I bought an electric car and there's no going back....

A quick post....just to catch up.

I've bought a 2015 Nissam LEAF. Actually, I bought it in early June.

It's a Generation 2 ("Gen2" I'll explain later). I bought it because report after report from climate scientists over the past year makes it very clear we are now warming rapidly, in real-time, and it's due to climate change.

Yes, they attribute it to an "El Niño event"....but that event, in turn, is stronger and more pronounced because of warming. Because we all emit too many gases that hold the heat from the Sun in the atmosphere.

So what could I do about it? I could stop driving a car that burns fossil fuels. So I did. I had already shifted much of my travel to public transport, but that still meant riding on a lot of diesel buses.

OK...they roll anyway, but I don't need to be on them.

This my car. It's REALLY cool....and I love it.

More proof of climate change accelerating

If you haven't seen this video of James Balog's talk at TED, then this is a must-see. Make sure you watch the whole thing. The best is kept for last, but won't make much sense if you haven't watched what went before. No cutting corners on this one. Watch the whole thing...at least up to the ads in the last minute or so (21:55 all up).

The present New Zealand government doesn't deserve the votes of any thinking people while they refuse to do anything concrete about climate change. Willful stupidity must be swept aside by the wave of evidence they are wrong.

NZ Herald misleads on climate change - again

A glance at the front page of this morning's NZ Herald drew my eyes to this headline:

Survey: NZ cooler on global warming

The headline implies that Kiwis are losing interest in the subject of climate change. The content of the story demonstrates this is very much not the case:

• 87% want action on climate "very soon" or "in coming years"
• 42% (down 21- want to lead the world in taking action and 39% (up 12 - want to keep up with the rest of the world)
  
• Sustainable Business Council chief executive Peter Neilson ... said other nations had "lapped" New Zealand when it came to policies, such as the Emissions Trading Scheme, that were being discussed here in 2007. That had made it easier to follow and harder to lead. "There's a lot more competition now."
• Sixty-five per cent believed the effects of global warming had already begun and 44 per cent believed it would threaten lifestyles within their lifetime.
• Asked if they agreed with a statement by the UN Secretary General that the case for human-driven  climate change was proven and the time for action was past, 65% agreed and 14% disagreed.   
  

Clearly, Kiwis are convinced that climate change is real and something needs to be done. The shift from "leading the world" to merely keeping up is most likely caused by people recognising the present government doesn't actually want to do anything at all about climate change. Meanwhile the United States now has leadership committed to action while New Zealand hasmoved from a leadership position to becoming a backwater of denial. People may simply be being realistic about what they may expect from a willfully ignorant government that has done worse than nothing and cut funding for programs that would have begun to address the problem of climate change. At this point, just keeping up would be a big step forward. 

The Herald's headline  is deliberately misrepresenting the findings of a survey showing people are concerned about climate change and want action to be taken. Given their representations of climate change almost always tend to the denialist side, the use of the word "deliberate" is appropriate. 

The real story here is just how far out of touch the present government is with the public on the issue of climate change. Good on the Herald for recognising this is a front page story. Boos and jeers for trying to make it look like something other than what it is. 

Climate change effects for 1000 years minimum

Researchers are reporting, through the dry-sounding "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" in the US that the effects of climate change due to increased carbon in the atmosphere and oceans will be with us for at least a thousand years. Even if we stopped producing any carbon tomorrow, the effects of carbon we have ALREADY released will see out the millenium.

The current level of 385ppm (parts per million) of CO2 in the atmosphere is picked to "inevitably" rise to 450ppm and whether or not it goes beyond that level depends on what action is taken now to reduce CO2 emissions.

The outlook isn't good.

This story has really grown legs over the past 12 hours and we might even see it in our own media here in New Zealand.

It's snowing out there

Canadians are looking at their first coast-to-coast white Christmas in almost 40 years. Last winter was a record year for snow in many areas, though it didn't start quite as early as this year. As you can see from the photo (Caledon, Ontario - 30km NW of Toronto), that's a lot of snow in Southern Ontario before Christmas. In recent years, there has been no persistent snow on the ground in that region until after the New Year.

