Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder

I went on to the BBC news website, as I do regularly, because I needed to check some information about another posting that I am writing. This article caught my attention.

In previous postings, I have been critical of the US over the way they (the US Government) promote abstinence as a means of providing HIV prevention and promoting sexual health. It goes beyond that promotion, as the US government has been refusing funds for any health programme that does not follow this ridiculous policy.

While I respect that Americans have the right to follow their own path, this imposing of their pie in the sky ideals upon the rest of the world is criminal. There are people in Africa who are infected by HIV as a direct result of this policy. Further, most of the conflicts in Africa have at there root over population, something that would have been reduced had the NGOs not had their funding cut by the US. Also the US cut development aid to all countries that did not follow this ridiculous abstinence policy.

Well as this article shows the US has been following this policy themselves and it has not been working. With one in four American teenagers with an STD, Sexually Transmitted Disease, for the health of America this ridiculous abstinence policy has to change.

The simple fact is that the US, under Bush has been imposing an ultra religious policy upon the rest of the world.

It does not take a major leap of imagination to see the actions of these ultra religious people, imposing their will upon the rest of the world mirrors the way that ultra orthodox Muslims are trying to impose their prospective upon the rest of the world. Further, what is also true of both is that they have subverted the messages of peace and tolerance of both religions.

At least the world knows that Bush will be going soon. However who ever takes over will have the mess that Bush and Co have left behind, not just in America but in the rest of the world.

The State of the Union

Last night I stayed up to listen to George W Bushes State of the Union address. While it did not contain anything that was surprising, there were three aspects that I found frustrating. The first was the Bush stance on Climate Change. While there appears to be a recognition of the reality of climate change, under bush, there will not be any real or substantive action until countries like China and India start tackling climate change as well.

Well China is, while china is doing this in part as the PR for the Olympics, there is also a recognition that a changing climate is already causing problems. Desertification, Drought, Floods and its having an economic impact too. That is why China is building the largest solar power station in the world in the Gobi Desert.

The difference really is that the US has a Gross Domestic Product of fifteen trillion Dollars, while Chinas economy is still only two and a quarter of a trillion dollars. If China can do it I am sure that the US could, and in my opinion should, be doing much more.

The other aspect of the proper gander of this speech was when Bush talked about overseas aid. Because of religious interference, the US refuses to fund or support any project that promotes the use of condoms as a way of tackling HIV/AIDS. Even though the world health organisation and a myriad of other specialists know that the use of condoms is the only was that the spread of HIV/AIDS can be halted. This stance, by Bush, is based upon an ideology that's akin to the belief that the earth is flat. Don't get me started on natural selection!

Over the years of listening to the world service, reading books, and talking to people involved in development, the one aspect of development that has the greatest benefit is family planning. Empowering and educating women actually has the greatest positive effect on the health, economics and productivity of the developing world. Therefore, the US dictating that aid will only be given to peoples and projects that comply with the morality (the word that Bush used in the speech) of the religious right (wing), is not only wrong but adds to the problems that the developing world has. Further, it adds (Rightly or Wrongly) to the impression that America is pushing an anti Moslem agenda.

Lastly was the way that the US has dealt with current financial crisis. The US economy has some serious structural problems. Over recent years it has been on a spending spree, this has been funded by borrowing. Here in the UK we have done the same, so we are not guilt free here. While borrowing can really help people archive more sooner, borrowing has to be repaid. The problem is that this borrowing has come from overseas, predominantly China and South East Asia. That means that now Americans are busy working to boost the economic standing of China, Korea, Japan etc.

This was why in the 1970s in the UK we had to sort out the structural problems of our economy as during the Second World War we had borrowed so much from the US. It was only last year that we finally repaid that money. The US now has a similar problem, with government borrowings of three trillion dollars, that's twenty percent of the US economy, America has to work harder just to pay off the debt.

Further as US business has transported industries and jobs overseas, cutting the taxes of the richer citizens will do little to help this problem. Had Bush given the money to the poorest people in the US then you would have seen that money spent and injected into the US economy and not spent on servicing overseas debt.

