by Shaun Chamberlin | Sep 3, 2008 | All Posts, Climate Change, Favourite posts, The Transition Timeline, Transition Movement
We are all familiar with the concept of climate change, and the need for reduced carbon emissions, but really getting a handle on the scale of the problem can be difficult, thanks to all the confusing terminology.
I looked all over the web for a straightforward comprehensive explanation of terms like Global Warming Potential (GWP) and the different meanings of CO2equivalent but I couldn't find it, so eventually I decided to spend some of my time (and the time of many helpful friends and colleagues) on creating one.
I didn't count on quite how intricate the underlying science is (it became ever clearer to me why there is so much confusion in this area), so the process took some considerable time, but I believe that this post is now something that many will find useful. It has been checked for accuracy by qualified experts.
In order to fully understand the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global temperature increase then, we first need to consider the concept of radiative forcing.
The Earth is continually receiving energy from the Sun, and continually losing energy into space (as space is much cooler than the Earth). Radiative forcing is simply the difference (measured in watts per square metre) between the amount of energy received and the amount of energy re-radiated back into space. In other words it is the rate at which the planet’s surface is either warming or cooling. [1]
If the planet were losing energy at the same rate it was gaining it then the radiative forcing would be zero and the temperature would remain stable at its current level – this state is called thermal equilibrium. Since a hotter planet loses more energy into space, the natural system tends to move towards thermal equilibrium.
However, rising greenhouse gas concentrations (measured in parts per million – ppm [2]) in the atmosphere act like an insulating blanket, reducing the rate at which energy can escape into space, and so affecting radiative forcing, which in turn affects the temperature. The rough illustrative graphs below give an idea of these relationships and show the time delay between changes in emissions rates (up or down) and temperature changes. [3]
The graph below shows that if we can bring anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions back down we can stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations and bring radiative forcing back towards equilibrium, but at a higher temperature. [4]
So, emissions contribute to greenhouse gas concentrations which in turn contribute to radiative forcing, but it is radiative forcing that determines the rate of change in temperature. Armed with this understanding, the terms below become clearer:
Global warming potential (GWP) is an estimate of how much a given greenhouse gas contributes to Earth’s radiative forcing. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a GWP of 1, by definition, so a gas with a GWP of 50 would increase radiative forcing by 50 times as much as the same amount (mass) of CO2. A GWP value is defined over a specific time interval, so the length of this time interval must be stated to make the value meaningful (most researchers and regulators use 100 years).
For example, methane has a GWP of 72 over 20 years, but a lower GWP of 25 over 100 years. This is because it is very potent in the short-term but then breaks down to CO2 and water in the atmosphere, meaning that the longer the period you consider it over, the more similar its effect is to that of CO2 alone. [5]
Equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) is an estimate of the concentration of CO2 (in ppm) that would cause a given level of radiative forcing. [6]
For example, the IPCC’s[7] latest report in 2007 considered the effects of the main greenhouse gases currently present in our atmosphere and calculated a CO2e for these of around 455ppm (and rising). This means that (over a defined period) the radiative forcing effect of these gases at current concentrations is roughly equal to the effect a 455ppm concentration of CO2 alone would cause. This particular CO2e calculation takes into account the six major greenhouse gases considered under the Kyoto Protocol, and so may be labelled CO2e(Kyoto). [8]
However, the orange line in the graphs above represents the total radiative forcing of the planet. This is the important figure – the one that determines the rate of change in Earth’s temperature – and as well as the Kyoto gases it is also affected by other factors such as the effects of sulphate aerosols, ozone and cloud formations. The chart below quantifies the effect of each of these factors, and we can see that a number of them (those coloured blue) are actually negative forcings, which act to reduce the total radiative forcing. Because of these, the equivalent CO2 for all forcings combined - CO2e(Total) - is, thankfully, lower than CO2e(Kyoto). The IPCC’s latest figures give CO2e(Total) as roughly 375ppm. [9]
When we hear scientific debates between stabilisation scenarios of, say, 350ppm, 450ppm or 550ppm it is CO2e(Total) which is under discussion. So this 375ppm is the key number, but it has a far wider margin of error than the others. This is because it is relatively easy to measure the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and the GWP of those gases, but considerably more difficult to account for all the effects that contribute to the ultimate CO2e(Total) radiative forcing over a given period. The column in the below chart labelled LOSU stands for the “Level Of Scientific Understanding” of the various forcings, and as we can see it is not universally high. [10]
Radiative forcing is the fundamental issue, but it is easy to see why most discussions revolve only around emissions – not only are CO2 emissions much the largest way in which humanity is changing the planet’s radiative forcing, but they are also easier to understand conceptually and easier to quantify than radiative forcing.
