--
A tidy example of a negative climate feedback(*): In the face of a record breaking climate event Texas farmers have reduced the number of cows raised by 600,000, or about 12%. That's like taking 750,000 cars off the road, if this article is correct -- a reduction of 2 million metric tons of CO2 this year. Less cows, less GHGs, less warming, less drought -- negative feedback.
(*) admittedly glossing over all details of attribution.
--
I missed this last month, but the WMO-GAW GHG Monitoring Network released their annual report last month. Global atmospheric methane levels are indeed rising again: up 5 ppb in 2010, continuing the increase that resumed in 2006. (Past reports here.) Nobody seems to really know why.
--
Last week the NIH said it would no longer fund research on chimpanzees. This is a very good thing. This picture immediately sprang to my mind when I heard about this ban:
Don't tell me these animals don't deserve the same consideration as humans, unless you are OK with being caged, exploited, and butchered if and when a higher intelligence shows up (or is developed) here.
Your town planning sea level example applies to drought planning in the arid southwest. If people think climate change is bunk, will they be less willing to build the resilience they will need anyway, climate change or not?
ReplyDeletePerhaps (people will be less willing...), but people have a right to be stupid, right? But I think Hulme's point is that people who are distrustful of distant power (like the UN) are going to act out that distrust on the climate issue--that issue is large and wide enough that you can find in it whatever monsters you wish to fight. Personally I'm wary of distant powers telling us how to live too -- I'd prefer power be based as close to me as possible -- much closer even than Wash DC even. Anyway....
ReplyDelete