I never expected much from Bush and I was not disappointed, given all the problems in the world it would have been great if the speech had not been full of idealogical rhetoric and had more substantive action.

Is America Bankrupt?

While the stock markets have recovered following the falls earlier this week, what has happened is reminiscent of what occurred prior to the stock market crash on Wall Street in 1929. Then, in the years leading up to the crash, the stock market fell and railed several times before it finally plummeted. Then what happened that made that crash so disastrous was that so many people had borrowed money to play the market. So when finally the crunch came, people realised that they had no chance of ever repaying that borrowed money.

Many of the same problems that happened then are there today in the American economy. While there is a great deal of personal debt, two million American families are going to lose their homes due to the sub prime scandal, the real problem is the debt that the US government carries. While the US Treasuries borrowings are now bellow three trillion dollars, it is the government debt that is dragging the US into recession.

While unlike an individual or a business, a country will always be able to borrow more, just like an individual all that borrowing has to be repaid eventually.

It was while listening to the radio, and reading about the background of what's happening that I realised why the federal government in the US doesn't want to face up to the realities of climate change. America is all but bankrupt.

This is not as ridiculous as you may think, for many years the US economy has been fuelled by consumer spending. When Bush came to the presidency one of the first things he did was to cut taxes and gave every American tax payer three hundred dollars (I am sure my American reader will tell me if I have got the amount wrong), as with so many right wing politicians, Bush assumes that its only private spending that drives the economy. While in part this can be true, it is where people spend their money and on what that benefits or hinders an economy. For the most part what Americans (and the British) have been spending their money on is cheap imported luxuries. Further much of this consumer spending has been using borrowed money. The package of tax cuts that have been rushed through will give every American tax payer about twelve hundred dollars, but if everyone just uses it to pay off bills and credit, it will do nothing to stimulate the economy.

This is no different to the UK, we have one trillion pounds (two trillion Dollars) of personal debt here. However, the difference here is our government has not been borrowing anywhere as much as the US has. Moreover, the US has been and still is reliant upon borrowing from the Far East, especially China.

Rather like a Mister Micawber figure, Bush is trying to project an image of confidence that everything is fine while knowing that, metaphorically speaking, debtors prison is just around the corner.

This is the fundamental flaw in the US economy. The UK has similar problems, as like the US we have been living the high life on borrowed money. While there are areas of US business that are very successful, the majority of the business in the US is failing to compete. Further, far to many of the major players on the Dow Jones have exported production and jobs to the Far East, especially China. That means that the US economy and the UK, have relied upon consumer spending to keep the money flowing.

The difficulty with that rational is that eventually the bills need to be paid. Further this growth based economics can only work if everyone fools themselves that tomorrow will always be better. The Value of homes will always rise, that you will always get the next pay cheque or that the next new bit of technology will be just so fulfilling.

The unfettered free market global economy that Bush has been following relies upon everyone consuming more and more, the down side of this is the global businesses that this economic model creates have no loyalty to the country that created the company. When the going gets tough then the businesses will just up and leave to wherever the profit is. This is why Bush will not do anything to tackle Climate Change. Even though under the economic model that the US is following pressing for energy conservation would provide most households with as much as this current tax rebate will, but will do so year in and year out, giving every American more dollars in their pocket.

But as Bush is beholden to big business, anything that reduces income to the energy businesses is an anathema to an oil man. Further the ideology of the neo-cons that taxes must be lowered, fails to answer the difficulty of meeting the costs of government. The war in Iraqi is costing one million dollars a day, and to pay for this tax cut the US government will have to borrow money from the money markets.

Eventually that money will have to be repaid, yet federal taxes, before this tax cut, only raised enough money to cover the merger Medi-Care. That means the US has to borrow more and more money to pay for everything else that the US government has to do.

While I don't want to see anyone suffer, America has to start pulling in its belt and getting real about what it can afford to do. Further, they need to start to realise that investing in real Low Carbon technology will actually boost the economy and not harm it. Had the money that Bush has just given away been used to pump prime green industries, it would help the US become a leader in the new technologies needed around the globe and would move the economy forward. This is what Roosevelt did with the New Deal in the 1930s

America cant continue like this, as eventually America will end up going bust.

