±«Óătv

Interesting choice for the title of your post, should bring out the Doom mongers in force :)

Personally I am an advocate of 'expect the worst, hope for (and strive for)the best'. Unfortunately in the current economic climate that makes me a doommonger as well....

I see a huge drop in living standards in the indebted and non -producing west generally, a drop in living standards that will affect a generation that has never known such a thing. There will be huge dissapointment, confusion and anger at this. We have collectively become used (to the point of expecting it as ahuman right almost) to throwing 33% of our food in the bin, having 2 cars and flying to Australia for a 2 week holiday. All the while in some parts of the world families would live off what we throw away and be grateful for it.

I went out for meal on Friday, my companion (as always) insisted on cleaning the plate with a piece of bread at the end, he can afford not to do that but he did it anyway, nothing went into the slop bin in the kitchen, that is an old and a simple value, one which many will have to learn again in the west. That will not be easy.


But I also see hope and funily enough the hope I see is your names sake, it is called 'ethical man'. In order for that hope to be realised people will have to once again see the value in being ethical and selfless as its own reward as oppose to the greed and self interest which dominates the way we live now.

Traditionally religion has filled that role, but the established religions just look horribly dated and not useful anymore (population control being the most obvious of those, useful in the past to have lots of kids... a potential disaster in the making now yet still advocated by the incumbents.

So on the hopeful side we need some way to inspire people to behave in an ethical way that is fit for our modern times and outside the scope of the modern religions which are outdated as mechanisms for maintaining social cohesion and progress (which is what they are in my opinion).

How hopeful do you think we can be then?

I dont know, all I do know is we have quite a journey ahead of us in the comming years.

remember the double edged Chinese blessing / curse.

'' may you live in interesting times''.

It is already interesting, I think it will get very very interesting in the next few years...

Jericoa

You wrote: "If I make a mistake in a blog readers are sure to let me know, which is great". So I wondered if "In April Barrack Obama" was some kind of test. Not being careful about something as simple as spelling makes me anxious about what else a professional journalist is not being careful about....

Are we all doomed?

Other than death, taxes and licence fees, No. But I'm guessing you mean the humin race, and more specifically through 'probably man-worsened climate change'. In which case no, not for a while, and 'I am not sure anyone knows, yet, but it might be worth sussing out the skinny to prepare'.

Well, we came to America to do nothing less than save the world.

And here was me thinking it was another 'don't do as we do, don't do what we say don't do' jolly to get a programme out and crank up some ratings in the niche end of the schedule, and some hits on a blog. But it is great you had a good time, and guys like our Darryl liked the reach the ±«Óătv has so much she caught up with you again.

If a few things might assist in certain endeavours, I'd pop in 'realism' and 'pragmatism' for two.

I have a colleague who lives in fear of their blog because of the aggressive and rude comments people post.

That is neither welcome nor, to use one of our Dear Leader's most fatuous phrases, 'acceptable'. Aggression and rudeness are poor ways to move opinion, IMHO. Especially if the pieces that have provoked such reactions are factual, objective, and free from 'enhanced narratives' and 'interpreted events'. That's what effective, honest moderation is for.

However, as your colleague Susan and her 'superior' might appreciate, it is not unlikely there will be a robust expression of disagreement if liberties are taken. Folk were not keen that President Obama's speech was turned in the edit suite into an 'emerging truth'.

That said...

'...if readers or viewers disagreed their only way to respond was a letter to the editor that, almost always, would go unpublished, if not unread.'

You are aware of the ±«Óătv 'House Rules', I take it? They can be, and often are used to delete just about anything that some do not fancy. Still.

A fact that seems to be causing some rumblings in the blogosphere. You can't control what you don't own.

But I'll look forward to the report. So long as it is guided by 'hewing close to the line, and letting the chips fall where they may', and not dogma or agenda. And by heavens the science stays sensible and the enviROI top of mind.

If not, I'm sure a few will be on hand to give you the heads up.

Green energy - fantastic! We've been dragging our heels for decades. But aren't we missing the point? Poulation growth of around 2bn in 1930 to 8bn or so in 2030 is just stupendously crazy and clearly unsustainable! A few weeks ago the ±«Óătv tried to raise the overpopulation issue but stony silence seems to have been the stern response. And Mr Pope, you are assisting in the misery and death of untold millions in your continued mindless stance on birth control. Surely we are rushung towards disaster as per the renouned lemming?

Glad to see someone is enjoying his work,and even getting paid for it.On the other hand,while article is mostly ok,suggest a variation of 'never say never' advice as it is totally unrealistic to say that you will not achieve carbon emission reductions because never will EVERYONE push for it.It is more than enough if 99% of the population push for it,or,for that matter,if as few as 30 or 40 % do so.Best of luck!

'We' of course, will all die sooner or later, so you must be talking about the human race as a species. More specifically, you must be asking if this means 'in our lifetime?'. We might have a 'die off' as some areas of the world become uninhabitable, but this will not put an end to all of humanity. The population might return to that of the Middle Ages, perhaps 500 million overall, which would represent over a 90% reduction. The more likely agents of such a dieoff would be either a supervolcano destroying crops (as may have occurred around 535 AD as the Roman empire collapsed) or a comet/meteor strike, aka K/T boundary 65 million years ago. The few stragglers, however, will plod on.

Cap and trade does not encourage, it metes out horrific social injustice based on the ability to afford ones vices. The wealthy will continue to live well, as they can afford to. The middle class will be subjugated, and the poor will do without. Squeezing the non-wealthy out of the market for energy is the foulest form of social control yet tried. Fear not, the liberal fascists will find another when they turn their eyes to the food supply.