According to the IPCC atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 379ppm in 2005, which coincidentally happens to be close to our best estimate of 375ppm CO2e(Total). Unfortunately this coincidence also creates a good deal of confusion, as it is not always clear which measure an author is referring to – scientists often assume that this is obvious to their audience, and many others do not themselves fully understand the distinctions between CO2, CO2e(Kyoto) and CO2e(Total). [11]
The other source of confusion is that all of the numbers we have discussed are based on evolving science, and many can only be given approximately. For example, these are the IPCC’s given figures for the GWP of methane over 100 years, taken from their last three reports:
1995 - 2nd Assessment Report (SAR): Methane 100 year GWP = 21
2001 - 3rd Assessment Report (TAR): Methane 100 year GWP = 23
2007 - 4th Assessment Report (AR4): Methane 100 year GWP = 25
These changes are entirely appropriate – the values should become more accurate over time as new measurement methods or changes in scientific understanding develop – but it makes it important to check where any figures are sourced from. [12]
Where we are today
So let’s take stock. Below are the latest IPCC figures, which define the situation as it was in 2005:
CO2 = 379ppm (error range: minimal)
CO2e(Kyoto) = 455ppm (error range: 433-477ppm)
CO2e(Total) = 375ppm (error range: 311-435 ppm) [13]
Emissions are still increasing year-on-year (faster than projected in any of the IPCC's scenarios) and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently rising by between 1.5 and 3 ppm each year. They are at roughly 385ppm in mid-2008 (for the very latest updated CO2 figure click here).
It is worth noting that the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere was 278ppm and did not vary by more than 7ppm between the years 1000 and 1800 C.E. [14]
Global average (mean) temperature has already risen by around 0.8°C since pre-industrial times, and a minimum additional 0.6°C of warming is still due from emissions to date - the delay in warming being a consequence of the time-lags in the system discussed above. [15]
Ok, that's it! If you followed everything here you should be well-equipped to consider the scientific discussion of climate change. Indeed, you may find you understand it better than some of those who write and speak about it!
Hopefully this post will provide a resource to aid wider understanding of the changes we are causing to our global climate system and the climate emergency we are facing. Should any inaccuracies come to light I will of course amend them.
This work forms part of my forthcoming book The Transition Timeline, produced in partnership with the Transition Network, and set for publication in March 2009 and available now, published by Green Books. It uses the understanding outlined here to examine the wider context of climate change and peak oil, discuss the options facing our communities and consider the cultural stories which underlie our choices.
Footnotes
1. There is also a warming effect from the geothermal energy at the Earth’s core, but this is sufficiently small and stable that for our purposes we can ignore it.
2. Parts per million is the ratio of the number of greenhouse gas molecules to the total number of molecules of dry air. For example, 300ppm means 300 molecules of a greenhouse gas per million molecules of dry air. Strictly speaking concentrations are measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv), but this is widely abbreviated to ppm. Don’t be confused if some papers refer to ppmv.
3. Emissions are not the sole determinant of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations due to the Earth’s natural ‘carbon sinks’ which soak up some of our emissions. Concentrations are not the sole determinants of radiative forcing due to other forcings which will be discussed shortly. The time delay between radiative forcing and temperature increase is caused by the thermal inertia of the planet – it has great mass (with much of the heat initially being used to warm the deep oceans) and therefore takes some time to warm or cool. Of the (equilibrium) temperature increase ultimately produced by a given increase in radiative forcing, only about half manifests within 25 years, the next quarter takes 150 years to manifest, and the last quarter many centuries.
4. These illustrative graphs do not include the effects of climate feedbacks such as carbon sink degradation. Also see the MIT Climate Online 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions Simulator'
5. Figures from: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Chapter 2 , Table 2.14, p. 212.
More detail on GWP available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential - note that the GWP for a mixture of gases cannot be determined from the GWP of the constituent gases by any form of simple linear addition.
