Do you have opinions on any of the issues Principal Voices is exploring: The environment, business innovation, economic development and transport? If so, we want to hear them. E-mail your views, including your full name and country of residence, to comments@principalvoices.com. A selection of these messages will be posted below.
What good is it to talk of politics, economy, and future developments if at this continuing rate we ought not to expect the simple survival of our environment? Joaho Zamora, Brazil
Two of the most blatant causes of global warming are, firstly, the covert (but very apparent) operations of chemtrails. This blanket of chemicals being laid down upon our planet globally on a daily basis and even throughout the nights is also poisoning flora, fauna, and mankind. This has been going on for 6 years and the asthma rate has since escalated exponentially. Trees are dying because of toxic aluminum root poisoning. Animals and birds are dying from "unexplained" auto-immune system disorders. Toxic mold proliferates in all areas of the world. Their mycotoxins are having a profound effect on the population. Jet fuel in and of itself is highly carcinogenic. Add to that the other components of this nefarious spraying and you have a very sick planet. Why isn't this problem being addressed in the global warming talks?
A second major factor playing a role in climate change is deforestation. The rate of deforestation, especially in South America where Monsanto is decimating the rainforest in favor of growing soya for animal feed, is alarming. Between 60 and 80 percent of all logging in the Brazilian Amazon is estimated to be illegal. Most of the logging is illegal, but the import nations (US, Italy, France, UK, China and Japan) do very little to ensure that their imports are legal. When the "Advance Brazil" project is in full swing, another 33 to 42% of the Amazon rainforest will be gone. What difference does it make whether or not we have global warming when our source of oxygen is depleted? Patricia Barth, Shokan, NY, USA
As human population growth continues to accelerate, our impact on the ecosystem raises the question of how to manage housing and construction. For instance: anticipating an environmental disaster, the Chinese government is currently consulting with Eco-architect William McDonough on sustainable construction methods and materials (eco-foam houses?). Question: In less centralized economic systems (capitalist), how can we better motivate the construction industry (and general public) to adapt alternative and sometimes strange' architecture, design, and construction?
David A. Crutchfield, AIA, Texas, USA
The environment is precarious as it is. Today the beautiful Songhua river in China has become a toxic dump and several millions who live and work alongside have been told not to drink the water. The Jilin PetroChemical Co. denies all responsibility, if so what right did it have to use the river in the past? Who is really responsible for the environment? It is for Western countries to say this problem lies in China or India but who buys the Chinese or Indian ware that is made by rendering their environments unliveable. If European high grade paper is fed by denuding India's thickest forests, the problem today seems to be a case of passing the buck. Western nations protect their environment by passing environment destroying economic activities to the poorer nations. And the poorer nations do not realise they are destroying the future for an immediate return. Radha Mohan Durbha, India
I am not sure that I have any real problems with the rising price of fuel! The reasons are that, although petrol companies may be gouging out massive profits at this particular time (Oct, 2005) pricing, wherever the profits go, is simply a rationing mechanism and we need rationing today more than ever.
If the forecasts of most of the well informed pundits are to be believed then we have already, or very soon will, reach a point where the rate at which oil can be pumped from the ground is going down and no future technologies or new finds will reverse this future downward trend.
So the prospect of facing the future with an ever diminishing supply of oil is very real and yet I see no serious or plausible alternatives being considered (please don't say nuclear or hydrogen - do your research and you will see they will NOT supply fuel for vehicles [certainly not heavy] or aircraft).
Research has shown that upwards of 80% of world food production is dependent on oil - what will happen when the cost of fertilisers and transport become too prohibitive? Great numbers of people around the world will start to starve is what will happen. And this will not be confined to the under- or developing-world but will also impact significantly on the developed-world as well.
It is the lack of research into viable alternatives to oil that I find of greatest concern and the lack of planning to prepare for the eventual loss of cheap energy from oil that I find of concern.
Many thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Regards, Dr. Lance D Chambers, Perth, Western Australia
Hi, how can anyone dispute the fact that the increase in strength of these storms are not down to global warming and when are the people of America going to wake up to the fact that gas guzzlers mean bad weather for all the world. This is not a anti us statement but a plea to save this world we have the privilege to reside on. I hope to live for a long time. Phil Kay, Derby England
The world is in a crisis that is gaining alarming momentum. Hurricane Katrina, drought and fires in Spain, flooding across vast areas of Europe - these are just a few recent examples of the costly, and deadly, effects of climate change. How many more lives will be lost, and how many billions of dollars must be spent on disaster relief operations, before our political and business leaders stop talking about what makes economic sense, and start taking the drastic - even unpopular - action that is necessary to avert a global catastrophe?
The vague attitude that "we will need to do a lot of coping" as climate change progresses, belies a dangerous apathy; apathy that allows us to kid ourselves that it's still business as usual. The truth is, we have to begin making sacrifices, big time. The longer we wait to do so, the more unlikely our chances of coping at all.
The situation that has developed over the last few years would be amusing if it were not so serious. Top execs and political leaders all jockeying for position in the new green game - eager to display their awareness of the issues but never quite willing to commit to meaningful change for fear of losing out to their more ruthless rivals. And while they dance around in circles, and sing their fairy songs at conference after conference after conference, worldwide oil consumption continues to rise, and our hopes of getting out of this mess become ever more remote.
The solution to our problem lies not within the confines of existing economic and business models. Nor does the solution necessarily require global consensus or co-operation. But it does require nerve - for in many ways it requires us to go against the flow of modern society.
This battle is not just about the environment; or economics; nor is it just about embracing new technology, although that is an important facet of a winning strategy...
There is an African proverb that says: "The world was not left to us by our parents, it was lent to us by our children."