If you are an "ethical man," you should re-examine this policy closely. Starving the poor and middle class out of the energy market is an abomination, and you should be ashamed of yourself for promoting it.

First of all, let me say Welcome to America just as you are leaving. Secondly, I can only assume that you are an objective blogger without preconceived ideological dogma to guide you in your ruminations and prognostications. I say, "assume", because your position on global warming sounds dogmatic and ideological. I have no objection to any positions taken on alternative energy for the truly objective goal of weaning ourselves off of Mideast oil. But, to buy into this whole global warming campaign which has huge expenses attached, doubtful science, and limited success promised at best, is a red herring.

#2 - I've corrected the typo

Ethical Man your post is good, however, I would like to comment on Jericoa's post. I agree with the fact that mankind must once again become selfless and not full of greed for this to work and that traditionally religion taught this to man but I disagree that religion is horribly outdated because of population control, religion advocating having many children. Economic growth occurs because of supply and demand. We get demand from either population growth or by an increase in a standard of living. Supply and demand is best served by population increase. We will never over populate this planet. The entire population of the United States could be put in the state of Texas having only 438 people per square kilometer while China currently has 957 people per square kilometer. You either believe that a Supreme Being created this universe and everything in it (which recent scientific discoveries indicate that it does) and that he does in fact control what happens on our planet and develop faith in him that if we live according to his plan, he will bless us and his planet. Wha-la no more global warming and no more economic woes. What a transformation when we think of others instead of self!

leighwoods - "mankind must once again become selfless and not full of greed"? When were we ever, as a species, that?

We now have the tools to understand the scale of the problems our ambition has created, we may also have the tools to solve those problems; let's hope we have the wisdom to recognise what must be done in order for all the nations of the world to avoid the mistakes of the developed West.

Mr. ±«Óătv's Ethical Man, what does this mean:
"I haven't 'achieved' anything by this trip - it is a journalists' job to observe and report.. "

Your complete activity has been editorializing. You are not practicing much classic journalistic reporting which seeks some measure of objectivity or neutrality.

#10 leighwoods

Let me be more specific, religion is not outdated, but many of the currently existing religious institutions are.

You take issue with the population example, there are many flaws with your position. The religous institutions are nothing to do with supreme beings they are big organisations like any other managed by people and frozen in time in their teachings, some teachings are still valid today, some are not.

The teachings of their time concerning population were designed to maintain a viable and stable population in times when many died before childbearing age. It basically says, have lots of kids and dont reproduce with close relatives...Quite sensible of its time...good practical advise for a community to grow and prosper with the minimum of suffering from genetic abnormality.

The genetic aspect of not reproducing with close relatives is still valid today, yet to impose unrestricted population growth in the 21st century with all out medical advances leads to overpopulation.

There is already huge pressure on resources, much of the earth is not good for growing food, would you cut down all the rainforest to grow more crops just so that the population could carry on growing in line with the institutions doctrine? Overpopulation is also a fertile breeding ground for new disease to emerge. I could go on.

Here is another example of religious doctrine frozen in time. Ritual bathing in sacred rivers. This was probably initiated as a daily routine for improved hygene .. very sensible advise when the rivers ran cool and fresh and clean from the mountains. Yet the tradition is still blindly followed today when these rivers have turned to open sewers bloated by human faeces and industrial effluent. They still bathe but it does them no good, they get skin infections and sick,they suffer, pass genetic disease by exposure to chemicals onto their children who in turn suffer. Was that the intension ritual do you think?

If religion and religious dotrine is to be any use it must adapt to the spirit of the times (note that word 'spirit' of the times).

The founders of the religions know that also, upgrade prompts are embedded in the religions such that they can change with time (2nd comming myths and the like), the trouble is as the ideas became institutionalised the institutions never recognise those system upgrade prompts when they occur (e.g. Galileo and the sun going around the earth, charles Darwin his theories proven by the creatures in the very rocks under our feet).

Which brings me back to the beginning, institutions are nothing to do with supreme beings, they are of man and have the imprint of man embedded within them, they can not adapt to the spirit of the times as those who created the ideas for them intended.

I have no problem with religion, I have a big problem with religious institutions who do not adapt to the spirit of the times. look at the world around you and see the truth of this.


Jericoa

The problem for all of the world, which is a quandry for all, is that world populations have exceeded the safety level of the planet. That means absolutely NOTHING we do will matter, if we do not REDUCE world populations.

I do not mean in the long term, either. I mean within the next 20 yrs. We must STOP having children, or we cannot save the planet. It is that simple. There are too many of us, driving cars, building houses, building office buildings, building factories, converting forest lands to cities, and farms.

The more of us there are, the faster we destroy the environment. Science has been trying to tell world governments that fact, for a few years now. Governments refuse to listen.

Why, you ask? Simple. Population growth fuels the economy. Without it, the economy stagnates. There is the Catch-22. So, are we doomed? Perhaps we are.

Save the world? To do this the population must be drastically reduced. Traditionally this has been done by disease and war, man has never attempted to reduce populations in a way that does not cause immense suffering.
So how about compulsory euthanasia at age 70?
Pensions and NHS too expensive? Problem solved.
Housing shortage? Problem solved.
Economic crisis? Problem solved as all the moneys being sat upon by over 70's is released into the economy.
Reduce CO2 emmissions? Problem solved as fewer people breathing out carbon dioxide.
Well are there any older people out there who think that their grand-children have a future without drastic changes to the way we live?

