Level 4 is not zero carbon, or anything near.

Posted By: Nick ParsonsLevel 4 is not zero carbon, or anything near.

It could be level 6 on the energy/c02 scoring but only score level 4 on the overall scoring.
Therefore it could be truly zero carbon, although the cop out is the use of biomass which helps enormously.

There is a saying in Kent, "Come to Ashford before Ashford comes to you."!

The place is a blot on the landscape, a small town center hemmed in by a ring road with out of town shopping and entertainment facilities abound. They made no previsions for pedestrians or cyclists, when they threw-up 600 homes around the outskirts of the town.
Its an eco-disaster area and I'm afraid no amount of 0-carbon will save it.

(Rant over)

The proof that CO2 emissions are the cause of Global warming has yet to be found and obesity is self inflicted!

We still need to reduce waste in all areas.

Chestnut season is here already! Now this thread is getting hijacked will try not to take it any further if you dont.

You are talking about circumstantial evidence and belief, I am waiting for scientific proof. One of the last things to come out from the IPPC was the statement that they were "90% sure warming was caused by CO2"-- this very statement itself is proof that there is no proof yet! Either we know and can present the proof or we dont know and may as well say it is 50 50 or 20 % all these %ages are meaningless.

What to do next?

What I find interesting about the climate change debate is the notion of the climate changing as something abnormal.

The climate of the Earth has, is and will alsways change, sometimes and often very dramaticly and very quickly.

What is the aim of a so called zero carbon policy? If humans reduced carbon emmissions to pre industrial levels, the climate will still change, again possibly very quickly. We are coming to the end of the halcyon age where we can expect very dramatic changes to temperature and climate.

The issue seems to be more one of our adaptability to changing conditions. Also the greatest threat to other animals is that we have so restricted migration possibilities for them that they will find it harder to adapt.

Recent human civilisation has adapted and developed itself within a very specific and recent time period and set of conditions, can we realisticly expect the all ways changing climate of the world to remain exactly how we want.

Or isthe aim to try and "halt" or manage the worlds climate so it never again changes out of its current state because its suits us. Something that would be a first in teh 5 billion year old history of our planepe

To be clear on one point, the argument that this time its different because the rate of change now is much quicker is NOT valide, as borne out by well established scientific measurements.

Posted By: bot de paillesometimes and often very dramaticly and very quickly

But never before anything remotely like this dramatic and quick, barring meteor strike or super-volcano.

Posted By: bot de paillethe argument that this time its different because the rate of change now is much quicker is NOT valide, as borne out by well established scientific measurements

In research sponsored by FoMoCo 15yrs ago? Please produce your evidence.

another link:
from a very recent NAsa Report , again warning of present dangers to our situation re global warming, especially the north atlantic conveyor current.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm?list7433


"Deja Vu?

Once considered incredible, the notion that climate can change rapidly is becoming respectable. In a 2003 report, Robert Gagosian cites "rapidly advancing evidence [from, e.g., tree rings and ice cores] that Earth's climate has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past." For example, as the world warmed at the end of the last ice age about 13,000 years ago, melting ice sheets appear to have triggered a sudden halt in the Conveyor, throwing the world back into a 1,300 year period of ice-age-like conditions called the "Younger Dryas."

Will it happen again? Researchers are scrambling to find out."

conclusion:

"Gradualist arguments have assumed that Man could adapt to the effects of slow global warming, with the associated rising of sea levels and changes in agricultural growing patterns. It is likely, though, that earth’s climate does not change in such gentle rhythms. A better model than the gradualist one might be plate tectonics, where stress generally surfaces in the form of earthquakes, rather than gradual motion and shifting.

The evolutionary record is littered with sudden mass extinctions of dominant species. Often these extinctions have been caused largely by rapid climate shifts to which species were unable to adapt. And it has generally been the most dominant species that were the most vulnerable, because their dominance was based on their particular successful adaptation to the existing conditions.

The earth will always survive catastrophic change. So, too will Life. There have been past extinctions when 90% of all species died; the few that were left then repopulated the planet. This was the case with the rise of mammals, after the end-Cretaceous extinction of the dinosaurs.

Man has become dominant across Earth in a time of narrow climatic range, particularly since the Neolithic revolution, the rise of agriculture. Agriculture has allowed the remarkable exponential population increase of the past 5,000 years, relying upon a few crops that are adapted to the current climate - such as wheat, rice and corn. The daily newspaper provides many examples of the effects of normal climatic fluctuations upon Man’s food supply, (e.g. Ethiopia and North Korea) especially when "abnormal" climate is coupled with social instabilities.

Such climate fluctuations and social instabilities are only likely to increase with the coming man-made climate change.

To take, as illustration, two of several possible examples of Man’s vulnerability:

Population distribution: Upwards of one-third of the human population lives in coastal areas that would be threatened by rising sea-level. This is roughly 2 billion people. How long would it take to move this many people inland and create infrastructures capable of support?

Agriculture: Humanity has already overextended its food resources. Crops cannot pack up and move as people can. It may be possible in the gradualist scenarios that people could slowly change their agricultural patterns over time to accord with changed temperature or rainfall. It is doubtful that this could happen very successfully in a situation where there was radical change in a decade. Further, most of the world survives not based upon agri-business, but rather on settled, subsistence farming whose strength rests on the farmers having a long-developed understanding of their land and crops. Sudden change would negate this understanding.

