Crash course
| 13:11 UK time, Wednesday, 8 November 2006
Our reporter Gabriel Gatehouse is joining the effort to clean up our green act.
Our colleagues at have got their ethical man, , who has been trying to change his lifestyle for some time now, but as the UN meets in Nairobi (did the delegates offset their flights I wonder?) to review progress on climate change, we decided to put our own Gabriel on a crash course to see how he could become greener in his lifestyle. He was given an assessment by the Earth Day organisation in the US (you can see how green you are ) and will be attempting to see how much he can change his lifestyle, how quickly.
One thing we are trying to do with this is to provide an insight into how much lifestyles can be changed in order to reduce how much of the Earth's resources we each consume and how much carbon we produce, but we are also trying to do it in a lively way given our coverage of climate change and environmental issues has often been criticised for being dull and austere.
Not sure if this will work, but let us know. We got one immediate reaction after Monday night's programme - Justin Rowlatt from Newsnight came round to tell us he was there first ….
Comments
Assuming the scientific reasoning of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity is causing climatic changes is correct, there are only several ways to reduce these emissions to the degree that would be of consequence. Marginal reductions by changes in lifestyle is not among them and is therefore a complete waste of time and a ludicrous exercise in self delusion.
A substantial reduction in the earth's population would help. But this will not happen when people all over the world feel they have an inalienable right to procreate. It may happen eventually when the consequences of global warming take their toll but by then it will be too late as the changes will be irreversible.
A significant reduction in humanity's standard of living and depression of economic growth could have a beneficial effect. But nobody is willing to make unilateral sacrifices and those who promoted the first step, the Kyoto Protocol knew they could never persuade large producers like China and India to cut back. Therefore their inequitable plan failed to gain endorsement by the US and those who did endorse it and agreed to cut back simply largely ignored their committments. Is Nairobi another doomed effort down the same dead end path? By the fact that the conference is not comprised exclusively of scientists and economists to create an effective and equitable plan, it does not bode well for success.
Finally, there is a combination of replacement technology and a cessation of burning down the rainforests which convert CO2 back to Oxygen. But those most concerned and who have the power to invest in new technology, most notably European nations don't have the political will either. Neither do they press governments like Indonesia and Brazil to put a stop to the ecological disaster a relative handful of people have inflicted for their own short term benefit by starting these massive forest fires.
It appears the entire effort to prevent global warming is an exercise in futility. Meanwhile, far more immediate threats to humanity's survival only months or years in the future, not decades away are going relatively unaddressed like the proliferaton of nuclear weapons which may ultimately fall into the hands of terrorists. Where is the global alarm and call to action at this prospect? There are no useless feel good exercises for individuals to divert themselves with, and so the silence is deafening.
I hope Justin provided details of his tailor, so Gabriel can have an Ethical Man green suit made up. I wouldn't want to think he was appearing on the radio wearing anything else.
"but we are also trying to do it in a lively way given our coverage of climate change and environmental issues has often been criticised for being dull and austere."
No, it's been criticised for being extremely biased and blindly accepting the climate change assertions as gospel without proof. For shame.
As others have said, the most annoying thing about the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ (and much of the rest of the media)is the almost total belief in man being responsible for Global Warming. Governments were, until recently, rightly sceptical about the claims but, are now embracing all the dodgy science as they see it as a God sent opportunity to raise pointless and damaging taxes.
So far, none of these doom mongering environmentalists can explain why it was that the Earth's coldest recorded period occurred at a time when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were five times higher than today. Mankind was still many millions of years from existing.
There seems to be a global conspiracy to silence all scientists, or scientific bodies, who produce any questioning argument against the "fact" that it is all our fault.
It rather smacks of the Vatican and their insistance that no one could question that the Sun revolved about the Earth.
As for the ridiculous and over the top coverage of the Stern report; the man is an economist, not a climatologist or anything else likely to qualify him to come to unquestionable conclusions on global warming.
I agree with anon who wrote on 8 November that Gabriel had a witty and lucid take on 'eco-living' yet bringing a sense of the importance of the subject. I wonder, if he drinks, whether he drinks home-produced wine and if he smokes, smokes home-produced tobacco!!! He certainly made me think about certain aspects about shopping that I never consider such as the packaging!! I'm certainly going to be more critical from now on! Keep up the good work.