Changes in attitudes towards global warming

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.

In the past 5 years I have become...

More concerned about man-made climate change
23
50%
Equally concerned about man-made climate change
9
20%
Less concerned about man-made climate change
6
13%
Never believed in it, still don't
5
11%
Climate change? Global warming? Bring it on!
3
7%
 
Total votes: 46

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:50 am

If you know anyone who is still genuinely unsure about AGW, this book might be good for them.
In Climate Crisis 101, we outline the basics of climate change in plain language, provide tips on how to take action, and list additional helpful resources. Whether you’re learning about the climate crisis for the first time or simply need a refresher, you’ll gain answers to key questions like:

What do we mean by “climate change”?
How do we know climate change is happening?
What are the causes of climate change?
How certain are scientists?
What effect do humans have on the climate?
What can you do about the climate crisis?

The climate changes, but these facts don’t. Download our free Climate Crisis 101 e-book now.
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/c ... nge-basics

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:36 pm

robertk wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:50 am
Bringing this discussion about newspapers back to climate change.
The topic of this thread was about changing attitudes, not this.
robertk wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 10:50 am
here is an article from 2016 in the Guardian, which predicts that there will be no more arctic ice in summers by january2017 or 2018 ( except in nooks and cranies)

Does anyone know if the ice is all but gone?
https://www.google.com.kw/amp/s/amp.the ... -next-year
...
You have said on several occasions that summer Arctic sea ice would disappear by the middle of this decade. It hasn’t. Are you being alarmist?[/i]

No. There is a clear trend down to zero for summer cover. However, each year chance events can give a boost to ice cover or take some away. The overall trend is a very strong downward one, however. Most people expect this year will see a record low in the Arctic’s summer sea-ice cover. Next year or the year after that, I think it will be free of ice in summer and by that I mean the central Arctic will be ice-free. You will be able to cross over the north pole by ship. There will still be about a million square kilometres of ice in the Arctic in summer but it will be packed into various nooks and crannies along the Northwest Passage and along bits of the Canadian coastline. Ice-free means the central basin of the Arctic will be ice-free and I think that that is going to happen in summer 2017 or 2018
.
It would seem that the prediction failed for mid decade. A honest response would be "yes, that prediction failed". As is, it supports a game of "move the pea". Ice free is not the same as being able to cross with an ice breaker for instance. I don't recall reports of anyone going to the north pole by ship this arctic summer.

There are standardized measures of ice cover which would make more sense if one was trying to make a clear and testable prediction.
-------------------------

Ice-locked ship to drift over North Pole http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39024227

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:24 am

In the longer term, sustainability depends on social justice and won't be won without strong community support.
Adani is on the ropes, desperately trying to rescue the $1.5bn they gambled on the economically marginal and environmentally disastrous Carmichael coal mine. Gina Rinehart, Clive Palmer or Aurizon might follow Adani into the Galilee basin but the environment movement has the numbers this time. Mass social movements like #StopAdani will triumph over profit, either through the ballot box or in front of bulldozers.

People ask me why I quit my job at The Queensland Greens, why I put myself at physical and legal risk to initiate citizen resistance against Adani’s plans. The answer is always the same. To buy time. There is enough coal in the Galilee Basin to not only cook the Reef, but to supercharge extreme weather and destroy farmland worldwide. The resulting death and destruction is seemingly unspeakable.

Any time gained through stopping fossil fuel projects must be used to enact meaningful cultural and systemic change. The 50 years of the modern environment movement have been the most ecologically destructive in human history, when hyper-consumerism has become our dominant religion and carbon emissions have soared.

Our dominant culture of over-consumption, expensive thrills and massive waste must be challenged and changed. ...
:reading: https://newmatilda.com/2018/01/13/buyin ... eat-adani/

Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:47 am

The risks of global warming are now front and centre in mainstream economics. This comes from the World Economic Forum:
Extreme weather events and natural disasters are the likeliest global risks to occur in 2018, according to experts surveyed by the World Economic Forum.

WEF's latest Global Risks Report 2018, published Wednesday, showed that environmental disasters, cybercrime, large-scale involuntary migration and illicit trade were among the most notable risks, in terms of likelihood, facing the world this year.

As with previous reports, the top-ranking global risk in terms of impact was the use of weapons of mass destruction. But this was followed in the table of top 10 risks by three environmental risks: Extreme weather events, natural disasters and a failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation. (emphasis added)

Almost 1,000 global experts and decision-makers were surveyed on their views on the most significant risks that face the world. The risks ranged from the diverse categories of economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological.
Noting that the "failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation" was a risk implies very strongly that "climate-change mitigation and adaptation" per se is well and truly on the agenda.

:reading: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/17/world-e ... -says.html

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Pseudobabble » Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:04 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:47 am
The risks of global warming are now front and centre in mainstream economics. This comes from the World Economic Forum
I really doubt that a bunch of old people yapping about something which doesn't affect them is going to produce any real change.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:33 am

This is more about the media than the data so I'm posting it here rather than the other thread although some of the data is worth a look ...