Interestingly, you don't get a lot of snow when it's really cold. You get a lot of snow when it's not very far below freezing. You get a lot of snow when there is a lot of water in the atmosphere. Water that has evaporated in large quantities. In Canada, snow comes from the North.

With the Arctic Ocean and Hudson Bay being warmer than usual, they remain open longer than usual and you get more evaporation than usual. Hence more snow. Perversely, the growing volumes of snow in Canadian winters are a sign things have gotten quite a bit warmer (from a snow perspective) than usual.

It will be interesting to see what happens for the remainder of the winter. Some places have already received as much snow as they would normally see for the whole year.

Phillips said some parts of the country are seeing snowfall amounts that have outpaced last year's record and near-record totals at this point in the season.

But he also said it's unlikely that trend will continue.

"Already in many places in eastern Canada, we're ahead of the record from last year," he said.

"But, you know, we have a long, long way to go. I'm thinking that, hey, there's not enough left in nature to give us another one of those years."

Nature may surprise.

Climate ignores denialists and keeps changing

Despite claims climate change is a myth, the ice keeps melting and the climate is generally showing little regard for assertions climate change is a myth.

Here are some new stories you probably won't be reading in the NZ Herald.

Switzerland's glaciers are melting and the pace is accelerating. Estimated at having lost 13% of their total mass of ice in the past 9 years, it's estimated that in about 100 years even the largest of them will be gone with the smaller ones disappearing long before then.
 
As our own government appears to be seeking ways to let the coal burn free, scientists are warning if we are to have any hope of reducing carbon emissions, we can't start using coal to make liquid fuels to replace oil. 

The classic stages of resistance to change, as summarised by Mahatma Ghandi, appear to be happening: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

We are well past the ignoring phase. That stopped in the 1990s.  The laughing is still heard in some quarters, like the National Party caucus room and the editorial offices of the NZ Herald, but most others appear to be losing their smirks as the ice keeps melting.

We now appear to be on to the fighting part, as vested interests have mislead the public to win office to secure a denialist agenda - as exemplified by Gerry Brownlee, Rodney Hide and more arrogant, ignorant others. 

I don't really enjoy using these 'terms of endearment' for people who can't see the evidence for what it is. But restating the evidence doesn't help. That has been done over and over and over. Brownlee and Hide don't give a rat's arse what the evidence is.

Meanwhile, the climate doesn't give a rat's arse what they think...and the ice keeps melting.

I keep referring to the ice because it looks more and more like this mass of 'stored coolness' is the only thing blurring the edges on a shift in climate that could be dramatic and swift  were it not for the moderating effects of water - frozen and not.

The fight will in the end be an unfair one. The climate will win. There is no doubt about that. The sad thing about it is that when it does, the denialist fools who doomed our children (not just theirs) to that fate will probably have died fat and happy.

Our short life spans keep large numbers of us from understanding many cycles or things that last longer than we do....and we are too often like May flies, living our glorious, self-centred, metaphorical 'day' amidst centenarian Galapagos tortoises - long, slow processes - thinking them to be rocks if we are aware of them at all. 

Temporary climate change plateau

Posting before investigating the details? Why not.

Here is an idea I've been toying with.

I've noticed this year in Auckland the air feels cool and wet so far. Over in Melbourne a few weeks ago, it felt the same. Everyone there was saying it seemed unseasonably grey and there were waves of cloud and cool air coming up from the South.....but not a lot of rain for it. Though more than they had seen for a while.

At the same time, the opponents of climate change have been crowing about how the global temperature had not experienced a new peak for the past decade.

Maybe the two are related. This is the part I now want to go away and have a look at, but thought I'd post the train of thought here first as a benchmark (mainly for my use, but others may be interested in the idea if they have not already come across it).

The polar ice began melting - in earnest - relatively recently. Roughly the past decade. What happens when ice melts? The water around it gets colder. Like an ice cube in a drink. The more of the ice that melts, the greater the cooling effect my mask what is actually a rise in the surrounding levels of heat energy going into the system. Like ice in a drink on a hot day. Nice and cold...but its fate is certain.

