Â鶹ԼÅÄ

Justin. You are "seeing pregnant women"

I don't know who you mix with over here (Probably employees of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ and PRI) but most Americans rate Climate Change very low on their priorities if they think about it at all. Even the polls conducted by the Pew Foundation and NPR confirm this.

Also the President has a very broad church he needs to keep faith with. As well as talking about healing the planet, he also said recently on TV that "The USA is the Saudi Arabia of Coal". I'd be interested to hear the results of you talking to a few ordinary folk to test whether your wife is right or not.

I have just one thing to say: HONDA CLARITY !!

A car that unlike any other emits only water out of it's exhaust.

I've never been a huge fan of Honda's but this car is amazing!

You want to fix the planet, here you go!

“I believe that during the time the Ethical Man team has been travelling, the United States has begun to make tackling climate change one of its key policy objectives.�

If by United States, you mean their government, then yes, you could be right, and you likely have a better idea about what they are doing than I.

However, wanting a low-carbon economy and actually reducing emissions, are too different things.

Given how much the average American loves their car, it will be difficult to get anyone to compare the carbon footprint of a Car-free America to that of 200 million electric Hondas.

Your production efforts may entertain and to some extent inform those back home about this hopeful moment as you tread briefly midst the blatant fraud and cross the racketeering comet's tail. But you would surely be over embellishing the truth if you stated or believed that the coincidence of your visit here meant anything more than a novelty to a micro fraction of people here, where what we call news in your homeland is an option and not the same.

In Britain and the ROTW people know the crucial impacts of American policies and such regressions took place in respect of EPA standards and fuel issues that ambitious progress now may redress some of eight years of cynical regression; people are always grateful when the kicking stops.

The wife's insightful reminder, a jet-lagged tenor of a rapidly diminishing fishing trip with fillets and some dramatic smoked sprats suggests the urgent need for economies on your remaining time. To appreciate and acquire the option to connect with the grass roots, and established functionaries and people using systems as their invested lifestyle, go to your next nearest natural food co-op, eat well, buy and read Â鶹ԼÅÄpower magazine, and then ask if you can visit somewhere. This won't intoxicate or mislead like the fields of wind energy down south, but will let you depart knowing you were a tourist who eventually connected.

Also, since time is now so short on this visit, you must go to Snowmass Colorado to the Rocky Mountain Institute to meet Mr and Mrs Lovins and crew, who will describe, explain and put into context that which you need to anchor and inspire your audiences with substance of interest over entertainment as usual. And for choice, for the proximity to the ocean, the air, and the comparative connectivity by being back on a coast, go to Seattle - that's on the West Coast, up North, a little below Canada - and visit Climate Solutions, ask for Ethan. But when you get back to Britain, continue and extend your research and dramatically short visit by making contact with Wind and Sun in Shropshire, ask for Steve, to appreciate the extent of active sustainable industries in the US and globally contact James&James Science Publishers London, and to grasp how big and what is big renewables are request time with The Crown Estate in respect of offshore wind energy. Show good manners and don't ask for Lizzie. Oh, and of course, the FT, ask for Fiona.

Anybody conscious of the coming strictures of and necessity for fair trade, not as a wishful voluntary label but as the legal antithesis to fraud will endorse and demand quantifiable sustainability in economic process in all fields, the modus operandi for the modus vivendi.

When you return to the US to discover and amplify for Americans what Americans have been doing in the minority and against the odds, factored against an unencouraged disinterest for real news, you can be sure to be effective for your British audience also, who don't need more unreality, more inflated claims, or blends of fiction with fact. The distractions can last for years, maybe even lifetimes, the dreams so enticing that the waking does not yet appeal quite as you might think it does.

Getting the Â鶹ԼÅÄ involved with this is not a plaything but the moment when the crucial conduit gets to track the hard won paths here, and the mozaic textures of thousands of contributing elements and factors here to be taken into consideration, about which information must be gathered and appreciated, about which information already exists waiting to be taken seriously, vast but by definition still fragmented, then your shallow sounding panic into the first person (takes guts to tackle the urgent economic non toxic future of the world in a month though) will resonate with appreciation for what both is and must happen here.

Incidently, your original premise is correct; but from the subjects of your reports, case not made.

