Yes, I agree, we can’t control climate change, and natural cycles and solar activity are probably part of the problem. But we can’t ignore that mankind has increased the amount of atmospheric CO2 dramatically in the last two centuries. We know that the greenhouse effect is real – it keeps the surface of the planet at a temperature that supports life – so upsetting the balance of greenhouse gases must be a risk. Yes, the UK emits only 2% of the world’s greenhouse gases so we cannot change the world on our own. It’s a truism to say that if no-one does anything then nothing gets done, Yes, China is opening new power stations, but it’s trying to bring its population – 30 million of whom still have no electricity – up to a standard that’s still far lower than our own. China will generate carbon-free electricity from the Three Gorges Dam and is very advanced in the use of solar power. We must support them by our example.
We can cut our carbon footprint by cutting fossil fuel use. This will help us to adapt to the coming global energy crisis as fuels, led by oil, begin to run out. (And we’re talking within the next five years!) There is no alternative fuel with the capacity to replace oil and no technological solution to the shortages. It is just too horrific for most people to consider that the energy that drives our cars, heats our homes and produces everything we eat, use or wear is coming to an end. Read what the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas www.peakoil.net has to say. Check on the statements of Dr Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, formerly of the National Iranian Oil Company; the presentations of international energy banker Matthew R Simmons and the books of Richard Heinberg and many others.
Changing to low-energy light bulbs is a step forward, but nothing to the changes that global energy shortages will impose on us in the next few years. We need to adapt to this now. Doing nothing is just not an option. Recognising the true problem would be a start.

Stop denying it Ruth. As the Director of Global Vision, your view is terrifyingly narrrow!

Agreed.
Of course the Earth's climate has fluctuated naturally over the ages, but then the planet has never before had to contend with a species that is now so numerous that it's activities are actually having an effect on a planetary scale. Messing about with this natural climate cycle is not a good idea. As you pointed out yourself, Earth's climate is immensely complicated and 'chaotic', therefore there is just as much uncertainty attached to a policy of apathy as there is to one where cutting greenhouse gas emissions will allegedly increase global warming (which I may add, is a flawed argument at the most basic level- check your high school chemistry textbooks again). Better to abide by the precautionary principle, I say, when messing around with high consequence outcomes like human driven climate change. I would refer you to the theory of tipping points, and point out that little things CAN make a big difference, especially if you ignore the little things until they accumulate.
Further, noone is suggesting that developing countries should be hobbled in their efforts to improve standards of living for their people, rather, the developed countries should be leading by example and saying 'look, here are the mistakes we have made in the past (and are still making, in many cases), dont end up doing what we did'. We have the technology in the west to make significant inroads to dealing with this issue, and as the population at large begins to wake up to its part in all of this, opinions are changing. The trouble however still seems to be lack of political will, and the obsession with 'healthy economies'. If we, as a species dont start to shape up and work together, pretty soon we wont have much of a global economy as the natural resources upon which it is built, begin to disappear around us.
Action, not apathy!

How about mining giant Rio Tinto being forced to leave the uranium in the ground....and cover it over? It just happened - http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/rio-nt-bid-backfiring/2007/05/22/... -

One woman - and a few others - made a difference. By choosing well and standing for what she believed in, Yvonne Margarula forced a retreat by an Anglo-Australian mining giant over the development of the Jabiluka uranium mine in Northern Australia. See http://www.anawa.org.au/nt/jabiluka.html

Rio could be forced to backtrack on uranium production projections it made in a presentation to London investors on Monday:-

“RIO Tinto’s hard sell this week on its rising hopes for a near-term clearance from the Mirarr people to develop the $50 billion Jabiluka uranium deposit in the Northern Territory has backfired on the Anglo-Australian mining giant.

The Mirarr (native Australian tribe) continue to say no, despite the multimillion-dollar royalty stream Jabiluka would secure them.

“We stopped the mining here,” Ms Margarula told BusinessDay, referring to an eight-month blockade of the mine by 5000 people in 1998.

“Now they have put the ore back in the ground … it will never again come out. The country is at peace and I am very happy."......"

Sir, Madam,

I'm not at all surprised by the 2 leading articles. But neither do I find leadership in what they say. The pundit has all the titles you need to be credible but refuses to accept basic primary climate research just a click away on the web. What does this mean? The MP represents the electorate, expresses the feelings and behaviours of them but does not know what she is talking about on climate. This is what a politician does. Both get us no further to resolving the real conflict the world is now facing. Climate change is the trigger for action and it needs "real" leaders. I see none around me and am praying for them to emerge. I'd like to focus on Ruth Lee here and what I see as macro psychology in action from the right wing of society. Its classic denial psychology and you have to ask why? There must be a hidden agenda at work here.

I've been researching this behaviour for some time now and I find myself fighting a climate battle on 2 fronts. On the left, the anti-people environmentalists who represent a minority of that group and have strangled it. Lee alludes to these being all the group and also seems to include the scientists. How strange and extremely negligent coming from a public speaker. And on the right the anti-poor climate deniers who do not see the opportunity in Globalised shared wealth and therefore refuse to talk and cooperate, even though such action is free. This is Lee's position.

I see it like this. The right wing of capitalism has historically refused to share its wealth and reap the rewards, sometimes for good reason, sometimes from prejudice, always with downside. Now we have strong evidence that although not proven, climate change is very likely our fault. Everyone knows that at some point it makes good sense to take action. Its my belief that the right wing don't really deny man made climate change either. But for them to admit this openly and publicly would force an imperative for action. This imperative would mean them having to start dealing with those in the world they have historically refused to deal with for the above reasons.

So its impossible for Ruth Lee to admit the climate is our problem and her ilk seek to deny it by all means. This is what Ruth Lee is really saying but encrypted in Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

When will the true leaders emerge?

Yours,

Robin Smith, Director
www.gCO2e.com