Perhaps the 'plateau' in global temperature rise is a temporary effect due to ice melting in greater volumes than it is able to form each year....resulting in a net ice loss, year on year.

As anyone with a drink knows, even a relatively small ice cube will continue to keep your drink cool.....but when the last of the ice is gone, the surrounding heat will quickly warm the contents of the glass up.

In the case of the global climate system, I doubt it will be as neat and tidy as that, but it may well be that the same underlying principle is in operation.

The world is warmer, but as the ice melts (due to the rising warmth) many parts of the world may well feel cooler.....until some critical threshold is passed and the heat really takes off.....perhaps accelerated even further by the release of sea bed methane which has 20 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide.

Should we get to that point, the changes that follow may have been human triggered.....but they will be fully 'natural' in their cascading consequences.

No ice at the North Pole by September 2013? I wonder where the temperatures in the Northern Hemishere will go after that.....or will the Greenland Ice Sheet continue to moderate northern climes as it continues to melt?

NACTional: Our very own Flat Earth Society

At last week's climate change conference in Poznan, Poland, one wag was heard to say

"This climate conference will go down in history as the retirement party for the Flat Earth Society of the United States of America,"

Last year, in Bali, the US delegation was told to "lead or get out of the way" by a delegate from Papua New Guinea, who received a round of applause.

Here in Key-wee-land, where evidence doesn't matter as long as you BELIEVE, all forward motion on climate change has apparently ceased. The government is Hide-ing its head in the sand, awaiting the outcome of a "review" of the evidence. The "review" itself is based on the verifiably mistaken presumption (emphasis on the "pre") that there is doubt that human activity is a contributor to climate change.

Just because the NZ Herald and others refuse to print items reporting the latest science on the subject (anyone recall the last time they saw one?) doesn't mean the ice at the poles has stopped melting. 

On November 8th, New Zealand became quite a bit flatter than it had been. If NACTional refuse to lead on this, then we owe it to ourselves and the planet to get them out of the way. Working on it.

"The science is beyond dispute..."

When they eventually meet, I wonder what our new PM, John Key, will have to say to Barack Obama, the new President of the United States, about climate change?

While National backpedals on our own ETS (Emissions Trading System), Barack Obama will be moving ahead aggressively to set one up in the United States.

Meanwhile, John Key and National want to set up a forum to look at the evidence.

Obama seems pretty clear climate change is a big problem and a serious threat to the security of his country.

Obama says the science is beyond dispute. No denialist 'forums' for this leader.

See for yourself.

Climate change: It's the people, stupid!

The BBC reports today on a study that claims to prove that climate change in the Arctic and Antarctic is, in large part, caused by human activities.

The study appears to have invovled running a series of models using known data against assumptions about the effects of human activities. The assumptions ranged from no human effect to significant human effect.

The model than most true to the actual data recorded was the one that assumed humans were the major contributor to polar climate change.

Having been involved in climateprediction.net's modeling work for the past 4 years, I've picked up some of the rationale that makes the outcome of this study not only credible, but convincing. These climate models are now highly refined by years of tweaking and improvement. While they can't "predict" rain in Tokoroa at noon on Tuesday (that being a smaller than microscopic 'eddy' in a vast chaotic system), they certainly can forecast broad trends with considerable accuracy and global climate change is nothing if not a very broad trend.

People unable to understand abstraction will still struggle with this. As one of the scientists involved says:

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, said: "Our study is certainly closing a couple of gaps in the last IPCC report.

"But I still think that a number of people, including some politicians, are reluctant to accept the evidence or to do anything about it until we specifically come down to saying that one particular event was caused by humans like a serious flood somewhere or even a heatwave.

"Until we get down to smaller scale events in both time and space I still think there will be people doubting the evidence."

These would be the same sort of people found as empty holes in the ashes of long-buried Pompeii.

"Vesuvius? Deadly? Prove it."

Meanwhile, the Arctic ocean ice just keeps melting.