Zhadur wrote:
The middle class will be subjugated, and the poor will do without.

The poor already do without, better rail service could free them. (free transit zones already exist)

The middle class need to be freed from the subjugation of the automobile, better rail service could free them too.

Solar panels allow people to make their own power, thus reducing or eliminating the transfer of funds to large utilities. Wind should be able to contribute, but insulation and efficiency make net-zero meter readings possible.

Bicycles allow the combination of exercise and travel time, but can only free everyone, with car-free streets. These are only possible with much improved rail-service and many more cargo-bikes and pedal-cabs.

Do not be so afraid of change as to be blind to the possibility a better way.

We will only be doomed, if we fail to believe that we are capable of change.



Jericoa wrote:
I have a big problem with religious institutions who do not adapt to the spirit of the times.

In the hope that someone passes on the message, how those institutions should adapt to the times is as follows.
A - stop bashing gays,
B - start giving away condoms.

A tall order, I know, but hey, just about anything is possible.

How right the lady is that commented about the inadequate state of religion - especially Christianity. Christianity today is more corrupted than at any time since the Church was formed in Jerusalem some 2000 years ago.

But all that is about to change - in fact this whole world is about to change!

God flooded the Earth some thousands of years ago to kill off all mankind. He began to repopulate the world through Noah and his kin. In about 40 years God is going to do exactly the same thing except that instead of flooding the world to kill off all mankind, Jesus will come down from Heaven and simply speak to do just that. Then He will repopulate the world and rule over it Himself - the true global governance.

Global warming, climate change leading to vast famines, the sudden increase in the number of earthquakes - and even the recent financial meltdown are all signs pointing to what I have said above.

Please visit www.servingministries.org to see my role in restoring the Christian Church so that instead of it being some thousands of different streams of Christianity, it will be just one globally united Church in the world.

When you see the line of Popes come to an end in the Vatican, you will know for sure that what is written here is indeed true!

God bless...

Russell Morgan - the Lord's apostle.

It seems we need to do a better job at teaching how to distinguish fact from fiction. Because we certainly would be all doomed, if everyone subscribed to the notion, that only god decides and we can do nothing.

Fortunately at least some of the people in power, seem to understand that change is needed, and they are unlikely to believe that they are powerless.

So all we need to do, is find and advise the best possible path.

"What this trip has been about is documenting the beginnings of what could be a profound and fundamental change in the American economy."

"The idea is simple. If we can solve global warming here, we can solve it anywhere."

"What was also abundantly clear was that most people are not interested in changing their lifestyle "just to save the world".

The first quote is from Ethical Man's final US blog, and the second is taken from his first US blog. Alongside some distractions and wild goose chases this visitor and video production crew from the ±«Óătv have achieved some valuable and historic firsts, and in 2009 after eight years of political infamy and fraudulent practice these firsts need to be noted to be appreciated.

The ±«Óătv has funded this expeditionary research and production unit to visit and contact american people who have under-reported stories which are not commonly found on american television and not in the news

The ±«Óătv frontman aka the Ethical Man is a very capable journalist, interviewer and reporter as well as entertaining character whose mork can be watched in report segments on ±«Óătv Newsnight (which only the McNeal Lehrer Newshour comes close to for serious content and issues addressed by enquiring minds)

The brevity of the premise that " If we can solve global warming here, we can solve it anywhere" is one of its strengths, though the seriousness of the necessity and challenge cannot be overstated, not only as the issue of our degradation of conditions and resources on this small planet, but also for economic progress against a more constant background of political and economic fraud than is possible or expedient to set out.

The high dramas of modern american history have affected everyone on Earth and people here need to know and allow themselves to accept that this is so, and that everyone everywhere has an inalienable right to have their thoughts and perspectives and to wish to become better informed - that no clique nor dogma nor class nor church ought to seek to limit nor distort these enquiries for anybody else, but assuredly we do

The ±«Óătv can help to reflect some of the myriad of bright efforts made, potential and underway, well suited at this time during it's own regeneration and appropriate to the clarity of Obama non anti-social politics and investments into the contrasting form of sustainable economics when these are not defined as eugenics and permanent war and insecurity which at the social community level manifest as fear, uncertainty and doubt

it would appear on the whole the ±«Óătv crew were welcome here, doing what they were doing; no small thing

The ±«Óătv crew have the choices of editing the research materials and the 'footage' gathered. The overall tone shown in the blogs is that they genuinely mean well and have interacted effectively, and that they will surely observe the journalistic standards of legal, decent honest and true in their production reports.

America has a President. Timing their crews' arrival for soon after the Inaugeration symbolizes the renewal of worthwhile potential access again - as if a wall has come down - one raised by people shamelessly and cynically in opposition to the essentials of sustainable economics; non fraudulent practice, true costing and true pricing, and the modus operandi term going global (not just on a label) - the practice of "Fair Trade" over incredibly deregulated forms of so-called "Free Trade" now so frequently associated with fraud.

Just as we are all now becoming a little more conscious of the stark realities and deep economic truths that shallow motivations are dominant, and that now we should treat this to be our true history, so we begin to realize that we exist by the light of a shallow reflection of the true historical politics where the deeps are in fact extensively documented and possible to assemble to credible standards, thanks to people viewing open source history and access to prima facie information as a prime purpose for the internet, to defragment our history and current events to see who and how progress and civility is retarded, and how available are the solutions already in practice which can engage the long avoided problems with track records of success.

If the excitement and reality of these solutions based projects comes across in the coming ±«Óătv Ethical Man productions and stimulates the sort of enthusiasm in adults as they most likely will in the young, something genuinely "profound and fundamental" will be achieved; odd are on that this will be so.