The Nuclear Option An Open Letter to Sir David King

While I do have praise for the former Chief Scientific Officer Sir David King for actually getting the former Prime Minister Tony Blair, to understand the real danger we all face from climate change, he is still part of the problem with regard to finding solutions. The British government has decided that the way to resolve climate change is to rely upon Nuclear Power. It was in fact Sir David King that persuaded the UK this was the route to take, and while it has just been announced (re-announced) this week, it was decided behind closed doors years ago.

The problem with Nuclear energy is simply that we have nowhere to safely store the waste. In the UK we have been generating electricity for over fifty years, yet we still have not found any way of dealing with the first kilo of highly radioactive waste that was produced. We now have over fifty tonnes of this material. This is where the equation for the carbon footprint for nuclear energy is obfuscated. While it looks as though Nuclear Fusion does eliminate greenhouse gases, even taking account of the carbon inputs into the manufacturing and building of the station(s). Concrete and cement have the fifth largest carbon footprint of any manufactured material.

It is when the energy inputs are added for the ways that we will likely to have to deal with the waste that it starts to look less of a reasonable option. Because much of the waste will have to be vitrified, locked away in glass, energy will be needed to manufacture the glass. Further, whatever form of depository is used, most likely something underground, vast amounts of concrete will be needed to build and maintain the depositories. When I say vast the nuclear industry has said that each tonne of waste will be encased in fifty tonnes of concrete. That means it will take 250,000,000 tonnes of concrete just to deal with the waste we have already produced.

Incidentally that will lead to over three trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. That is just to deal with the waste we already have.

Then there is the difficulty of where to locate these new power stations. Historically nuclear power stations have been located on coastal sites. This is because fusion electricity generation needs vast volumes of water. Predominantly this is to ensure safety so that water is available to cool the uranium or plutonium. As well water is needed nuclear power is actually a very simple technology as water is superheated to steam to drive turbines. At Sizewell B each turbine needs two tonnes of stream per second to generate electricity. That requires vast volumes of water; hence locating plants at the coast seems the logical choice. However, global warming is raising the sea level. While we have only seen a rise of 30cm (One Foot) in the previous century, even the most conservative estimates say that we need to be planning for a further meter rise. That places all of the new build nuclear plants at risk of flooding.

As our experience last year shows, flooding from seaward ingress is not the only risk. Flooding could occur from heavy rains and flash flooding. If this water were to enter a nuclear power station then it would contaminate the water supply with low-level radiation. While walls and barriers could be built to prevent this happening, it will add billions to the costs and further increase the carbon footprint of building the stations. Thus making any reduction in the climate gases these stations hope to create marginal at best. It may well be that the carbon footprint from building the stations is higher than the reductions in CO2 using them produce.

Then there is the question of safety, while Nuclear does raise causes for concerns; the safety record in the UK is actually very good. My only real concern on this is if economic pressures lead to short cuts being taken or maintenance being delayed. Then there is the problem from terrorism. While I have no doubt that every effort will be made to prevent an attack, unfortunately it only takes one person to succeed to cause serious damage and disruption.

Therefore to have Sir David King say that we the environmentalists are putting the climate at risk by opposing or even voicing doubts about the Nuclear Option is simply wrong. The difficulty is that people like Sir David King and much of the government still fail to realise that its not just about finding an alternative way of doing more of the same. In the UK thirty percent of the electricity generated is wasted. By educating and forcing people and businesses to conserve energy we could overnight meet and exceed our Kyoto targets as well as being half way to meeting any targets that emerge from the Bali road map.

What Sir David King, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, George W Bush, et all don’t understand is the only way we can survive the effects of our polluting the planet is to change attitudes on and about the way we all uses resources.

Sustainable energy production is possible using existing technologies; any concerted effort in developing this further could provide our whole planet with clean renewable energy for the next century or more. The barrier that we need to break through is the idea that we have to buy and burn any fuel at all. Solar is using the Suns energy, as wind is created by solar energy on the atmosphere… you get the picture. All we lack is the change in the mindset that says oil, gas or coal or an alternative is what we need to power the planet and the economies of the world.

