Comments on: Business must take the lead on carbon management Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: mjimih Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:45:08 +0000 The United State’s forward thinking progressive types want to lead the World in green sustainable energy. This drive was put in park by the last 5 out 7 administrations. It’s no wonder why the Dems finally got mad and elected Barack Obama, and why the Rupuglican’ts are reeling so spastic-ally. But leading the World in Green technology in the near future is going to be other countries like Germany, China. So we had better get cracking with government incentives to build up our
manufacturing base with solar cell factories, hydrogen cell factories, wind farm factories, Algea farms, Alpaca farms, Organic farms, etc etc. First Obama has to be re-elected in 2012 or it’s going to be 6 out 9 “backward not-green” administrations that our beautiful country has had to slog through year after year instead of 5 out of 9. I hope the rest of the World will support Democrats in 2012, for the Planet’s sake I pray.

By: bizcon Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:30:49 +0000 Hi,

Climate Change is an issue for sure. But it is one of the issues bothering human welfare. Not the top priority slot. The developed countries or better still, the mega corps want to maintain their stronghold on world economy and influencing the governments of western world by not shouldering the responsibility of plundering the planet. On the other hand, they insist on hand twisting the developing countries and want them to comply with the pollution norms set unilaterally. It must be the rule that those who have spoiled the climate must pay for its restonation. The selfish attitude of the western developed countries need to be deplored. Who is going to bell the cat?

It has been rightly observed by one of the responders that there are fewer safe lungs and we must protect them. Let us not be led astray by the verbosity at various platforms including Davos. China is also to be blamed for large scale carbon emission and shortly will join the band wagon of western countries for its own self interest. A gentle and democratic country like India should not fall pray to the pitfalls of environment pollution. Self discipline commitment of Prime Minister ManmohanSingh should be an example for all other countries to emulate and implemented in action to save the earth.
Best Wishes.
Sharad Kapadia
President, Surat Citizens’ Council Trust, Surat, India

By: topapito Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:55:12 +0000 What really irks me about all of this global warming baloney is that supposedly, by buying carbon footprint credits, anyone can allegedly comply with his/her responsibility. Which leads me to believe that the global warming issue is just a new way to grab our cash.

You would figure that if this global warming were to be a real and verifiable threat, we as individuals could do something to curtail it without having to spend extra cash. On the contrary, this should be achieved by saving money, not spending it.

This feels like the fox selling tickets to the hens to prevent the hen house from being invaded by the very foxes themselves. Hmm, extortion? When I see a real plan, one that does not put money in someone else’s pocket, then I may just begin to think about participating in reducing MY carbon footprint. Meantime, no reduction from my angle.

By: Pete_Murphy Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:21:39 +0000 There is no solution to global warming that doesn’t begin with a plan to manage our population at a sustainable level.

By: cambcompscigrad Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:47:49 +0000 Mr. Apotheker, you are obviously an educated and broad-minded man. I wonder, however, how many of your readers will actually [have] read “The Tragedy of the Commons.”
While you do not explicitly endorse the entire contents of that article, and while the particular part of that message which supports your own article (w.r.t. environmental pollution) is quite reasonable; I would more generally caution your readers that this article which you have cited:
* while partly based on unquestionable facts, is also founded on a number of very tenuous assertions.
* while condemning emotional appeals to conscience, the article makes precisely such an appeal.
* pretentiously praises science while failing to make a wholly scientific argument.
* casts generalisations on society that appear to be based more on theoretical extrapolation than on empirical experience.
* according to expediency in supporting their apparently pre-determined and firm conclusions; in some cases they base propositions on the premise that human beings are mostly irresponsible, and in other cases where convenient (e.g. in proposing to trust the majority to enforce the group-think decision) they base propositions on the premise that human beings are mostly responsible and fair (a basis directly contradicted by their own example of the cynical and politically motivated city government.)
* various points made in the article could demonstrably be construed as “straw man arguments” and “weasel words” lacking in proper citation.
* concludes that various forms of coercion are needed, extending all the way from absolute control of our biosphere, to absolute control (or near irresistable “persuasion”) in the private matters of the married couple’s bedroom.