NZ's glaciers: Going.....going......

Scientists at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NWA), are reporting NZ's glaciers are at their lowest ebb since records began and shrinking rapidly.

When they disappear....and "when" appears to be the right word....that will have interesting implications for the local climates in the area, water supplies and may affect hydro power generation.

Looks like we will get to find out the hard way. Hope all the climate change deniers enjoy the money they "saved" while we still had reliable power and water.

Pork chop barbie on an Arctic Ocean beach one day soon

Over on Hot Topic, Gareth reports 2008 could be the worst year for ice cover depletion in the Arctic Sea to date. More disturbingly, whether it is or not, the Arctic Ocean will be all but ice free in 5 years time.

For the hardier souls among us, that may be see the beginning of a northern land rush as the Canadian (and other) "North"s become more moderate and - dare I say it - livable. That may depend on how much sea levels rise. Judging the new coast lines may not be easy.

If it sounds like I've given up on people have any real impact on climate change, I'm close to it. The progress since the Rio Conference in 1992 has been negligible as the greedy pigs who can't lift their snouts out of the daily trough long enough to see the butcher coming continue to frustrate any real progress on the whole issue.

It's so bad, they would rather spend millions frustrating any progress by sowing confusion than spend the same money doing something about the problem.

I've mentioned in other posts that I used to own pigs. They would dig up all the grass to get to the grubs....and when they were done there was neither grass nor grubs. At that point, they had privatised all their profits and expected me to socialise their losses by feeding them....like many modern "capitalists" (major banks loaded with dodgy debt and falling over are prime examples).

So start looking for those prime spots a few kilometers in-shore from the Arctic Ocean. You could be on to a winner. The pigs are running and there may be fresh pork on every barbie following a climate disaster near you.

Why trade emissions credits anyway?

Wipe the board clean. Fresh eyes.

Consider:

Legislatively mandating emissions reductions to an open and transparent regulatory schedule and NOT operating a market may actually be cheaper and ultimately more effective than an ETS.

Yes, there is the risk of getting the schedule of mandated reductions wrong. Yes, you face the problems and costs of monitoring and compliance.

At the same time, no player in a market is compelled to heed price signals. They can choose not to. In a market situation, we may find that industries dominated by a monopoly or controlled by an oligopoly will be able to extract monopoly rents to pay for carbon credits at any price, while genuinely competitive industries on lower margins will not be able to and will thus unfairly bare the cost of reducing emissions.

It is ordinary consumers who face the consequences whatever the case.

Markets can arguably be very much more "unfair" and contrary to the wider interest than a carefully considered and adjustable schedule of regulated emissions reductions.

Of course, any such regulatory process would instantly become the target for co-opting and corrupting by the same powerful interests who can distort markets to their advantage. But at least the legislated model IS ultimately accountable to all of us in a way the market model is not: via the ballot box.

Note that either system - conscious regulation by law versus unconscious regulation by market - fails when corrupt practices undermine it.

Markets rely on willing participants to function and many who must participate in any ETS don't want to. They are instead trying to use political means to ensure they don't and won't have to.

One could describe this as essentially corrupting the process that would create ANY process for controlling emissions, if using politics to advance one's short term interests regardless of long term costs to everyone else, can be described as "corrupt".

Strictly speaking no. It's just stupid.

Rather than ignore compulsion, it should be discussed, debated, modeled and probably planned for. We can't be herding cats forever while the climate goes haywire. If crises do develop, the ability to rationally respond to them then will be even MORE difficult than it is now while there is little immediate pressure on existing systems and institutions and we have (at least we think we have) some options we can choose from.

Hypocrisy is ugly

There have been so many "up is down" moments over the past few days, it's damned hard to keep up.

Homepaddock reported this morning how Federated Farmers Dairy Chair, Frank Brenmuhl, said:

"Townies should not expect dairy farmers to donate $15 million so that the price of dairy foods sold in NZ can be reduced.

“They want … and they want … but they do not want to pay.” he said."