6. There is also a separate but related concept called Carbon Dioxide equivalent. This gives the amount of CO2 that would have the same GWP as a given amount of a given gas (or mixture of gases). It is simply calculated by multiplying the GWP of the gas by the given amount (mass) of gas. For example, over a 100 year period methane has a GWP of 25, so 1 gram of methane has a Carbon Dioxide equivalent value of 25 grams.
In practice, since Carbon Dioxide equivalent is expressed as a mass (grams, tonnes etc.), and Equivalent Carbon Dioxide (CO2e) is expressed as a concentration (usually in parts per million), they are not easily confused, despite the similar names.
You may also encounter references to the "carbon equivalent", especially when discussing carbon that is not in gaseous form (e.g. carbon in coal deposits). A carbon equivalent figure can be converted to carbon dioxide equivalent by multiplying by 3.644 to account for the different molecular weights (3.644 tonnes of CO2 contains 1 tonne of carbon).
7. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the body established jointly by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation in 1988 to assess the available scientific evidence.
8. The IPCC considered the so-called ‘Kyoto basket’ of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Under the Kyoto Protocol, signatories committed to control emissions of a ‘basket’ of six GHGs - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs and SF6.
455ppm figure from e.g.: IPCC AR4 Working Group III Report, Chapter 1 , p.102
The IPCC estimate of CO2e(Kyoto) is detailed by Gavin Schmidt of NASA in a post at Real Climate
9. These negative forcings include the so-called ‘global dimming’ effect. For more on this crucial consideration see: “On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead”, V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 105, 23 September 2008, pp. 14245-14250
IPCC CO2e(Total) figure: IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, notes to Table 5.1, p.67
10. Table source: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.2, p.4
11. IPCC 2005 CO2 levels: IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
12. IPCC 2001 figures: IPCC TAR Working Group I Report, Chapter 6, Table 6.7
1995/2007: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Chapter 2 , Table 2.14, p. 212
13. Error ranges: IPCC AR4 Working Group III Report, Chapter 1 , p.102
14. Up-to-date measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations are always subject to revisions, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks. Trends and 2008 figure taken from: NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory - Global Monitoring Division (site accessed August 2008)
Pre-industrial CO2 levels from: NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
15. See footnote [3] above for details on climate time-lags. Figure for warming from emissions to date taken from the Climate Code Red report by Carbon Equity, p.22.
Also see IPCC AR4 Working Group III Report, Summary for Policymakers, Table SPM.5, p.15 for ultimate (equilibrium) warming from current atmospheric concentrations.
Finally, note that a 2008 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined the impacts of air pollution (which blocks sunlight and thus reduces temperatures – the effect known as ‘global dimming’) and found that this is masking the full extent of the warming effect from greenhouse gas concentrations. Building on the IPCC’s work, the paper finds that if air pollution reduces – as it is expected to do – then 2005 atmospheric concentrations could commit us to around 2.4 degrees of warming above pre-industrial temperatures, with about 90% of this warming taking place this century.
Images
1. Climate-o-meter used (in edited form) with permission from http://www.ageofstupid.net/
2. Radiative forcing illustration used with permission from David Wasdell
3. Indicative climate graph created by author in partnership with David Wasdell, and with assistance gratefully acknowledged from Ben Brangwyn.
4. Indicative climate graph created by author in partnership with David Wasdell, and with assistance gratefully acknowledged from Ben Brangwyn.
5. Radiative forcings table from: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Report, Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.2, p.4
6. Indicative climate graph created by author in partnership with David Wasdell, and with assistance gratefully acknowledged from Ben Brangwyn.
by Shaun Chamberlin | Jul 27, 2008 | All Posts, Climate Change, Cultural stories, Peak Oil, Politics, Reviews and recommendations
I have just watched the BBC's outstanding thriller Burn Up, starring Rupert Penry-Jones, Marc Warren, Bradley Whitford and Neve Campbell (trailer available here).
It is a dramatic account of the intrigue, betrayal, sex and violence surrounding characters in the oil industry, international diplomacy and the environmental movement in the build up to the international conference that will decide on the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. For those who haven't yet seen it, be aware that the discussion below the cut contains spoilers.
