26 October 2006

FW: Join me on the map!
Romeo (WorleyParsons)
Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 5:11 PM

Hopefully, all this action will have some effect:
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow

Also, if you want to make your car carbon neutral, check out the website linked below. It costs me about $70 per year to lock away the carbon my car produces:
http://www.carbonneutral.com.au/

From: Nicol (SKM)
Sent: Wednesday, 25 October 2006 4:40 PM

Pretty nifty way to show something important. A bit of a greenie rant below the map, but hopefully it gets the point across ...
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow

From: Nicol (Conservation WA)
Sent: Wednesday, 25 October 2006 4:29 PM

This came through an engineering friend - looks like climate change is finally a mainstream concern!

From: Hinds (Clough)
Sent: Wednesday, 25 October 2006 4:14 PM
Subject: FW: Join me on the map!

Why not, it doesn’t ask for your address, only name and e-mail
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow

From: Chaffer (MLC)

Something I feel strongly about – we need to do this for our future

Please sign the petition for action on global warming. -- Everyone's talking about global warming and the climate crisis - and now there's a new way to show our elected representatives we're serious.

I'm part of a national campaign that's redrawing the map of Australia so that every person concerned about climate change can stand up and be counted, wherever you live. Together, we're starting a new movement to drive the message home to politicians at all levels of government that we expect responsible leadership and bold action to solve this crisis.

This issue is bigger than party politics, bigger than special interests, more important than short-term economic gain - and each of us can play a part in the solution by taking a stand for our future.

Now we're aiming for a record-breaking target of 250,000 people to help create a groundswell for change in every electorate across the country.

I'll hope you'll join me - just click on the link below to add your name to the Climate Action Map now.

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow

Prohasky (EWB)
Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 7:32 AM

Hi everyone,

While I think planting trees is a great idea and something worth supporting you should consider some of the drawbacks of carbon offsetting before you run out and neutralise your life:

1. Carbon emission trading does not actually address the cause of global warming and climate change but only offers a temporary solution that is based on in inexact science. If there is no change to the status quo then at some point in the future there is going to be no space left on the planet to plant enough trees to absorb all our carbon emissions.

2. By offering people an option (not a compulsory tax) of trading for their carbon emissions you might, in fact, be sending a message that their current behaviour patterns, in regards to carbon emissions, are actually acceptable and that no change is required to the way we live our lives.

3. A carbon emission system implies that accounting for a carbon emission now is addressed by the planting of trees today. The reality is that a carbon emission today is not absorbed until some point in the future as you wait for the tree to grow. There have been numerous studies that point to a date that a forest becomes a net reducer of carbon emissions. The generally accepted time is 10 years. So if today everyone on the planet were to plant enough trees every year to negate their yearly carbon emissions there would still be at least 10 years of carbon emissions that you can never absorb.

4. The economic axiom that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow is not applied in the same way for emissions. A trading system that promises to nullify your carbon emission today by an equal amount at some undetermined point in the future is flawed as it implies that your carbon emission is worth the same amount to humanity today as it is tomorrow.

5. Some of the certified carbon plantations available for use in Australia are softwood plantations that are on previously cleared land, predominately monoculture and are destined to be used for timber production.

6. There is a concern that current living forests will be used as part of a carbon credit trading scheme by companies looking to profit from this fast-growing industry. Some primary producers have in the past been known to clear native vegetation to gain tax credits by setting up timber plantations.

7. There is a certain amount of hypocrisy in trading carbon credits now to plant trees but not supporting the complete abolition of land clearing. According to the Wilderness Society Australia is clearing land at a rate of half a million hectares a year which is faster than any other developed nation. Cutting down a seventy-year-old tree returns over 3 tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere.

I am happy to discuss any of these points in further detail and can be contacted on any of the numbers below.

Regards,

Executive Director
Engineers Without Borders Australia
ENGINEERING A BETTER WORLD

MAX
Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 11:51 PM
To: Romeo, Prohasky

Hi

While I have always regarded a 'reply all' email to an emailing list that is largely unknown to the sender to be rather rude, I am glad that I took the time to read the email you sent because it was addressing some important questions about the gap between popular science and applied science.

The impression I got from your email was that it was better to carry out actions with scientific exactitude that may be more difficult for the unscientific public to participate in than to carry out actions with fluffy scientific results that are more in keeping, excuse the colloquialism, with 'the vibe' of increased awareness of environmental problems.

I would propose that activists should not utilise the gap in first principle understanding between trained scientists and the public to question programs that could become a basis for increased awareness in the general public that science can solve the problems progress has created.

As an untrained reader I can only assume your points are valid, but couching them as a reason *not* to do something is not a positive use of such important arguments. When I made the effort not to be a little disconcerted by your points, I had to assume that if I supported such a program the problems would be sorted out as the push for environmental policies became stronger and it became viable for agencies promoting programs to become more exact as they obtained more support and legitimacy.

Using your arguments in a positive light, to argue, for example, for more education and funding for research, would mean that people would be galvanised by a goal to achieve, not paralysed by a feeling of a problem too big for them to impact on.

When it comes to galvanising the public, it is YOUR job to do the groundbreaking and scientifically sound research and lobbying, it is OUR job to start supporting programs, however small and scientifically short of the desired mark.

I am, however, very glad you took the time to send that email!

Max
(Romeo's sister)

Romeo
Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 8:16 AM
to Max Prohasky

Peace guys! Good discussion by the way. Some solid points from both of youse. :)

Prohasky (EWB)
Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 9:53 AM
to Romeo, Max

Hi Romeo and Max

Thanks for your email Max. I think you raised so valid points and I will be sure to include some simple and positive ways individuals can help reduce their personal carbon emissions in future emails.

I normally bcc everyone in a group email context but forgot to this time.

By giving people an alternative view (clearly representing the negative side) of carbon trading I had hoped that people would be able to make up their own minds about the relative benefits and disadvantages of off-setting their personal carbon emissions. I did not advocate *not* off-setting your personal emissions I just requested people consider my points as carbon off-setting is not the panacea it is made out to be.

The idea was to make people think differently about the problem and the solution.

You argue that it is not the role of an activist to point out the drawbacks of a particular system. Then what is their role?

You also state that 'OUR job to start supporting programs, however small and scientifically short of the desired mark'. By doing this you are actually advocating that it is ok to do something that is just less bad instead of good. Why would anybody want to do that? Surely people who are thinking of off-setting their carbon emissions are already believers in climate change and therefore should be as well informed as possible about what is the best way to reduce their emissions?

I disagree with your last point that it is the general public's role to support programs that may not even be effective and our role (I assume you are referring to the NGO sector here) is to do the research and the lobbying. Even an untrained reader would surely know that the NGO sector has been lobbying, both the Government and the general public, for over 20 years on climate change with little or no impact. I remember first hearing about the greenhouse effect when I was in primary school! So to say that it is the public's role to just support what the NGO sector has been advocating is, in fact, condoning doing nothing.

By engaging people in critical thought (my form of lobbying) you make them more aware of the bigger picture and hopefully inspire them to act.

If I can change one person by sending a group email then I might have been able to create a better world for the children of this planet.

I hope this email inspires you to make a difference in whatever way you can.