Additionally none of us greens want to go back to a time when we lacked the advances that have provided us all with better health, sanitation and education. What we recognise is that much of the junk that we are sold as essential are a complete waste of the earths resources. Equally many of these items require us to buy more and more energy. While I am sure that a new television for example, will be able to do all sorts of clever things, but it does not provide any increase in the quality of the programmes. Further, new televisions frequently use more electricity, as do all the other junk we are told we need.

Also we “Greens” recognise that all of these gadgets and so called must have devices do very little to increasing the quality of life, in fact as we replace last months must have, we add to the waste we leave behind. Then there is the fact that we are all having to work harder to buy more and more of what we are being told we need, well us “Greens” have the intelligence to say no and reject an ever increasing spiral of consumerism.

What we do want to see is a rejection of polluting industries and an embracing of ethical and respectful ways of living that doesn’t require us to steal the resources from the deprived and following generations.

The Article that prompted this reply

The News story on Britain going Nuclear

Photo courtesy of Imperial College London

Confusing Caucuses

Probably like any Brit, I find the caucus process of choosing a presidential candidate baffling. Personally I think it was the complexity of the process that got Bush nominated eight years ago, everyone thought they were voting against him but were so confused by the system that whoops he got to be the candidate. Either that or the Republican Party did it as a joke. Lets see if we can get bush in, as at least he will generate employment for satirists.

However, at the very least this year will see an end to the Bush presidency, so no matter who ultimately gains the nominations democracy will win.

Back when Bush was being nominated, I was criticised for saying anything about American politics. Had I been someone of real influence then I could understand that prospective, however as the rest of the world is effected by whom ever becomes the next president of the US, I am entitled to my opinion. This time round though I don’t have any preference. Hillary Clinton, from what I have seen and heard looks to be the most environmentally aware, but is America ready to elect a woman? Then there is Barack Obama, the first black American who stands a realistic chance of being elected. When we think back to the 1960s and see just how black people were treated then and compare that to the progress that has been made in forty years shows hope for us all, particularly if we think about the environment.

I have been and still will be critical of the Bush Government here, as while the individual states and cities are trying to tackle the challenges of Climate change, the federal government had done their level best to block any action on tackling climate change.

Not only to ensure balance, but its worth noting something I heard the Republican candidate, Mike Huckabee say; he was critical of the way that big business has a hold on the political system and the current incumbent of the White House. Something that no government should ever allow to happen as the government, any government, then becomes beholden to donors. Just look at the difficulties here with the suspicions that peerages were being sold here in the UK. While no charges were brought following the long police investigation, it looked and smelled bad. In America the vested interests of the oil and car companies has blocked the federal government from even considering climate change as a problem.

Yet if America looked at the problems from a different perspective they could see the real advantage of going green. With oil now at over $100 per barrel the federal government could force car manufactures to make more efficient cars. The manufactures already can do it, it’s just that over the last twenty years they have gone for more powerful engines, rather than more economy. The average could be forty miles per gallon in eighteen months. That would save the average American five hundred dollars per year. That’s an Economic policy! Or to put it another way, America would no longer need any oil from the Gulf States. How many billions of American tax payers dollars would that have saved? That’s without thinking of the lives lost, both American and Iraqi.

Also think of the costs of medical conditions like asthma, less petroleum burnt the lower the pollution that causes this asthma. Further, conditions like that damage the economy by lost workdays and loss of productivity to use an economist’s language.

Further, by tackling climate change by genuinely saving energy, America could make its own businesses and industries more competitive, thus improving the bottom line for everyone. If the US invested in developing sustainable energy generation, the whole nation could benefit as the US could become technology leaders, selling the know how and plant around the world. That’s a Policy for energy security!

Also if the US started instigating a programme of fitting solar panels, photo voltaic and solar thermal to all homes, they could deal with problems like unemployment and poverty by training unemployed people to carry out the work. That’s an Employment Policy!

The advantages of being more environmentally aware are quite simple, if Americans can understand their electoral system then going green must be a No Brainier.