Right, so you've seen it now - what did you think? Personally, despite the supposedly 'stellar' cast I thought some of the acting was a bit below-par, but I was shocked in the best possible way by the direction the script took.
Against all my expectations of a prime-time major channel drama this was a fascinating attempt to engage with and dramatise the over-riding tension of our times, between the depletion of the fossil-fuel resources which fuel our globalised way of life, and the growing consequences of the emissions those fuels produce.
It was great to see the scientist in the film stating that we have only 5-10 years to avoid irreversible runaway climate change - to me that is the bottom line - but the section that particularly fascinated me was the ending.
One man alone ends up holding incontrovertible evidence that Saudi oil production is in decline, and so that Peak Oil truly is already in the past, and he faces a dilemma. Does he tell the world, so that we can start work in earnest on the transition to a low-carbon future, or does he keep it to himself, since he knows full well that this information would spread panic throughout the financial markets, plunging us into global economic depression, prompting energy wars and causing suffering throughout the world.
His dilemma represents the very real tension our world faces. Our global economies are dependent on both growing supplies of accessible fossil fuels and a stable climate, so we know that our carbon-intensive way of life will end, one way or another. Yet we have now left it too late for a gentle, gradual transition to a low-carbon economy, so we can see that the crash of our existing systems, when it comes, will be painful.
This creates an instinctive desire to put it off as long as possible, but the longer we persist in our current fuel-wasting, carbon-emitting ways the faster and more vicious the crash will be. We know we really ought to go to the dentist, but maybe we can put it off for just one more year...
The pace of Burn Up seemed to speed up dramatically towards the end, and some friends less immersed in this field told me they had trouble keeping up with it all, but in essence it ended with our hero deciding to leak the information, and the credits rolled to the sound of radio news broadcasts apparently indicating the global economy falling apart as the implications of the reality-check reverberated around the world.
I must confess that when I wrote last month about the thought that economic collapse might be the only remaining solution to global warming, the last thing I expected was to be encountering the idea on prime-time TV so soon.
"The world doesn't have to go to hell Mack, just the economy. You're right, this information will cause the biggest powerdown we've ever seen. But you cut world manufacturing in half you cut CO2 emissions in half. Look it may not be tomorrow, it may not be next week, next month, who knows when but the crash is coming."
The battle of cultural stories continues...
--
ps Since writing this post, I have been pointed at this fascinating interview with the writer of Burn Up.
by Shaun Chamberlin | Jul 17, 2008 | All Posts, Cultural stories, Peak Oil
Thanks to the Oil Drum's Peak Oil Media Watch I recently came across this fascinating video clip from the "Fast Money" programme on American business news channel CNBC. In the extract the studio panel are discussing the rise in oil prices and - as is the show's theme - how to make money from it.
Their studio guest is Joe Terranova, who appears to be a typical energy investment type (though with an incredibly expressive face!), but their phone linkup is to Matthew Simmons, Chairman of Simmons & Company International Ltd, who is one of the very few high-profile figures to have predicted the current oil price rises, and who has been raising the peak oil issue for some years now. The mismatch in their perspectives is spectacular, especially from 4 minutes in.
I can't make a better comment on this than that made by the ever-insightful Nate Hagens:
The CNBC video is a prime example of the juxtaposition of people's time horizons and boundaries. Simmons eloquently outlined the bigger picture of that society is facing dramatic institutional and structural change, and then the conversation was brought directly back to short term profits. June highs mean July lows, etc.
The reason there is no international, national, or regional body looking at WIDE boundary SYSTEMS analysis is that there is no money in it. If the markets are designed to produce profits measured in dollars, how will the markets solve problems of the global commons? How can the viewers/guests on CNBC even begin to analyze the depth of this problem beyond how higher oil prices affect their portfolio allocations? There will come a day when a 'paradigm allocation' will leapfrog modern financial portfolio allocation. That's why the quizzical looks on those guests faces - energy and ecology are not topics ingrained in most traders pattern recognition banks.
I can only hope that our next crop of national leaders surround themselves by wide boundary thinkers - to surround themselves by the current crop of salespeople will lessen our chances dramatically.
