Britain must adapt to 'inevitable' climate change
As experts call for action now, the coalition withholds green funding and appeals to private enterprise
By Matt Chorley and Jonathan Owen
"In a series of dramatic artistic impressions, the Government illustrates how hospitals and fire stations should be built on hills to escape floods, skyscrapers designed to reflect the sun's rays and tracts of land allowed to be reclaimed by the sea."
"Critics insist the coalition cannot sidestep responsibility. This weekend the Green Party annual conference in Birmingham has called for far greater government intervention. Caroline Lucas, the party's new MP and
leader, said: "Adaptation to climate change will be a matter of life and death to many people, here in the UK and even more in the developing world."Britons must radically change the way they live and work to adapt to being "stuck with unavoidable climate change" the Government will caution this week, as it unveils a dramatic vision of how society will be altered by floods, droughts and rising temperatures.
The coalition will signal a major switch towards adapting to the impact of existing climate change, away from Labour's heavy emphasis on cutting carbon emissions to reverse global temperature rises. Caroline Spelman, the Tory Secretary of State for the Environment, will use her first major speech on climate change since taking office to admit that the inevitable severe weather conditions will present a "survival-of-the- fittest scenario", with only those who have planned ahead able to thrive. Adapting to climate change will be "at the heart of our agenda", she is expected to say.
23 comments:
Maybe the North American landmass is more resistant to the early effects of climate change, which is why many Americans are not picking up on those obvious clues that climate change is a reality. I am in my 40s and have seen the climate in England change since my childhood. It's not my imagination - the natural world is having to adapt fast and there is plenty of objective data supporting this. You don't even have to accept AGW to realise that it's in all our interests to find ways of dealing with increased frequency of heatwaves and erratic wind and precipitation patterns. I am hoping that the Lib Dems in the UK's coalition will continue to campaign for environmental issues and support green industries .... at least until we get a change of government. What America does is down to Americans - I believe Europe will be in a stronger position to deal with the situation by the time the USA wakes up - if that gives us a competitive advantage, well so be it.......
silly UK; it's not "global climate change" anymore... it's "global climate disruption" now
Can we send Al Gore to Great Britain? He could be the new prime minister and implement his programs that have been repudiated here in the US.
And while you're at it, send Rep. Johnson (D-GA) because he may be concerned that the Island will capsize.
America has a LOT of moonbats that would be far more comfortable in the UK...
"... with only those who have planned ahead able to thrive" will most likely turn out to be:
"Only those who have planned ahead will be allowed to survive." Of course this will be limited to lefty politicians and some influential greenies.
Yes, I like the "competitive disadvantage" of not "getting" global warming.
Cambridge Lady, I wonder if you've heard the news (the research center is in Britain, you know) about the Global CRU backing off of its claims that have formed the crux of the environmental movement -- namely, that it's based on cooked data. There's your warming.
I've been here on this third rock from the sun for some time-you 40 something youngster, lady. And have seen some swings either way.
I have even pulled up some history climate temps. Extreme 100's in a geographic area that doesn't usually pass high 90's-date 1920's. NO INDUSTRY at that time. What gives? No protest about industries contributing then; like I said, no industries in that history time.
Now they say the sun is about to fizzle OUT. What will they come up with next to try and trick us?
I suggest we just give up as many freedoms and as much money as the world governments need to protect us from experiencing this horrible fate. That should solve everything.
What's the problem?
I've realised in the past year that there is no point in trying to convince the American "right" of the reality of climate change. I suspect the reasons you don't "get it" are manifold - political, religious, educational. I am now of the opinion that it is a complete waste of resources trying to persuade the USA to lower emissions - it's not going to happen. The rest of us need to anticipate, educate and prepare for climate change and somehow help those who are already impacted by climate change and will be severely affected in the future. Good luck!
So there! Why do you think Cambridge Lady calls herself "Cambridge Lady".