What motivates our quest for growth, success, prosperity? What kind of a world do we want our children, and their children and grandchildren, to grow up in?
It might be said that we need to do some serious soul-searching; that we need to look at all the aspects of our lives and consider what is really important and what is not important in securing the future well-being of the human race. But we have our answers already - the research is done, the evidence is clear, there are no doubts, and there is no more time!
Now it is time for action, and here's the challenge: for every one of us - whether politician, economist, businessman, celebrity, or ordinary taxpaying citizen - to do that which is in our power to change things for the better; to promote, invest in, legislate for, and live a sustainable way of life.
Political leaders: Stop subsidizing the oil and coal industries, and divert those funds to renewable energy projects. Be bold in setting emissions targets. Tax gas-guzzling vehicles off the roads. Expand public transportation networks. Enforce air travel and airline regulations; phase out short-range flights and cap the allowable emissions per passenger. We have alternatives - put money into high-speed rail service development instead of airport expansion. Do it now. Do not balk in the face of criticism. Begin your action today!
Investors: Buy into organizations which run sustainable operations, and sell out of those which continue to exploit and plunder our only planet. Media executives: Promote the marketability of sustainable lifestyle choices; reject advertising for vehicles which are not built using new, clean technologies that are readily available. Businessmen: Use remote conferencing technology and reduce your travel costs. Retailers and consumers: Buy local! Goods which travel thousands of miles consume huge quantities of fossil fuels.
Let's cycle to work, catch the bus, hop on a train, and walk! Let's make our next holiday destination one reachable by rail or sea rather than air. And let's support tree-planting and reforestation projects to offset those CO2 emissions that we cannot avoid.
We need to turn this boat around, and it won't do if we all sit and wait for everyone else to start paddling in the right direction, because we have already hit rough water and we are fast approaching a rather nasty set of falls. The big boys need to get their oars out and put in some effort, but so too do the millions of us ordinary folk who can make an enormous impact if we put in an effort ourselves.
The ones most likely to be affected by climate change are the ones who are least able to do anything about it. It is our responsibility, as the adults of today, to start making the choices that will set us on a course for a better future. Mark Jacobson, South African citizen living in London, U.K.
I have seen this idea floating around in green circles recently, and I think it makes a lot of sense. If we are going to change our environmental behaviors, we need to change the way we measure economic success, especially productivity. In the U.S., the way that we measure can have drastic effects on markets, multiplying the impact of policy change in needlessly hurtful ways.
One example is "Gross Domestic Product". This measurement is widely quoted in the media, rewarding leaders and markets for increases in simple production-put in environmental terms, for destroying resources to make new products. We don't have any balancing measurement for recycling, repairing, re-using. So, for example, when I wash out a plastic take-out box and re-use it in my home, in my own small way I am depressing GDP and hurting my economy!
I think that our leaders need to be able to point to success, and in the U.S., at least, there are no popular metrics for success in conservation of resources. We need to shift to an environmental "balance sheet" that politically rewards our leaders for shaping policies and initiatives that preserve resources and invest them more wisely. What if we publicly reported the assets of our economy, including our resources? Wouldn't that inspire a change in our policies? For example, the balance sheet could inspire changes in the tax code, rewarding companies that aid in the preservation of resources.
It's worth a try! Vicky Else, U.S.A.
As it is today, I believe we already triggered the concatenated factors related to global warming. The effects are probably in its initial stages; however, I think it is already too late to change the direction we set in the last two centuries. Last year, we saw the first tropical cyclone in the Southern Hemisphere ever; we saw a series of major Hurricanes that hit the United States; we just saw an amazing increase in the Hurricanes this year, in the Atlantic Ocean as well as in the Pacific; winters are more acute and the temperatures in the summer are setting new high records. The ocean water is warmer than its history average, polar caps are melting in record speed and storms all over the world are frequently more powerful, flooding areas where this problem was never a reality. The predictions are that in the next three decades all of these changes will accentuate, specially the amount of powerful Hurricanes. The Kyoto Protocol was set to curb these factors to a much safer standard, diminishing the amounts of Greenhouse effect gases liberated in the atmosphere, by controlling its emissions worldwide. The problem is that if that the U.S. (the major polluter responsible alone for more than 20% of the atmosphere pollution) has dropped its commitment, and is not taking any measure to cut emissions. I do not see a good amount of effort from all of us to address this problem. We are playing with the unknown; that's very inconsequent from our part and we must be held responsible for the outcomes in our way. Let's be prepared for the worse, and just hope for the best. Thank you, Mr. Bush for your ignorant leadership that is leading us to destruction by all means (by polluting, war, ignorance). You defend democracy, but you are not listening to your own people. Murilo Astolphi, Sao Paulo, Brazil
The price tag of rebuilding areas along the Gulf coast destroyed by the recent hurricanes needs to be discussed with those paying for it: ie. the American taxpayers. Should we be required to subsidize people living in places prone to hurricane destruction, flooding and being rebuilt every 20 years?
Private insurance companies refuse to insure for flood in these areas because they know from the historical statistics they cannot make a profit when hurricanes destroy houses that often. It's a mathematical equation. So our federal government stepped in and said: We'll do that!
As a member of a catastrophe adjusting family that has worked 12 major hurricanes, we have often discussed how ridiculous that is.$250 billion? Added to the national debt? And that is more important than universal health care?
When I saw that some of those New Orleans neighborhoods were below sea
level behind levies not just on the ocean but also on lakes, it made me incredulous. In Colorado, the discussion has occasionally been that we should stop wasting the lives of firefighters to save real estate built on mountain tops where historically the forest has burned.