And I agree with PG - this is difficult to do - to present facts about the situation as best as possible while remaining positive. What if the situation is worse than even some of the pessimists predict? The sooner we close off avenues that are dead ends, the better we can save high quality resources.
Well done by Matt Simmons.
by Shaun Chamberlin | Jun 29, 2008 | All Posts, Climate Change, Cultural stories, Favourite posts, Peak Oil, Philosophy, Reviews and recommendations, TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas), Transition Movement
As George Carlin once said, "they call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it".
At the risk of this blog becoming 'review corner', that seems the perfect introduction to the book I just finished reading - Dmitry Orlov's brilliantly enjoyable Reinventing Collapse. This is a true work of dark optimism, with a fair dash of dark humour to boot.
In it, Orlov draws on his experiences of the collapse of the Soviet Union to explore the future American residents like him are likely to face as the effects of the USA's disastrous economic, energy and foreign policies take hold.
Orlov highlights that economic collapse is not, in fact, the unthinkable end of the world, but rather simply a new set of historical circumstances within which to exist. This is a critically important and inherently dark subject, yet the book is suffused with subtle humour, to the extent that at times you are not quite sure when Orlov is serious and when he's joking. The answer, invariably, is both.
This deep humour is an apt way to stimulate further thought in the reader, and after the initial laughter I regularly found myself drawn into a contemplation that led me to Orlov's insights laying beneath.
One subtext particularly intrigued me. While Orlov argues that the collapse of the US economy is inevitable (I would agree), and will surely be extremely difficult for most of those living through it, various asides implied to me that it could be considered in some respects desirable.
This interests me in the context of the desperate urgency of the global climate change situation. As Dr. James Hansen chillingly put it in his recent paper, it is simply becoming a question of whether "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted". On his reading of the science (and I trust him) we now have less than seven years to decide.
Bearing these stakes in mind, it is interesting to note that Chris Vernon of The Oil Drum quotes the statistic that Russia's carbon emissions fell 31% in the 5 years from the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. Ignoring for a moment all the other effects of that economic collapse, and considering that the weight of evidence tends to suggest that a 'great turning' of the global paradigm may not be likely to take place in time, I am led to ponder whether economic collapse is actually what we should be hoping for - does it represent our best bet for reducing emissions sufficiently quickly to retain a habitable climate on our planet?
I have written before about my belief that while climate change and peak oil represent the greatest direct threat facing humanity today, they are really only symptoms of a deeper problem. Humanity’s obsession with growth means that if we could wish away the excess CO2 in our atmosphere and generate unlimited oil we would still quickly find our unsustainable way of life pressing up against the next environmental limit, be it food shortages, air pollution, species extinctions or whatever.
And in turn this growth obsession is a symptom of the underlying cultural stories and philosophies we use to make sense of our lives and find meaning. Our cultural stories define us and strongly impact our behaviours. An example of a dominant story in our present culture is that of “progress” - the story that we currently live in one of the most advanced civilisations the world has ever known, and that we are advancing further and faster all the time. The definition of 'advancement' is vague – though tied in with concepts like scientific and technological progress – but the story is powerfully held. And if we hold to this cultural story then 'business as usual' is an attractive prospect – a continuation of this astonishing advancement. Similarly the cultural story that “fundamental change is impossible” makes it seem inevitable.
Yet even UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown admitted last week that,
“The fact is that a low carbon society will not emerge from thinking of business as usual”
The problem with stories comes when they shape our thinking in ways that do not reflect reality. The evidence might support the view that this 'advanced' culture is not making us happy and is rapidly destroying our environment's ability to support us, it might show that dramatic change is both common and inevitable, but dominant cultural stories are powerful magics, and those who challenge them tend to meet resistance and even ridicule.
Nonetheless, my work now focuses on changing these dominant cultural stories - and thus changing our patterns of thought and behaviour - as I see this as the key to equipping our society to deal with the pressing challenges of climate change and peak oil. TEQs, the Transition movement and the various other initiatives listed on my links page (as well as this blog of course!) seem to me to provide the best possibilities for starting to shift our cultural paradigm.
But perhaps this effort is too little too late? And perhaps by trying to move our society a little closer to long-term sustainability we are in fact just prolonging its existence, and thus prolonging its ability to pump emissions into our atmosphere...