2017-disasters_map_lrg.jpg
2017-disasters_map_lrg.jpg (65.29 KiB) Viewed 816 times
Extreme weather events in the United States seemed ever-present in the media during 2017, with historic wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and droughts receiving national coverage. What was less common, however, was major TV news networks making the connection between these kinds of billion-dollar disasters and climate change for their viewers. That's despite scientific support confirming these links, and some experts even warning that such extreme events may be “the new normal.”

The conclusion about major network coverage of climate change comes from a new report by Media Matters for America.

This report found that the major news networks — ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, and PBS — spent a combined 260 minutes covering climate change in 2017 on their evening news and Sunday morning talk shows. The report does not include coverage from cable news outlets. While CBS and PBS spent more time on the issue than the rest of the networks, they were also the only ones to feature guests who outright denied the overwhelming scientific consensus around human-caused climate change.

For example, an October 10 edition of PBS NewsHour hosted notorious coal executive Bob Murray of Murray Coal, who made the claim that “I listen to 4,000 scientists … who tell me that mankind is not affecting climate change.” Murray's interviewer did not question or correct his erroneous claims, and presented Murray's position as one of two “sides” along with former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy.

Climate Change and Trump

Up from a dismal 50 minutes of total coverage in 2016, last year's TV news attention on climate change actually rarely discussed extreme weather events — or greenhouse gas emissions, advances in climate science, or much besides the Trump administration's actions and statements. ...
:reading: https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/12/t ... ate-change ... to be able to follow the links, which are thought=provoking.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:40 pm

More about politics than about global warming per se, and as much about the US as about Australia ... we share a problem.
Why can’t Australia break up with coal?

From the UK and China to Denmark, Chile and India, an inexorable global rush to move from polluting coal is under way. And it’s not just climate change and the Paris agreement that are the catalyst. Renewable energy is now cheaper than coal in most parts of the world.

In late 2017, the conservative UK government—the country that kicked off global coal use worldwide—announced it would close the country’s eight remaining coal power stations by 2025 and phase out coal, with bipartisan political and public support. In Europe, France, Portugal, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland all have coal exit plans, while Germany and Ireland are discussing it.

Meanwhile in Australia, our own Resources Minister, Senator Matt Canavan just gave a speech dubbing coal a ‘beautiful industry’ and the Federal Coalition continues its blind and stubborn support of Adani’s unbuilt Carmichael coal mine, a project rejected by 28 banks, abandoned by contractors and overwhelmingly opposed by the Australian public.

The tenacity of the government’s position—holding on by its fingernails to an industry that is cooking the planet, impacting the health of millions, polluting our land, water and air, and displacing traditional land owners—is not only socially and environmentally dangerous, but economically reckless.

Our own politicians’ antediluvian attitude toward coal and energy is mortgaging our future and jeopardising the planet. It’s not something to be proud of.

So what is the difference between Australia (and our old friend America)—and the rest of the world?

We just happen to be sloshing with money from the fossil fuel industry. For decades the coal, oil and gas lobby has bought and sold politicians and with such success that Australia has become almost a lone outpost for coal in the global economy.

Last year, funds to produce ads spruiking the virtues of coal and mining were the largest single political expenditure by non political parties — more than the amount spent by any other industry. Feeling the heat and with its backs against the wall, the fossil fuel lobby is now simply throwing its money at the government to try to buy support and time.

Money opens doors and in an astounding acknowledgement that went relatively under-reported, the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) recently admitted that it donates to politicians to gain access. We live in a democracy, but nothing undermines democracy more than big coal barons paying to get the ear of our elected officials.

Add this to the constant revolving door between jobs in the fossil fuel industry and our government and it’s clear Australia has a problem.

Not surprisingly, Australian miners received twice as much money from the Federal Government in tax credits as it spend on protecting our precious natural heritage.
:reading: http://www.eco-business.com/opinion/why ... with-coal/

:jedi:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:59 pm

The numbers add up: how communities can save the world

It’s easy to feel powerless in the face of climate change.

If governments don’t take the threat seriously, what’s the point in you and me doing anything about it?

Well, it turns out there’s every point. When people form communities or companies that aim to make a difference, things really start to change and the effect can be amazing.
... plus lots of good ideas and examples.
https://www.theguardian.com/powershop-t ... =Powershop

:twothumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:28 am

Throughout the Trump administration’s first year in office, the Environmental Protection Agency has been quietly scrubbing mentions of climate change and tweaking related language on its website – an effort critics have decried as scientific censorship.

The EPA is far from the only federal agency to get a Trump-era work over. But monitoring organizations say it has suffered the most extensive revisions over the past year.

These alterations, which began within days of President Donald Trump’s inauguration, reflect a marked departure from the EPA’s roots in an era of burgeoning environmental activism. In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson ignited an advocacy movement with her book Silent Spring, which warned that humans were poisoning their environment with pesticides, and, in turn, the environment would eventually poison humans too. The message, compounded by environmental disasters of that decade, attracted the sympathies of President Richard Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 in part to regulate the impact of human activities on the environment.

