Paul Gilding, Climate Shift, raises excellent points

Not that I probably need to say anything, as most readers of this blog probably follow Climate Shifts even closer, however, Paul Gilding has just posted an excellent piece, well worth a read, “A climate storm for investors“.

He makes the point that all this denial has actually worked in the favour of climate science – with so many independent reviews that have taken place, very few other occurrences have led to there being less doubt in the science. Climate change is occurring and is largely the result of our actions. Laframboise’s audit misses the mark (she’s currently working on a book regarding the “weakness” of the 4th IPCC report – I wonder what will become of that?) and other wishful thinking will come to nothing. The world is changing and failing to appreciate this will leave investors and companies behind.

I guess in a lot of ways, this is the point to the new open project that I’ve begun. This is the guts to innovation. Like the Slow Money initiative, there is room to think differently and question current practices. It is possible to do things in new ways that are increasingly sustainable, lead to great species protection and will lead to a higher standard of living for everyone.

I have to admit, all this discussion is very exciting to me. It is terrible that environmentally speaking, we got ourselves to this point before we could no longer ignore the reflection, but despair is just another form of inaction. We need to highlight the points made by Paul Gilding and others and start being proactive and inventive!

🙂

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Paul Gilding, Climate Shift, raises excellent points

  1. As I commented over there, I agree that science always triumphs in the long run. The problem with climate change is that we do not have “the long run” to wait for policymakers to take action. Many say it is already too late – that we have passed tipping points. Even if not true, it does seem likely that we are very close. The pace of climate change and the heat that is “in the pipeline” make it essential that strong actions should be taken now.

    The political pace is much too slow even when action is taken so I fear 3-5C warming is very likely. 3-5C is catastrophic. It is incredible that scientists keep discussing climate change in such a clinical manner.

    The more I research the impacts of climate change, the more “alarmist” I am getting. It is much worse than even I thought.

    Like

    1. I’m exactly the same. I hate to think of myself as an alarmist (and I do try to monitor my language in that way), however, quite frankly, I am alarmed.
      That the trend is still less than 1C and we’re already seeing an incredible changing in many bio-physical indicators, by the time we hit 3C, there is little doubt that the world will be a radically different place. It’s nothing short of irresponsible to act as sluggish as we are. I think a lot of sensible people are getting increasingly annoyed by this “debate” and the lack of political will – arguably this led to Rudd’s demise. What irritates me most is that from an academic and governance angle, this issue isn’t new – look at Cities for Climate Protection. This is why I was rather ignorant to this “debate” – my background largely accepted the science and relied mostly on the provided models already. That this has been a political agenda for a long time and such disturbing anti-science events like climategate can occur and have such an affect is upsetting. Facts do win out in the end, but I’m sure like myself, you would argue that retrospect is a poor substitute for informed proaction.
      It probably is to late. I suspect the 350 was the highest sensible level. It is imperative to keep CO2 concentration under 450ppm and assist biodiversity protection.

      Like

    2. Here’s some excellent papers (that might be relevant to your project as well);

      Anderson, B. J., Akçakaya, H. R., Araújo, M. B., Fordham, D. A., Martinez-Meyer, E., Thuiller, W., and Brook, B. W. (2009) Dynamics of range margins for metapopulations under climate change. Proceedings of the royal society B. 276:1415-1420. doi:1098/rspb.2008.1681

      Giam, X., Bradshaw, C. J. A., Tan, H. T. W., Sodhi, N. S., (2010) Future habitat loss and the conservation of plant biodiversity. Biological Conservation. 143:1594-1602.

      Maclean, I., Rehfisch, M. M., Delany, S., and, Robinson, R. A. (2008) The effects of climate change on migratory waterbirds within the African-Eurasian flyway. UNEP Tech workshop paper

      Like

  2. I had a look at that “audit” site, grooaoan. Apart from all the obvious stuff, the one thing that really got under my fingernails was the statement that the next generations – 50 years from now – will be cleverer than we are. This is nonsense. My generation is no cleverer than my grandparents’ was, and I can’t see that my grandchildren will be part of a group that would universally be regarded as geniuses by earlier generations.

    We are just as clever as we need to be. All we need is the drive and the support to get on with the good ideas that are all over the world.

    Like

    1. I just published a new post about Donna Laframboise.. I tend to wait until I’m about to leave the office to post such attacks – otherwise if I get comments, I get drawn into discussions when I shouldn’t.
      I don’t know why it is, but I think a number of blogs I’m aware of have certain deniers that get to them. Laframboise and Monckton are two that I’d have to say get under my skin. He’s gone and she should be held responsible for her misinformation.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s