Set a course for the future and engage.

Thanks, ±«Óătv.

Taking the square root of 6.4 billion yields 80,000. This is a square 80 kilometers (48 miles) on a side if everyone is allocated 1 square meter. Multiplying by 7 (x 7 = 49) to create a square of 560 kilometers (300 miles, more or less) on a side to give everyone an allocation of indoor living space, Double that number to 1120 kilometers or 600 miles to give everyone a yard as well. In short, everyone in the world could live in a suburban-style house and the whole body would fit in Texas or most any Australian province or in the Ukraine. The problem is not the size of the population, it's how we use resources. Nearly all of this boils down to energy: energy to clean and transport water, energy to convert waste back to usable materials, energy to grow food, energy to move around and communicate.

Utility scale wind turbines have been around for awhile, and investors are still buying them. If they flat-out didn't work, people would have given up on them a long time ago. Solar panels is the same story, they've been around for 50 years, and demand has never been greater. RE power is expensive relative to oil and coal, but pretty cheap in comparison to the cost of woodcutters bringing home bundles of sticks on their backs as would have been the practice in the Middle Ages. We are continually producing more energy efficient appliances, and learning better ways to transmit and manage power. The total effect of these is to make renewable the path of least resistance.

Also, the CIA World Factbook is showing that a number of countries are now experiencing population declines, such as Russia in particular. This is likely to spread to other industrialised countries. The population issue may be taking care of itself.

Bicycles...snicker. I see how they've helped the People's Republic of Communists reduce their pollution.

You're half right about the rail system. America will rue the day she let her rail system run into the ground. The poor NEVER saw a benefit from it, and they don't in many pace around the world.

Address my comment directly, don't dodge and slide.

Cap and trade spikes the cost of food, heat, and lights. This devestates the poor and middle class while the wealthy stare down from the mansion on the hill. I've no truck with the wealthy—they earned it/were fortunate/inherited it. My gripe is when they can't sate their greed to the point that they talk about an agenda that has no scientific foundation as a thiin disguise for controlling the less fortunate's access to basic staples. Make NO mistake; the global warming swindle is about controlling the vast majority by strangling their access to those vital components of life. We need look no farther than Al Gore and his "carbon credit" company to understand that this is about the rich trying to steal from the poor.

Side note to SUNNYBLOG: Compulsory euthanasia??? That's been tried in Europe, in the 40's I believe. Different criteria, same slippery slope. Disgusting...

Whether we stop global warming or not, and we won't, it is simply impossible to maintain the consumption of resources at its present scale, and indeed as population increases consumption is bound to increase.
The base cause of the destruction of the world as we know it is simply the unsupportable and growing size of the population. If that can't be solved then the inevitably our descendants are doomed.

To All Those People Who Say We Must Reduce Population:
China has a one child policy, It has net emigration and an unsustainably low birth rate. Yet it's population is still increasing. Why? More money = better health = longer lives. The problem is NOT birth rate. It is the fact that we are all living longer lives. The rate of population growth is determined by: birth rate - death rate. If you really want to reduce the global population then you know what to do! The fact is no-one believes there are too many people in the world. Although some believe there are too many OTHER people in the world. Those OTHER people tend to be poor people with brown skin. An British OAP will probably emit more CO2 than a family of 8 rural Ethiopians. Yet the Ethiopians get the blame for having kids whilst no sane person suggests compulsory euthanasia of old Westerners. Those who blame population growth are just trying to exempt themselves from blame. The fact is 1st world comsumption produces more greenhouse gases than 3rd world copulation.

As predicted in the first post the title of this blog has brought the nutters out!

We are all doomed no matter what we do, last time I checked our lifespan is finite as is that of our planet.

Anyway #19 is way out everybody knows the world as we know it will come to an end in 2012 when the long cycle of the Mayan calendar comes to an end.

Personally I aM looking forward to it because the world as we know it sucks on many levels, most of them to do with the activities of the human mind.

Zhadur wrote:
Bicycles...snicker. I see how they've helped the People's Republic of Communists reduce their pollution.

Are you disagreeing with me because there are many bicycles in China, but they are now the leading emitter of co2?

Or are you agreeing with me because, switching from bicycles to cars, was one of the main reasons why China now emits the most co2?

Zhadur wrote:
Cap and trade spikes the cost of food, heat, and lights

I could go on about crop rotation being cheaper than synthetic fertilizers, free sunlight and wind, or the cost of coal and oil, but everyone that disagrees with me can always claim one of my premises to be incorrect.

So what if Zhadur is right? No government or corporation, is going to force all of its taxpayers/customers, to freeze or starve. Most governments will not let their poor die either. They will raise welfare rates, or bring in food aid.

Since this is a global problem, there needs to be a global solution, therefore if minimum wage and welfare rate rises, or cap and trade, cause inflation at least everyone will be affected equally.

So what is there to worry about? Surely we will not risk our own extinction, just because the solution might cause our bills to go up?

Zhadur wrote:
this is about the rich trying to steal from the poor.

I thought it was about Bangladesh, Tuvalu and the Maldives trying to stop the rich from flooding their nations.

TandF1 wrote
Those who blame population growth are just trying to exempt themselves from blame. The fact is 1st world consumption produces more greenhouse gases than 3rd world copulation.

Thank you TandF1, for so clearly destroying the population myth.

Might I add that the solution does not have to be painful. Condoms can prevent population problems in the future. Trains and bicycles can prevent car problems in the present.