The American taxpayers need to push for more reasonable ways of answering this destruction: every state should take refugees and give them six months free rent in a HUD house now sitting empty, with an option to buy for zero down at the end of those months to whomever can qualify.This is a far better option than spending our grandchildren's futures to rebuilt in an area where it is stupid to rebuild. Let the feds purchase the land under those destroyed houses, bulldoze and burn those houses, and make a park. American history has a number of cases of national parks being created from what could not support habitation. Do it again, and save future expenses and this stupid idea of mortgaging an even greater national debt.
The demographics of babyboomers reaching retirement age on the horizon
is one big reason not to do this stupid debt to rebuild in stupid places. Paula Rhoads Hook, Denver, Colorado, USA
I have read your interesting essay on global warming. I am not a globally renowned expert on the subject, just a lowly Eucalyptus Planter. Years ago we were promised 'carbon bonds' as we, wherever we are, absorb the harmful carbon dioxide, with which the industrialized nations pollute the world.
I could never understand why the US did not want to sign the Kyoto Treaty.
Whatever the reason it is each country's privilege to decide their destiny.
What is lacking is a viable system to award carbon bonds. As you so well
put it in the beginning of your essay, the vast de-forestation of the world vs. the
increased industrial contamination have caused the problem. We who reforest
the world were promised carbon bonds, however the UN and local bureaucracies
created a series of conditions and complications which for the average forester make compliance impossible.
If this system to qualify for carbon bonds could be simplified I am sure a lot more new forests- which absorb CO2- would be planted as these bonds would help to partly overcome the long period of financing required between the purchase of the land, planting and silvoculture until eventual harvest which is anything between 10-25 years for Eucalyptus, which is a versatile hardwood used for white writing paper, lumber, heating etc. Peter Collm, Argentina
I am seeing a trend of governmental negligence in the issue of global warming. Would the hurricane have been as strong? Doubt it. Would the levies at Lake Ponchatrain's have been as overtaxed? Doubt it. Should the City of New Orleans have had a major plan in place to deal with all contingencies - supplying hospitals, evacuation of poor residents who lack access to leave, food supplies, places to go in case of trouble that would be evacuated as soon as possible? Absolutely. Did anyone pay attention? No. What this means to me is that there are going to be a number of coastal areas at risk and the governments are paying no attention whatsoever to this problem. Shelley Kaufman-Young, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
The general prediction that temperature increases from global warming will make severe storms more severe is clear in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The most recent assessment report (the 2001 Third Assessment Report) classifies increase in tropical cyclone peak wind intensities as "likely, over some areas" (Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Page 575. Note the entire report can be downloaded free at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm).
The amount of increase in the next century is estimated at 5-10%, assuming greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated. Whether 5 to 10% is considered an insignificant matter or a serious concern is a question that is political, rather than scientific. I would like to see some politicians being put on the spot while standing in the midst of the devastation from Hurricane Katrina. Just ask them if a 5-10% increase in peak windspeeds is insignificant, or if perhaps it is time for the United States to rejoin the Kyoto Protocol. Philip M. Fearnside National Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil
I'm sitting in peaceful Stockholm, Sweden, waiting for someone in the global media to please discuss the possible connection between the Greenhouse effect and the Katrina hurricane that devastates New Orleans and surroundings as we speak.
But the silence is almost deafening on this issue, and I'm flabbergasted. Why? Is it because the Greenhouse effect leads to the Kyoto protocol, (which demands on the rich nations are very modest), but yet so embarrassingly and shamelessly NOT signed by the US?
Since Katrina and especially its aftermath mostly hits poor, black people I can't help but wonder why the help I so long overdue? Can the six letter word "racism" be part of the explanation? What if this happened to, let's say Philadelphia? Erik Amkoff - Stockholm, Sweden
There must be a way to scientifically approach the question of who should be blamed for global warming, causing the changes of climate and subsequent natural disasters. I am sure there are accurate data on countries' individual contribution of gas emissions. Consequently the cost of such a disaster, as we currently see with hurricane Katrina, must be carried by the all countries according to the percentages of gas and or heat emissions each country releases. Johannes Trenkle, Brazil
I read in your article that almost 50% (HALF) of the world's forest have been destroyed in the last 50 years.Forests, rainforests in particular, are not called the 'lungs of the earth' for no reason. What we do is akin to gradually shrinking the capacity of our very own lungs. Imagine how we would fare if we could only breathe 50% as well as we do now? I think a major shift will occur (I'm an optimist - I have to be) in the next 15-25 years that will find us truly really dealing with how we are living, and making the changes necessary to put a major dent in how we are destroying mother earth. We must. We have to. There is no choice. And I think a major way to help make this happen is to educate children about the reality of this miraculous earth and how we are ravaging her, and how to help stop it, and make the real changes necessary.
When the young are infused with this knowingness by their parents, schools and society, they will be the saviours, if we, the adults now, are courageous and brave enough to begin to wake up and make the major sacrifices and changes that are necessary. Thank you for your article. Lola Terrell, California USA
I do not believe that the majority of the world's population understands the seriousness of the peak oil issue. I keep hearing people refer to using hybrid cars, using public transport etc as solutions. However, just about everything you can conceive of that uses energy is in some way tied fossil fuels, which will almost certainly run out some time in the next 100 years (most likely much sooner, especially in regards to oil).