Does our need for a relatively benign climate logically dictate that we should be striving to bring about economic collapse sooner rather than later?
It is an interesting question, and one that we may need to revisit, but my answer is still no. The human suffering caused by such a sudden collapse is overwhelming, and I believe that kinder options are still open to us.
Personally, I believe we still have a chance. I still believe, firstly, that a long-term future for humanity is possible, and secondly that we have a shot at developing a society that responds in a humane way to the crises we face. And I will fight for that possibility for as long as I believe in it and still see a chance that it exists, even as the window of possibility continues to shrink.
When it comes down to it, at the deepest level it doesn’t really matter to me whether or not it is probable that we succeed. As Tom Atlee has written,
“Probabilities are abstractions. Possibilities are the stuff of life, visions to act upon, doors to walk through.”
I will walk through the doors that inspire me.
Of course, there is a side of me that asks "but what if we do reach a time when the evidence is clear - when there is no longer any chance of avoiding the devastation of our climate". If we were on the Titanic and we had already hit the iceberg there would be little point in trying to patch the hole as the waters raged in - so what then?
Well, the trite answer would be that there's quite enough to worry about now without concerning myself with that. The more interesting answer comes back to what we believe life is fundamentally about, but that will have to wait for a future post.
Oh, and just what does Dmitry Orlov suggest in terms of personally adapting to an economic collapse? Well, you'll have to read his book for that!
by Shaun Chamberlin | Jun 22, 2008 | All Posts, Favourite posts, Peak Oil, Politics
I find myself wondering if our current political system (like so much else in our modern culture) might be partially a product of the bonanza of abundant cheap energy we have been enjoying for the last century or two. Have we been so comfortable that the pressure has been off for our decision makers?
Now I am certainly no student of politics, and my musings should be taken with that proviso, but it has always seemed a little strange that there is such a widespread perception of our politicians as incompetent and immoral, and yet they continue to be entrusted with the ultimate decision-making role for our society. There is widespread disinterest among the young people I know, and perhaps part of the reason is that people have 'learnt' that it really doesn't matter how ineffective politicians may be - there still always seems to be water in the tap and food on the table, so surely they must be doing something right?
Equally it hasn't seemed to matter much to many people whether we had a Conservative or a Labour government - we just sort of swing back and forth based on something like national mood. According to political commentators, the reasons for these electoral shifts seem to be sentiments like "they've had long enough" or, more recently, "finances are a bit tight".
Yet it's an odd thing to swing to the current opposition because of our economic difficulties. If we really believed there was much of a difference between the two wouldn't we make a decision and stick with it? Does anyone truly believe that the UK budget would be vastly better off had the Conservatives been in power for the past few years?
The depletion of the North Sea (oil production there peaked at around 2.9m barrels/day in 1999 and is now at around half those levels) is marginally impacted by political decisions, but is essentially a geological fact, and importing just 0.2m barrels per day at the current price of around $135/barrel adds $10 billion a year to our trade deficit. Could the Conservatives have turned back time on depletion, resolved the global credit crunch, or prevented the upsurge in the globally traded price of food, or of oil for that matter?
I would venture that either party would have done just about as bad a job as the other. It's not about whether Gordon Brown or David Cameron is in the hotseat, there is something much more fundamental going on than that. As Voltaire said, "men argue, Nature acts".
Worryingly, there seem to be only two recognised political parties in the UK who understand the kind of future we are facing - the Green Party and the British National Party, both of whom show a firm awareness of the reality of energy resource depletion. Needless to say they advocate very different responses.
As Rob Hopkins pointed out some time ago, an interesting aspect of peak oil is that everyone seems to see its potential to usher in the kind of world they want to see. While the Greens see the potential to move to a more ecologically-friendly way of life in response to the need for lower energy consumption, the BNP recognise that in times of hardship extreme right wing groups have traditionally done very well.
The reality is that there are many possible futures, but we get to choose which of them come to pass. To put it another way, we will get the future we deserve.
This is why when I speak to my friends who refuse to vote on the basis of their disgust with the major parties I urge them to vote Green. There are alternatives, and it is hard to sustain the argument that a Green vote is a wasted vote when the alternative you are considering is not to vote at all.
Recent Comments