Supposedly someone has discovered a way to make methane from electricity using microbes. Keyword search 'microbial cell methane'. All you need is lots of electricity, water, and carbon dioxide. Any country in the world with wind or solar resources can now produce natural gas, and countries like Japan could simply modify ships to go generate it on the open ocean. Better use of talent than hunting whales.

Bicycle-Fan has been such a consistent contributor and advocate of trains, renewables and bicycles and enegy facts over the weeks, and considering the fact that ninety percent of daily journeys in the US are of less than thirty miles, we should address the possibilities for bicycle technology based innovations and lifestyle activities which might bring, for example, the educational benefits of more project centered learning into schools and colleges, in the spirit of thinking and communicating positively for the remaining two and a half years, before the Mayan mudslides in 2012 take us all out, apparently. Bicycles are affordable.

Apart from the fact that the number one cause of child mortality in the US now is through automobile accidents, and that many drivers of automobiles regard cyclists as pests, bicycles are great! Also, amazing fact, there are versions of those exercise machines in your gym or work out space . . . which have wheels on them, some of which are known as recumbent bicycles, and, when they have three wheels, are known as tricycles or trikes. Naturally, many automobile drivers hate people who ride these because, even though they are sometimes easier to see, they use even more of the road than bicycles and can cause punctures.

Also, for those cyclists and trikers who like to ride and would ride further but for a whole lot of reasons have cause to feel unconfident (this is not about cycling on US roads as a form of potential suicide for kids and adults in this instance) there is 'electrical assist' using electrical hub motors or small geared motors with freewheel sprocket drives which you can engage when the need arises. This could even work for "old people" who were young once and rode a bicycle way back when - unless of course you believe in involuntary euthanasia for people above a certain age, in which case cycling becomes impossible.

If we have forgotten about the many types of working bicycles and trikes developed over the century and more, or never had any notion that such things existed, the internet, museums, and specialist dealers can help. If we don't imagine that providing some electrical assist to bicycle based technology for working trike inventions might help, we are forgetting that horses used to draw all sorts of traps and carts, and the notion of horsepower is carried on in the form of a 746 watt electric motor equalling "one horsepower"

If we don't realize that small electric motors abound in availability and affordability, we have ebay as a place to type in 'dc motor' or 'electric bicycle' in order to begin to repair that lack of knowledge, provided we don't regard the magnificence of "The Bicycle" with contempt, or with complacency.

Spending even a fraction of the time thinking about the historical achievements and benefits of the bicycle that the enthusiast has will still help, as will spending enough time to imagine our circumstances when even a temporary disruption to our lives of inefficient and polluting automobiles running on -at present - cheap gasolene occurs, fact is, more people will pedal.

So, with inevitable doom now nearly upon us, do we drink hard, drill more and floor it, or do we attempt to gather and distribute information about what works; do we dissuade others from trying to remedy matters because of the futility of it, and relish the fact of nature abused by mankind scraping down of the canvas, or can we investigate and share what needs to happen regarding issues of shelter, water, food, energy, health and education? Are you advocating that things are too tough and that we should abandon striving for peace?

The most convincing argument so far that it is too late, and that we should grab everything we can has been made by the people who have been starting all the wars, dealing all the drugs and stealing all the money.

So when you come to a fork in the road, you take it. Ask yourself, which would you rather, or go fishing?

I wore out a number of bicycles as a kid, and a number of motorcycles as an adult. What led me away from these was the cold, the rain, the stink of transmission fluid and dirt that would stick to my clothes, and the fact that at one point I was driving a car and pulled out in front of someone riding a motorcycle that I hadn't seen. There was no collision and no one got hurt, but as the bike flashed in front of me I realized it was identical to the bike I had parked in my driveway at that very moment.

Bicycles do not carry fifty pound bags of (take your pick): mulch, dog food, cement, or grass seed. It's a bit awkward holding a two-by-four and steering at the same time, and opened cans of paint are notorious for going in several directions at once.

The urban electric runabout car might be an easier sale if it combined certain elements of wheel chair and forklift: having the seat position such that someone could sit down, and then retract the seat into the car, and have lifting panel in the rear that could bring something up from the pavement and slide it effortlessly into the trunk (or boot). People with mobility problems or who are routinely feeding animals or gardens would appreciate additional flexibility.

Bicycles are definitely for younger people, and electric assists are often good at putting people that shouldn't be on bicycles in the first place at elevated risk. If someone rides five miles in fifteen minutes and then breaks down, the're in more trouble than they would have been without motor assistance.

The cross between a train, bicycle, and car is a 'roll on/roll off' vehicle that can carry a stack of bicycles and travelers or cars and motorists. With PDAs (personal digital assistants) it would be easier to get ideas of arrival times and to send out instructions to the train as to when and where to stop. The tracks, however, have to go somewhere, which is often through neighborhoods, overhead, or in tunnels or channels. Each has it's respective nuisances. A lot of people simply don't like the idea of living next to railroads, regardless of how convenient this makes their travel.

Hi Justin,

I hope you are not referring to me when you say 'vitriol and venom'!

But I still disagree with you on the future of the car! Yes the hybrid concept which Detroit has come up with is very good, but I thoroughly disagree that it's a re-invention. After all it's a hybrid so it still needs some form of fossil fuel!

I hate to bang on about this but the Honda Clarity runs on Hydrogen, which (although I admit is not currently) can easily be produced as a renewable resource. Also as it uses a fuel cell it is very very efficient, much more efficient than even the best batteries, (or capacitors :o)

Hi Bicycle-Fan, (my old Nemesis! :o)

Sorry I haven't replied to your post but I've been very busy recently.