Massive amounts of funding need to be invested into finding realistic, large scale renewable energy sources fast. The economic impacts as the oil supply curves journeys downwards will be devastating if an alternative is not found. Dan Ede, Australia
The word sustainable development is at the heart of what is required to ensure the future of planet Earth and our species. I certainly do not want to create a wasteland that is worthless to future generations and I hope there are people around the world that feel the same way. Unfortunately, we have a few people and even countries who are so short-sighted, they do not understand the impact of greed-based decision-making. We need to cut down on pollution and waste creation. We need to find alternatives to fuel-, coal- and nuclear-based energy. Something that won't kill the planet but that actually enhances it. There are options available but the "powers that be" are more concerned about the bottom line. We need the spirit of ubuntu, which looks to the importance of group solidarity on issues that are pivotal to the survival of our community. And, as we are all well aware, our global village is that community. No man, woman or country is an island. Global warming is non-discriminatory. A damaged ozone is non-discriminatory. The encroachment of desert areas is non-discriminatory. Disease, pestilence, drought, flooding, tsunamis, etc. are all non-discriminatory. There needs to be a paradigm shift. What I do affects you and what you do affects me. We are accountable to each other and no man, woman or nation is above that. It's time to take a stand for the planet that gave us life. Douglas Davies, Johannesburg, South Africa
I think one of the biggest problems being faced today is trash. There should be more recycling and less landfills. Packaging needs to be decreased rather than increased, especially for stuff being shipped to small countries than have no way of disposal. James W.Johnson, Nevis, Eastern Caribbean
I believe that the environment can be assisted considerably by a world wide environmental mind set. Kyoto is an important step but nations who are heavily focused on fossil fuel energy generation and raw material conversion of metals, pulp and paper etc need massive investment to convert to clean alternatives. This will take time and money. While this process is going we need to modify the marketing of large SUV and RV pleasure transportation that create a heavy demand for petroleum; convert transportation for mail, municipal services, military, border patrols, police etc to clean burning fuel such as bio diesel; provide tax incentives for individuals purchasing alternative fuel source cars and provide heavy grants to both the auto industry and the service industry to convert; encourage farmers to grow crops for conversion to bio diesel and provide government funding for conversion operations by current fuel suppliers. Aviation also needs to build more fuel conserving aircraft and look to other means of clean air propulsion. Mike Moody, Toronto, Canada
The impact of the world's 6.3 billion on the environment is unprecedented. Earth provides energy and raw materials for human activities, and those activities in turn generate pollution and damage to environmental resources, in the process harming human health and well-being.Children worldwide require special protection from long standing risks--such as smoke from traditional fuels as well as from emerging risks such as exposure to an increasing number of hazardous chemicals since children are more vulnerable than adults to environmental hazards. I firmly believe that in every leader of his own country must play the role of developing solutions for more sustainable use of natural resources and improved health and well-being. Charina Monterola, Manila, Philippines
Energy is the key to everything. Cold fusion energy will meet that need and replace most other sources used by man. Dr. Norman L. Arrison, Edmonton, Canada
We should utilize more inventions to stimulate green growth in dry areas (e.g. the Sahara desert). For example, seawater can be collected in reservoirs. Above these saltwater reservoirs greenhouses can be built where the water vaporizes. This clean water can then be collected and pumped towards dry areas. This technology actually exists, but is not being widely used. Why? Harold van der Steen, The Netherlands
Everyone on earth must do something to preserve the environment. We should put a lid on pollution at all levels with our eyes to the future. If the governments are not willing to take the correct measures, the individuals and organized society should then exert all kinds of pressure for the right steps to be taken.... and quickly. We all care so much for our homes. Well, the Earth - in a broad sense - is also our home. Joćo Batista da Silva, Curitiba, Brazil
Some focus is needed on how national political borders and their administration affects a variety of trans-national and global activities such as flow of rivers, water management, migration of birds and butterflies, trade flows, agriculture, environmental problems etc. We need to understand the limitations of current model of administering the globe by nation states and then look for solutions to the problems either created by political borders or ignored by nation states. We also need to create a list of regional issues that need to be addressed immediately by nation states within various regions such as brown sky in South Asia and deforestation in Africa and South America. Peter Aikat , Ottawa, Canada
Trying to stop the world from this course we have taken, with its immense speed, is like trying to stop a spaceship that has acquired a great final velocity: you need exactly the same amount of the energy you used to speed it up. That could account for believing that we will redirect the entire Industrial Revolution in approximately 100 or 120 years of constant and hard work. If we start now, maybe we are in time to balance the amazing powers that humanity have achieved.
We should remember that global heating is not a sole problem. We also suffer from noise, water, and visual pollution, waste disposal, overpopulation, and many others that are a consequence of this industrialized way of living. Luis Gonzalo, Buenos Aires, Argentina
I am a private (old) person worried about the future of our globe for which I foresee a big shortage of energy and the global warming.
What about the possibility of having a "worldday" concentrated on energy saving in the industrial world including of course transport. It might just give an indication of what with little effort we can achieve to save resources of our planet. Jaap Jongejan, Netherlands
It is clear, from the many scientist reports of the last year, that in 10-20 yrs the planet will no longer be able to sustain the climatic changes. We need more responsible government, especially in the U.S., to lead us forward on this issue. We are on the edge of technologies that could elminate our use of oil. The time for debate has long past. We now need action.
I call on all the world leaders and the world's scientists to come together, united, to apply pressure on the U.S. To comply with the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. is the greatest producer of carbon dioxide emissions and has a responsiblity to lead in this area.
The entire world must unite to solve this problem. We cannot afford not to when we spend billions of dollors yearly on natural disasters. The climatic changes are man made. We need to pay more attention to our scientists' warnings. Sidarth Iyer, Environmentalist. Sydney, Australia.
Caution dictates that we minimize pollution in order to leave this fragile earth in the best possible condition for the next generations. On the one hand, the price of fossil fuels should include an "environmental tax" because there isn't enough public money available to subsidize renewal energies. On the other, we all have to voluntarily reduce emissions without delay. It is very disapointing that two rich countries like USA and Australia do not have the courage to make a minimal effort to reduce greenhouse gaz emissions. Yet they both enjoy healthy economies. If they do not make an effort now, they'll never make it in times of recession, would they? Richard Noujaim. US citizen living in France.
