Breeding ourselves to extinction

One of my regular readers who calls himself Davy Stephenson recently commented about population growth. Mr Stephenson is a gadfly who stings me from time to time into thought.  He set me thinking and set me thinking as to how population growth is central to all planetary change and how the growth of human population has created many problems as well as solving problems.  Continue reading

Do we really believe in Climate Change?

I have called this series of posts “Ideas for the Environment” because the starting point for all environmental protection and preservation has to be from ideas.  We are making a mess of our children’s inheritance and are self negligent trustees of what we administer for future generations. Continue reading

Carbon trading creates ignorance

Larry Lohmann is a scholar and a researcher for the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation. He has written important essays about carbon trading; I think it fair to say that Mr Lohmann, like me, does not think much of carbon trading. I approach the subject from the basis that it will harm the environment, as readers of these posts will know, but Mr Lohmann has a different and more philosophical perspective which I think is important. Continue reading

Suing their wrappers off; journalists upset Tesco

You can sue the pants off someone, but you cannot sue the wrapping off.


Yesterday I blogged about Tesco’s noble aspiration which was to help its customers tackle climate change. The way Tesco decided to help its customers tackle climate change was to label twenty items that it sells with a carbon footprint. There, job done! Tesco can get back to its core business in many parts of the world, including Thailand, knowing that they have helped their customers tackle climate change. Continue reading

Christian Aid is lobbying for the wrong things

The Christian Aid charity is campaigning about climate change. There are advertisements in glossy magazines (I saw one in the Sky magazine) depicting poor southern Asians being flooded out of their homes by dirty flood water, with a call for readers to contact their MP to ask him to increase the emissions reductions in the Climate change bill from 60% to 80% in many years time.

The charity is clearly motivated to do their best to help the world’s poor who will be the first to suffer if the pace of climate change increases, as it seems to be. They have identified carbon emissions as the likely cause of rapid climate change, but unfortunately present emissions as the only cause, and I think that is a mistake. Over simplification is misleading.

The Christian Aid website also has a striking picture and a call to toughen up the Climate change bill, in this case by making companies report their carbon emissions. If you want you can see what I mean by clicking on   

Continue reading

Climate change is not a matter of belief

Some people do not think that climate change is going to be a problem. One of these is Bjorn Lomberg, whose Sceptical Guide to Global Warming was reviewed today by Richard Girling in the Sunday Times Culture magazine. Girling does a good job of dissecting the flaws in Lomberg’s argument and exposing them and I commend his review. Of course Lomberg is an economist, not a scientist, so his views about a very large body of scientific work which supports the theory of global warming does not exactly have peer review status, and as Girling points out Lomberg’s good intentions are not enough.  

About seven years ago, when I had just set up Genersys, I had lunch with an american friend who lives in Florida. He is both a successful medical man and a very successful businessman – highly intelligent, lucid and someone who thinks for himself. We talked about the prospect of rising sea levels in very flat and swampy Florida. He did not think climate change would be a problem, because, as he put it, “we can always build a wall around Florida”.

Climate change is not a religion and we do not have to “believe” in it, any more than we have to believe in the theory of relativity or in Father Christmas, but we do have to recognise it as an event which has a high degree of probability of destroying all human life and therefore it is logical to protect against the possible destruction of our race and our environment. It is no more than the biggest “what if” scenario of all.