Why Climate Change Is Not An Environmental Issue (VIDEO)

May 4th, 2013 by Zachary Shahan

This needs to be watched, shared, and repeated:

It may seem obvious to those who follow the climate change story, but it’s apparently not obvious to a lot of people who don’t… but should.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: no post, videos

About the Author

Zachary Shahan spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jouni-Valkonen/736198505 Jouni Valkonen

If conditions gets nasty on Earth, there is always possibility to migrate into Venus. On Venus solar power is vastly more abundant than on Earth and there is plenty of room available at 50 km altitude, where temperature and pressure are ideal.

People usually do not realize that conditions in the upper atmosphere of Venus are just perfect for advanced virtual reality based human life. Breathable air is a strong lifting gas in carbon dioxide dense Venusian atmosphere, so it is very simple to float.

And most importantly: in Venus there are no fossil fuels, therefore all the resources are practically unlimited and you cannot never run out with them. There is no peak oil in Venus!
http://www.energyquicksand.com/ Edward Kerr

Zach, good post.

The video makes all the salient points. However, there is one big flaw that I noticed. He talked about one hundred years out and an “economy”. Wrong. If we don’t get radical in dumping fossil fuels yesterday there will be NO HUMANS in one hundred years to have an economy.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  Wiping out all humans is a low probability event.
  
  More likely is that life is going to become quite a bit tougher as storms get more intense, food becomes harder to grow, and we have to start moving back away from the coasts and rebuilding all that “stuff”.
  
  A lot of our wealth is going to go into adapting and recovering.
  - http://www.energyquicksand.com/ Edward Kerr
    
    Bob,
    
    Until recently I would have agreed with your assessment on probability. However, with the venting of massive amounts of methane in the arctic since 2010 I am not so sure. If we blow past 4C rise all bets on humanity’s “adaptation” are off. Recently the Hadley Center revised their projection of passing 4C by mid century. Malcolm Light writing for the Arctic Methane Emergency Group in Feb of 2012 predicted the end of humans in the northern hemisphere by late summer of 2037 and globally by 2049. I’ve tried to find flaws in his math and no credible scientist has yet to debunk his paper. Go to AMEG.ME and look up Light. It’s a heart breaking thought but one that we ignore at our peril, assuming that it isn’t already too late.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      Here’s what Joe Romn posted a couple of days ago…
      
      “Every climate scientist I’ve ever spoken to thinks we can still avert the worst impacts of climate change. It is an absurd myth that either the media or scientists constantly repeat the “it’s too late” message — a myth debunked here and here.”
      
      http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/01/1931491/ny-times-criticizes-itself-for-touting-myth-that-it-is-too-late-to-avoid-climate-catastrophe/
      
      (“Here and here” are links in the article.)
      
      Joe is someone who expends a great deal of energy educating people about the dangers of climate change. If anything I would guess he would come down on the “overly concerned” side as opposed to the “less concerned” side. If he is saying that it’s not too late I take that as likely.
      
      That is not to say that we haven’t already sentenced ourselves to a less livable climate than we would have otherwise had. Just that we have time to keep forces beyond our control from taking over and driving things into a very nasty state.
      - http://www.energyquicksand.com/ Edward Kerr
        
        Bob,
        
        I’ve followed Joe’s writings for some time now and respect his assessments. The problem that he hasn’t addressed here is the issue of feed backs that are a natural physical response to current warming. The methane promises to send climate change non-linear and unpredictable.
        
        There are, om the other hand, issues that could mitigate the situation. I don’t claim that it is too late even though it just MIGHT be. Regardless, since our civilization is all but totally depended on fossil fuels we can expect that the issue will compound itself and we may “blow by” any averred tipping points. With all of the other resource limits that we are ‘testing’. it’s difficult to imagine any “soft landing” type of scenarios. Best case is a bumpy ride, a VERY BUMPY ride. The changes that we have initiated may turn out to be liveable but the opposite is still a serious consideration.
        
        All that I know is that if we think that we can “party on” then turn on a dime at some “do not enter” gate, we are deceiving ourselves. Any thinking person realizes that long term survival depends on our ceasing the wholesale burning of CO2 emitting fuels and developing the alternatives available. They may not be ‘enough’ for us to keep living as we do now but they might ‘keep us living’.
        The problem is more serious than most folks wish to consider, but dammit I have grandchildren. Allowing ourselves to get caught up in the present denial is a ‘sure fired’ path to some place that none of us wish to go to.
        Cheers on this cinco de mayo 2013.
        Peace,
        Ed
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        You’re suggesting that Joe and the scientists he’s consulted aren’t aware of feedbacks and the potential methane problem?
        
        I agree that it might be too late. But I’d put that as a very low probability event. Since climate scientists are waving “It’s too late” flags, I’ll set my personal expectations at below 1%.
        
        Of course we can’t party on with fossil fuels and turn on a dime. If you’ll look at what is happening we have begun to turn. Wind and solar installations are growing exponentially. We have usable and affordable electric vehicles on the road.
        
        There lingers the question of how much more pain we will bring to ourselves and those who follow us by moving less fast than possible. Hopefully we’ll accelerate our efforts and leave less of a mess behind than what we would by moving slower.
        
        Going back to your sentence that started this conversation – ” If we don’t get radical in dumping fossil fuels yesterday there will be NO HUMANS in one hundred years to have an economy.” – I think it over the top. We’ve got a serious problem, but it’s not quite that serious.
      - http://www.energyquicksand.com/ Edward Kerr
        
        I hope that you’re right, Bob I hope to God that you’re right!
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        I don’t know if I’m right. But that’s how I’m setting the odds and what I’m using to set them.
        
        I think the odds that we might wipe out all humans in the next 100 years extremely low.
        
        I think the odds that things will get worse over the next few decades quite high. But I set the odds of us keeping things from getting extremely extreme at “likely”.
        
        We might not make a 20% CO2 reduction by 2020, but I don’t think we’ll miss it all that much. And I think we’ll be moving very much faster from there on out.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      Let me say some more about this…
      
      Several years ago when I first paid attention to the issue of global warming I first assumed that it was an “urban heat island” measurement error. I worked past that and then became concerned that ocean levels were going to rise really quickly. Then I figured out that the oceans weren’t going to rise that fast.
      
      In short, I found myself getting jerked back and forth by people on the extremes. I needed a filter between me and the tail ends of the distribution.
      
      I decided that there are various agencies that are tracking the science and are well equipped to deal with the science. I’d let them tell me if we were getting too close to a tipping point or the danger had subsided.
      
      That’s not to say that I think we should ignore those who raise warnings. The cost of changing how we do things is far less than what the cost would be “if the worst happens”. But I think we should not panic when one person or a small group of people goes all ‘hair on fire’. Let scientists work through the issue. When we see major scientific agencies and the military tell us it’s time to panic, then I’ll panic.
      
      Until then I’ll keep doing what I can do to get our greenhouse emissions down and assume if we pick up the rate of getting off fossil fuels we won’t suffer extremes.
JMin2020

Thanks for the post Zach. There was never a more important subject for mankind to get a reality check on than Climate Change. It would suck to have to do the evolution thing all over again.
Pingback: San Diego Loves Green – Why Climate Change Is Not an Environmental Issue
http://twitter.com/Kompulsa Kompulsa

This is what i’ve been telling people, and it is very important. You are right. It needs to be shared and watched,