More climate squabbles from academia

Yet more conflicting opinions regarding climate change from the academia this week. And this week it was not originating from the US or Europe, yet from our own shores, and from that venerable institution, the Royal Society!

This latest debacle, whilst yet maybe still of great importance, does little to instil a sense of unity and direction towards fundamental acceptance of our climate problems and global warming issues. And does still yet add to the confusions over the realities and acceptance of climate change.

These types of conflicts which are reported almost on a daily basis now throughout the media are becoming more than a little tedious, and it is no wonder that the public in general are becoming more and more apathetic and dispassionate towards the key issues. Let’s face it, if the experts cannot agree or even squabble over details, then it is no wonder that confusions and procrastination’s stifle real political and policy progress.

Although it is not yet clear as to what the critique is all about, and many details are not yet forthcoming, it has already provoked a marked response from Prof. John Beddington. And has also prompted further comment from the widely respected scientist and Astronomer Royal and Society president himself, Sir Martin Rees.. (see below).

“The government’s chief scientific adviser has hit out at climate sceptics who attack global warming science on spurious grounds.”

“His comments came as the Royal Society announced that it would publish a new guide to climate science for the public following criticism of existing statements on the topic, reportedly from 43 of the society’s 1,489 fellows.”

“It has been suggested that the society holds the view that anyone challenging the consensus on climate change is malicious – this is ridiculous,” said Professor Martin Rees, the society’s president.”

Read more here.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/28/chief-scientific-adviser-criticises-climate-sceptics

“So it is ironic that just as the leading scientists in the US give their clearest warning about climate change, we now see suggestions that some fellows of UK’s national academy of science, the Royal Society, might be disputing the evidence.”

“And because their identities have not been made public, we do not know whether any of them are climate researchers.”

“The Royal Society is carrying out a review of its statements on climate change in response to the fellows’ letter. It will no doubt prefer to remain silent until the review is completed.”

Read more here.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/28/climate-change-royal-society

Prof. Beddington has spoken out previously on the IPCC’s controversial claims from its 2007 report on the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. He has frequently called for honesty and transparency in light of the dissemination of scientific data, and for the practice of scrutiny and scepticism to overcome speculation over global warming issues and conflicting data.

“Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, ‘There’s a level of uncertainty about that’.”

“It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.”

Read more here.. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece

Yet Prof. Beddington himself is not without his controversial claims. Here is an article from March 2009, which paints a rather dismal picture of the future, and one that even James Lovelock would most likely advocate.

“A “perfect storm” of food shortages, scarce water and insufficient energy resources threaten to unleash public unrest, cross-border conflicts and mass migration as people flee from the worst-affected regions, the UK government’s chief scientist will warn tomorrow.”

“In a major speech to environmental groups and politicians, Professor John Beddington, who took up the position of chief scientific adviser last year, will say that the world is heading for major upheavals which are due to come to a head in 2030.”

“He will tell the government’s Sustainable Development UK conference in Westminster that the growing population and success in alleviating poverty in developing countries will trigger a surge in demand for food, water and energy over the next two decades, at a time when governments must also make major progress in combating climate change.”

Read more here.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/perfect-storm-john-beddington-energy-food-climate

Whilst we should be entirely open and transparent regarding climate change debate and its arguments, we need to show strength and unity, at least with regard to the acceptance of the problems facing our current excessive consumerism and carbon emissions. Arguing as to whether global warming is an issue that affects us all sooner or later is irrelevant. What we need is clear policy changes and we need them now.

Only public awareness and involvement can steer cultural change away from over consumption and excessive carbon emissions. Only global incitement, and guided to the demand for policy changes can help us all aim towards the changes in culture and philosophy that we need to halt further damage to our planet.

This is not militancy it is purely common sense. It is senseless to carry on the way we are, with complacency and procrastination and the squabble over details. There should be a clear and continuous message promoted throughout the scientific and political community that the problems that we face are real, and that we need to act now!

Please aim to lower your personal consumption in all areas, food, wine and plenty by at least 10% or more if you can. It will help us all and in every nation.

…

No consensus on geoengineering..