Ashland Oregon, Snowmass Colorado and Seattle. And try to limit the 'I, me, my, mine'. This needs to be award winning, influential, non superficial and content-useful generous gain historic grown-up reporting.

But thanks in any case. Better late than never.

Wake up and smell the coffee Americans..



If you haven't read James Lovelock's 'The Revenge Of Gaia', go and buy a copy NOW - The Earth won't care what nationality you are when she tries to kill a few million people in an attempt to prevent the damage you are inflicting on her - it will be just like your immune system fighting back against some cold bugs...

New Orleans and the Boxing Day Tsunami are just a throat-clearing exercise for what is to come.

A figure often used as a sustainable level of carbon emissions is 2 tonnes per person. But this is based on a global population of 6 billion. For the 9.5 billion expected to inhabit the world by 2050 this falls to 1.26 tonnes. But most of us are only directly responsible for around half of our emissions. This gives us a personal quota of 0.63 tonnes. Even driving the new Ford Fiesta Eco: a diesel car which emits 98g CO2 per km (a figure so low the British government won’t even make you pay car tax) means you could only drive 4000 miles before using up you allowance. This is before even flicking a light switch, cooking a meal or running the hot water tap. 4000 miles means a daily commute (assuming a 5 day week and 33 days holiday - typical in the UK) of 8.8 miles to work and back. Not very much at all. In other words reducing carbon emissions to the level required will mean personal use of the internal combustion engine is banned (unless you advocate starving people to death by using food crops for biofuels, and lets not even pretend "2nd generation" biofuels are a viable proposition - they're what we used to call "wood" and would require mass deforestation thereby reducing the capacity of the earth to absorb CO2 and thus defeating the object) When Americans realise this things may change (unless of course someone comes up with a viable alternative)

Sceptic Kev - the whole Honda Clarity / Toyota Prius thing is a red-herring. They both, in different ways, just move the emissions from one place to another - they still need energy, and if that isn't coming from nuclear power [or wind energy or solar power stations] then you are NOT solving the problem, just deferring or relocating it.

Many on this blog seem to be equating the fact that not many Americans seem to think that this is a major problem with an assumption that it is not a big problem. The atmosphere doesn't care what Americans do or don't think - more C02 is ending up there, and simply ignoring this problem is not going to solve it.

Of course it is easier to live in blissful ignorance, but that will be increasingly difficult once sea levels rise.

In other words reducing carbon emissions to the level required will mean personal use of the internal combustion engine is banned,

Impressive, TandF1, you reached almost the same conclusion as I did, without even factoring in emissions from the factories and smelters needed to make autos.

But as lordBeddGelert wrote:

Switching from internal combustion, to electric motors, will just move the emissions from one place to another

To only real solution, is to gradually transition to entirely rail and bicycle based transport.

LordBedgelert

The question from the author was not to do with whether man-made climate change was a reality it was whether he was, as his wife put it, "seeing pregnant women" when he perceived that attitudes were changing in the US.

I still think that he is "seeing pregnant women" and that Americans on the whole don't care about CO2 emissions.

Have to agree, that Â鶹ԼÅÄ Ethical Man is '"seeing pregnant women" and that Americans on the whole don't care about C02 emissions'. The challenge he and his producer (and his editor) face is to believe and work from this position. The same vast challenge faces every recalcitrant person concerned to work on this at all

Al Gore uses the story of the frog in the hot pan of water and the frog in the pan of cold water heating up. This isn't enough either. Winston Churchill once said 'You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else'. Ethical man, his producer and his editor are challenged by not knowing how to deal with a culture largely uninformed about and disinterested in world geography, world history, global economics and critically, modern american history.

Lacking an enquiring mind and living in a newsotainment culture holds the world to hostage and renders the much trumpeted individuality so passive that the robbers rob and the fraudsters defraud and the racketeers serve up outrage after outrage full in the knowledge that their volleys will ace time after time, under our noses and all with the contempt of those willing to leave their fingerprints everywhere . . . confident in their reliance on the inertia principal, and almost no real news, and none if you won't look

But without the history, the trademarks of criminals get missed, and without looking to understand the ties between the disinterest and the demoralization, Ethical Man can't know what his job is here, can't stay alert without flying home for dinner and a chat (as happens) and won't get it that he, Ethical Man of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ needs to get real and realize how important it is to find out how he/they can help. Very important.