Americas Bali Road Map to Inaction

The day after agreeing to the Bali Road Map for tackling Climate Change, America and especially the White House started backing off from the agreement. My reaction to that was one of puzzlement. If the US government didn’t agree with or want to be a part of the solution then why sign up?

Further, during the extension of the negotiations it did look as though the US were going to block an agreement. It became clear that the US was isolated and while on minor details America did have its supporters, the overwhelming feeling was that the US were trying to prevent agreement.

Then something rather curious happened. The Dutch Diplomat and Chief negotiator, Yvo De Boer came to the podium and after deigning that the secretariat had been involved in secret and separate talks he broke down and was lead off stage in tears.

Then the most curious aspect was that all of a sudden Paula Dobrianski under secretary of state and the US representative, said that America would join in and follow the majority, that’s the rest of the world as the US were indeed isolated.

I can now report what actually happened. The US had no intention of signing up to any agreement on climate change, well nothing that would be meaningful of effective. Further, in Bali the US were effectively trying to scupper any agreement by holding secret talks with other nations. It was only when the US were discovered doing this that the American delegation agreed to sign up to the Bali Road Map. That is why the Bush administration is calling foul and trying to avoid its responsibility.

The reality is that the US under Bush will do nothing to curb CO2 or take climate change seriously. While the US Government is saying that Climate Change is real it is doing so reluctantly. Additionally, while Americans are the greatest polluters of our planet, even the very weak energy bill that the president has just signed into law is woefully weak. Even the Chinese are implementing measures that are more effective than the US.

I suspect that the US is attempting to create the illusion of tackling the problem, while in reality it will be business as usual. Eventually this inaction by American will end up causing America real pain.

One of the conundrums of climate change is the simple fact that as the planet is warming more water vapour has been released into the atmosphere. As has been shown with Hurricane Katrina and the flooding that occurred in the UK this year, eventually that water will fall as rain. Further, the atmosphere has been retaining more water vapour than any of the computer models were ever predicting. Apart from the fact that this is speeding up the warming of the planet, current thinking is that at some point in the Weather/Climate cycle most of this extra moisture will be released in sudden and violent downpours. Not in areas normally affected by flooding but in places that monsoon type rains would not normally happen. Therefore just on the basis of landmass, America will be hard hit. It is just an event that the models are predicting like the snowstorms that have hit America. The inaction of the Bush government is impacting the population of America.

Beyond Kyoto and Bali

Just at the start of the Bali conference the BBC interviewed the chief scientific advisor to the white house on climate change. What he said was depressing, as it didn’t bode well for the climate change conference in Bali. What he said was that until the science can say at what level CO2 in the atmosphere was dangerous the US would not be doing anything that might damage the US economy.

When in Bali, Al Gore the former US Vice President, stood up and told the conference that he was ashamed of America. The attitude of the George W Bush government on climate change is shameful, shameful but honest. As the largest polluter the American government should be accepting that the American people need to stop the profligate waste of energy. But it’s only via this gorging of the energy resources that the US Economy makes its money.

The Stand off between the US and Europe created the illusion that Europe was being the good guy. Though the reality is that Europe has failed to meet its Kyoto targets just as much as any other country.

In Britain there is a lot of rhetoric but very little real action. Some action has been taken, promoting wind power, but very little else. We could have banned High Energy light bulbs, but this was consigned to the future.

Even in Europe action on climate change is always to be taken tomorrow and never today.

The problem is that we have thus far failed to see a real global event occur. While localised events are happening and acknowledged as being the result of Climate Change, until something dramatic happens the vast majority of people will not change their behaviour. For example all the protestors and lobbyist that went to Bali would have flown in, adding to CO2 pollution so that they could protest about CO2 pollution.

Personally I think the conference should have been held at the North Pole in summer, and they should not have been allowed back until an agreement on deep cuts was reached, or until the sea ice melted.

Bali and Kyoto before it have focused on the wrong problem. While CO2 is the measured green house gas, and a handy short hand for climate change, pollutants like nitrous oxide and water vapour are even more effective as greenhouse gasses. The whole Kyoto process is based upon the idea of continuing to pollute but slightly less. Its like telling an Alcoholic with impending liver failure that if you cut back on drinking everything will be all right.