Furthering the debate concerned with the clouded controversy of Bill Gates’ support of geoengineering via private enterprise, here is a little more information pertaining to the international participation and cooperation, (or rather lack of it?) and regarding the dialogues related to geoengineering.

The use and benefits of geoengineering techniques to mitigate “global warming” is highly debatable and there is much speculation as to the success and the long-term effects of such projects. Would we in fact do more harm than good? Would we seriously alter or damage the planet’s delicate Eco-systems that have evolved over thousands of years?

Advocates would say that there is urgent need to mitigate and offset natural global warming, and that the use of geoengineering would give us valuable time to deal with the associated problems of carbon emissions and other issues concerning climate change? I tend to agree that we may need to instigate some use of technology to offset the lack of swift progress with CO2 emissions, so long as this does not deter us from the goals of emission reductions.

We should at least be open minded enough to contemplate the possibilities and need for geoengineering and to debate the issue seriously. And if it is proven that the need to take drastic action is real, then we must at least be ready and prepared now to contemplate any solutions for swift action in the near future. Some of the ideas concerning CDR and SRM here do seem rational, yet are they really feasible?

The paperwork here is lengthy and endless but does it really tell us anything? Well I’m not too sure, I am still digging. Once again it goes without saying that an internationally agreed policy is required to discuss and debate this issue further. It would be foolish to undertake any project without international cooperation.

Carbon Dioxide Removal – CDR (CO2 absorption techniques)
Solar Radiation Management – SRM (Sun-ray Reflective techniques)

 

ASILOMAR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE INTERVENTION TECHNOLOGIES
March 26, 2010

Excerpts from… Statement from the Conference’s Scientific Organizing Committee

“More than 175 experts from 15 countries with a wide diversity of backgrounds (natural science, engineering, social science, humanities, law) met for five days (March 22-26, 2010) at the Asilomar conference center in Pacific Grove, CA. The participants explored a range of issues that need to be addressed to ensure that research into the risks, impacts and efficacy of climate intervention methods is responsibly and transparently conducted and that potential consequences are thoroughly understood.

The group recognized that given our limited understanding of these methods and the potential for significant impacts on people and ecosystems, further discussions must involve government and civil society. Such discussions should be undertaken with humility and recognition of the threats posed by the rapid increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

Participants reaffirmed that the risks posed by climate change require a strong commitment to mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation to unavoidable climate change, and development of low-carbon energy sources independent of whether climate intervention methods ultimately prove to be safe and feasible.

We do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the risks associated with using methods for climate intervention and remediation, their intended and unintended impacts, and their efficacy in reducing the rate of climatic change to assess whether they should or should not be implemented. Thus, further research is essential.”

The Climate Response Fund

The Climate Response Fund was founded in 2009 to foster discussion of climate intervention research (sometimes called geoengineering or climate engineering) and to decrease the risk that these techniques might be called on or deployed before they are adequately understood and regulated.

http://www.climateresponsefund.org/

Further links of interest…

Climate scientists convene global geo-engineering summit
Meeting in California in March will discuss possible field trials of schemes that would tackle climate change by reflecting sunlight or fertilising the ocean with iron

Royal Society launches major study on the governance of geoengineering

Published Date: 18 March 2010

“A major new initiative to ensure strict governance of any plans for solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering (counteracting global warming by reflecting a small percentage of the sun’s light and heat back into space), will be undertaken this year by the Royal Society, in partnership with the TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world, and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

The first output of the Initiative will be a set of recommendations for the governance of geoengineering research, to be released late in 2010.

Proposed geoengineering techniques that reflect the sun’s light and heat back into space may offer valuable opportunities to reduce global warming, and could do so quite rapidly, but it is likely that their impacts would also affect rainfall, regional weather patterns and ocean currents.

These impacts would not be restricted by national boundaries, so actions in one country could have highly significant effects in another, for example by changing rainfall and so affecting agriculture and water supply.”

House of Commons (UK) Science and Technology Committee
Fifth Report ~ The Regulation of Geoengineering

“Here you can browse the report together with the Proceedings of the Committee. The published report was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 10 March 2010.”

…

Cameron promises “greenest government ever”

Now this is a very welcome initiative from the UK newly formed coalition government. David Cameron (PM) has pledged to cut central government emissions by an impressive 10% within a year. This pledge should not be taken lightly, and I do believe that Cameron has the integrity and tenacity to make this happen.

This is a prime lesson in leading by example, and I’m now asking myself, If the UK government can do this, then all governments and businesses around the world should also be able to do it? In fact it is something that we can all do if we take time to be “mindful” and think about the consequences of non-action regarding climate change.

Now just take a moment to contemplate the possible results from this kind of action. Imagine 25% or 50% of the world taking this initiative to cut their consumer emissions by 10% – every year? Imagine eventually 100% of peoples around the world cutting their emissions by 10%?

Read more here.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/5

“Central government will cut its carbon emissions by 10% over the next year and individual departments will publish energy use on-line in real time, Prime Minister David Cameron said today.”

“Mr Huhne said: “Climate change is, in my view, in our view, the greatest challenge for mankind.”

Mr Cameron said: “This is transparency in action to drive forward the cuts in carbon emissions. It’s a new way of doing climate change, it’s a new way of doing politics. It’s in the spirit of our age and I think it will make a very big difference.”

…

Bill Gates aims for the clouds..

The below is taken from a recent article at the guardian environment site. Whilst it is welcome news that billionaire entrepreneurs like Gates are donating to good environmental causes, it is a little disturbing that these projects may transform from the drawing boards and into practical exercises without any global cooperation or governmental regulations whatsoever.

We must ensure that at the very least bodies like the UN are involved and informed beforehand to sanction any such practical projects and experiments. However, as always the key antagonist to any progression towards geoengineering for climate change is once again world bureaucracy and delay. So I would say that what we need is guided global co-operatives and practical policies aimed towards swift investigation and evaluation of these kinds of projects?

It could well be the case that many numerous and diverse geoengineering projects will appear quickly in the near future, all lining up in the bureaucratic queue awaiting evaluation, and therefore stuck in stasis, and some of these innovations may well prove to be invaluable. We must ensure that the project evaluations are dealt with in a proficient and timely manner.

This project itself seems to me to be somewhat as irrelevant in that it only concerns “Global warming” and the reflection of the Sun’s harmful rays, rather than to tackle our own damage to the environment and the CO2 emissions that constitute “climate change”? Whilst it may have great benefits to counteract global warming from the Sun, it may in fact obscure the main goal of emissions reductions and progress towards renewable energy solutions.

However, this is not the only environmental project that Gates has been involved with. See below for more details. In any case, Gates should be congratulated for applying his monies and fortune to these positive causes. And at present any ideas towards reduction of Global warming and causes of climate change must be welcomed and investigated, no matter how crazy they may appear to be?

“Bill Gates’ cloud-whitening trials ‘a dangerous experiment’ “

“A US-based research body, Silver Lining, which has received $300,000 from Mr Gates, is developing machines to convert seawater into microscopic particles to be sprayed into clouds. Scientists believe this will increase the whiteness, or albedo, of clouds and increase their ability to reflect more sunlight back into space, reducing global warming.”

“However, campaigners say such a large-scale trial is ‘risky’ and that a global ban on geoengineering experiments should be put in place until regulations governing the sector can be introduced.”

” ‘We knew Microsoft was developing cloud applications for computers but we didn’t expect this. Bill Gates and his cloud-wrenching cronies have no right to unilaterally change our seas and skies in this way,’ said Jim Thomas from Canadian environmental campaigners, ETC Group.”

Read more here…http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/14/bill-gates-cloud-whitening-dangerous

“Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research”

“Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates has been supporting a wide array of research on geoengineering since 2007, ScienceInsider has learned. The world’s richest man has provided at least $4.5 million of his own money over 3 years for the study of methods that could alter the stratosphere to reflect solar energy, techniques to filter carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, and brighten ocean clouds. But Gates’s money has not funded any field experiments involving the techniques, according to Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Palo Alto, California.”

