaby at January 3, 2007 6:29 AM

"I hope Mike's right..." Well, it's just history, not opinion. I'm a trained historian and I judge things within context, is all. Our outlooks are usually within a very small time-frame. People always say that "the snow was a lot deeper when I was a child." No, it wasn't, you were just a lot shorter then.

What about the "Another Log On The Fire Theory" of climate change? That doesn't get much press, but it is the exact opposite of the global warming theory. Direct correlations between the amount of nutrinos produced by the sun and the temperature of the earth exist. And, the nutrino count has been dropping dramatically in recent years. Therefore, the only thing keeping us from another ice age RIGHT NOW is the greenhouse effect (the "logs on the fire"). It is a theory based on scientific observation and analysis, but n one gives it any credence. Why? As the Bard said, "...more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Posted by Mike at January 3, 2007 7:36 AM

1. to me am unsure how much warming is people induced - 1%? - vs. 99% Mother Nature - Earth evolution - Sun Spots?
2. nevertheless love being "green" - have been part hippie since '70's - but Chindia is anti-green 3 Billion people to the max - getting cheap fossil-fuel cars!
3. benefits of warming - how to bank on its wealth opportunity?

Posted by sean_anti_gore at January 3, 2007 9:14 AM

This feels like the scenario described in Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink (http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/0316172324/sr=1-1/qid=1167833403/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7341429-0279215?ie=UTF8&s=books) concerning a US military wargame called Millennium Challenge. You can read it yourselves, but basically the 'terrorist' team that initially won did so by taking rapid action - decisively, without warning and certainly unpredicted by the 'US military' team. The latter had an unparallelled array of data at its fingertips. And guess what - while it was busy analysing the data, calamity struck.

So what did the military establishemnt do about that? They changed the goalposts so that the 'terrorists' could not repeat their preemptive strategy, and this time the 'home team' won! So there you have it - so long as we keep our heads firmly in the sand, we'll be OK!

Seriously, Mike's point confuses me still further - there may well be more to this than meets the eye, but we surely need global, joined-up ACTION in the face of what is at present unarguably looming as a massive threat.

Whether that approach comes from governments or (as I suggested earlier) customer-responsive businesses acting globally, in tandem in a totally new way, we can't just carry on this debate as if we're sitting in a bar/Starbucks debating who should play where in our favourite football team...

Posted by Stephen Spencer at January 3, 2007 9:26 AM

Folks:

I am said 'Ecopsychologist' that Stephen refers to in his initial posting. My training and research combines ecology with psychology to explore why we humans have come to think of ourselves and separate from, and superior to, 'nature', when of course we ARE nature. If you have a problem with this - try holding your breath for 10 minutes!

All wealth (that's ALL wealth) - if you measure it quantatively in hard material terms, or qualitatively in terms that take into account the mydriad ways we experience well being - is derived from the environment. If we don't live within the limits of the systems of life that we ourselves inhabit, then we will perish. It's very simple indeed.

Climate change is high profile at the moment. But, in fact, it is of course only the most salient of a whole raft of massive global socio-environmental issues, most of which the majority of us don't 'see', perhaps because Al Gore hasn't made a film about them yet!

Whichever way you approach it - climate change (and deforestation, desertification, biodiversity loss, resource depletion, waste management, war, poverty and terrorism...) are anthropomorphic issues that are all connected somewhere. They are human issues simply because we are part of the same global system as them - either biologically, socially or psychologically, and indeed, all these simultaneously.

For me, the precautionary principle applies. It's just good common sense. What history says, what science says, what technology promises, are all ultimately subjective and culturally bound. There is no truth (so there's no point arguing about it). We have to act as if the worst might happen and then we enter a win-only scenario - in the long-term.

In the UK, research by the New Economics Foundation shows that beyond a basic level, the more material wealth a person has, the more likely s/he is to suffer from anxiety or depression. The incidence of serious psychopathology is more prevalent in industrialised countries than anywhere else. Despite all our wealth in the industrial west - we are demonstrably no happier than we we're thirty years ago. Why then, destroy our life systems in the long-term while making ourselves unhappy in the process?

We're killing ourselves for no apparent benefit and we're taking two thirds of the planets ecosystems and our own children's futures with us... go figure.

The business community (who I consult to) are missing two major tricks here. One, we have no choice but to operate sustainably - it's a basic fact of life, literally, so we may as well start now and avoid the pain (and be ahead of the game competitively). Secondly, people need information, skills, knowledge, appropriate technology and economic alternatives in order to thrive in a sustainable world. Who will supply them?

I agree strongly with Spephen - Sustainability (not just climate change) is ironically, the biggest business opportunity since the industrial revolution.

Thos eof us in business should stop bickering about the 'truth', throw out the manual (the one written by Adam Smith and David Ricardo) and start taking part in life, rather than exploiting it to the point of ecological suicide.

Posted by David Key at January 3, 2007 10:27 AM

Has anyone noticed that Tom hasn't said anything yet? Hmmm - he started it and then just sat back and watched the debate fly. Perhaps this is another opportunity Tom should mention in his presentations. Women, baby boomers, and environmental technology/psychology.

Posted by Al at January 3, 2007 11:05 AM

We have numerous examples of abnormal weather in North America and Europe from this winter - Tom's picture is consistent with the general pattern. Having just returned from a week in NYC where the temperature never dipped below freezing I have my own experience too.

The science is pretty clear and therefore this abnormal weather is no surprise.
The challenge for organisations is to work out how to respond to the opportunities that global warming will undoubtedly present, and more importantly, what contribution they are going to make to reducing the threat.

Posted by Steve McGrady at January 3, 2007 12:51 PM

Al & Steve,

Just like individuals, organisations have it in their power to 'do something' - the challenge however is that (1) the motivation has to be compelling and most people/organisations put themselves first and changing the world well down the list; and (2) individuals doing their bit is not going to be enough. That's why we need leadership to create a movement that will be listened to and ultimately make enough of a shift to make a real difference. Look at the Make Poverty History movement - consider the difference that was/is made by Geldof/Bono (even though the political response is never as substantial as promised).

Without that leadership, however - Al Gore is trying, but he can't do it alone - can anyone see this 'ultimate disruption' being appropriately addressed?

That's why it would be great if thought leaders of Tom's stature could help us to make sense in the enormity of it all, find our own motivation/opportunity (see point 1) and form/join a global movement to start turning the oil tanker around (per point 2).

Posted by Stephen Spencer at January 4, 2007 6:54 AM

Did any of you see the "sun explosion", the GIANT sun burst about 6-9 months ago??? The size of like, 786,346 earths, that big, probably bigger...what effect did that have on the climate and weather patterns? Hhhmmm??

Posted by J D Duncan at January 4, 2007 8:07 PM

I believe that the climate is changing. That is easy for me to say because the climate has always been changing. We know of warm periods and cold periods. I lived most of my life in the upper midwest where the tracks of glaciers created the landscape we know. The glaciers are gone, and have been for thousands of years. Since Mars is also experiencing a warming trend I think our current warming has to do with the output of the sun.

As for me, I plan to be recycle and be as good a steward as I can in avoiding waste, but my widowed mother sure appreciates the fact that I burn about 40 or 50 gallons of gasoline each Christmas when I bring her granddaughter to visit. I also value my air-conditioned house, car, and office in Houston. I'm not ready to give either of those up.

Posted by Richard in Houston at January 5, 2007 1:55 AM

..nor should you, Richard. When can we discuss Romneys' Presidential run???

Posted by J D Duncan at January 6, 2007 8:07 PM