Nearly five decades later, the current administration is waging a blitzkrieg against the widely held consensus that human activity is a driving force behind climate change. This reorientation has triggered a purge of environmental websites, and especially, the EPA’s, which once boasted readers had “come to the right place” for the latest information on climate change. ...
:reading: http://time.com/5075265/epa-website-cli ... ensorship/

:toilet:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:29 am

The intersection of climate mitigation, gender politics and social action:
Bangladesh to empower women and girls in the face of increasing climate impacts

February 28 2018, Dhaka – The world's largest multilateral fund for climate change action, the Green Climate Fund, has approved almost US$25 million in grant funding in support of Bangladesh’s efforts to build the adaptive capacities of vulnerable coastal communities. With a focus on women and adolescent girls, a new 6-year project is set to benefit 700,000 people living in disaster-prone southwestern districts.

Led by the Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs, also providing $8 million in co-financing, the UN-supported project marks a paradigm-shift in the way women are empowered as ‘change-agents’ to plan, implement, and manage climate-resilient solutions to safeguard livelihoods and lives in the Least Developed Country.

A coalition of partners, mobilized by the UN Development Programme, will support the Government.

The project will provide assistance to 25,000 women and girls in Satkhira and Khulna to adopt resilient livelihoods, while ensuring reliable, safe drinking water for 130,000 people through community-managed rainwater harvesting solutions. It will also seek to strengthen the participation of women in last-mile dissemination of gender-responsive early warnings and continued monitoring and adaptation of livelihoods to evolving climate risks.

A key aspect focuses on enhancing women’s access to markets and finance. In addition to training in business development, the project will link women’s producer groups to business via networking activities ...
:reading: http://adaptation-undp.org/GCF-Banglade ... ia-release

:namaste:
Kim


User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:21 am

Virgo wrote:
Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:46 pm


Kevin
:thanks: but it gave me that deja vu feeling. :tongue:
I knew why when I found it on the other climate change thread, with my comments at viewtopic.php?f=54&t=18897&start=1380#p460384
Never mind.

:coffee:
Kim

Virgo
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Virgo » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:30 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:21 am
I knew why when I found it on the other climate change thread, with my comments at viewtopic.php?f=54&t=18897&start=1380#p460384
Its been undercovered in the media, so I went for a repost. :twothumbsup:

Kevin

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:29 am

:twothumbsup:
Majority of Australians support phasing out coal power by 2030, survey finds

50% of Coalition voters and 67% of Labor voters want to phase out coal, and majority also support striving to cut greenhouse gas emissions

A majority of Australians would support phasing out coal power by 2030, including half the people in a sample identifying as Coalition voters, according to a survey by a progressive thinktank.

The research funded by the Australia Institute says 60% of a sample of 1,417 Australians surveyed by online market research firm Research Now supported Australia joining the Powering Past Coal Alliance to phase out coal power by 2030.

The Powering Past Coal Alliance – spearheaded by the UK and Canada – was unveiled at the COP23 climate talks in Bonn. The agreement is not legally binding, and the membership does not include Australia or other major coal exporters and users.

The survey suggests there is a core level of support across Australia’s partisan divide for signing on, with 50% of Coalition voters supportive as well as 67% of ALP voters. ...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... rvey-finds
Note to non-Aussies: "Coalition" ~ US Republicans and "Labor" ~ Dems.

:twothumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4998
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:56 am

There's some science in this but it's mainly about a change of heart ...
Imagine walking away from a promising and well-paying career as a geoscientist in the fossil fuel industry to join the fight against climate change.

That's what Dimitri Lafleur did.

He started working for Shell in his home country of the Netherlands before he ended up in Australia in 2008 to help the company search for gas on the North West Shelf.

"My job was to map out the structure of the gas fields and work out how to get the most gas out of them," says Dimitri.

But soon after he arrived in Perth, Dimitri found himself at a briefing on climate change science, and things would never be the same.

Looking at graphs of increasing carbon dioxide levels, he could not see how climate change could be solved with continued use of fossil fuels.

"That was the real trigger for me to think this was not the way to continue," says Dimitri

He became acutely aware of the need for humans to take action.

"You reflect on what you're doing and realise 'well I'm not part of the solution'."

Dimitri started agitating for the company to shift more of its core business towards renewables. But change wasn't going to happen fast enough for him.

"You start to wonder, 'What am I doing here?'" ...

"But in the end, the idea that I have a more an active role in contributing to solutions for climate change makes me a much happier person ... I feel really good."

Dimitri is also passionate about the "moral responsibility" of fossil fuel producers to help pay for climate change mitigation and adaptation, even if it is not in their backyard.

"There is a lot of wealth creation with these fossil fuels," he says.

"It can help pay for mitigation and adaptation in countries that don't have those funds available."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018 ... ht/9494426

:twothumbsup:
Kim

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests