Vote!

Is climate change passed the point of no return?

47% are saying yes
53% are saying no

comments from readers

suell
17 April 2007

yes

yes, the key-player governments still fiddle whilst the environment burns. And, the contributions which every individual also has to make is not happening due to human laziness and selfishness. Do we deserve this planet?

Luther Blissett
18 April 2007

no, but it will take at least 200 years to figure out ways to claw back the elements we've muddled up with water, earth, and air by fire via the experimental alchemy of industrial consumerism - we need to increase rapidly the purification process so our grandchildren can be assured of drinking clean water, eating fish and fruit without fear of pesticide poisoning, and all this must be done without passing the buck to the consumer, but by making the producers responsible for their rapacious abuse of the earth's resources

JamesV
18 April 2007

I think that in the next few years there will be other one-off disasters (like Katrina) and that governments will have no choice but to take climate change seriously. While I don' t think it's past the point of no return, I do think that we will have to live with the effects for the rest of out lives: we can't reverse it for (probably) centuries

François Charles
18 April 2007

yes

Peter H.
I see but one thing we could do: all grand-parents and great-grandparents aware of what is happening to our world should gather once a week on the biggest square of the town we are living in or nearby, and we should turn round in silence as the argentine mothers did on the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires who claimed their missing children, murdered by a fascist regime. We should claim the right for our grand-children or great grand-children to live as long as we were lucky to live, claim the preservation of a viable planet for them. We are the only ones capable to do this, our children are much too busy earning their living. And we are the only ones who have the leisure to gather the news which most medias try to falsify. We are no longer subject to economic blackmail. Let us be "los abuelos" and "abuelas locas" and face the sarcasms our silent gatherings shall raise! I can't see anything else to do in order shake off the gloomy resignation which is imposed on us by the "global" consent meant to maintain "business as usual"!

proudlyleft
18 April 2007

yes

Yes, but we might still manage to have a nuclear war before it gets too bad!

swatantra nandanwar
19 April 2007

No, still a chance to slow down the process, if we conserve energy, recycle and reduce waste. But no one can prevent the surge of the Asian Tigers as they forge ahead in their efforts to catch up with the West, industrialise, reduce poverty and bring a better standard of living for their peoples.

DCarins
19 April 2007

yes

The climate is always changing - the question is how we respond to it. Trying to "stop" climate change reminds me of that story featuring some famous old Viking. King Canute, wasn't it?

Tom Melling
19 April 2007

Those who say we are passed the point of no return are just as bad as those who are sceptical about climate change, they are both types of denial!

MIKI
19 April 2007

yes

We could stabilise but how to undo the harm already done? Bit like anti-wrinkle cream

John Johnson
19 April 2007

It's another government Tax fiddle

erscholz
19 April 2007

UN Bureaucrats want a global energy tax. That's what this is about, as well as eliminating the average person's ability to use readily-available carbon-based fuels such as wood and coal.

This is nothing but a scam to control the population, and make a few rich people richer along the way!

Mars is also warming. Damn those Martians and thier irresponsible use of fossil fuels! The are almost as bad as Al Gore who uses HIS SUV [and so do Hollywoood elites] along with Gulfstream V private jets.

Hypocrites all!

Malcolm Heymer
20 April 2007

Extrapolating the modest warming of the last 30 years and predicting global meltdown is as stupid as extrapolating the cooling of the previous 30 years and predicting a new ice age. Carbon dioxide is not the main driver of climate change, and the world is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. Solar physicists predict a cooling period starting from around 2012. When that becomes apparent, no doubt today's global warmers will become tomorrow's global freezers!

bobbull
20 April 2007

The Climate does change, that is how the world works!

Dr. Frans B. Roos, PHD
20 April 2007

yes

Of course the NO sayers are, and will remain, the majority because they refuse to look reality in the face, plus if they admit to themselves that they are wrong then they must start making changes to their greedy way of living by the use of natural resources, which they absolutely refuse to do, because they are of the opinion that the next generation it is their problem, it will last their time on mother earth.
Sincerely,
DrFransBRoosPhD

mrandyc
20 April 2007

But I believe we will soon be as neither governments or individuals are willing to take the radical measures required to bring it under control

PCB
20 April 2007

It is not possible to know, but using the 'humanity principle' (the precautionary principle inverted) it is reasonable to expect we can adapt.

Erica Cliffton
20 April 2007

yes

According to many too many biologists etc, we are past close, however, that is no reason not to slow the slide as much as we can. There are millions of children and animals in this world who have done nothing shameful, unlike the rest of us. So let's see if we might not give them some kind of a future. The little we suffer today will be nothing to what they will suffer tomorrow.

PCB
20 April 2007

Also, do you mean 'Is climate change past..' or 'Has...passed..'?

Spartacus
20 April 2007

Climate change is a natural process. Those standing naked next to the Emperor will look foolish in a few years when all the hot air amounts to nothing, a big nothing that cannot be micromanaged by politicians using the weak greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. It's a trendy and politically convenient route to control over the energy supply of capitalism and the lifestyle of individuals. Watermelons 'believe' in it - green on the outside, red on the inside. The public remains skeptical for good reason.

maximumicecaps
20 April 2007

How much C02 does the sea and volcanos give off when compared to human emmissions? Many thousand times more is the answer!