I'm sorry but trains are very nice, but are unfortunately only for the upper classes who can afford them.

I travel to work by bus and the ticket costs me about 38 pounds, the same journey by train costs 128 pounds.
I'm fortunate because my company pays for my travel, however there is no way I'd present my company with a bill for ÂŁ128 pounds, they would think I was having a laugh!

I'd love to cycle, but at 90 miles it might take me a while to get to work!

First - thank you Ethical Man for contributing to the dialogue on this critical issue!

Second - Bicycles - I love them. I used to ride to work when I lived 4 miles away from my job. Now I live 25 miles away, and since I am middle-aged that would still take me a couple of hours each way, even if I were allowed to ride on the highway, and if I didn't live in New England where it is winter for half of the year.

Third - About 90% of what I do at work could be done from home. I have joined a committee which is trying to convince our company that we don't need IT employees to travel to work every day. It's an uphill slog when management wants to feel like they know what everyone is doing!

So - my message to everyone is try to do something, even if your something isn't going to fix the problem all by itself!
Cheers!

Sceptic_Kev - by the way - I'd love the Honda, but I need a car now. It will probably be another VW diesel.

Sadevito:

DO NOT WORK FROM HOME !!!

This is important, I work from home and so far been off-shored to India twice. The problem is if the job can be done from home it can be done from India!

I agree the Honda is not the present, but neither is the GM concept. However the fact that it is in production and is being leased is a step further on from the GM concept, and hopefully if enough people show interest prices will come down to an affordable level.

For the moment I agree with the VW, the Blue Motion range is excellent and way more efficient than a Hybrid even though they get all the press.

I guess no one is interested in Diesels because they are just not sexy!

Sceptic_Kev #29;

Although it may be true that trains are only for upper-class people, in your part of the world, they do provide affordable transport in many places.

But you are talking about the present world, where I was talking about the possible future. Ideally, you could walk or ride a bicycle to a nearby rail station, the trains would run frequently, include cars for freight and bicycles, and charge less than the petrol to run a car the equivalent distance.

Whereas now if I have the financial and physical ability to own and operate a motor vehicle, I am free to travel anywhere anytime I like. If I lack either the finances or the physical ability, I (in North America anyway, but everywhere except Europe, and to a lesser extent there too) am a second class citizen. Is that fair?

On the other hand, we could build a pretty nice rail system, by redirecting a percentage of what is spent on roads every year. If we improve the rail system enough (more routes and much more rolling stock), we can create large car-free zones around major cities.

These car-free zones will reduce health care costs both immediately, by reducing crashes and air pollution, and in the long run by forcing us to get some exercise. (we’ll have to either walk or ride a bicycle to a train station to get anywhere)

The car-free zones will give the rail operators a large enough income, for them to eventually expand service, and thus expand the car-free zones. When the World is one big car-free zone, everyone will have equal access to transportation, and transport deaths will be very near zero.

If a thousand fold increase in transport safety and a twenty fold increase in energy efficiency is not enough incentive, we could say we did it to stop AGW.

There is very great scope for realizing the potential of bicycles, and three wheeled bicycle technology based transport, for many applications in the United States, even if they are used differently in other countries. The news is full of stories about the car industry here in the US, perhaps some tolerance and interest in what can be learned from elsewhere can't hurt and might help. Three sites; workcycles.com, bhsi.org/fourwhel.htm#trikes and take a look at International bicycle development at soulboating.com - just as examples. Endeavours.

This is a big world, technologies are evolving quickly, overpopulation is a result of the underdevelopement of the savage "3rd" world and will peak and then decline as they civilise.

Climatic zones will change; they always have. Sea levels will change; they always have. People and populations will move; people will die at a variable of the rate they currently do.

Cars are wonderful for ordinary people as is cheap airflight; the expansion of mind and knowledge brought about by freedom to travel far exceeds in benefit the disadvantages/"perils" of climate alteration.

We are human, we adapt. The ignorant/poor will suffer but they always have and always will just as there will always be the poor/ignorant and for the same reasons.

"Ethical Man" That irritates me as either a claim or an ambition, try "single issue careerist" it is much truer and ties you to all the other fad riding non-productive "I've got a degree; how can I earn money without soiling my soul and working for a living? parasites.

Or is that too much "Venom"?

#35

is it not also true that the majority 'poor/ignorant' as you term them if startved of opportunity and hope have a habit of getting upset and kicking the buts of the 'single issue careerists' of all kinds every now and again.

I would also add that a lot of the 'poor ignorant' are quite a lot happier generally ( from personal observation on my travels) than the majority of grasping 'single issue careerists'. Maybe there is a lesson for both to learn?


Jericoa

Video.

'Ethical Man has been reincarnated', then camera pans to horses arse. What more can be said.;-)

Dear Ethical Man,
what you are doing is really great, but I would like you and all readers of this blog to also read the following, and hopefully also put this into practise in your daily life.
God bless you,
Nandini

EarthSave Report:
A New Global Warming Strategy:
How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes by Noam Mohr

Download the Full Report (.pdf)

Summary
Global warming poses one of the most serious threats to the global environment ever faced in human history. Yet by focusing entirely on carbon dioxide emissions, major environmental organizations have failed to account for published data showing that other gases are the main culprits behind the global warming we see today. As a result, they are neglecting what might be the most effective strategy for reducing global warming in our lifetimes: advocating a vegetarian diet.

Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide
The environmental community rightly recognizes global warming as one of the gravest threats to the planet. Global temperatures are already higher than they’ve ever been in at least the past millennium, and the increase is accelerating even faster than scientists had predicted. The expected consequences include coastal flooding, increases in extreme weather, spreading disease, and mass extinctions.

Unfortunately, the environmental community has focused its efforts almost exclusively on abating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Domestic legislative efforts concentrate on raising fuel economy standards, capping CO2 emissions from power plants, and investing in alternative energy sources. Recommendations to consumers also focus on CO2: buy fuel-efficient cars and appliances, and minimize their use. ,

This is a serious miscalculation. Data published by Dr. James Hansen and others show that CO2 emissions are not the main cause of observed atmospheric warming. Though this may sound like the work of global warming skeptics, it isn’t: Hansen is Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who has been called “a grandfather of the global warming theory.” He is a longtime supporter of action against global warming, cited by Al Gore and often quoted by environmental organizations, who has argued against skeptics for subverting the scientific process. His results are generally accepted by global warming experts, including bigwigs like Dr. James McCarthy, co-chair of the International Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group II.

The focus solely on CO2 is fueled in part by misconceptions. It’s true that human activity produces vastly more CO2 than all other greenhouse gases put together. However, this does not mean it is responsible for most of the earth’s warming. Many other greenhouse gases trap heat far more powerfully than CO2, some of them tens of thousands of times more powerfully. When taking into account various gases’ global warming potential—defined as the amount of actual warming a gas will produce over the next one hundred years—it turns out that gases other than CO2 make up most of the global warming problem.

Even this overstates the effect of CO2, because the primary sources of these emissions—cars and power plants—also produce aerosols. Aerosols actually have a cooling effect on global temperatures, and the magnitude of this cooling approximately cancels out the warming effect of CO2. The surprising result is that sources of CO2 emissions are having roughly zero effect on global temperatures in the near-term!

This result is not widely known in the environmental community, due to a fear that polluting industries will use it to excuse their greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists had the data reviewed by other climate experts, who affirmed Hansen’s conclusions. However, the organization also cited climate contrarians’ misuse of the data to argue against curbs in CO2. This contrarian spin cannot be justified.

While CO2 may have little influence in the near-term, reductions remains critical for containing climate change in the long run. Aerosols are short-lived, settling out of the air after a few months, while CO2 continues to heat the atmosphere for decades to centuries. Moreover, we cannot assume that aerosol emissions will keep pace with increases in CO2 emissions. If we fail start dealing with CO2 today, it will be too late down the road when the emissions catch up with us.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that sources of non-CO2 greenhouse gases are responsible for virtually all the global warming we’re seeing, and all the global warming we are going to see for the next fifty years. If we wish to curb global warming over the coming half century, we must look at strategies to address non-CO2 emissions. The strategy with the most impact is vegetarianism.

Methane and Vegetarianism
By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.

Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane.

With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planet’s human-induced warming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and landfills—but the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture. Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year. And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating. About 85% of this methane is produced in the digestive processes of livestock, and while a single cow releases a relatively small amount of methane, the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animals worldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massive “lagoons” used to store untreated farm animal waste, and already a target of environmentalists’ for their role as the number one source of water pollution in the U.S.

The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by going vegetarian (or, strictly speaking, vegan), , , we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.

Advantages of Vegetarianism over CO2 Reduction
In addition to having the advantage of immediately reducing global warming, a shift away from methane-emitting food sources is much easier than cutting carbon dioxide.

First, there is no limit to reductions in this source of greenhouse gas that can be achieved through vegetarian diet. In principle, even 100% reduction could be achieved with little negative impact. In contrast, similar cuts in carbon dioxide are impossible without devastating effects on the economy. Even the most ambitious carbon dioxide reduction strategies fall short of cutting emissions by half.

Second, shifts in diet lower greenhouse gas emissions much more quickly than shifts away from the fossil fuel burning technologies that emit carbon dioxide. The turnover rate for most ruminant farm animals is one or two years, so that decreases in meat consumption would result in almost immediate drops in methane emissions. The turnover rate for cars and power plants, on the other hand, can be decades. Even if cheap, zero-emission fuel sources were available today, they would take many years to build and slowly replace the massive infrastructure our economy depends upon today.

Similarly, unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years, so that lower methane emissions quickly translate to cooling of the earth.

Third, efforts to cut carbon dioxide involve fighting powerful and wealthy business interests like the auto and oil industries. Environmental groups have been lobbying for years to make fuel-efficient SUVs available or phase out power plants that don’t meet modern environmental standards without success. At the same time, vegetarian foods are readily available, and cuts in agricultural methane emissions are achievable at every meal.

Also, polls show that concern about global warming is widespread, and environmental activists often feel helpless to do anything about it. Unless they happen to be buying a car or major appliance, most people wanting to make a difference are given little to do aside from writing their legislators and turning off their lights. Reducing or eliminating meat consumption is something concerned citizens can do every day to help the planet.

Finally, it is worth noting that reductions in this source of greenhouse gas have many beneficial side effects for the environment. Less methane results in less tropospheric ozone, a pollutant damaging to human health and agriculture. Moreover, the same factory farms responsible for these methane emissions also use up most of the country’s water supply, and denude most of its wilderness for rangeland and growing feed. Creating rangeland to feed western nations’ growing appetite for meat has been a major source of deforestation and desertification in third world countries. Factory farm waste lagoons are a leading source of water pollution in the U.S. Indeed, because of animal agriculture’s high demand for fossil fuels, the average American diet is far more CO2-polluting than a plant-based one.

