Blog - Category: Climate change
I have been having various thoughts since the end of COP26. To be honest, most of these are not directly connected with what was happening at this climate conference. I say that because much of what took place in terms of negotiations and announcements reflected arenas to which I don’t have direct access.
For some years, I’ve wondered if the ecological movement would benefit from some sort of “anthem”. Part of the potential value of this would be something that used music to unite, inspire and galvanise people. That sense has only increased during protests such as the school strike movement. COP26 has inspired me to re-visit this and I’ve written the following.
Some of the focus within COP26 has been about the use of fossil fuels. I can remember attending a conference in the mid-1990s where one of the speakers, Hermann Scheer, said something that I have never completely forgotten, but of which I have been reminded recently. (It is also only latterly that I have been made aware how influential Dr.
For some weeks I have been wanting to write about a very specific idea.
Nearly three months ago a report was issued that I have been wanting to write about ever since. I have been limited in my time and ability to work on blogs over this period and so it has had to wait longer than I would like.
I’ve not managed to write many pieces over the last few months, but that hasn’t stopped me thinking about various things I want to say! I have started working on pieces on three publications of the last few months. These are the report on the Economics of Biodiversity by Partha Dasgupta, Values by Mark Carney and Bill Gates’ How to Survive a Climate Disaster.
Over the last few months I have blogged on a number of occasions about ideas from Iain McGilchrist’s The Master and His Emissary. One of the main thoughts in this book is the benefit of having a clearer sense of the differing roles of the left and right hemispheres of the brain and seeing how they can work together and yet provide something different from each other.
Three weeks ago I listened to an item on the radio which has stayed with me. It was on a news broadcast, the Today programme on Radio 4. One of the presenters interviewed a marine researcher, Michelle Forney, from the University of Cornell Centre for Conservation Acoustics. She talked about making underwater recordings of whales near Juno in the south-east part of Alaska.
In the last post I concentrated on the potential benefits of technology and questioned whether there can be sufficient benefits from this for reversing rises of temperature to make the required difference when it comes to climate change.
I ended the last post with the point that although a vapour trail may obscure the sun, it is obvious in the sky. Sometimes, just because a way forward appears clear, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is the right way. I don’t know if you have had an experience of trying to follow a path on the ground where what has been clear initially turns out to be frustratingly unclear.