Your comments
General | Environment | Business | Economy | Transport
What good is it to talk of politics, economy, and future developments if at this continuing rate we ought not to expect the simple survival of our environment?
Joaho Zamora, Brazil
Two of the most blatant causes of global warming are, firstly, the covert (but very apparent) operations of chemtrails. This blanket of chemicals being laid down upon our planet globally on a daily basis and even throughout the nights is also poisoning flora, fauna, and mankind. This has been going on for 6 years and the asthma rate has since escalated exponentially. Trees are dying because of toxic aluminum root poisoning. Animals and birds are dying from "unexplained" auto-immune system disorders. Toxic mold proliferates in all areas of the world. Their mycotoxins are having a profound effect on the population. Jet fuel in and of itself is highly carcinogenic. Add to that the other components of this nefarious spraying and you have a very sick planet. Why isn't this problem being addressed in the global warming talks?
A second major factor playing a role in climate change is deforestation. The rate of deforestation, especially in South America where Monsanto is decimating the rainforest in favor of growing soya for animal feed, is alarming. Between 60 and 80 percent of all logging in the Brazilian Amazon is estimated to be illegal. Most of the logging is illegal, but the import nations (US, Italy, France, UK, China and Japan) do very little to ensure that their imports are legal. When the "Advance Brazil" project is in full swing, another 33 to 42% of the Amazon rainforest will be gone. What difference does it make whether or not we have global warming when our source of oxygen is depleted?
Patricia Barth, Shokan, NY, USA
As human population growth continues to accelerate, our impact on the ecosystem raises the question of how to manage housing and construction. For instance: anticipating an environmental disaster, the Chinese government is currently consulting with Eco-architect William McDonough on sustainable construction methods and materials (eco-foam houses?). Question: In less centralized economic systems (capitalist), how can we better motivate the construction industry (and general public) to adapt alternative and sometimes strange' architecture, design, and construction? David A. Crutchfield, AIA, Texas, USA
The environment is precarious as it is. Today the beautiful Songhua river in China has become a toxic dump and several millions who live and work alongside have been told not to drink the water. The Jilin PetroChemical Co. denies all responsibility, if so what right did it have to use the river in the past? Who is really responsible for the environment? It is for Western countries to say this problem lies in China or India but who buys the Chinese or Indian ware that is made by rendering their environments unliveable. If European high grade paper is fed by denuding India's thickest forests, the problem today seems to be a case of passing the buck. Western nations protect their environment by passing environment destroying economic activities to the poorer nations. And the poorer nations do not realise they are destroying the future for an immediate return.
Radha Mohan Durbha, India
I am not sure that I have any real problems with the rising price of fuel! The reasons are that, although petrol companies may be gouging out massive profits at this particular time (Oct, 2005) pricing, wherever the profits go, is simply a rationing mechanism and we need rationing today more than ever.
If the forecasts of most of the well informed pundits are to be believed then we have already, or very soon will, reach a point where the rate at which oil can be pumped from the ground is going down and no future technologies or new finds will reverse this future downward trend.
So the prospect of facing the future with an ever diminishing supply of oil is very real and yet I see no serious or plausible alternatives being considered (please don't say nuclear or hydrogen - do your research and you will see they will NOT supply fuel for vehicles [certainly not heavy] or aircraft).
Research has shown that upwards of 80% of world food production is dependent on oil - what will happen when the cost of fertilisers and transport become too prohibitive? Great numbers of people around the world will start to starve is what will happen. And this will not be confined to the under- or developing-world but will also impact significantly on the developed-world as well.
It is the lack of research into viable alternatives to oil that I find of greatest concern and the lack of planning to prepare for the eventual loss of cheap energy from oil that I find of concern.
Many thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Regards, Dr. Lance D Chambers, Perth, Western Australia
Hi, how can anyone dispute the fact that the increase in strength of these storms are not down to global warming and when are the people of America going to wake up to the fact that gas guzzlers mean bad weather for all the world. This is not a anti us statement but a plea to save this world we have the privilege to reside on. I hope to live for a long time.
Phil Kay, Derby England
The world is in a crisis that is gaining alarming momentum. Hurricane Katrina, drought and fires in Spain, flooding across vast areas of Europe - these are just a few recent examples of the costly, and deadly, effects of climate change. How many more lives will be lost, and how many billions of dollars must be spent on disaster relief operations, before our political and business leaders stop talking about what makes economic sense, and start taking the drastic - even unpopular - action that is necessary to avert a global catastrophe?
The vague attitude that "we will need to do a lot of coping" as climate change progresses, belies a dangerous apathy; apathy that allows us to kid ourselves that it's still business as usual. The truth is, we have to begin making sacrifices, big time. The longer we wait to do so, the more unlikely our chances of coping at all.
The situation that has developed over the last few years would be amusing if it were not so serious. Top execs and political leaders all jockeying for position in the new green game - eager to display their awareness of the issues but never quite willing to commit to meaningful change for fear of losing out to their more ruthless rivals. And while they dance around in circles, and sing their fairy songs at conference after conference after conference, worldwide oil consumption continues to rise, and our hopes of getting out of this mess become ever more remote.
The solution to our problem lies not within the confines of existing economic and business models. Nor does the solution necessarily require global consensus or co-operation. But it does require nerve - for in many ways it requires us to go against the flow of modern society.
This battle is not just about the environment; or economics; nor is it just about embracing new technology, although that is an important facet of a winning strategy...
There is an African proverb that says: "The world was not left to us by our parents, it was lent to us by our children."
What motivates our quest for growth, success, prosperity? What kind of a world do we want our children, and their children and grandchildren, to grow up in?