That is why they are here, but being here is why they are finding it such a challenge. Deregulation is not freedom from responsibility - profits without health and environmental costs accounted for are not genuine. It matters to know, and if knowing isn't caring, then capturing the attention requires the language lived and understood here; cost, and benefit. Stark, even for an ethically-intentional Brit. "Seeing pregnant women" - just like the missus said; good job too. Hope she can review the editing.

In a free country you can decide when and how to act. In 1973 the 60's hippies decided they didn't want to live and work for the corporate state with the follow-on of consequences that arose during the OPEC oil embargo. At that point they began cobbling together wind turbines from old automobile alternators and slats of wood. Month after month, year after year, a tiny minority has been chipping away at the problem, with or without government help, with or without the support of the American public at large, and with or without a market environment that promoted use of renewables.
From the earliest time I can remember watching nature programs on TV, the audience has been lectured on the consequences of human interference in natural habitat. Every American adult alive today has been hammered with that message repeatedly. The public has demanded legislation like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and so forth, most of which have been in force now for decades.
The idea that the US is ‘just now’ turning the corner is silly beyond belief. There are now more people, including more Americans, working on the energy/CO2 issue than at any point in history. Our understanding of the chemistry and physics is expanding exponentially. We have reached a number of milestones, including production of solar panels at $1 per watt, which at current US power prices recovers its investment in less than seven years.
What you may be seeing isn’t so much ‘pregnant women’ as you are a greater confidence by citizens selected at random that the problem can be dealt with. The technical means is more apparent than ever.

What 'mnpoor' points out is correct, that the constant incremental change has gone on for decades and the efforts of thousands of people exist as viable proven examples of lifestyles all over the country - and how this has grown into an unsung forum of 'solving it by doing it' is why it is so important that Ethical Man acquires a copy of Â鶹ԼÅÄPower Magazine asap, and has a look at their archives. Now advertised in by ever more mainstream manufacturers, the publishers have defragmented and demystified the possible for years, and every story is evocative of the possible. How many people have ever read or heard of Â鶹ԼÅÄPower Magazine, though, only they would have some idea of. Get it, read it, visit them and their stories.

The goal must be to lessen the C02 produced more than it is to continue as usual and claim to capture it afterwards at great additional cost. Just like with the mining industry, the mentality is still post event treatment by end-of-pipe specialists, not what it might be planned to be, owing to the costs of planning and implementing making the process 'uneconomic', ie they can't afford to plan to not pollute and damage the environment

What is pivotal now is that the right to not change is being challenged by true costings, and the investment into change is potentially counteracting the macro pace of change. It wasn't only the hippies who saw the injustice of worst practices, it was the industries fueling the economy who had influence over the political and populist tide when it came to pace of change, and they still do.

As for taking care of this small planet, an unfortunate fact about human nature is that we take little enough notice of the maxim 'when you're doing well you can afford to do better; when you're not doing well you can't afford not to' but to make sure we can ignore human nature and accumulative retentive memory we often dislocate ourselves and responsibilities by the use of legal vehicles called corporations.

In effect, we create the means we deem necessary or expedient to permit ourselves to defraud ourselves, just as with the AIG creation in the early eighties of the "Pollution Exclusion Clause" for mining insurance, as mining would otherwise be "uninsurable" - (?!)

The real issue here is, who in the US knows anything of the valuable observations and contributions in any of these comments or the blogs, or anything of what the issues are or the choices we have and are facing? A small but rising number hopefully. But believe that "pregnant women" abound, else complacency endures and the false sense of security about the positive effects reaching people lacks the lean and hungry edge.

The scientists seem to have at least made a good start of educating the politicians. But this issue might just be too important to claim not my job

If it is important that we act soon, to avoid disaster, maybe we should do all the math, account for all variables and all emissions, to ensure we are doing enough.

We can not afford to convert every vehicle on the planet, only to have emissions increase.

If the efficiencies required to avert disaster, can only be achieved by giving up private motor vehicles and riding our bicycles to a trains station, then it is going to take more than one blogger rattling cages to make that happen. Politicians will practically have to be dragged by an angry mob, to a ban cars conclusion.