Mr. Brenmuhl appears to have no sympathy for Kiwis upset about the volatility of dairy prices, driven by market conditions and political decisions made far from these shores.

Meanwhile, over at the Hive, the very same Frank Brenmuhl is signatory to a letter about the proposed Emissions Trading System (ETS).

[UPDATE1: The Hive has deleted the post containing the letter referred to. I did not make a copy.][UPDATE2: The letter has now been reposted on the Hive and the link repaired.]

The letter makes some good points about the ambitious ETS expressed from a viewpoint that doesn't see any reason at all for New Zealand to provide any leadership on greenhouse gas emissions or be any sort of positive example to the world. Lowest-common denominator is the general tone. Business will abandon New Zealand, disaster, calamity and so on. Oh well. Nothing new there from NZ business when asked to ante up.

Most fun of all, included in this letter, signed by Frank Bremuhl, is this statement:

The reported back Bill fails to provide any safety valve to protect against a high and volatile price of carbon, in an international carbon market that lacks liquidity and where the price of carbon reflects political decisions made in Europe, rather than the least cost emissions abatement.

"lacks Liquidity" means too many people are making too much carbon and there aren't enough CHEAP carbon credits to go around and allow people to continue to do nothing. As more people continue to not do enough to reduce emissions, the price COULD go sky high. But that would only happen if people don't respond to the market signals those carbon prices are sending. That couldn't happen, right? Markets are supposed to be wonderful.....until it's YOU who have to pay, I guess.

Putting these two statements supported by Mr. Brenmuhl alongside each other, he clearly wants to be protected from the volatile price of carbon when the cost is to him, but sees no reason why there should be "any safety valve to protect against a high and volatile price of"......let's say: milk? - when he's the guy raking in the cash.

You'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.

"Your price is too high, let the taxpayer pay. My price can be whatever I get can away with and stop your whining!"

Nice one, Frank. I'm thinking maybe I should add a new label to cover stuff like this, but "stupid people" will do for now.

ETS vs compulsion in New Canuteland

Looks like climate change has joined the equipment list in the long standing game of political football. The announcement by United Future leader, Peter Dunne, that his party would not support the proposed ETS is a disappointment on several levels.

It is a perversity of human nature that when a risk appears to be far away and apparently low, no one will lift a finger to do anything about it. Despite warnings for most of 16 years now that something should be done to address the real risk of climate change, almost nothing has been done in practical terms. Had we implemented some form of emissions trading scheme a decade ago, we would already be seeing the economic benefits and the rewards that would come to a country that showed leadership in political terms and in terms of technology and processes that others could purchase or copy and adapt.

But no. Yet another red-flags-waving, bells-ringing opportunity has passed us by as we join the ranks of the climate change knuckle-draggers on our way to the insert-head-in-ground convergence point for the terminally short sighted.

The other leg of the human behaviour double is that when the risk does become more real and more obvious, instead of doing anything, we have a study and a report, then another study and another report. Then we all squabble over who will pay for it with each sector trying to preserve their own position on the shrinking ice floe that could metaphorically represent the world the way it used to be.

The politically strong (business and farmers) gang up on the politically weak and / or unengaged (most people) and seek to make them pay for the carbon footprint as they pay for most other things.

Privatise the profits. Socialise the cost. Business 101. It`s a clever strategy by the politically engaged as it gets the cost off their shoulders and onto the shoulders of those who do have the power - ultimately - to spit the dummy and then no one pays anything and nothing is done.

The problem, however, is that doing nothing isn't really a viable option in the medium to long term and the longer we leave it, the more costly it will be for everyone.

The National Party, as usual when change comes along, are the last to see it coming. I mean that in the nicest possible way. This tendency to drive via the rear-vision mirror can be a life-saver when some idiot wants to turn the world upside down for no good reason. Society needs this tendency.

Unfortunately, however, when real change does come along, being conservative also has the downside of NOT changing things even when change becomes all but irresistible. The last years of Rob Muldoon's National government were a Canute-like stand against irresistible global forces. Madness in a way, yet typical of the broader conservative mind that seeks to keep things as they are. Or rather, were.

