by Mark Lynas
Fourth Estate, London, 2007
Mark has spent many weeks and months in the John Radcliffe Science Library in Oxford, reading thousands of recent journal articles and books about global warming. He has arranged his findings in six chapters, entitled 1 Degree, 2 Degrees, etc, followed by a conclusion.
The book describes itself as popular science. Everything is made clear to the non-specialist, but I did not feel talked down to. Although the contents are alarming, they are not alarmist. I found the book most informative.
Even with only one degree of warming, the prospects are grim reading. America is likely to have a recurrence of its Dust Bowl problem of 1934 - 1940 (p8-9). Arctic ice melt gets worse; it is is already under way, as "between December 2004 and December 2005... an astonishing 14 percent of the Arctic Ocean's perennial sea vanished (720,000 square kilometres, the size of Texas, p33)."
Despite severe problems, "two degrees of global warming is likely to be survivable for the majority of humanity (p99)." But three degrees looks likely to trigger an acceleration in global warming due to Carbon cycle feedback (p126-128). Put simply, instead of absorbing Carbon Dioxide, the world's soils would start releasing it instead through heightened bacteria action. Millions of people suffering drought and famine in the tropics and subtropics are likely to migrate north into Europe and North America. With even greater warming, the Sahara desert will spread north of the Med, and everybody will be landing up in the UK! Five degrees of warming will lead to billions of lives being lost, but six degrees could wipe out humanity altogether (p230).
These quotations are just the tip of the iceberg. We need to take action, folks. This is not a time for our traditional approach of too little too late.
David Pennant , Woking, UK
-oOo-
For up to date information, visit these real time statistics.
Click here
for actual use of the Thames Barrier since it opened. Recent news
from the southern southern
sea is not good.
Introduction to global warming with temperature graph since 1850 which is when the first oil well was drilled in Texas (top right of page). If you wish, you can calculate your personal carbon footprint in kilograms, or try this one in tons. The Carbon Rationing Action Group has a spreadsheet calculator which shows you the effect of each item as you enter it. Here in the UK, we average 9 tons of Carbon Dioxide emissions per person per year, but in India they average only 1 ton per year. The USA average is 20 tons per year (Lynas). One ton = 907 kilograms. Advice for Women from The Times.
We visited Jokulsarlon when on holiday in Iceland in 2004 (see my photo). It is the lagoon formed where the largest glacier in Europe meets the sea. One of the guides there told me that the glacier (in the distance) is receding by 100 metres a year from global warming.See this news story.
Bryan Lynas (Mark's Dad) has an interesting idea about future nuclear power plants: if they must be built, as they probably must, then maybe underground is best.
Travel data (all figures approximate!). Emissions of Carbon Dioxide by train are just 65 grams per passenger kilometre, as the metal wheels running on smooth rails do not create as much friction as tyres on roads. However, faster trains, and ones which stop frequently, use more. The smallest ten petrol cars available emit 100-120 grams per kilometre. Most cars emit around 200 grams; the largest cars range up to 450 grams per kilometre. Diesel is better than petrol. Planes use more fuel when landing and taking off than they do cruising, so calculations are complex. One carbon footprint calulator says 16000 kilometres of flying (a return trip to the US from Europe) emits 3 tons of Carbon Dioxide per person (2721 Kg: one kilogram is 1000 grams). Please let's stop calling the Atlantic ocean "the pond", incidentally. It gives a misleading impression. Maybe airships have a future, as being non-polluting (I hope), or maybe not.... And the humble pushbike? No emissions at all, providing cars don't need to brake because of you. It would be good to return to the wartime slogan, it seems to me - "Is your journey really necessary?"
Personally, I use bike and train when I can. In the car, I have adapted my driving style. I try to glide along at a lower speed in high gear, avoiding braking where possible. It's surprising how far you can roll in neutral along a quiet road, I find. Keeping roads clear is important; over the last six months, a single parked car in our road has caused thousands of cars to slow down or halt, and then use extra petrol getting away when the road is clear. I feel sad about this. As regards planes, I doubt that I will fly again. I have had enough foreign holidays to last a lifetime, and Europe is accessible by train. Apparently, the London Airports had a drop of air passengers in April 2007 of two percent, so well done everybody!
I think the UK should give a lead by becoming the first country to ground all areoplanes and close our airspace. It would be a good start.
People say that we "only" cause 2% of greenhouse emissions in the UK, but as we have just 1% of world population, and less than 1% of land area, it seems to me that we are in no position to be complacent. We are contributing double our quota.
Could you win Richard Branson's $25m prize for a new idea for reducing carbon in the atmosphere by a significant amount?
Feature films assuming sea level rise include Steven Spielberg's A.I. and Waterworld (starring Kevin Costner). The thermodynamics in The Day After Tomorrow have been criticised as being based on incorrect science (Lynas p10), but colder winters are still a possibility for us here if the Gulf Stream changes its pattern. Also the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica, which occurs in the opening minutes of the film, actually happened in February - March 2002. A thirty mile wide section broke off in a couple of days. See the four satellite images in the book of An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore (Bloomsbury, 2006, p182-183). Channel Four's The Great Global Warming Swindle puts a contrary scenario, which I found convincing when I saw it. However, Bob Ward among others points out serious misrepresentations of fact in the programme and has complained to OFCOM about it. So if there is a swindle, then perhaps it is the programme itself! See also chapter two of George Monbiot's book Heat, which reveals attempts to sow doubt in the public's mind by some of those who make money out of selling oil. How horrible is that?
Sea level rise : 0.8 of an inch annually in
the mediterranean . James Lovelock reports that it is
currently 6cm per decade. Many of the world's major cities are on
low-lying coast.
This light at a local school (left)
seems to be on permanently. I wonder why? And the other outdoor
light (right) is on about one morning out of two. The need to
conserve energy has not been fully grasped yet, not least by
architects.
Personal reflection.
As a Christian, my response is that the Bible might be expected to comment on a situation of this magnitude. Unlike almost every other biblical book, the book of Revelation looks ahead from the first century in prophecy. Much of it is mysterious. Paul describes prophecy as trying to "see through a glass darkly"; it is seldom easy to make things out clearly. Relevant passages to my mind include "the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world (3:10)", the sounding of the seven trumpets ushering in severe pollution (8:6 onwards), and the seven outpoured bowls of God's wrath bringing terrible plagues on mankind through the environment (ch 16). As regards population, we read of a quarter of the earth being killed (6:8). In short, the kind of severe problems anticipated by climatologists as sumarised by Lynas are not in conflict with the book of Revelation.
There is much talk of God's anger in the book. I want to reflect more on this. Why is he presented as being so angry? See John 3:36.
The overall message of the book of Revelation is that despite terrible happenings, God has everything under control. This I find encouraging.