IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was released today, and it's been interesting to read how various organs of the UK media have dealt with it. The following observations all relate to the online press:

At last, the BBC - radio, television and BBC News website - presented the IPCC information in a clear, unbiased way, with a top headline article on the website. No more "it's all too complicated and there's nothing we can do about it anyway".

The Guardian also has a clear and thorough article, although they didn't make it a headline item. Maybe tomorrow?

The Independent placed their article 20th on the web page, after Firing Between N & S Korea, N. Farage's opinion of V. Putin, how Steve Jobs got a Google employee fired, and many more. Nevertheless, the IPCC article is lengthy and well illustrated.

The Times & Financial Times - nothing. Maybe tomorrow?

The Telegraph put it on the front page under the headline "Britain should prepare for an influx of 'climate change refugees'". Yes, that's the most important implication of the IPCC report. The article is full of quotes, rather than analysis, implying "can you believe this stuff?" with alongside links to older related articles such as Boris Johnson's June 2013 "The weather prophets should be chucked in the deep end".

Daily Mail & Sun - nothing.

Daily Express - "Climate change to bring more floods, UN warns" - in a brief article towards the bottom of the page, noting the discrepancies found in the 2007 report about glacier melting, and the proportion of Holland below sea level. "Sceptics have also seized on a slowdown in the rate of warming in the past 15 years." It's true, sceptics did seize on that rumour, but is it still relevant?

****
The big change (to my eyes at any rate) is the BBC. No more false "balance", just straightforward reporting. The Guardian has long been a strong advocate of action to deal with climate change. Perhaps the other serious newspapers are still digesting the report, maybe looking for more holes to pick instead of putting the message across.

Carbonics Anonymous

I recently discovered a version of the AA 12-Step Programme written by B F Skinner, the American behaviourist philosopher. The idea of substituting "fossil fuels" for "alcohol" came from reading Facing Up to Stealth Denial and Winding Down on Fossil Fuels by the Royal Society of Arts, and also the statement of President George W Bush that "America is addicted to oil".

1. We accept the fact that all our efforts to stop burning fossil fuels have failed.

2. We believe that we must turn elsewhere for help.

3. We turn to our fellow men and women, particularly those who have struggled with the same problem.

4. We have made a list of the situations in which we are most likely to burn fossil fuels.

5. We ask our friends to help us avoid those situations.

6. We are ready to accept the help they give us.

7. We honestly hope they will help.

8. We have made a list of the persons we have harmed and to whom we hope to make amends.

9. We shall do all we can to make amends, in any way that will not cause further harm.

10. We will continue to make such lists and revise them as needed.

11. We appreciate what our friends have done and are doing to help us.

12. We, in turn, are ready to help others who may come to us in the same way.
    
    I haven't yet met anyone willing to join me in forming "We". If you would like to do so please leave a comment or get in touch via my Profile.

Zero Carbon Britain

A couple of weeks after completing the course on "Climate Change challenges and solutions" I was talking to some representatives of neighbouring Transition Towns. I proposed we should adopt "Zero Carbon" as a goal on the premise that this might encourage more people to appreciate and become involved in Transition.

The responses were interesting:

"It's completely unrealistic..."
"It's not what Transition is all about..."
"We'll never persuade politicians...."
"Preserving bio-diversity is important too..."
"How would that encourage local food schemes..."
"Tailor your message to your audience..."

The last response was helpful, and as a start I'm using this blog to explain how I arrived at "Zero Carbon". (To be precise it should really be "Net Zero Carbon", but I don't believe in using three words when two will do).

I've always been a bit of an activist, in fact I believe we all try to persuade and justify our beliefs to others, one way or another, whether it's about religion, politics, how to rear children, diet or exercise regimes, or the latest gizmos. So why "Zero Carbon"?

The short answer is that none of the Transition aims listed above can be achieved - in the long run, for benefit of my offspring - unless we reach "Zero Carbon" in the shortest possible time. There's no chance of feeding a population of 9 billion or preserving bio-diversity unless we stabilise earth's climate.

The difficult thing for many people to grasp is that, even if we could completely halt carbon dioxide emissions today, earth's climate will continue warming for very many years to come. That means other natural processes which contribute to further warming will carry on too, such as: 

• Loss of ice cover reflecting sunlight back into space
• Rainforests drying out so they absorb less carbon dioxide
• Warming of permafrost which releases methane (another powerful greenhouse gas)

"Zero Carbon" is the only way we can start to slow these processes, and give ourselves time to discover how to manage them and take the steps needed to stabilise the climate. The scientific evidence shows that "80% cuts by 2050" just won't hack it. And anyway, even if 80% were enough, what then?

Chart from Zero Carbon Britain, Centre for Alternative Technology   

That's why I believe "Zero Carbon" should be our goal for Transition. Read more in Zero Carbon Britain - a recent report by the Centre for Alternative Technology.

Week 8 - Final week

8.11 Reflections

Week 8 - Final week

Important themes this week included appreciating the uncertainties which accompany climate forecasts, particularly forecasts of ice melting and hence sea level rise, and how much/by when we will act to curb fossil fuel extraction.

The greatest hazard facing UK (as we've seen this winter) is flooding, which could have a dramatic impact upon population centres including London, as well as reducing areas of prime agricultural land for growing food. These in turn will severely impact our economic system.

I was pleased to achieve 29/30 in both of the quizzes, although I needed to do a little research!

It was rather sobering to update the number of times the Thames Barrier has been closed since I first investigated this in Week 3 on 27th January. I shall be watching closely for news of further government actions to protect London from flooding.

Regarding the course as a whole:

I am already actively working to build resilience to climate change in my local community, through involvement with Transition in Kings (TiK) (www.transitioninkings.org) and Grand Union Community Energy Ltd. (www.guceltd.org)

At 73 years old I am not overly concerned about remembering all the facts and figures covered in the course, although I'm pleased to have learned several new concepts in the science of climate change, such as ocean acidification and urban heat islands, as well as gaining a better understanding of the uncertainties which accompany predictions.

Two new ideas will be particularly useful in future Transition work: the application of Carbon Budgets as a spur to action in a locality, and the individual Carbon Footprint Calculator on the DirectGov website.