“Recipients of the funding include Armand Neukermans, an inventor based in Silicon Valley who is working with colleagues to design spray systems for the marine clouds, and students and scientists working for Keith and Caldeira. Funding has also helped support scientific meetings in geoengineering in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Edinburgh, Scotland, and aeronautics research related to altering the stratosphere.”

“What’s his ultimate goal? Gates “views geoengineering as a way to buy time but it’s not a solution to the problem” of climate change, says spokesperson John Pinette. “Bill views this as an important avenue for research—among many others, including new forms of clean energy…”

Read more here…http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/bill-gates-fund.html

…

CO2 and Global Warming

I came across this very informative blog article on global warming and would like to share it with you. It is a short piece yet a very interesting read, and gives a basic yet respectable understanding of how CO2 affects the atmosphere, and also points to the hypothesis of global warming through CO2 as far back as 100 years ago!

It explains clearly in layman’s terms the Earth’s natural cycles of warming due to the Sun, and why our actions due to industrialisation and global emissions appear in effect to be almost transparent throughout the Earth’s “little ice age” cycle.

It points to the issues that are causing the major contradictions concerning climate changes and also to the misdirection and confusion. And this explains why the climate sceptics continually profess that the Earth is naturally warming, and that there is nothing we can do or that we should worry about. This is obviously the wrong position to believe.

Yet the most remarkable part of the article is the part quoted below. Now does this ring any bells with you? Here in the UK there has been a decisive policy change by our previous government to opt for new nuclear power plant constructions despite protestations from both our Liberals and Green parties. Please note that I am not making a political point here, only highlighting that the reasons for policies may not always be apparent – what do you think?

The article is dated and I cannot confirm its age, only that it may be at least a decade old. The link to the author’s website at the end of the quote no longer exists. I cannot trace it any further as yet. I hope he will forgive me posting the large quote here, yet it is a major point to reflect upon and to absorb.

Please read the entire article here … http://www.bigissueground.com/scienceandfuture/blair-co2andglobalwarming.shtml

Excerpt taken from – CO2 and Global Warming
By Jim Blair

The twisted politics of energy – nuclear power

 “There is a strange political component to what should be a technical- scientific question. The Left believes in the green-house effect and the Right doubts it. But the Left opposes nuclear power while the Right supports it. When the dangers of CO2 are understood, the greenhouse effect is a compelling argument for shutting down coal and gas power plants, and only nuclear ones can replace them – at least in the short run.

Solar or wind is not yet capable of replacing the coal plants. Steam turbine natural gas (ie methane) has been proposed as an alternative, but although methane releases less CO2 per kilowatt of electricity generated, it still burns to CO2. And the more it is used, the more will leak or spill into the atmosphere, where it is much more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the three major objections to the use of nuclear reactors to generate electric power were the mining of uranium, the safety of the reactor operation, and the disposal of the reactor waste products. No one seems to realize that it is a different world today.

The former Soviet Republics have about 28,000 nuclear warheads, and the US about as many. They contain enough uranium and plutonium to supply the worlds electricity, probably until solar or fusion becomes practical. Whatever the risk of a state-of-the-art nuclear power plant, it is certainly safer than a nuclear warhead. And reactor waste presents less of a disposal problem than weapons grade uranium or plutonium. See ‘GREENHOUSE GAS & THE ECONOMY’ (on my web site) for my plan to deal with these problems.”

http://www.bigissueground.com/scienceandfuture/blair-co2andglobalwarming.shtml

…

Putting the Future Back in the Room

By Alex Steffen

www.WorldChanging.com

Quote -“That’s why, if we care about the planet, the most important thing we can do is start showing how good a future we still can have. That’s why, right now, optimism is a political act, and a radical one at that.”

Quote – “We need millions of people ready to put the future back in the room. We need millions of people ready to demand that their governments, their companies, their communities and their cultural institutions confront the reality of the futures they make every day.”

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/steffen20100429/

This recent article at IEET.org is another call to action and describes the possibilities for the positive view, (right intention), and for positive action concerning the pursuit of policy changes. Please read it and add to the comments if you can.

There are many other articles at IEET concerning environmental issues and the ethical challenges concerning new and emerging technologies, as well as many articles that contemplate other existential risks to humanity. Indeed, it is currently one of my favoured sites, and you will also find it listed in the links section.

http://www.ieet.org/

…

“Enjoy life while you can”

James Lovelock paints a dismal picture of our future. Is it all too late for us? Are his omens correct? Well his predictions have been mostly reliable so far. This is the guy that invented the device to detect CFCs in the atmosphere and established his Gaia hypothesis of the Earth as a living super-organism. His predictions are as bleak as they come.

I still see this as a call for awareness, and even more reason for us all to do something to change policies and mindsets, whatever that may entail? This does not change my view of the need for a call to action awareness at present. I’m hoping my further investigations will not change or reverse my optimism?

OK… this is scary stuff, checkout this brief interview with James Lovelock here.. >> “Enjoy life while you can”

Quotes…

“Enjoy life while you can”

“It’s just too late for it,” he says. “Perhaps if we’d gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don’t have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can’t say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do.”

” This is all delivered with an air of benign wonder at the intractable stupidity of people. “I see it with everybody. People just want to go on doing what they’re doing. They want business as usual. They say, ‘Oh yes, there’s going to be a problem up ahead,’ but they don’t want to change anything.”

“There have been seven disasters since humans came on the earth, very similar to the one that’s just about to happen. I think these events keep separating the wheat from the chaff. And eventually we’ll have a human on the planet that really does understand it and can live with it properly. That’s the source of my optimism.”

“What would Lovelock do now, I ask, if he were me? He smiles and says: “Enjoy life while you can. Because if you’re lucky it’s going to be 20 years before it hits the fan.”

…

Climate change – A call to awareness..

The problems we face today concerning climate change are enormous. Some believe it is already too late, others like myself believe we can act to limit further damage to our environment. Yet this whole issue of climate crisis seems to be overwhelming, and governments are sceptical and slow to act. International politics is causing barriers and complications and this is no surprise. It is no surprise that humans create the politics that stands in the way of change, and that which may even stand in the way of our survival? It is this procrastination that is becoming as dangerous as the consequences of climate change itself.

It appears to me, that what is required is “mass awareness” of the importance and depth of the crises that hangs over us all. Sure most people around the world know that there is serious climate chaos looming, yet like myself we are resigned to non-action for the most part as the problem appears to be too difficult for us to contemplate or rectify. We leave it all in the hands of our elected governments and scientific experts and place faith and hope and trust in their wisdom to figure this stuff out and to act on our behalf.

But this is the problem, little or nothing seems to be happening with urgency, decisions and policies appear slow to emerge and progress is hindered. For this reason I believe we need to stimulate awareness of the consequences of non-action and that we all have a part we can play to help to guide policy change through our communication.

It is not important that each of us needs to know what to do, or how to rectify climate problems and issues. The importance is that we “think” about the consequences of doing nothing. That by simply “thinking” about climate change and its consequences on a daily basis and thus talking to others and sharing comments, I believe we can encourage widespread and universal acceptance of the need to change our philosophy and act with urgency. In this way our media and thus our governments will recognise our concerns and be prompted to act to promote change in policies as quickly as possible, and to guide us in solving these climate issues.

How can we encourage change in policy and decision making?

The idea is to create a “wave of conscious awareness” around the globe to get everyone “thinking” about climate issues, including the Asian continents. The recent student demonstrations in Iran has hinted at the effectiveness of Twitter and tweets, and thus I see this as an ideal tool to join hands and awareness around the globe and to get people thinking about climate problems. The aim is to also stimulate participation in a philosophy towards protecting our environment, through whatever means possible.

This goal is to stimulate “thinking” about the implications of non-action towards climate change. It may provoke more reading on climate issues and strategies, or in pursuing policy change directly with your local politicians or even the government directly, or more simply stimulate thoughts towards waste recycling, or wasting energy?

So what’s the strategy?

The method is simple, you simply “join hands” or rather share communications and use your twitter account, or blog, or website to link and create a following to others that are interested in climate issues. Once there is a high enough volume, or ideally the greatest volume of content linking climate awareness using tweets and blogs, then the media and government will have no other choice but to acknowledge the need for urgent action and policy changes, and be guided by our “want” to change policies to avoid climate catastrophe?