National has not changed. Despite 20 years of discussion and debate about climate change at global and local level, they remain among the ranks of those who don't want to know - not really. To look at it would mean actually CHANGING something and they don't (want to) do change. Instead, they cling to shonky research by think tanks funded by vested interests populated by other conservatives elsewhere who seek to frustrate change.

The irony in all this is that the Emission Trading Scheme was built on the market ideology of conservatives. Setting levels of acceptable emissions and then making them tradeable was a key element in getting buy-in from governments in thrall of market ideology. The problem with markets is they require willing participants and when it comes down to it, the conservative elements don't want to participate.

Ok, the alternative to market mechanisms always was compulsion. Governments CAN reduce emissions by simply mandating reductions to a schedule and requiring compliance. Take it for granted that by the time they actually do that the streets lining the waterfronts of the world will be crumbling into the rising seas.

Tradeable schmadeable.....if the market has failed, then why not just DO it? The "law 'n order" version of greenhouse gas reduction. Enough of the politically correct, market-oriented taurine fecal matter, just get the job done.

By dragging their heels on dealing with climate change the easy way, the opponents of the ETS may simply be bringing us all to the day when emission cuts will be legislated for and the costs incurred along the way may be far higher than what people are duck-shoving around the shrinking ice floe today.

Bottom line: If the public understood what was at stake, we would be seeing an ETS law passed by a large majority that was fair to everyone and included all sectors. To the extent that any sector is currently disadvantaged, reflects the lack of active awareness and engagement by that sector - in this case that's the average voter and citizen.

Perhaps we should consider changing the name of the country to 'New Canuteland'. It may even be literal one day as we stand on the beaches watching the tide coming in higher and higher.

Emission Trading System Explained (to me)

Thanks very much to 'Idiot Savant' at No Right Turn for posting an excellent summary of the state of the proposed ETS. I spent some time last evening reading it and diving into the details and now know a lot more than I did before. More on this when I get my head further around it.

How does the proposed emissions trading scheme work?

I want to look into the detail.

Kyoto is market-based. Business ideology played a huge role in that. Trade-able carbon credits were / are supposed to send market signals to producers of carbon so they can either produce less carbon or buy tradable emissions credits to cover the excess beyond whatever level of carbon they might be allowed to produce without liability.

I don't know how this has been proposed to work here in NZ. I'm aware of debate about who holds the credits, but not the outcome. Clearly, some people have seen no need to either reduce emissions or to engage in the carbon "market". They seem to be hoping if they can ignore it and pull political levers instead, they can avoid any responsibility for their emissions, related carbon costs and any requirement to act to curtail emissions.

Why is that?

I want to find out so I can better distinguish between those who have legitimate issues with the proposed trading regime and those who may be seeking to shirk their responsibility to deal with their carbon emissions effectively and constructively.

Meanwhile, the ice keeps melting.

People and Change

Have you noticed that there are still a lot of large, fuel hungry vehicles on the roads? Have you noticed that on the highway. many drivers - often in these same fuel hungry vehicles - still insist on driving over 100kms/hour? They are using up to 20% more fuel than the journey would require at a lower speed.

These same people are having heart failure over the price of petrol or diesel. Many of these people will express a love of market forces while at the same time acting as though these forces should more properly apply to someone other than themselves. They should not be required to do anything differently in response to rising fuel prices.

It would be just one more example of human perversity in the face of change if it didn't result in backward, counterproductive steps like the downgrading of the regional fuel tax. Doing so allows people to, in effect, avoid having to change the way they go about things and ignore for a little longer market signals they should do things differently.

Maybe it's just me. We bought a smaller, 1.3L car in November. It uses 6L to go 100kms at an average 100kph. That's better than any hybrid I know of. I pay about $55 to fill the tank (at $1.88/litre) every fortnight. The registration of this small car is cheaper than for a larger car. I save money from every angle. If I drive at an average 95kms / hour, I can get 5.7L / 100kms. I've done it. I'm 190cms tall. Our 'new' 10 year old smaller car has more head and leg room than our Nissan Terrano or Toyota HiLux ute had. I'm more comfortable and paying less for transport now than I used to, even with the higher fuel prices.