MMGW is simply a bandwagon the government have lept on to tax us more to pay for illegal wars and spending black holes - afterall if Tony Blair really thought the ice caps were going to melt and swamp low lying areas why take out £5m of mortgages in Central London?

hrteacher
20 April 2007

Algore never did have much of a long range view of anything, not even huis own political career. Anyone who is so poorly informed to jump on his CO2 bandwagon is as myopic as he is. The pesticides and fertilizers that will be needed to boost corn production in order to meet the much-hyped gasahol goals will do far more damage to the environment, both in the long and short range, than CO2 emissions. Arguments that humans and animals are effecting "Global Warming" are a cloud of cow flatus.

Edufer
20 April 2007

Climate has changed since Earth was created. We already have witnessed 4 climate change since 1895, and alawys alarmists predicted the world was reaching a point of no return, either from warming or ferom cooling. Earhs was warmer than now between 800-1300 AD and much cooler from 1400-1715 AD. So relax, keep working and enjoy life!

21 April 2007

Of course not! I can't believe that "Men are mightier than the Sun", but I do believe that "anything we can do, the Sun can do better".I didn't believe that our "Green Warriors" arguments would gain any credence, still we might be sensible to switch to Nuclear Energy before the oil runs and insist that the the "developing" Countries start controlling their rediculous population growths!

logos
21 April 2007

yes

I don't think it would be past the point of no return if the human race was working together to everything possible to combat it. but on current showings there is not much hope. Life will adapt as always but humans may not f igure much in the long term future.

Joybells
21 April 2007

we have to understand that mankind exists because of the earth; not the other way round. we will become like the dinosaurs if we do not cease our arrogance and acknowledge that we exist at the bottom of nature's totem pole. this is our wake up call but definitely not the time to hit the 'snooze' button.

hollaholla
22 April 2007

yes

perhaps if every single person on this planet drastically changed their lifestyles, we could save it, but with people wasting our resources, and continuing to choose business over earth's welfare, i doubt that there is any reversing our damage now.
we should have started thinking about this years ago, and we will all pay for it. yes, we exsist because of the earth, but we will wear down the animals and plants that live on it, with our chemicals, polution and garbage. our society is too "me" oriented to do anything about it. we've fucked ourselves.

czar23
22 April 2007

i think of oil spills when the initial reports say, "It'll take hundreds of years for this landscape to regain its natural beauty," and 8 years later the oceans have managed to clean up what our screw-ups have wrought. so many examples of humans giving themselves more credit than they deserve.

wothef
22 April 2007

yes

Your use of the word 'passed' is incorrect - it should be 'past'. Stop relying on Bill Gates and take responsibility for your own spelling!

vickymoller
22 April 2007

How to stop the tide of destruction? is what we are agonising over.
If in a room of people shouting and you want them to stop, rather than shout be quiet, be quiet and silently suggest others do likewise.
good image, one feels good doing a low carbon lifestyle, also ideas of making a bigger difference abound once standing on carbon neutral ground.
(I am living in the countryside among people who are relatively aware and trying, but I can well understand the despair when you look at most of the world)

dangoorevitch
22 April 2007

Thousands of scientists have questioned the ability of present models to predict climate change and yet we hear there is a "consensus of opinion" on the matter. Tell Galileo! Science does not earn its proofs by majority votes but by theories tested by experiment. If the theory is capable of prediction, it's a good theory.

Besides a basic confusion of science with Democracy, there's a confusion of cause and effect. There is more life in warmer zones and therefore more CO2. The earth may be warming, and CO2 may be building but how can it be proved that one is the cause of the other?

It is also far from certain that what warming there may be is not entirely natural. The notion that there is no such thing as nature has made more and more headway as fewer and fewer people live in cities.

Also, the absence of religious faith (and even vehement opposition to it) has led to the present "return of the repressed content" of Christianity. In the late 60s there was an ice-age scare but it didn't take since it had no cultural resonance. "We've been bad, we will burn" has obvious cultural resonance.

Lastly, "Climate change" is a form of mass hysteria as people try to push aside the very real threats from other quarters they prefer not to face.

Alan Trevarthen
22 April 2007

No, of course not. Once the billions of people in the world who are causing it have wiped themselves out, the temperature should start drifting down again, shouldn't it?

Mpunga
22 April 2007

We are almost there but still we can reverse it.

Helen Heenan
23 April 2007

We are dangerously close to the point of no return, and governments must act now. Individuals can only do so much.

Adam Herriott
23 April 2007

We have 10 years for countries, Governments, businesses and individuals to act!
Adam Herriott

mweeds
23 April 2007

No, but we cannot be far away

Admin
23 April 2007

Message for whotef. In this case it is perfectly correct to say 'passed the point' - I know, I've checked and not with Mr Gates either. Ben Davies, editor newstatesman.com

Birnham Dunsinane
23 April 2007

The question is vague. Is climate change past the point for things to go back to say, the climate conditions of the 30's? Yes. Is it passed the point that condems most of the living organisms in the world including humans to extinction? No, atleast I hope not.

treborc
24 April 2007

Of course not, but if we carry on we will be past the point of living.

Richard Smithers
24 April 2007

yes

It is already clear that even if CO2 emissions were reduced by 60% overnight, the accelerated warming of the last 50 or more years would continue. Mankind is sitting on a greenhouse gas timebomb. So while it is crucial that strenuous efforts are urgently made to reduce CO2 emissions, adapting to the change that has already begun is a necessity and has to start now.