Unfortunately while that article is based on so much conjecture; there is not even a modicum of modesty in the manner with which its conclusions are foisted upon us. An emotional appeal is used as a large part of the “basis”, yet the author apparently purports to have made irrefutable scientific conclusions. No reservation is given about the absolute necessity (as the authors would frame it) to coerce people to do the “right thing” (as determined by the majority.) Frankly it is a disgusting, arrogant article written by a man who must have spent far too long in his Universities ivory towers, and not enough time dealing with real people. Like many of his academic colleagues, he appears to have a terribly low opinion of the intelligence, attitudes and altruism of his fellow citizens. I find it a little shocking that you would cite this article at all, given that you come from a shrinking society that has looming demographic problems due to the limited breeding that is taking place among Germans. Since the article was written, various aspects of it has been roundly disproven (at least in the matter of breeding) which is the article’s main point. The man who wrote that article talks so much of ethics, yet has no compassion; he takes a eugenic approach to social engineering, which casts a very long shadow over any of his talk of ethics.


Getting back to the point. Léo, you are German. I presume you know about Der Grüne Punkt (a tried-and-tested German system of environmental enforcement.) I have relatives in Germany. Experience has shown that most citizens can be persuaded to follow even quite onerous recycling instructions, for the “greater good”, and the good of their environment. Entire German cities have abolished the use of PVC, or the automobile – because people CAN be persuaded to believe in something greater than themselves.

ON THE OTHER HAND, as you rightly point out, many commercial organisations are far behind their customers in altruistic intention – too many companies are just doing “environmentally friendly” initiatives for public relations purposes, without real intent to make a genuine difference. So they play the system to make themselves look good. They fiddle the numbers going into their database until they meet the Government target, or according the marketing department’s requirements. If you read the news, you will know that too much waste “recycled” under the Green Dot scheme has ended up in the Libyan desert (dumped by companies PAID to recycle it.) Too many waste electronic products have ended up being dumped in suburban West African land by companies that were paid MILLIONS of dollars to safely dissassemble and reprocess it. Too much clinical waste has been dumped in Brazil by companies that were paid a fortune to incinerate it.
I once worked for a company whose entire business was supposed to be based on “indepedent” “scientific” and statistical verification – yet they were quite happy to massage the figures on the INPUT side of their database until the OUTPUT gave them the results that would match their commercial imperatives. They tried to get me to “cook the books” for them – which is why I have never worked for that company since.
Recently there were proposals in the UK Government to install weighing equipment on dumpsters in England, and RFID tags on the garbage bins to identify the owners of the bin. I suppose an SAP database would have done a fine job of keeping track of these data. What do you think would have happened if domestic waste disposal had been sanctioned with taxes by garbage weight? IT would have increased illegal fly-tipping… Yet the aggregate numbers would have said that Britons were becoming more compliant and “environmentally friendly.”

I would agree with the most basic premises of your article – however, as a database engineer myself, having seen a lot of what happens in the real world with databases; I would tend to be a little more cynical about the industrial bias in your conclusions. Data collection and aggregation are very nice – but quite meaningless if the offenders have the power to pump spurious data into the system on the INPUT side. And don’t put it past the offenders to meddle with measuring devices, re-calibrating them to make the device more “accurate” in demonstrating “known” compliance. Better to have satellites orbiting the Earth that can detect and imprecisely measure emissions directly; rather than an army of database engineers set about proving “compliance” among the unwilling, producing petabytes of data polluted with rogue results, to feed petaflops of processing that will only generate more CO2.

There are many people who think the Green Dot scheme did little but make a few corrupt Germans (with good government connections) very rich. Would you care to detail a system for environmental verification that would NOT be susceptible to serious fraud? I agree with your most basic conclusions – France, Germany and Tesco do well with the policies you mentioned – I just think your slightly biased and very incomplete conclusions should be taken with a big “pinch of salt.”

