Everyone have become familiar if not in tune with the term carbon footprint and reducing ones carbon footprint. The term has only recently been revealed to people as this is something we are all unaware of doing on a daily basis from the comforts of our home. Carbon solutions have been instigated in the form of guidance for people to follow as a way of reducing ones carbon footprint. However, in order to make this fully effective, the first thing that would need to be put across is letting people know what carbon footprint is.

Carbon solutions are all about climate protection. One leaves their carbon footprint by producing an increased amount of greenhouse gases, which is released into the atmosphere. This is measured by the amount of CO2 emissions, which is the main cause for concern over global warming. Human activity is believed to be the cause of the increasing risk of global warming. One can measure how much carbon footprint they leave behind by measuring how much energy they use in one year.

Each individual uses enough energy, through their normal daily activities, producing a certain of CO2. One can produce plenty of CO2 emissions from travelling by car to work, leaving their computers on, leaving the light on, washing their clothes at forty degrees as opposed to the recommended thirty, or even use aerosol deodorants as opposed pump sprays. This can cause a problem for people looking to reduce their carbon footprint and pose a problem for the solution to this problem.

Climate change has affected many parts of the world, with the people in the UK noticing the difference of weather change. Climate change is a relatively new concept to which even experts are working on ways of find solutions to this problem. With people consuming less energy and partaking in carbon solutions, this may affect the climate change and reduce the risks of global warming. Green electricity is also a new concept, which uses sustainable and reusable energy sources, to produce the amount of electricity.

The Christmas is possibly one of the worst periods for energy consumption due to the amount of lighting put up for decoration, high consumption of food, gift purchases and paper wastage, higher usage of travelling vehicles and more electricity used in the home. This produces up to 650kg of CO2 emissions; the government aim to reduce to just 250kg. This is a difficult solution to instigate, however, this is possible with people practising the concept of recycling and learning to use energy saving equipment.

‘Climate Code Red’ by Australians David Spratt and Philip Sutton addresses one of the major problems facing global civilization. It is a well researched document that leaves little doubt that climate change is underway. It calls for a state of emergency to tackle this problem. It notes possible technology to ease the situation. It notes the political, economic and timing factors that are inhibiting what can be done. It appears to provide credible views and many reviewers praise it for its contribution to the debate about what should be done.
I do not agree with that view. My reasons follow.
1 It is written in the typical anthropocentric manner that carries the implication that humans can control the operation of the environment. For example, they say on page 112

If it had been suggested 50 years ago that humans should set out to
remove the Arctic ice cap and warm the entire globe by 1-2 degrees, people would
have said that this was crazy and physically impossible-that it should not and could
not be done. Fifty years on, we are well on the way to ’succeeding’ in this project.