The "right" is Redbrick and prole at best, while Cambridge is, well, you know...She doesn't call herself the Poole Mom, or The Gal From Brixton.
When you say "Cambridge" and you say "Lady", you've said it all.
BTW, Cambridge Lady, I understand that there are classes; inequalities of intelligence, education, ambition, and so forth, but your indestructible snobbery always bleeds out in your comments.
What brings you here? Nostalgie de la boue?
I'll assume you're camping up the indignation Rhod :S
I live in Cambridge, I'm female, and I'm a little too old to be calling myself a girl or lass. Never knew one's choice of online identity could be quite so loaded.
Look I am engaged in climate change research so do get somewhat frustrated when people don't "get it". I am sure there are people who write here that have interest and expertise in other areas and get equally annoyed when they can't get their message across. As I say, I have given up trying to persuade anyone that GW is not a hoax.
Nostalgie de la boue? No - I comment on blogs because I enjoy intellectual debate with equals. My allusion to "educational" differences is because I read that the "right" are trying to get GW taken off the curriculum in the USA's public schools. Religious differences? - the USA is home to a number of Christian extremists that believe the world will end in 2012 so what's the point in taking care of the environment. Political differences? Well that doesn't need explanation. That's what I meant - sorry if it was misunderstood.
Your "identity" is established by the class markers in your comments (until you're reminded of it) - after which you lapse into a lot of unconvincing self-justifications.
One such is your ludicrous reinterpretation of your snooty opinion of the American "right" into some craven nonsense about "Christian extremists".
If your "frustration" with those who don't "get it" is due to your "interest" and "expertise" in "climate change research" don't give up.
Geocentrism had a long run. And Ptolemy had an explanation for planetary motion that lasted for centuries until it was proved wrong.
No matter, as they say.
Oh Lady .....
If Al F***ing Gore would put a plastic bad over his head, the Co2 emissions in the world would be cut in half.
PS ... Lady, has Al Whore every thanked you personally for making him a multimillionaire?
C. Lady, Christian "extremists" think the world is going to end in 2012? Get with it, ma'am. You are an uninformed fool. There's a big world out here (there's folks across the pond, lo, sans black teeth), and you need not be barefoot and from Kentucky to be provincial.
Once again, the left is worried about fictitious Christian "extremists" while real religious extremists are sawing off the heads of "infidels" like livestock, no, worse than livestock are treated.
As Rhod says, if you are so damn smart it will be borne out. I assume since you are an expert you understand that all those right-wingers in the GCRU are falling on their swords because they have been right all these years.
I'll turn down my AC two degress in your honor tonight.
Hi Odie - You may not be aware but environmentalists outside of the US do not have Al Gore as our "leader". I for one am no fan of his based on some of the things I have read. We have plenty of excellent research being carried out in the UK, Europe and beyond and it's well worth a look.
DC - Uninformed fool? Well as we are not actually acquainted I feel that's a bit of a snap judgement and rather rude. I find that with people whose opinions differ from my own I prefer to debate issues rather than resort to name calling. But if you prefer the latter, that's your prerogative. No worries ....
When I lived in the UK some years ago, everyone burned coal. That practice may have ended by now. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal)
Whether or not that's the case, why don't you turn your vitriol on China? In China, the world’s largest coal producer with an annual output around 2.5 billion tons. Clearly the planet's largest polluter.
Coal seam fires extend over a belt across the entire north China, whereby over one hundred major fire areas are listed, each of which contains many individual fire zones. They are concentrated in the provinces of Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Ningxia. Beside losses from burned and inaccessible coal, these fires contribute to air pollution and considerably increased levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Fighting coal seam fires worldwide would seem to be an appropriate international effort. Do that first, then we'll talk.
Hi LL - Yes, the coal burning has largely stopped - domestically at least - we tend to use North Sea Gas and electricity. Some of our electricity comes from conventional greenhouse gas emitting sources, some from nuclear, more and more from wind farms. A major wind farm just opened in the Thames estuary and there's another development coming online in 2012.