It might be said that we need to do some serious soul-searching; that we need to look at all the aspects of our lives and consider what is really important and what is not important in securing the future well-being of the human race. But we have our answers already - the research is done, the evidence is clear, there are no doubts, and there is no more time!
Now it is time for action, and here's the challenge: for every one of us - whether politician, economist, businessman, celebrity, or ordinary taxpaying citizen - to do that which is in our power to change things for the better; to promote, invest in, legislate for, and live a sustainable way of life.
Political leaders: Stop subsidizing the oil and coal industries, and divert those funds to renewable energy projects. Be bold in setting emissions targets. Tax gas-guzzling vehicles off the roads. Expand public transportation networks. Enforce air travel and airline regulations; phase out short-range flights and cap the allowable emissions per passenger. We have alternatives - put money into high-speed rail service development instead of airport expansion. Do it now. Do not balk in the face of criticism. Begin your action today!
Investors: Buy into organizations which run sustainable operations, and sell out of those which continue to exploit and plunder our only planet. Media executives: Promote the marketability of sustainable lifestyle choices; reject advertising for vehicles which are not built using new, clean technologies that are readily available. Businessmen: Use remote conferencing technology and reduce your travel costs. Retailers and consumers: Buy local! Goods which travel thousands of miles consume huge quantities of fossil fuels.
Let's cycle to work, catch the bus, hop on a train, and walk! Let's make our next holiday destination one reachable by rail or sea rather than air. And let's support tree-planting and reforestation projects to offset those CO2 emissions that we cannot avoid.
We need to turn this boat around, and it won't do if we all sit and wait for everyone else to start paddling in the right direction, because we have already hit rough water and we are fast approaching a rather nasty set of falls. The big boys need to get their oars out and put in some effort, but so too do the millions of us ordinary folk who can make an enormous impact if we put in an effort ourselves.
The ones most likely to be affected by climate change are the ones who are least able to do anything about it. It is our responsibility, as the adults of today, to start making the choices that will set us on a course for a better future.
Mark Jacobson, South African citizen living in London, U.K.
I have seen this idea floating around in green circles recently, and I think it makes a lot of sense. If we are going to change our environmental behaviors, we need to change the way we measure economic success, especially productivity. In the U.S., the way that we measure can have drastic effects on markets, multiplying the impact of policy change in needlessly hurtful ways.
One example is "Gross Domestic Product". This measurement is widely quoted in the media, rewarding leaders and markets for increases in simple production-put in environmental terms, for destroying resources to make new products. We don't have any balancing measurement for recycling, repairing, re-using. So, for example, when I wash out a plastic take-out box and re-use it in my home, in my own small way I am depressing GDP and hurting my economy!
I think that our leaders need to be able to point to success, and in the U.S., at least, there are no popular metrics for success in conservation of resources. We need to shift to an environmental "balance sheet" that politically rewards our leaders for shaping policies and initiatives that preserve resources and invest them more wisely. What if we publicly reported the assets of our economy, including our resources? Wouldn't that inspire a change in our policies? For example, the balance sheet could inspire changes in the tax code, rewarding companies that aid in the preservation of resources.
It's worth a try!
Vicky Else, U.S.A.
As it is today, I believe we already triggered the concatenated factors related to global warming. The effects are probably in its initial stages; however, I think it is already too late to change the direction we set in the last two centuries. Last year, we saw the first tropical cyclone in the Southern Hemisphere ever; we saw a series of major Hurricanes that hit the United States; we just saw an amazing increase in the Hurricanes this year, in the Atlantic Ocean as well as in the Pacific; winters are more acute and the temperatures in the summer are setting new high records. The ocean water is warmer than its history average, polar caps are melting in record speed and storms all over the world are frequently more powerful, flooding areas where this problem was never a reality. The predictions are that in the next three decades all of these changes will accentuate, specially the amount of powerful Hurricanes. The Kyoto Protocol was set to curb these factors to a much safer standard, diminishing the amounts of Greenhouse effect gases liberated in the atmosphere, by controlling its emissions worldwide. The problem is that if that the U.S. (the major polluter responsible alone for more than 20% of the atmosphere pollution) has dropped its commitment, and is not taking any measure to cut emissions. I do not see a good amount of effort from all of us to address this problem. We are playing with the unknown; that's very inconsequent from our part and we must be held responsible for the outcomes in our way. Let's be prepared for the worse, and just hope for the best. Thank you, Mr. Bush for your ignorant leadership that is leading us to destruction by all means (by polluting, war, ignorance). You defend democracy, but you are not listening to your own people.
Murilo Astolphi, Sao Paulo, Brazil
The price tag of rebuilding areas along the Gulf coast destroyed by the recent hurricanes needs to be discussed with those paying for it: ie. the American taxpayers. Should we be required to subsidize people living in places prone to hurricane destruction, flooding and being rebuilt every 20 years?
Private insurance companies refuse to insure for flood in these areas because they know from the historical statistics they cannot make a profit when hurricanes destroy houses that often. It's a mathematical equation. So our federal government stepped in and said: We'll do that!
As a member of a catastrophe adjusting family that has worked 12 major hurricanes, we have often discussed how ridiculous that is.$250 billion? Added to the national debt? And that is more important than universal health care?
When I saw that some of those New Orleans neighborhoods were below sea level behind levies not just on the ocean but also on lakes, it made me incredulous. In Colorado, the discussion has occasionally been that we should stop wasting the lives of firefighters to save real estate built on mountain tops where historically the forest has burned.
