Last Thursday evening officials at the Eiffel Tower extinguished the famous structure's necklace of lights for five minutes.
The decision to darken the Tower was to call attention to the issue of energy usage on the eve of a major report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (released on Friday -- 8:30am Paris time).
The Panel, which was formed in 1988, is comprised of over 2,500 scientists from 130 countries. Friday's report is the first of four that the Panel will deliver this year and it lays the groundwork for debate.
No longer are we debating about whether or not global warming IS occuring (it is); or about whether or not humans have a role (we do). Rather, the report, offered by such a large body of experts who have been described as conservative in nature, has allowed the debate to move from the if stage, to the who stage to the what stage -- what can and should be done.
Thank heavens...because a few more degrees, and we'll be debating about who has the right to clean, potable, and scarce water.
For more discussion on the impact and debate on the report go to:
Science Blogs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Sadly, we ARE still debating the issue. I read a number of "No, it's not a crisis" letters to editors in the paper the past couple of days, including a climatologist at the U of A (who, one might suppose, should be out of a job some time soon).
I have to protest that it has been some 10-15 years since the issue first started gaining attention, and perpetually with this insipid winter joke about 'Global warming? I'll take it!' This is the major failing atop widespread apathy, against the environment. I've asked before: who pays these scientists to keep studying the same thing, and keep issuing 'urgent reports' with the same conclusions? ...that get headlines and then are forgotten?!
And people as wonderful as my Mother keep harassing me about buying a car. I have to do so much work to counteract the effects of litterers, non-recyclers, etc. Watch for me on my bike this summer, with a 'you stink' t-shirt and some bananas especially for tailpipes.
Greg, I may have to concede your point. A friend pointed out that a book was recently released that, simply put, attempted to once again offer the Global Warming threat as a fear-mongering hoax! Sigh. Was that not the rhetoric of the US administration? The fact is, when we can pin it on fear and attempt to poke holes in the terms, we cast dispersions on the science. Dispersons's that are result of fear itself. NO ONE wants to actually confront the very simple fact that we NEED to change our lifestyle. Period.
Case in point. There is a solar-powered subdivision being built in Okotoks. While the attempt to use the sun's energy to heat a home is, indeed, noble, it seems ridiculous in the face of global-warming. Why? Because the very people that purchase these "renewable resource" heated homes will produce more greenhouse gases in one year (from commuting to Calgary in their cars) than they will save with this very costly form of energy extraction.
Still, despite your frustration, Greg, we ARE making progress. At least we are TALKING about the debate...rather than simply drawing our lines in the sand.
Good to hear from you.
Romana
Post a Comment