China - Okay we are looking at dirty Chinese industry making lots and lots of goods. And who are they making these goods for? Us. The USA, Europe, Australasia and any part of the world wanting to consume, consume, consume. This is the other half of the equation - we all need to consume less. We in the "west" are simply exporting our carbon emissions to China. The Chinese also aspire to live "western" lives - they want cars and consumer goods themselves. Who are we to say they can't? China's a mixed bag. I am picking up on some fantastic green initiatives coming from that country. Alongside that I totally agree that their environmental record - both on emissions and pollution - needs massive improvement. Certainly agree they need to tackle coal seam fires as well.
BTW - In my original comment I made it clear that one does not have to accept AGW - ie climate change is man-made - to recognise that climate change is happening (yes it could be happening at this rate due to totally natural factors!) and that we who can ought to be prepared to adapt.
Questions to you all -
1. Are you rejecting (A) only AGW or (B) all evidence for (possibly natural) climate change?
2. Are you unconcerned about climate change because (A) you believe it won't happen or (B) it will be easy to adapt to or (C) because you think your part of the planet won't be too badly affected?
Just genuinely interested ....... not wishing to provoke the usual round of insults .......
Can we send Al Gore to Great Britain?..exactly!!!
Cambridge Lady,
You started by insulting. Stop with feigning shocked amazement.
Re: your comment as to "Christian" extremists and also believing that disagreement with you is b/c of lack of education or smarts, yes, you are uninformed.
And the word "fool" is precise and accurate, as well. I am using the biblical definition. It's used throughout the Book of Proverbs. You can lodge your objection with the author.
Re: your question ... climate change has happened throughout history and, with the GCRU revelations now, we know that there is insufficient data to suggest it is happening now.
When we were kids, it was an ice age. Then Algore said we were burning up. Now, the evidence suggests, well, nothing.
The eventual, and calamitous, acidification of the oceans by CO2 is possible, and is the only valid reason to be concerned about emissions of sequestered carbon.
As for "climate change", something is happening, which might be due to solar activity/inactivity, not AGW, or very long term natural cycles.
No model I know of, so far, holds that sea rise will be rapid or disastrous.
As for what all of us "consume", and/or want to "consume", this is finally a philosophical problem, and it has several useful "answers", all moral.
If it's a geological or practical problem, the only solution to it is authoritarianism, which is amoral.
The Left is willing to impose Solution 2 while claiming to be acting morally. Baloney.
Loaded! Did she explain her slurring rhetoric?
Christian extremist. Haven't heard from them yet- when we do, I'm taking cover, suggest everyone do too.
2,000 yr. old trees felled in Wales; and the growth rings were counted back to 550 AD; the story of King Arthur was borne out. That the vegetation went to the neverland--poor Druids. Then the inquisitive seekers looked at trees in other parts of the world, and the same thing. The growth rings were the same malnutrition in that history time-Huuummm.
Did Climate Change happen before- way back when?
If these god like scientist think that the tax on activity will save us, then what will the real GOD do to us for trying to out do HIM?
I agree with DC, how can anyone believe that Global Warming is being accelerated by man? Global Warming has been happening for millions-billions of years-don't you agree Cam.Lady? During the Middle Ages when "England the powerful" was raping and plundering the lands of Europe, the temperature averaged hotter than today’s Europe. Explain that? You can't! Because the Earth's rotation and polarization caused by the sun’s gravitational pull has more of an effect than man's contribution. Lord Monckton has proven that if "ALL CO2 Emissions caused by man” were abruptly stopped for 35 years, it would only alter the climate by 1 degree Centigrade. So, where's your argument? Maybe some "Liberal Fool" from HCC (Harvard Community College) has bluffed you into believing that nonsense, but they can't fool all of us.
Post a Comment