By: bobbobwhite Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:56:57 +0000 Unbridled consumerism has to end forever. It’s damage is now seen as too great to continue. The vast majority of our global carbon footprint is due to the making of goo-gaws, gadgets, trinkets and whatchmacallits that no one really needs. Our world compulsion for selfish “wants” must end and a new cultural explosion must be directed toward the best quality satisfaction of real global needs. Infrastructure, transportation, and utilities would be foremost in this rebuilding renaissance and must be done to a high global standard and breadth, much higher than today’s, no matter the country in which they are located. We can agree on this if only the fascination with mostly useless object worship could be seen for what it truly is…………..the ruination of the world before its natural time from air and water and food contaminating chemicals from the manufacturing processes of the production of mostly junk that no one really needs and is only habituated by unbridled consumerism to want. It all must end for our grandchildren to have a chance to live in a world worth living in and for!

By: WastingtonDC Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:44:40 +0000 WastingtonDC: Shivering in the grip of a world wide 30 year record cold spell, we find ourselves chortling at the repeated revelations of potential fraud/conspiracy/stupidity in the efforts of the very geniuses touting global warming to sell their vast job and economy killing snake oil medicine to cure the planet of woes that apparently only the potential fraudsters’ have imagined. In fact, the publicized emails, and silly errors seem to indicate there may even have been criminal actions, involving the fraudulent use of cherry picked data, with employees conspiring to ignore or dispose of data offending their predetermined conclusion, to avoid Freedom Of Information Requests, and to savage those skeptical scientists now proved quite sensible to have raised questions about their skewed political campaign. Clearly, the first world economy destroying costs of the vast and unnecessary reduction of economic activity, that would be globalism, might well support the personal religious or political bias of the conspirators, but with the rampant deforestation, and weekly coal fired electrical plant creation of the developing world unhampered, even the impossibly large expenditures, and economic hobbles aimed at, by the conspirators, would have been a piffle, compared to the emissions of those nations exempted from those draconian controls. We can do better, by simply using private money, with incentives based on the rule of law, and protection of private property, to persuade well off Free World investors to buy, outright, the remaining lungs of our planet,for the chump change it is on offer, to the forest destroyers, with tax incentives for the new owners, as long as they protect the forests from destructive exploitation, particularly illegal mining, and timber cutting. I get an offer to purchase 10,000 acres of pristine South American rain forests, often, for $200,000, no doubt from the elite inheritors of the vast estates that have enslaved our South American neighbors, for centuries. With international assurance of the rule of law, and undisputed title, millions of Free World investors could end the destruction of our planets lungs, with private money, backed up by American technical means to monitor illicit activities, and help the host nations protect our environment. Wake up and use common sense, at private cost, with private profit, to save the world’s lungs, now.

By: Gotthardbahn Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:37:53 +0000 My experience with CEOs claiming that we must ‘do something’ about climate change/global warming usually is that they are simply talking their position like any trader; i.e. they are trying to sell some service or product which, they claim, will ameliorate climate change. The most egregious example I have seen recently was a Chinese maker of solar panels, speaking at a trade conference in the Far East, claiming that global warming was a ‘fact’ and ‘imminent’ and that governments must invest in new, environmentally-friendly energy sources…like solar panels! Gimme a break, PLEASE. Hey Leo, how many carbon offsets are ya buying to salve your conscience about flying executive class to Davos and staying in a five-star hotel? Nothing but the best for you, I’d wager!

By: D.Baker Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:06:55 +0000 Okay You Lead The Way!

The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the world on the Latest Climate Science. Has again indicated urgency in action is imperative. Here’s my solution and immediate areas of impact.
RE : The solution to climate change.
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase the life expectancy of humans.
The four main areas of concern globally are energy, food,water and air!
The radiologic decomposing of organic materials generates Hydrogen
By using our sewage as a source of energy we also get clean air , clean water, and no ethanol use of food stocks. Eat food first, create energy after.
Simply replacing the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities with these plants, would reduce CO2 emissions, and CH4 emissions, to acceptable levels, globally.
This would require a completely new reactor facility capable of converting human waste into hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen to generate electricity on site.
This solution is sellable to citizens because of all the side issue solutions. I’ve been able to convince most simply with concept of using nuclear waste to a productive end.
Superbugs ( antibiotic resistant ) apparently are created in the waters sewage is discharged into, which is one more side issue solution.
Anything not converting into hydrogen will potentially be disposed of using Transmutation.
The water emitted from hydrogen burning will have uses in leaching heavy metals from other contaminated site clean ups.
I thank you for your consideration, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Dennis Baker