[scas]

I figure i've learned enough to start writing letters and become a nuisance activist...thanks for all the peeps here who provide a wall to bounce arguments off of. Bets as to what's more effective: A wishing well or writing an MP?

I write as a concerned citizen of Canada. I am a pilot by training and have had the incredible opportuniy of seeing British Columbia and most of Canada by air, an experience which I will always treasure. I was laid off during the 2010 Olympics and am now enrolled at the University of Canada with intention of becoming a plant geneticist. Recently, I have become interested in the subject of climate change, food production, distribution, and it's effects on the global population. I see little awareness of these issues among my friends and little discussion in media or among politicians. Canada must widely acknowledge the growing threat of climate change, take steps to slow it, and plan as to how Canadians will adapt in the face of rising global temperatures and resource scarcity.



The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, formed in 1988 to assess human-induced climate change, estimates that by 2040, America, Europe, and China will be uninhabitable for food growth. Scientist James Lovelock has stated that these conditions could arrive as soon as 2025. Indeed, world greenhouse gas emissions, sea-level rise, and Artic sea-ice melt have all proceeded at or higher than the IPCC worst case scenarios. Approximately 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded, according to UNU's Ghana-based Institute for Natural Resources. In Africa, if current trends of soil degradation continue, the continent might be able to feed just 25% of its population by 2025.



It is possible to see crisis far in advance – Saudi Arabia has a burgeoning population, depleted groundwater, and failing wheat crops. Egypt is the world’s biggest grain importer and is unlikely to survive without foreign aid. Both countries are equatorially located where temperatures are high even without climate change. Many countries at these latitudes suffer from overpopulation and will be disproportionally affected by climate change. Water crises seem inevitable in equatorial and mid-latitude countries.



James Hansen’s 2010 paper on glacial disintegration states that sea level could rise 5 metres by 2095, and that the process is highly non-linear. The West Antarctic Peninsula represents the most significant ice sheet for sudden collapse and sea level rise. According to the U.S. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, we can expect 1 foot by 2050 at present glacial melt rates. Stronger storms and surges will threaten coastal inhabitants and industrial sectors.



The British Royal Society says that on our present emissions path, we may see a 4 degree Celcius rise in global temperatures by 2060. That is within the lifetime of myself and fellow students. A study published in the journal Science shows that methane emissions from the Arctic increased 31% from 2003 – 2007. Studies of the East Siberian Arctic shelf shows evidence of destabilizations already. The process is non-linear and identified as the most significant threat for abrupt climate change today. Earth is entering a state of positive feedback, and past methane releases have caused up to 16 degrees Celsius of warming. Two degrees has been described as the safe upper limit for civilization, although some studies show that 2 degrees may initiate runaway climate change. Given the present feedbacks operating at a mere 0.75 degree world anomaly, I am inclined to agree. The Royal Society finds that climate change may already be eliciting a hazardous response from the geosphere (seismic, volcanic, landslides, etc), and that this will only increase in the future.



James Hansen argues that present aerosol pollution reflects 1-3 watts of solar radiation and artificially cools Earth. A sensitive satellite was launched on February 2011 to corroborate these numbers but the launch vehicle failed to detach resulting in destruction to the instrument. Since we are over 350 ppm CO2 and now in a state of positive feedback, it seems likely that stratospheric solar radiation management using sulphates or aluminum oxides will be required to slow climate change. If we wish to reverse climate change, then a monumental sequestration program on a scale never attempted in human history will be required. A significant reduction in industrial activity and aerosols may accelerate climate change and we may find ourselves having to artificially maintain the aerosol cloud.

The subject of oil depletion has been well studied and published in science and nature journals. Many experts agree we are passed peak. Since 2004, world oil production has flattened. Canada should not be wasting money on building more roads, SUVs, mega-malls, or parking lots, but instead improve low-emission public transport and seek to localize the production of essential human needs, reinforce coastal cities for higher sea levels, plan for climate refugees, and build a society resilient to climate change and oil depletion. Unfortunately the tragedy of the tarsands will not be realized by the public until it is too late. The enormous emissions, general environmental destruction and fresh water pollution will take its toll. I am not aware if shifting temperatures will make such areas more desirable for future habitation.



James Hansen and James Lovelock believe nuclear power is integral in the fight against climate change. Each city will assess its own needs for power production. Current and future breakthroughs in nuclear and renewable technology must not be discounted. Ultimately, public opinion and a society poorly educated in climate change, and historically fearful of nuclear energy may vote against it. A decade or two in the future large cities that vote against nuclear may find themselves in a fix as to how to obtain reliable low-emission grid power, and in haste return to dirty coal. Economics and construction time are frequently brought up against nuclear power, but will not be a significant handicap when climate change is internationally recognized for the threat that it is. CANDU reactors have an excellent safety record and are designed with improved seismic protection, and could play an integral part in Canada's low-emission future.



It is likely that climate change, at best, may be slowed but not reversed. There will be a need to provide large cities with reliable, low-emission grid power. Canada is large, rich in resources, comparatively underpopulated, and situated at high latitudes. Canada will be disproportionally unaffected by climate change as compared to equatorial and mid-lattitude countries. Canada can eventually expect tens, even hundreds of millions of climate refugees. Many of these people will be coming from areas of hunger, war, and destitution – areas where climate change isn’t even recognized as a contributing cause. Canada will need to be able to house these people cheaply, densely, safely, and with minimal energy inputs and emissions. They must also integrate socially and feel welcomed. Canada should not allow its great expanse of forests and natural habitat to be displaced by urban sprawl or informal unsustainable squatter camps. An extreme example of dense low emission living is the now-demolished informal settlement of Kowloon Walled City - it contained 33 000 settlers on just 6.5 acres, or a population density of 1,255,000/km2. If Canada is to accept climate refugees in a world of scarcity, it must begin planning now, and do so without necessitating that all purchase a large house and car.



I have ignored the oceans so far but it is perhaps the most important. Oceanic phytoplankton has reduced 40% since the 1950s. Phytoplankton are the base of the food chain and produce half the worlds oxygen. The world already faces declining catches both in volume and value after fishing down the food chain for decades. Similarly, ocean acidification and global warming threaten an ocean extinction event. Countries dependent on fish protein will increasingly require food aid imports. Plant produce will be needed to fill the nutritional gap as the oceans empty.



It is rare to see population control talked about in politics, and after the 1900s fiasco it’s not hard to understand why. However, if climate change significantly reduces world agricultural output, countries with exploding populations will find themselves experiencing famine and wars of attrition. Perhaps the best we can hope for is promoting family planning and safe sex practices, and educate people on the coming risks of climate change.



I hope to do my part in mitigating the coming food crisis and ultimately building a highly technological sustainable society. I hope that Canada's leaders will too.



Sincerely

[Sixstrings]

I figure i've learned enough to start writing letters and being a nuisance activist...thanks for all the peeps here who provide a wall to bounce arguments off of. Bets as to what's more effective: A wishing well or writing an MP?

I'll read your letter later, looks good from what I scanned.

On the general subject of "writing your congressman" I'll never do that. My step-father wrote President Bush once, something about veterans issues, and he got a picture and form letter back. The response was very general. Ever since then, and this was years ago, he's gotten junk mail from the Republican Party -- fundraising stuff.

So for me, I just think it's hopeless. In the US there's not even much difference between our parties anymore, so how is writing a letter going to help when not even voting for the other party helps.

On the other hand.. the staff do read the letters, and they mark it down and tell the representative the percentage breakdown of the mail and phone calls. So technically, calling and writing letters isn't totally useless.

[scas]

he's gotten junk mail from the Republican Party -- fundraising stuff.

Look at the silver lining - it's food for your red wriggler farm.

[Keith_McClary]

Hate to discourage you, but the Harper Party MPs will send you personally signed generic form letters, all identical (actually from Harper's office). Try it. Other MPs aren't likely to read it either, even if you boil it down to 25 words.

If I was writing I would take a "imagine explaining to your future grandchildren how you ignored scientists and believed shills and hacks" approach. Or how about "ain't no climate change denialists in the high Arctic".

[Blacksmith]

Hate to discourage you, but the Harper Party MPs will send you personally signed generic form letters, all identical (actually from Harper's office). Try it. Other MPs aren't likely to read it either, even if you boil it down to 25 words.

If I was writing I would take a "imagine explaining to your future grandchildren how you ignored scientists and believed shills and hacks" approach. Or how about "ain't no climate change denialists in the high Arctic".

Politicians only have to look ahead as far as the next election.

[Quinny]

Too long and no call to action.

Much better to challenge on individual issues and ask for their support or even better a specific action.

Saudi Wheat crops failing ??? Do they grow much anyway?

Even if an MP was to read it, because it's so long they will nit-pick one part of the argument or destroy it on scale.

No offence intended, I like you, but better to write 20 short than one long.

[FairMaiden]

Uhm...if you live in BC we have a huge gov't division working on Climate Change. I know, I hear about all the stuff they are doing daily. Look at the municipalities - they are growing community gardens and now allowing chickens to be kept. Seems like they are certainly changing for the better. So what is your specific beef? I read your letter and you just quote a bunch of ppl who have opinions. Your solution is more nuclear energy...why when we in BC have more than enough energy? Our infrastructure isn't built to withstand all the energy we want to pump through it. Or haven't you gotten your local propaganda yet about beefing up all the transformers...and how it's "safe" and mostly in "remote areas"...

I'd rather have wind/solar and alternatives thanks. Right now you should just be concerned about that mine - after all, it's money for the rich and jobs for the slobs.

/end sarcasm

[scas]

BC may or may not be suitable for nuclear power. Cities can decide what mix they want, be it no nuclear and all renewables or some nuclear and some renewables. Megacities drink a lot of power. Renewables would displace much space in such instances.

I guess there wasn't a clear point to you, but others have liked it. It is that Canada should be more open and vocal about CC, and get ready to take in many refugees without displacing forests or requiring cars or many resources. All people needs are some warmth, food, and light. Better the atom than the forests.

[Maddog78]

blah, blah, blah, blah.....

Straight in the garbage.

Generic form letter generated.

"Thank you for your concern, blah, blah, blah.
Thank you for your support of the PC's in the next election"


PS: For some reason I thought you were an Ozzie.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised you're from BC.
Mayor Moonbeam's going to save the world with bike lanes and by allowing people to put a bunch of stinking chicken pens in their 2 million dollar home's yards. Enjoy your Carbon Tax. BC will save the world.


http://www.straight.com/article-361676/ ... des-canada

http://www.straight.com/article-353321/ ... arity-work

Who really calls the shots for Mayor Moonbeam? Illegally funded US based environmental foundations? Hmmmmmm?

[Vogelzang]

http://usera.imagecave.com/SriBaba/2/proofenough.jpg

[Sixstrings]

BC may or may not be suitable for nuclear power. Cities can decide what mix they want, be it no nuclear and all renewables or some nuclear and some renewables. Megacities drink a lot of power. Renewables would displace much space in such instances.

Well.. Canada doesn't exactly lack space. Anyway I have my doubts about climate change mitigation plans, as you know. To me when you talk "renewable" I just see more things made out of, and depending upon, lots of cheap oil.

That essential fact seems to be getting forgotten on this forum lately. Some of you guys think we can overcome peak oil with even more complexity -- what you're not realizing is that without lots of cheap oil none of this is possible, including the dirty old coal plants, Walmart, iPads, 3,000 caesar salads and certainly not solar, windmills and more nuke plants. Oil is the lynchpin to our entire way of life, and once it's in serious decline we'll have to live simpler, not an even more complex green techno utopia.

If you think I'm wrong Scas, do the numbers. Figure out how much oil it takes to build a nuke plant, and maintain it over the generations. Be sure to account for everything, including food for the engineers. That's the reality of peak oil folks, we're not going to have enough frickin' lettuce for our sandwiches, much less be able to boil water with nuclear fission.

I guess there wasn't a clear point to you, but others have liked it.

Scas, I know you're wicked smart from our back and forth on climate change but Quinny is right. Your letter is too long, and you're not telling your MP exactly what bill you want him to support or what legislation you'd like him to introduce.

If you're in school to become a plant geneticist, you've got a lot of writing ahead of you -- so don't be sensitive, it's always a mistake to blame the reader.

EDIT: couple other things..

You're doing appeal to authority too much. Nobody cares who James Lovelock is, it's his arguments that matter -- understand those then present them in your own words with brief citations. Plus you listed an alphabet soup of what other people think, like the IPCC.. your MP already knows about all that.

You can't just say "the IPCC says agricultural will be gone by 2040," and is that really the scientific consensus? That's news to me, can you expand on it a bit.