The real question is, will there be enough time to build enough trains to get us there?

Bicycle-fan

I share your enthusiasm for public transport but your aims would be harder to achieve here in Michigan than in the UK. Our State has no passenger trains apart from an AMTRAK a couple of times a day between Detroit and Chicago and a toy train called a "people mover" around the landmarks in Detroit, That's it for a State physically bigger than the UK. There is not even a train between any Michigan airport and the city it serves. Any ideas?

Interesting post Justin.

So id Justin the Â鶹ԼÅÄ Blogger of the Year 2008-2009

Nominations now open at http:\\www.democraticbritain.org

Do you think Paul Masons Idle Scrawl is a better Â鶹ԼÅÄ blog of the year or Pestons Picks, Stephanomics or Newslog.
Nominate who and why for the ultimate Â鶹ԼÅÄ Blogger award of 2008-2009

Â鶹ԼÅÄ Blog Poster of the Year 2008-2009

Nominations now open at http:\\www.democraticbritain.org

Tell us who has been Most Creative, Funniest, Positive, Negative, Persistant use of Capitals or just plain correct throughout 2008-2009.

Nominations now open at http:\\www.democraticbritain.org

Nominations Close and Voting begins on 30/03/2009

Bicycle-fan

I share your enthusiasm for public transport but your aims would be harder to achieve here in Michigan than in the UK. Our State has no passenger trains apart from an AMTRAK a couple of times a day between Detroit and Chicago and a toy train called a "people mover" around the landmarks in Detroit, That's it for a State physically bigger than the UK. There is not even a train between any Michigan airport and the city it serves. Any ideas?

Britononthemitten;

I realize that improving rail service in a state heavily influenced by Detroit, will be difficult, but you make it sound like Michigan has no rail-lines at all. In fact Michigan had 9,000 miles of rail, in 1890, and still today, is served by 5 class-one railroads. The two daily Amtrak trains between Detroit and Chicago, are an improvement over the once a day train between my hometown of Vancouver BC, and Seattle WA, which runs in the evening without a connecting train to points south, thus forcing an overnight stay. (Although a second train that does continue to Portland OR, may have been added recently, if Amtrak has resolved its dispute with the border guards).

Getting government to do the right thing, is never easy, especially when the right thing is perceived to be unpopular. I suppose all that you can do, is make it clear to your government, that you want rail improvements because rail travel is safer, more efficient, and more reliable, than sitting in gridlock, and encourage your neighbors to do the same.

The WALLY and SEMCOG lines should be a good start.

lordBeddGelert:

I'm interested, where does the energy for public transport come from?

Perhaps all the passengers peddle??

Or maybe they are just moving the problem around?

In answer to your question if you want a low carbon future, Nuclear is the only way to go. Anything else is just moving CO2 around.

Wind mills are all very fine, any idea when they will start contributing to the energy mix?

For some interesting facts and figures about just how scr*w*d you are:

/iplayer/episode/b00hr6bk/Horizon_20082009_Can_We_Make_a_Star_on_Earth/

Still think wind mills will solve your problem.

Apologies to our American cousins who may not be able to access this link.

BTW interesting facts are about 20mins in, apologies for the bad language.

Sceptic_Kev;

To answer your question I'm interested, where does the energy for public transport come from?

It is called energy efficiency. It takes about one twentieth of the energy, to move 100 passengers in one train, than in 98 private motor vehicles, and a similar fraction to move 100 frieght cars, vs 200 18 wheelers.

Wind mills and solar panels already contribute to the energy mix, and they burn much less carbon to do so, than nuclear power. Very little co2 is emitted to create wind or solar power, while nuclear power is dependant on large concrete structures (which are extremely energy intensive to build), and the transportaion of mined urainium and radioactive waste. Urainium, being more toxic than mercury, is the most toxic naturally occuring element.

Bicycle-Fan:

Actually the UK government has recently admitted that sprinter trains produce more CO2 per person than a family travelling by car.
If that car produces no emissions, then I guess that makes sprinter trains a lot dirtier than a car.
You didn't mention how much of the energy mix comes from wind?
My guess is it's about 10%, which as it's taken 10 years to get that 10% extrapolating the figures that means 100% in 100 years - good luck!
Did you get a chance to look at the film, the figures are truly frightening.