The American taxpayers need to push for more reasonable ways of answering this destruction: every state should take refugees and give them six months free rent in a HUD house now sitting empty, with an option to buy for zero down at the end of those months to whomever can qualify.This is a far better option than spending our grandchildren's futures to rebuilt in an area where it is stupid to rebuild. Let the feds purchase the land under those destroyed houses, bulldoze and burn those houses, and make a park. American history has a number of cases of national parks being created from what could not support habitation. Do it again, and save future expenses and this stupid idea of mortgaging an even greater national debt.
The demographics of babyboomers reaching retirement age on the horizon is one big reason not to do this stupid debt to rebuild in stupid places.
Paula Rhoads Hook, Denver, Colorado, USA
I have read your interesting essay on global warming. I am not a globally renowned expert on the subject, just a lowly Eucalyptus Planter. Years ago we were promised 'carbon bonds' as we, wherever we are, absorb the harmful carbon dioxide, with which the industrialized nations pollute the world.
I could never understand why the US did not want to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Whatever the reason it is each country's privilege to decide their destiny. What is lacking is a viable system to award carbon bonds. As you so well put it in the beginning of your essay, the vast de-forestation of the world vs. the increased industrial contamination have caused the problem. We who reforest the world were promised carbon bonds, however the UN and local bureaucracies created a series of conditions and complications which for the average forester make compliance impossible.
If this system to qualify for carbon bonds could be simplified I am sure a lot more new forests- which absorb CO2- would be planted as these bonds would help to partly overcome the long period of financing required between the purchase of the land, planting and silvoculture until eventual harvest which is anything between 10-25 years for Eucalyptus, which is a versatile hardwood used for white writing paper, lumber, heating etc.
Peter Collm, Argentina
I am seeing a trend of governmental negligence in the issue of global warming. Would the hurricane have been as strong? Doubt it. Would the levies at Lake Ponchatrain's have been as overtaxed? Doubt it. Should the City of New Orleans have had a major plan in place to deal with all contingencies - supplying hospitals, evacuation of poor residents who lack access to leave, food supplies, places to go in case of trouble that would be evacuated as soon as possible? Absolutely. Did anyone pay attention? No. What this means to me is that there are going to be a number of coastal areas at risk and the governments are paying no attention whatsoever to this problem.
Shelley Kaufman-Young, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
The general prediction that temperature increases from global warming will make severe storms more severe is clear in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The most recent assessment report (the 2001 Third Assessment Report) classifies increase in tropical cyclone peak wind intensities as "likely, over some areas" (Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Page 575. Note the entire report can be downloaded free at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm).
The amount of increase in the next century is estimated at 5-10%, assuming greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated. Whether 5 to 10% is considered an insignificant matter or a serious concern is a question that is political, rather than scientific. I would like to see some politicians being put on the spot while standing in the midst of the devastation from Hurricane Katrina. Just ask them if a 5-10% increase in peak windspeeds is insignificant, or if perhaps it is time for the United States to rejoin the Kyoto Protocol.
Philip M. Fearnside
National Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil
I'm sitting in peaceful Stockholm, Sweden, waiting for someone in the global media to please discuss the possible connection between the Greenhouse effect and the Katrina hurricane that devastates New Orleans and surroundings as we speak.
But the silence is almost deafening on this issue, and I'm flabbergasted. Why? Is it because the Greenhouse effect leads to the Kyoto protocol, (which demands on the rich nations are very modest), but yet so embarrassingly and shamelessly NOT signed by the US?
Since Katrina and especially its aftermath mostly hits poor, black people I can't help but wonder why the help I so long overdue? Can the six letter word "racism" be part of the explanation? What if this happened to, let's say Philadelphia?
Erik Amkoff - Stockholm, Sweden
There must be a way to scientifically approach the question of who should be blamed for global warming, causing the changes of climate and subsequent natural disasters. I am sure there are accurate data on countries' individual contribution of gas emissions. Consequently the cost of such a disaster, as we currently see with hurricane Katrina, must be carried by the all countries according to the percentages of gas and or heat emissions each country releases.
Johannes Trenkle, Brazil
I read in your article that almost 50% (HALF) of the world's forest have been destroyed in the last 50 years.Forests, rainforests in particular, are not called the 'lungs of the earth' for no reason. What we do is akin to gradually shrinking the capacity of our very own lungs. Imagine how we would fare if we could only breathe 50% as well as we do now? I think a major shift will occur (I'm an optimist - I have to be) in the next 15-25 years that will find us truly really dealing with how we are living, and making the changes necessary to put a major dent in how we are destroying mother earth. We must. We have to. There is no choice. And I think a major way to help make this happen is to educate children about the reality of this miraculous earth and how we are ravaging her, and how to help stop it, and make the real changes necessary.
When the young are infused with this knowingness by their parents, schools and society, they will be the saviours, if we, the adults now, are courageous and brave enough to begin to wake up and make the major sacrifices and changes that are necessary. Thank you for your article.
Lola Terrell, California USA
I do not believe that the majority of the world's population understands the seriousness of the peak oil issue. I keep hearing people refer to using hybrid cars, using public transport etc as solutions. However, just about everything you can conceive of that uses energy is in some way tied fossil fuels, which will almost certainly run out some time in the next 100 years (most likely much sooner, especially in regards to oil).
Massive amounts of funding need to be invested into finding realistic, large scale renewable energy sources fast. The economic impacts as the oil supply curves journeys downwards will be devastating if an alternative is not found.