A small-scale example of man’s inability to adjust to climate change can be seen in the steady desertification of much of the Sahel in Africa, where the Sahara has been advancing. This has led to severe dislocation, starvation and social instability. The climatic oscillations outlined above would be far more widespread and devastating than anything witnessed in Africa.

In sum, what has been called the gloom-and-doom warnings of the long-term effects of global warming may actually turn out to have been optimistic. The future could well be far more catastrophic than is generally projected.

bot de paille,
from your stance, reducing CFC's has had no effect on the hole in the ozone layer ?.
fact is that nothing, before humans, has used up the worlds resources. We are using them so fast ( and its an exponential curve that we are on with now idea of just how steep its getting). We need to reduce using everything rapidly just to level out. Of course mother nature will be here well after our demise, but is that any kind of argument for us to continue raping an pillaging ?.
tom

Posted By: bot de pailleI am personaly far more distressed by the nightmare possed by GM

What do you feel about the weight of scientific proofs that GM is nothing new, that nature's created many periods of rapid genetic modification in the past and that man's part in the current bout of modification is neither here nor there?

Hi,
bot de paille
Sorry I have to lay in, bot de paille, i fear you have not understood that to take learn about a matter you need some rigour. You are spouting FUD.

where to start, The davos paper cites that temp can change quick, yet does not cite anything(no link to a fact anyway). For me, i think that the fossil records of every meteor hitting earth would cause a very swift change, like wise solar storms, large volcanic explosions. Events that have not happened to cause the current change, cite a fact to prove point. What is causing the current shift?

To help, you should look at and read information you find such that you can catagorise it as primary,secondary, tertiary information(for example).
Primary being from the horses mouth, hard facts. secondary, effects and cite able reflections of events. tertiary(which yours is) unvariviable but written information pertaining to subject matter

that nasa quote, research has gone on. They reckon 2020-2040 is a good bet for no artic permanent ice cap
.check http://www.google.com/search?q=arctic+ice+cap&num=10&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

try and read more recent information, opinions from usa sourced and influenced places have shifted heavily in last 2-3 years, as president bush became a lame duck president, allowing scientists to publish more freely, and they have. he became lame duck 2 years ago.

Quoting a 1997 paper on greenland pointless, if the change is to be rapid then you need current measurements
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/geodesy/greenland-is-melting-at-record-speed from 2007/10 not a nice picture for us or greenland, thats a 1m sea level rise due to greenland alone, what about the antartic, another 1m? by 2100. and thats without any more acceleration, and scientists currently saying the natural world is not absorbing carbon as fast it once did, iḋ bet on acceleration.
2m is enough flood a lot the UK.

Time to move on from agnostic picture to proactive. I debunk your theory in 10 minutes with google, come on, spend a few days on the matter, and research. Check oildrum, independent and guardian newspaper and GOOGLE.

Fostertom: I doubt if either Hitler or the surveillance/coercive society I foresee are new - far from it. Read all about it in the history books, from the ancient world to the present day. Megalomania, despotic leaders and the urge to crush dissenting opinion have always been flaws in human character. As Alistair Cooke memorably commented: " The Pilgrim Fathers sailed to America for the freedom to practise their religion, and nobody else's." In point of fact an exceedingly nasty bunch of bigots who persecuted mercilessly any who would not conform.

Tony.
Indeed, very true. All theories, based on data, that is interpretated by a theory. Einestein was laughed out the door at first, that the problem with theories, they tend to bite back. The current global warning theory has only won the majority in the last decade. So why are tempetures rising and what can we do?
One thing i do not think the politicians are doing is spouting the above. I am. Politicians with a green agenda are. Gordon Brown for one is fence sitting. Nothing demonstratively pro-zero carbon. You may say Severn barrier, but if sea levels rise 1m in next 50-100 years will that rise with it? will it too be money down the river?
Cutting to chase, My thought is more, if things are going to point, what to do?

The reason I reacted to the above is that was not factual either, even less so. Research funding in USA started only in the last few years, as Bush had tendency to sack any that funded or provided information that harmed the interests that put him in power(unproven personal comment, just a lot of anecdotal stories). What can i say, but do some searching bearing in mind what you read, you have your opinion, see what you find and read the other opinions, might take you a year to have the time. did for me.

Sorry Keith, getting back to topic if as it does turn is out carbon is an issue then zero carbon is a great thing.

Why? Ask where does our energy come from? start with an oildrum posting on the UK energy review this week(http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3130), Impartial but based on BPÅ› agm review, which made it worth while for me to read. The facts in that link made me believe that zero Carbon homes are an imperative for the UK to push for. Push for with haste and speed. The UK cannot be wholly dependent on financial power house that is London to balance out balance of payments.

bot de paille :
Being very realistic/cynical/pessimistic even : Massive depression , starve?
Consider the book by Jarrad Diamond : Collapse
All about human societies that had a rug pulled out under them(mainly due to some natural change). At least with zero carbon theory, the is a straw to grab at. and pray?

alex