It may be that your sprinter trains are the least efficient trains on the planet, but the results have been skewed by putting a whole family in the car. The numbers for the UK probably are not much different than here in North America, where 98 percent of the private vehicles on the road, have only one occupant.

No car can move or be constructed, without using energy. Until all power comes from clean renewable sources, electric cars will have a large carbon footprint. Increasing demand, by electrifying all cars and trucks, will only push that day farther into the future (if it does not make it impossible).

Sorry, since I am not in the UK, I am unable to view the linked video. Maybe you could fill us in?

YouTube to the rescue:


PS

It does take a lot to make electric cars, that's why I'm banging on about the Honda Clarity, it does not have batteries.

PPS

How much CO2 does it take to make a train?

The problem is that trains don't run at full capacity the whole time, most of the time they run with 1 or 2 people on them. Then when it gets to 5.30 you are all crammed in like cattle.
The other problem with rail is how much energy does it take to smelt the iron for the rails, or to weld the miles of rails into place. It costs roughly twice as much to build a mile of rail compared to a mile of metalled road.
Here in the UK that translates into rail prices costing roughly 3 to 4 times as much as travelling by car.
I travel to work by bus which costs between 28 and 38 pounds depending on the ticket. A rail ticket would cost me 128 pounds.
I don't know about you but I'm embarrassed to go to my employer and ask for an extra 100 pounds so I can travel by rail.

The video seems to suggest that it will be impossible to create 5 kilowatts of power per day, for everyone on the planet, from greenhouse gas free sources. (nuclear cannot be called clean) So, maybe we need to embrace the efficiencies that will enable us to use less than that?

Can a Honda clarity be magically created without using power? No, it likely takes the same amount or more, to build one, as it does a hybrid civic. Is there a free source of hydrogen to fill the fuel cells of the clarity? No, there is not. The most efficient method of generating hydrogen, is to strip it from natural gas. (this process creates co2 as a byproduct) When the natural gas runs out, hydrogen can be created by splitting water, but this uses more power than it saves.

If the trains are empty during the day, but crammed at 5:30, would not staggered work hours be a solution? Wouldn’t that be easier to adjust to, than increased droughts, famines and floods?

In most places, the rails (if not also the rolling stock) are already there. As for costs, there are problems on both sides of the equation.

The amounts people spend on private vehicles are staggering, if they are ever fully admitted. The fuel tax cannot possibly cover the costs of building and maintaining public roads (also rarely fully admitted), let alone pay for the hospitals needed to treat the additional lung aliments and smash-up victims.

Then there is the rail side of the equation. It is difficult to know how much efficiencies of scale, will lower costs. But it should be safe to say, that if the only options were bicycles or trains, the cost per train ticket would be significantly reduced. Removing the possibility of trucks getting stuck at level crossings, will also significantly improve train safety. (as demonstrated by the Japanese bullet train)

A train might possibly move back and forth all day, carrying a full load of passengers, while a private motor vehicle, will most likely carry one person to work, then sit in a parking garage all day long. And since a train is not likely to carry you from point A to point B, you will be forced to use even more efficient modes (walking or cycling) to get to the train station, and from the other station to your final destination.

If I am wrong, please show me the math. Seriously, we cannot afford to blindly electrify every private motor on the planet, only to find out, that this increases our co2 emissions.