There was a time when it looked as if we were going to run out of oil, but technology and new oil finds have extended the amount of available oil well into this century. Add to that the amount of coal globally and we have enough fossil fuel to last us about three hundred years. But if we burnt all that fossil fuel we would change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from the current four hundred parts per million to two thousand parts per million.

The seas would be dead as they would be to acid to support life beyond specialised bacteria, temperatures would be twenty to thirty degrees hotter, and mass extinctions will have occurred including Homo sapiens.

The IPCC recognises in its last report that feedback systems are probably in place in our climate but it will not be until we see them happening will we know for sure. The obvious one is the melting of the Sea Ice in the Artic. That is leading to the loss of the Greenland Ice sheet. The rise in seawater will then impact on the Western Antarctic Ice shelf causing this to break up adding to the rising sea levels, as well as affecting the flow of the Amazon River and flooding large areas of the rain forest, possibly killing off the planets lungs. The impacts of all these events would change the Monsoons in Africa and India, causing a severe drought.

In Europe we are already seeing the effect of a changing climate upon our food supplies. The rise in the price of wheat, while helping beleaguered farmers, is a direct result of poorer yields. This is not just a minor blip, but has been occurring for the last few years. In Europe the EU has sold all its stored wheat, as there has not been sufficient production in the past couple of years. This is not just happening in Europe but in America and Russia too.

All this means that climate change is already having an effect upon food supplies. So far all that most people will have noticed is an increase the price of food. In coming years we will see this effect exacerbated. Eventually there will be shortages of foods, especially for the poor.

We are facing stark choices, we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels and expect to have a planet fit to live on.

What is needed is leadership from and by America on climate change. What George W, or more realistically who ever replaces him, needs to announce the equivalent of the space race for tackling climate change. This must not just be for the benefit of the US but for the whole of humanity. Further this needs to involve all the countries and peoples of the planet. That way the US will no longer be seen as an arrogant imperialistic state it has become, but as part of the solution in helping to heal the planet.

Business as usual for Bush on Climate Change

One of the greatest difficulties for all of us in our attempts to tackle climate change is the lack of political leadership, especially from the largest polluters. While not the largest population the change of leadership in Australia will be good news in tackling climate pollution.

However while US president Bush has finally been acknowledging that climate change is a problem, events this week shows that the Bush Government intends to do nothing to reduce the Carbon-dioxide emissions from the US. Here in the UK, in the Financial Times, the leading business and financial publication, a conglomerate of international businesses, in a two-page advert, called for leadership in dealing with climate change. The response from the white house was simple, the US will not do anything to cap CO2 emissions and it, the bush government, can not even say when the US will be able to start reducing its carbon footprint.

The science and the evidence is so compelling now that, international business people realise that real action has to be taken. The difficulty is that unless the US, the largest economy in the world, takes political action and tackles climate change then business can’t plan for the investment in a low carbon future.

While there are some businesses that are making the effort, if we have a large economy like the US that refuses to impose regulation, then those businesses will loose money and or profits. Put simply the people that make the effort will always be undercut by the most polluting countries. In some ways this problem is similar to the way that manufacturing has chased the low wages in china. However, unlike this chasing of low wages, governments like the US allowing carbon pollution to occur will kill all industry.

The greatest problem is that oil men like Bush see climate change as an advantage as it is allowing access to the vast oil and gas deposits that are untapped in the artic circle. Further, the US Japan China and the EU are all looking to the probability of mining helium three on the moon, as a new wonder fuel. That is why there is a new moon race and why so many countries are rushing to land men on the moon again. The carbon footprint from these enterprises are vast and will mean that we will seriously damage our climate in trying to obtain this new fuel for an unproven technology.

Further, the US bush government; in particular, assume that the loss of the sea ice will not be that serious for the climate. However that is based upon a false assumption and reliant upon out of date science. In the last five years the unexpected acceleration in the melting of the sea ice has allowed the Greenland Ice cap to start melting. It is loosing up to 150 cubic kilometres of melt water per year. Further this is increasing and this water is flowing into the sea.