Dan Ede, Australia
The word sustainable development is at the heart of what is required to ensure the future of planet Earth and our species. I certainly do not want to create a wasteland that is worthless to future generations and I hope there are people around the world that feel the same way. Unfortunately, we have a few people and even countries who are so short-sighted, they do not understand the impact of greed-based decision-making. We need to cut down on pollution and waste creation. We need to find alternatives to fuel-, coal- and nuclear-based energy. Something that won't kill the planet but that actually enhances it. There are options available but the "powers that be" are more concerned about the bottom line. We need the spirit of ubuntu, which looks to the importance of group solidarity on issues that are pivotal to the survival of our community. And, as we are all well aware, our global village is that community. No man, woman or country is an island. Global warming is non-discriminatory. A damaged ozone is non-discriminatory. The encroachment of desert areas is non-discriminatory. Disease, pestilence, drought, flooding, tsunamis, etc. are all non-discriminatory. There needs to be a paradigm shift. What I do affects you and what you do affects me. We are accountable to each other and no man, woman or nation is above that. It's time to take a stand for the planet that gave us life.
Douglas Davies, Johannesburg, South Africa
I think one of the biggest problems being faced today is trash. There should be more recycling and less landfills. Packaging needs to be decreased rather than increased, especially for stuff being shipped to small countries than have no way of disposal.
James W.Johnson, Nevis, Eastern Caribbean
I believe that the environment can be assisted considerably by a world wide environmental mind set. Kyoto is an important step but nations who are heavily focused on fossil fuel energy generation and raw material conversion of metals, pulp and paper etc need massive investment to convert to clean alternatives. This will take time and money. While this process is going we need to modify the marketing of large SUV and RV pleasure transportation that create a heavy demand for petroleum; convert transportation for mail, municipal services, military, border patrols, police etc to clean burning fuel such as bio diesel; provide tax incentives for individuals purchasing alternative fuel source cars and provide heavy grants to both the auto industry and the service industry to convert; encourage farmers to grow crops for conversion to bio diesel and provide government funding for conversion operations by current fuel suppliers. Aviation also needs to build more fuel conserving aircraft and look to other means of clean air propulsion.
Mike Moody, Toronto, Canada
The impact of the world's 6.3 billion on the environment is unprecedented. Earth provides energy and raw materials for human activities, and those activities in turn generate pollution and damage to environmental resources, in the process harming human health and well-being.Children worldwide require special protection from long standing risks--such as smoke from traditional fuels as well as from emerging risks such as exposure to an increasing number of hazardous chemicals since children are more vulnerable than adults to environmental hazards. I firmly believe that in every leader of his own country must play the role of developing solutions for more sustainable use of natural resources and improved health and well-being.
Charina Monterola, Manila, Philippines
Energy is the key to everything. Cold fusion energy will meet that need and replace most other sources used by man.
Dr. Norman L. Arrison, Edmonton, Canada
We should utilize more inventions to stimulate green growth in dry areas (e.g. the Sahara desert). For example, seawater can be collected in reservoirs. Above these saltwater reservoirs greenhouses can be built where the water vaporizes. This clean water can then be collected and pumped towards dry areas. This technology actually exists, but is not being widely used. Why?
Harold van der Steen, The Netherlands
Everyone on earth must do something to preserve the environment. We should put a lid on pollution at all levels with our eyes to the future. If the governments are not willing to take the correct measures, the individuals and organized society should then exert all kinds of pressure for the right steps to be taken.... and quickly. We all care so much for our homes. Well, the Earth - in a broad sense - is also our home.
Joćo Batista da Silva, Curitiba, Brazil
Some focus is needed on how national political borders and their administration affects a variety of trans-national and global activities such as flow of rivers, water management, migration of birds and butterflies, trade flows, agriculture, environmental problems etc. We need to understand the limitations of current model of administering the globe by nation states and then look for solutions to the problems either created by political borders or ignored by nation states. We also need to create a list of regional issues that need to be addressed immediately by nation states within various regions such as brown sky in South Asia and deforestation in Africa and South America.
Peter Aikat , Ottawa, Canada
Trying to stop the world from this course we have taken, with its immense speed, is like trying to stop a spaceship that has acquired a great final velocity: you need exactly the same amount of the energy you used to speed it up. That could account for believing that we will redirect the entire Industrial Revolution in approximately 100 or 120 years of constant and hard work. If we start now, maybe we are in time to balance the amazing powers that humanity have achieved.
We should remember that global heating is not a sole problem. We also suffer from noise, water, and visual pollution, waste disposal, overpopulation, and many others that are a consequence of this industrialized way of living.
Luis Gonzalo, Buenos Aires, Argentina
I am a private (old) person worried about the future of our globe for which I foresee a big shortage of energy and the global warming. What about the possibility of having a "worldday" concentrated on energy saving in the industrial world including of course transport. It might just give an indication of what with little effort we can achieve to save resources of our planet.
Jaap Jongejan, Netherlands
It is clear, from the many scientist reports of the last year, that in 10-20 yrs the planet will no longer be able to sustain the climatic changes. We need more responsible government, especially in the U.S., to lead us forward on this issue. We are on the edge of technologies that could elminate our use of oil. The time for debate has long past. We now need action.
I call on all the world leaders and the world's scientists to come together, united, to apply pressure on the U.S. To comply with the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. is the greatest producer of carbon dioxide emissions and has a responsiblity to lead in this area.
The entire world must unite to solve this problem. We cannot afford not to when we spend billions of dollors yearly on natural disasters. The climatic changes are man made. We need to pay more attention to our scientists' warnings.
Sidarth Iyer, Environmentalist. Sydney, Australia.
Caution dictates that we minimize pollution in order to leave this fragile earth in the best possible condition for the next generations. On the one hand, the price of fossil fuels should include an "environmental tax" because there isn't enough public money available to subsidize renewal energies. On the other, we all have to voluntarily reduce emissions without delay. It is very disapointing that two rich countries like USA and Australia do not have the courage to make a minimal effort to reduce greenhouse gaz emissions. Yet they both enjoy healthy economies. If they do not make an effort now, they'll never make it in times of recession, would they?
Richard Noujaim. US citizen living in France.
General | Environment | Business | Economy | Transport