Bicycle Fan,

It may help if I start with my position. I am a sceptic, so CO2 arguments don't necessarily sway me.
What really scares me is that it is thought that most oil companies are over estimating their oil reserves possibly by as much as double. Plus the fact that China and India are now coming on line means that in as little as 35 years we could be out of oil.
That is a truly scary prospect.
That means that I believe our world has to rid it's self of all oil dependency in 35 years, and also means that you and I share some common ground, although we will always have our differences as our agendas differ.
It also means that hybrids and diesel trains will have a life span of less than 35 years, unless you condone deforestation and mass starvation in order to produce bio-fuels.
And most rolling stock in the UK is about 35 years old.
I'm also a futurist and believe we must keep moving forward, which puts me at odds with many green supporters who believe we should return to a simple life of tilling the fields - this will never happen unless the population seriously reduces (a real prospect in 35 years time).
As a result I believe Nuclear is the best option, I'm not convinced by this nonsense about concrete creating co2, the Romans used concrete and they had a low carbon culture. Once concrete and fuel is taken out of the equation (which is needed to build wind farms and the like anyway) your left with 0 emissions (pleasing to you) and 0 fossil fuels (pleasing to me). Nuclear also produces a large amount of electricity, most of Frances electricity come from Nuclear.
By the way the film doesn't say its impossible, it just says we need to get off our backsides and start doing it, and that we can't rely on wind and Solar alone.
I don't have the math but i do know that a Hybrid has both a petrol and electric motor, plus batteries and a very complicated transmission in order to switch between the two.
The Honda Clarity has an electric motor, a gas tank and a fuel cell and that's it, much less complicated than the average petrol car,and therefore easier (and you would think more energy efficient to make).
As to Hydrogen, yes there are some issue there, but Hydrogen can be generated at Gas stations eliminating the need for big thirsty fuel trucks, and all the energy needed to turn oil into petrol.
I believe Oxford university are already piloting a scheme.
As for staggered working and cycling, I'm all for flexible working and when I could I liked to walk to work. But only a communist system would enforce a staggered working day. Plus I don't know what you do but in my job we all work together, and need to be working at the same time. Also how much more power would be required to run the offices for the extra hours.
As to the cost (energy and money) of maintaining the rolling stock, the UK has an extensive rail network, but it still costs billions every year to ensure these networks stay serviceable. We have had many deaths from poorly maintained track, which if nothing else shows the cost of not maintaining the system.
As to the strange logic that a monopoly will drop prices, I don't see how that can possibly work, I know of no example of a monopoly dropping prices. The UK's rail network in London for example is pretty much at capacity and prices rise above inflation year on year.

Since full disclosure seems to be in order. I am a cyclist that believes private motor vehicles are too dangerous to be legal. If anyone one government had had the courage to do the right thing eighty years ago, maybe others would have followed the example and we would not be in the mess we are in today. One million road deaths per year may seem small compared nine million starvation deaths, but A, that is still one million dead people, (and likely five million maimed for life) every year, and B, the nine million starvation deaths are due in no small part to a lack of transportation. Building better rail service can solve both problems at once.

It is unclear as to why we cannot use wind and solar for all our power needs, so I have to assume, it is because we use too much power.

I am not familiar with how much power is produced from wind, but it does seem to adding more and more to the mix.

Solar energy falls at a rate of 1 kilowatt per square meter of sunlit area. At fifty percent efficiency and two good hours of sun per day (this is a conservative estimate for most of the world) we get one kilowatt hour of energy for every square meter of solar panel. So for every square kilometer of solar panels you get one gigawatt hour per day. How many square kilometers of roof do you have? If that is not enough, surely you have some tailing ponds or rail-beds that can be covered in panels?

It may not be a good idea to keep increasing the co2 level of the atmosphere for another 35 years. Whether or not you believe that our actions are warming the planet, or if this warming will be disastrous, you cannot deny that we are running an experiment in our biosphere which is our only life support system. Maybe it is time to stop the experiment, so we can read the results? - Unless, you have a trillion trees you can plant?

Hydrogen takes energy to make, no matter which system is used. You might need more than the tailing ponds covered with solar, to meet the demand.

Work hours could be staggered without extending office hours. Building A, could work 8:30-4:30, building B 9-5, and building C 9:30-5:30

Yes, rail systems consume energy and emit co2, now, but all industry and transportation should be converted, to the most energy efficient and least polluting technology possible.

I think that will involve electric trains and a lot of pedal power. Show me the math to prove otherwise, and please do not call me a romantic that longs for the past. I want disc-brakes on my cargo-bike, and affordable and frequent high-speed rail service.

The monopoly electrical utility in British Columbia, has kept our power prices among the lowest in North America. Your rail system sounds like ours, where it seems they want to increase fares to discourage usage enough to shut-down lines and sell the land for condos.

If trains were the only option, government would have to properly regulate them, to ensure the highest safety standards and the lowest fares, or the responsible minister would be out of a job.