Also the Greenland Ice Cap is suffering from cracks and crevices opening up on the suffice of this vast glacier. This means that lakes of melt water that form in the summer are draining down to the bedrock where it is lubricating the flow of the Ice. But this melt water doesn’t re-freeze during the winter as just as happens in a pond or lake the ice on top insulates the water and stops it from freezing. All this is making the three kilometre thick glacier that is the Greenland Ice Cap very unstable.

It will not take a lot for this ice to break up. Scientists are monitoring the Ice and recording the vibrations of the cracking up of this glacier, known as Ice quakes, they occur every twenty minutes. There is an inevitability that sooner rather than later there will be a large area of this glacier will calf and slip into the sea. This will raise sea levels.

Further, any sizeable earthquake nearby could provide the trigger to allow very sizeable chunks of the Ice cap to slide into the sea. This could trigger Tidal waves as well as a sudden and substantial rise in sea levels. What makes this scenario even more disturbing is that the trigger is already in place. Mount St Helens in the US, an active volcano has a bulging plug in its calderas, and when that blows, the quakes and vibrations from that could well be all that it takes to see the glacier slip into the sea.

This is not something that will happen in some mythical time years hence, but within the next four to five years. I just hope that when it happens it finally shocks the US government into taking action on climate change.

I make a clear distinction here between the American people who want action taken on climate change and the Government who have their head in the sand.

Our impact upon geography of our planet

I hear in the media that George W Bush has said that he is concerned about climate change and the often-stated fact that he is not is an Urban Myth. (Oh if only George W were an urban myth) But seriously, the problem with climate change is that people and politicos have taken a long time to even grasp the science of our climate, and of the way we are changing it. Further, they cant get out of the old ways of thinking, and cant get beyond the real urban myth that climate change will just mean warmer weather.

The impact of the effect upon geography of our planet was illustrated by the publication of a new edition of the Times Atlas, where two (in the reports I saw) of the largest bodies of inland water, have shrunk to ten percent of their original volume. However, as we have yet to see a clear and dramatic example of climate change in the media, people like George W can still get away with burying their head in the metaphorical sand.

Even where action is being taken such as with the creation of wind farms, it’s frequently done more for media hype and to chase the government subsidies, than as attempt to really solve the problems we face. I will write more on this once I have more facts, but briefly as the companies that are building the turbines and wind farms get tax breaks here in the UK, these farms are not being sighted in the best places, thus not producing anywhere near the levels of electricity they need to, to actually be a green source of energy. While the government trumpets this as reducing carbon emissions, it looks as if they will be Carbon Neutral at best, and because of poor placement may even have caused greater CO2 emissions from their construction than they will ever save during their lifetime of use.

The real challenge we all need to face up to is our profligate use of energy. Unfortunately, we live in a society whose whole economy is reliant upon us consuming more. Whenever there is economic news it is always illustrated by the rate that the economy has grown by. Yet this growth is at a real cost to our environment. Every new product we buy, every new gadget we use, has an environmental impact be it via the natural resources that goes into the manufacturing of it or the energy required to make it, transport it and then dispose of it.

The more we consume the more emissions we produce and the more energy is wasted. We are like children at Christmas with our consumer products; we play with them for a while then forget them as soon as the new latest wiz bang gadget comes out. The biggest difficulty is that our whole economy is built upon us consuming more and more.

Well, there is a limit to what I can consume. I spend long hours of my free time out in the countryside, and that is nearly free. I take my own rubbish (and often other peoples) home with me. If I travel I use Public Transport, or a pony belong to shanks. I try very hard not to waste energy, my electricity bill for the last quarter was twenty-six pounds my Gas costs were thirteen. I don’t waste resources like water, nor do I generate that much waste. In fact I find it impossible to fill a standard wheeled bin in four weeks. There it’s more about refusing to buy overly or heavily packaged items, and only buying enough food to use and not wasting it.

If I owned the property I lived in, I would fit Solar panels. Photo voltaic and solar heating, possibly even a small wind turbine and that way all my energy needs would be carbon free, and in time even the energy and carbon emissions of the production of my consumer goods would be removed from the equation.

Each individual action has a small effect; as can be seen in our changing climate, thus we can also collectively make a very large impact for the good.