Recommendations


Organizations should consider making advocating vegetarianism a major part of their global warming campaigns. At a minimum, environmental advocates should mention vegetarianism in any information about actions individuals can take to address global warming.
Government policy should encourage vegetarian diets. Possible mechanisms include an environmental tax on meat similar to one already recommended on gasoline, a shift in farm subsidies to encourage plant agriculture over animal agriculture, or an increased emphasis on vegetarian foods in government-run programs like the school lunch program or food stamps.

If co2 is the only greenhouse gas, that persists in the atmosphere long enough to accumulate, how will focusing only on ‘other’ greenhouse gases solve anything?

I can not see how advocating vegetarianism will be successful. Less than 4 percent of Canadians are vegetarians, despite a lot of education about its health benefits.

Advocating the consumption of less meat, would be much more effective.

Less than 4 percent of Canadians use bicycles as their primary means of transport, but although 96 percent are meat-eaters, less than 56 percent own motor-vehicles.

Advocating that we drive our cars less, will not be effective. We will have no other options until better public transport is in place, and most of us will not feel safe using bicycles for transport, until the streets are completely free of private motor vehicles.

Although it might be easier to convince the world to give up cars, than to give up meat, giving up meat entirely will not reduce methane emissions to zero. Vegetarians may fart more than meat eaters, and all the bison, buffalo, wildebeest and elephants of the world, will still produce methane.

Finally, this assumption, that reducing co2 emissions will cause the economy to collapse, is completely without merit. Simply replace all the coal and gas plants with renewable energy production, and build an electric rail transportation network, that can move everything and everyone one to everywhere it/they need to go, faster, safer, and with more convenience, than today’s gridlock plagued highways.

The efficiency of rail, should allow a 50% reduction in transport related expenses, and it’s vastly superior safety will produce a significant reduction in hospital visits.

Using renewable energy, will reduce air-pollution caused lung aliments, and eliminate dependence on foreign oil.

How can that be bad for any economy?

Imagine the scene:
Inventor at the Patent Office - "Sirs, I have invented an independent mobility device that seats around 4 to 5 people, in comfort, enclosed in a tin box with 4 wheels, one on each corner. It is powered by something I have called an 'internal combustion engine' which I have placed at the front of the 'vehicle'. This 'engine' will suck a highly flammable liquid fuel from a tank at the rear of the vehicle, located under the rear passenger seat. This fuel will explode with a spark, and so I've included a 'sparking' device in the engine to cause combustion."

Patent Office - "Sounds scary - where would we obtain this fuel?"

Inventor - "We would have fuel service stations on every street corner dispensing this flammable liquid into the tanks of hundreds of vehicles every day, transporting the flammable fuel around our streets at high speed. It's perfectly safe"

It's been said already - a number of TV presenters and reporters have used a similar analogy. But how ridiculous would it be?

Technology must prevail. The Bicycle is great, but not a long distance or even medium distance commuting vehicle. We had the horse for centuries and it took days to get from London to York let along from London, Ontario to New York, New York. Bikes have their place, but as a replacement for the motor vehicle, we need technology to step in and provide a safe, easily obtainable, or easily manufactured alternative to fossil fuel based systems. Technology already has. Hydrogen fuel cells are one such advancement, and should not be simply 'put down' without a chance. Hydrogen is no more dangerous than petrol / gasoline but the benefits for using hydrogen over petrol / gas are huge. Oil has had its day. The oil companies can no longer stand in the way of progress and governments must embrace the need to progress to the next level, while taking emissions into account.

The motor vehicle is the best we've got now, but the means of propulsion is out of date. Convenience and personal independence matched with clean systems. That's the way forward.

Are we all doomed?

There is only one scenario of climate change that is a cause for concern about more than a major inconvenience for people. It is the possibility (or impossibility?) of water temperatures at large depths rising by two or three degrees and causing the escape of methane stored as methane hydrates in such a way that it takes place not over several centuries, but over several decades.

The half-life of the molecule of methane in the atmosphere is about 10 years. If the speed of the release is comparable to this, then one has to take into account that methane absorbs the infrared 60 times stronger than carbon dioxide.

The quantities of methane stored at large depths as methane hydrate ice are immense but they are spread over very large areas. This makes it not likely that it will all escape at the same time.

But if methane will escape over a short period of time, as a result of some downward warm current causing the methane hydrates to bubble out,
this may push the atmosphere into a state that was never experienced before.

"People and populations will move; people will die at a variable of the rate they currently do."

So explain the charge of "Murder".

Dear Justin,
Your blog is very welcome - it is time to concentrate on ethics much more. I hope the blog increases in circulation and that you get many more opportunities to express and develop your views.
I thought you might be interested in a very brief version of the Baha'i view on whether the world is doomed, as this view represents perhaps the most universalist all of theist views. This view concentrates on the spiritual and moral dimensions of the question rather than the material issues, profound and pressing as those latter issues may be. It states that if humanity genuinely addresses these spiritual and moral issues, based on the principle of the unity and oneness of all humanity under the one supreme God of all peoples and all religions, then the material concerns will gradually be overcome as a consequence. It proclaims that the teachings of the founders of the great religions, progressively revealed according to the circumstances at the time of each being revealed, provide the direction and impetus for this huge task. It states that despite great world-embracing trials and difficulties, which are ongoing, the end result is inevitable - that is, a permanent and lasting world peace based on this priinciple of unity. So there is great hope in the longer term. The world is not doomed, quite the opposite. The adoption of this approach in itself holds the promise of success. Thank you
Graham Nicholson