This gives the impression that humans have actually done this. The reality is that they have devised means of unleashing vast natural forces, primarily by using limited fossil fuels, that have disturbed the natural balance that had evolved over eons. They made many decisions but natural forces have determined what actually happened. Many of these decisions have had unintended consequences. The authors are now advocating measures to produce negative emissions from the energy sector. These measures must again involve natural forces even if humans produce the systems to do it. There is no natural force we can call on to do this. The authors argue that all that is required is the political will to act. They presume the feasible technofix will be conjured up out of thin air. They presume this technofix can harness the vast natural forces required to do the job. They talk of the need for ‘risk mangement’. That implies that we have sufficient understanding to assess the risks entailed in any proposed action.It is useful to consider a simple analogy of this situation. If we have a large rock sitting on top of a hill, it is relatively easy to lever the rock so it will roll down the hill. That is what we have done in releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by using fossil fuels. It is a different matter to get the rock back up the hill. That is what is being called for with negative emissions whilst enunciating puny methods only.
2 They presume that some safe climate can be achieved in due course.They point out that there is great uncertainty about what will happen to the climate in coming decades. There is also appreciable uncertainty about what civilization can and will do to mitigate the release of greenhouse gases in the near future. They call for human action to cool the planet.They note how much carbon dioxide would have to be removed from the atmosphere without suggesting how we can engage the vast amounts of natural forces to do the job.Their presumption is, therefore, not backed by sound argument.
3 They presume ecological sustainability is possible if society takes appropriate action. That would have to include removal of sewerage systems from cities so that we no longer destroy soil fertility by flushing nutrients into the sea. We would have to stop pumping water from most aquifers. The problem with attempting to obtain ecological sustainability entails cutting back on the essential needs of the growing population to achieve only some of the objectives. Too much of the ecosystem has been destroyed already for remedial action by our weak means.
4 They have the common belief that technology can solve our problems. They do not understand that all technology has ever done is enable us to use up natural resources for the temporary systems of civilization. They look at some means, like using ‘renewable’ energy systems, that may possibly be worthwhile but will do little to slow down climate change. They believe ‘recycling’ can make good lack of some irreplaceable natural resources without recognizing that the ecological cost may make it not worthwhile. Natural forces, released by human activities, have initiated an irreversible process. We now have to live with what we have caused to be done without have effective means to remedy the situation.
5 They suggest Australia should adopt emission reduction measures even though that would not have a noticeable impact on global emissions. Australians have been as bad as anyone in misusing natural capital. But the small population has released less than two percent of the emissions. It is, however, a geographically large and very vulnerable country. It needs to be using all its intellectual and natural resources to adapt to climate change and other problems rather than make a vain attempt to mitigate it*. The governments are promoting emissions reduction by a variety of measures and this subject receives a lot of media attention. Perhaps the current fire and flooding disasters will encourage implementing measures that can really improve the operations of society.*
6 They assume society will not fail to rise to the occasion of providing a safe climate and an ecologically sustainable economy for future generations. They convey a sense of optimism to the reader which is completely contrary to the reality of what we have already done unwittingly to our life support system.
The natural question is does this book contribute to the important debate on climate change. The insight it provides into what is happening and the measures being researched on how to mitigate emissions certainly represent a positive contribution. However, it leaves the reader with the fallacious belief that society can prevent the progression of climate change. That is a negative. Climate change is a dire problem. Sound understanding of how it came about and what can really be done in mitigating its impact and adapting to its influence on the environment is a requirement for all politicians, business people and concerned individuals. The most important requirement there is understanding of what human devised systems can actually do now. We have allowed the genie out of the bottle and do not have the means to put it back in. In my opinion, this book does not contribute to understanding of what has really happened and the limitations on our ability to ease the resulting problems.
Note that ‘A safe landing for the climate’ by W.L. Hare. Chapter 2 of State of the World, Into a Warming World. http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/SOW09_chap2.pdf takes a very similar, incredulous position.
A rational approach to this dire problem requires that policy makers be advised as to what is really possible in relation to climate change. We need to adapt to what has happened. And this is not the only problem that needs to be addressed to help civilization cope with the inevitable powering down. There is a sound case for emergency action to handle ecological devastation, over population and economic contraction.

Climate Change

Now-a-days we listen Climate Change more often than before. Climate change is a global phenomenon and the term “Climate Change” is indeed a straightforward expression for such a complex subject. In fact, climate change has more than we can comprehend from this phrase and that is why it is quite essential to go at defining climate change in today’s scenario. In the present glossary of researchers and scientists, climate modification as a term is no longer in use and effect. The reason behind this is that we have come to realize the effect of the changes we make to our environment will eventually increase the temperature in many parts of the world, but at the same time will also be decrease in temperature for few parts of the planet. This however, creates a general imbalance in the climate of the world which in turn leads us to the phrase, “Climate Change.”

While wondering the effects of the climate change, the things you know of as climate modification is actually referred to as global a global phenomenon of climate change. However, with all the details and statistics we have in hand at present, we can definitely conclude that the world is unquestionably warming with the temperatures rising like never before. Climate change is a global problem with many natural disasters started taking shape; the general awareness of this factor is really low. For the better understanding of the issues associated with the climate change, we require a simple definition for climate change in relation to the warming of the planet. And this definition needs to be the one that brings us the essence of this problem without compromising the simplicities. However, the easiest and most precise definition is that climate change is the effect greenhouse gases have on the earth’s overall climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide and methane, but are not limited to these two.

While learning more about climate change, we need to understand few important facts associated with it. The first fact is that climate change is both a natural phenomena and one catalyzed by us. For instance, greenhouse gases are a natural part of the biosphere and would exist if man did not. In fact, these gases are a vital component to the existence of life on this planet. It is due to the existence of the greenhouse gases, the temperature on planet earth does not average zero degrees! These naturally occurring gases help to keep the temperature at a desirable 59 degrees. But, the climate change, which is due to the greenhouse gases, is not indeed natural. In fact, the problem we are facing is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act as thermal blankets for the atmosphere. The more gas in the atmosphere, the thicker the blanket and the less heat escapes from earth. In the last 80years, we have been releasing this gases into our atmosphere and thus helping them to form a blanket. On the other hand, we are reducing forests around the planet, which are the natural plant collection that absorb greenhouse gases. This double whammy is starting to show negative results, the increased heating of our world, and thus the beginning of the dreaded climate change.