This whole question is moot anyway, Canada like Australia is a small country with massive land and resources -- you're gonna keep right on growing, open pit mining, and tar sand boiling. And if the Arctic melts away, you'll be right there to dig up the sea floor too.

[Crazy_Dad]

Whilst I applaud any contribution such as your letter to our masters.
I don't think they are listening.

This fact drives me crazy - Are we a democracy? (This is an Australian perspective, and we share many govt processes).

I no longer think that peaceful protest will achieve the saving of our ecosphere.

I am a father who doesn't want to be locked up. But how else but through revolutionary measures will we affect change? No one lost power because of peaceful protest.

I am convinced that the gun buy back in australia was no accident. They did it just before opening the floodgates to immigration. And the destruction of our way of life. They used a mass murder to make it happen. It would not surprise me if he was "pushed".

Until people like you and me are willing to put EVERYTHING on the line for a revolution, then nothing will change. Right now I can see the writing on the wall, and I would fight for my kids future. But without anyone backing me up, I'm just a loony that needs a bullet in the eyes of the corporate masters.

What a fucked up world. Good luck.

[scas]

Thanks for the replies. I've heavily edited it already, cut back on nuclear and tarsands stuff, tried to focus more on localism - doing what Sedgwick, Maine did in allowing local people to buy and sell what local foods they want, as well as saying we know what's going on with the climate, what is our plan to handle consequences? And how will we help others? etc..

I see peak oil brought up as a reason against nuclear power a lot. Even Kunstler believes it can fill in for a century. The energy returned from fission is more than the energy to build and maintain it all (they think).
I saw someone say nuclear is only 30% more expensive than gas or coal..I was surprised. Judging by the people on these forums, you would think it was 300% more - and there's little greenhouse gases. If a city like Vancouver blacks out in the future, even a single nuclear plant should keep the water running, and some diffuse warmth and light. People don't need more. If renewables can do that, go for it. However from flying around BC I can say we will have to cut down a lot of trees to make that space. Either way it is for each city to decide. BC may not be the best place for nuclear.

James Hansen/James Lovelock/Peter Ward, the guys I quote most, actually are all scientists that have worked for NASA, Lovelock has even designed instruments for NASA. But I intend to add citations for everything with numbers. I dunno - people don't respect age and wisdom anymore. Scientists only get recognition after they're dead.

They other thing....if you look at the worlds shape, most of the living space is in the equator and midlatitudes. Since we're not planning to stop global warming, even with solar radiation management, then Canada must prepare to house these people extremely densely, or build up a large fence like the US/Mexico and put gunners nests on each coast. Canada has lots of space...that means more natural forest or farmland, not more suburban sprawl or peasant villages. I do like how modern Japan houses people super-densely.

I'm probably being imaginative here but I always like the idea of a central dense building topped with a two level greenhouse and surrounded by permaculture farms. A few windmills and photovoltaics for LED lighting and cooking. Everything is recycled back to the soil. House and feed a few thousand refugees on a tiny tiny space. These people come from shanty villages, and we don't have the resources to build houses and roads and cars for everyone.

I'm actually not one of those people who see peak oil causing collapse. Just a gradual decrease in living standards over two-three decades with periods of severe instability. It is worrying, but climate change worries me more.

Otherwise it is war, attrition, famine, etc, even in Canada. I prefer civilization hold together... It seems that most scientists are putting their faith in science, not people. Seeing Peter Ward hope that microbial engineering and fusion are our biggest hopes against climate change....
"Look, if you don't have hope, you don't do anything," he says. "You go out and get a drink.

I plan to do both. Faith in university kids to want change, and faith in science to bring more food, at least for me Most people have already burnt out, given up, and become bitter at the system, but that's probably in the best interest of BAU so I don't recommend it.

Thanks for all the comments.

edit* The IPCC saying these places wont be suitable for food growth, was from Stewart Brand's book. It is the only fact I was sketchy about adding. The NCAR drought maps show similar though. However I will see if the IPCC 6000 page report is available anywhere. The only reason I am so pro-nuke is climate change and peak oil. Otherwise, why bother with the risk? Here's Gwynne Dyer with commentary. http://www.straight.com/article-382241/ ... perstition

[Dreamtwister]

I have to be honest, here. I stopped reading after the first paragraph, and I'm not even a politician.