Maybe you already do this? Maybe you already highlight climate issues and use your blogs or twitter to link to articles and news? If so then all you have to do is to link or “follow”, or even create a “following” to link to other climate tweets and blogs so that eventually all twitter accounts “will include some link or discussion on climate issues”. By eventually linking users to nodes and even hubs of tweets and blogs, the content of the Internet will be so overwhelming that there will not be a single account that does not feature a climate issue or an article at any time in cyberspace.

Thus the message that the ultimate or most important focus around the globe on these mediums of communication will be that of climate issues, that will then be noticed by the international media, and thus noticed by our governments and politicians to stimulate policy change and action.

The idea is NOT to hijack twitter with climate chatter or to serve only climate change content. The content of your tweets and blogs need not focus entirely or even any more than usual on any climate issues or articles, and need not deter you from your usual tweets and agenda. Once again, the idea is firstly and primarily to “stimulate awareness” of climate issues and the need for action, and to get everyone “thinking about climate change issues”. I believe the rest will take care of itself.

And the beauty of this simple strategy is that twitter and tweets are free, and it will also serve as yet another boon for twitter and also to stimulate global awareness and publicity – and further add towards the goal of climate awareness? You need not even read an article or blog that is linked to a climate issue, as the most important statistic for the purpose and goal is the “hit” that is associated with the link. As we all know, it is “hits” which are the stats that drive Internet content success.

Security and spamming…

Sure this increase in climate awareness and inter-connectivity of links will encourage freeloaders and more serious security risks. Yet I believe this will be no more than is usual, and that individuals are smart enough to notice spam bots and insincere climate links. If you notice a strange tweet or link that begs attention, then simply ignore it in favour of a more trusted tweet from someone you know. The most important point is to “think” about climate issues everyday, and spread your own links to articles and blogs that you may find interesting so eventually the mass volume of content on these mediums becomes overwhelming and cannot be ignored by the media and world news.

Organisation of Nodes and hubs to focus on climate issues…

How can we link Twitter and tweets and blogs to maximise efficiencies?

By linking and adding followers and tweets together into nodes and then nodes into hubs, (see twibes also), I am presuming there may well at some stage be a saturation or maximum number of linked twitter followers in each twitter account. For example Tom, Dick and Harry may all promote climate issues and be both followers and following each other. Imagine eventually hundreds of followers all following each other causing saturation in each account as each twitter user follows each other?

Yet this need not matter at all and can easily be corrected and more efficiently presented to form nodes and hubs that are linked together as the experience between twitter users decides to eliminate circular or closed links? As long as there is still at least two twitter followers linked together who may each form a node then a more efficient connection between the different users is created. This may also appear to work best and more efficiently with three nodes linked rather than merely two nodes?

In other words, Tom’s climate followers may include a hundred twitter users interested in climate issues, and Harry’s climate followers will eventually include a hundred different users, and Dick’s climate followers will include yet another different hundred users. The need is that only Tom, Dick and Harry need to be linked as followers and following to create three nodes of three hundred different twitter accounts sharing climate interest, content and issues?

Eventually twitter users will delete following’s from their own accounts as they notice there is no gain to a circular reference and create new links and following to pursue their own interests in climate issues. The connection between individuals, nodes and hubs of users interested in climate issues will be fluid, and the links need not be static at all?

Will this prove successful?

I am not at all sure of the success of this methodology or whether it may prove to be a success amongst users of twitter and blogs etc. Yet I feel it is well worth trying to “promote awareness of climate issues”, and it is merely the simplicity of adding regular links of tweets to comments, articles and blogs concerning climate issues, and action towards climate change. And how much effort is required to do this? If you are concerned about the urgent need for action to climate change and other environment issues, even local issues, then it takes little or no effort to use your twitter account and blog to highlight this, and most importantly to share links to others of like mind?

As I say, I believe the rest will take care of itself, and the Internet will eventually expand to include and absorb greater amounts of content regarding awareness of climate issues and communications. Maybe then, media sources will help us focus in on the need for less dithering and indecision and help guide policy changes?

Yours sincerely

CygnusX1