The cost of waste is high.

I suspect that petrol prices will keep rising. The forces that have been forcing higher oil prices show no sign of abating.

In a way, it will be interesting to see what National does if it wins the election later this year. The trends causing trouble today aren't going away and show signs of accelerating. Labour's troubles could end up being National's.....with bells on.

The regional fuel tax would be equivalent to a couple of the usual price rises we have seen lately. We will see more of those anyway. Any "relief" assumes the present pricing situation is temporary.....and I doubt very much that it is. People need to adapt to the new situation and not strangle growth of the infrastructure that will make the future livable to pay for a few more days or weeks of the way things used to be.

Underlying all of this is the beast of too much credit. Many people are over-extended, feeding the mortgages and credit cards and trying to live off what is left over. It's getting tougher to make ends meet.

They don't have any room to move, but move they must because it isn't going to get any easier. No matter who wins the election this year.

Whoever it is will face the same forces and the need to fund the infrastructure an expensive-oil future will require.

That's when the denial will end and change can begin....I hope.

Thoughts on Climate Change

I've been wondering...

Hundreds of millions of years ago, we know the Earth was a warmer, wetter sort of place. Perhaps that was because there were more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than there are today. Perhaps the reason it changed to a colder, drier place was that for hundreds of millions of years plant life was slowly but inexorably sequestering ever greater amounts of carbon into the surface of the Earth as each succeeding generation of plant life thrived, then died.

Maybe the climate we are changing is the climate we are restoring to a past state by releasing all that sequestered carbon. Maybe the world would end up a warmer, wetter place overall and more of it would be habitable for ALL life than is sustained at present.

Maybe.

I had a look at how much land would be inundated by a rise in sea level of 6 metres. The absolute amount of land is large in area (a third of Irian Jaya / West Papua disappears after only 2 metres) and much of it is in places where a lot of people live now (Bangladesh, Florida, US eastern seaboard, New Orleans), but the relative amount of land on a global scale is very small. Were we not divided by nationalities and shackled to a fairly rigid view of individual private property (as opposed to some more flexible measure of private value / potential), moving to adjust to the new shore lines would be relatively simple to do. You would just do it and do in a way that made sense and was as equitable and practical as possible. OK, some micro countries would disappear under the waves, but the homes of much larger numbers of people have in the past been destroyed in single cities to build better highways. Life goes on. Those displaced are generally assisted and provided for in some way. Best case, of course.

The more difficult consequence of climate change is ecosystems and habitats. These have evolved for the most part slowly over what we would consider very long periods of time. Sudden significant changes to climate can have the effect of a great clearing out (ok - "extinction", I said it) of species that did depend on the climate remaining as it was where they were living. Gaps in the ecosystems thus left may not be filled by evolution for millions of years.

To some extent, those problems could be mitigated by actively moving plants and animals from one area where they had previously enjoyed a particular climate to a new area where that climate was now coming into existence. People would have to understand that they were more adaptable and therefore secondary to creatures and plants who were less adaptable. In the move to new ranges, the least adaptable would win - at least initially.

Instead of allowing species to falter and die for lack of mobility or lack of overlap between old and new regions, human civilisation could function as a real 'Noah's Ark' and move endangered species to new places with the climate they required in order to survive. Granted, that might not be a viable approach for animals and plants that currently live at the extremes at either end of the climate spectrum should those extremes disappear entirely from the planet. For example, polar bears might have to be migrated to Antartica where there is land and ice where they need it. They may need to be kept separate from the penguins for obvious reasons. At least at first.

I know more than a few Canadians who would not mind a more temperate climate one little bit. I imagine Scandinavians and Russians would feel the same way. Perhaps a few Scots and Icelanders as well. Americans in the South West looking at hotter temperatures and less rain (and therefore water) might not be so happy. "CSI: Miami" might have to become "CSI:Orlando" when the former disappears beneath the waves.

It may well be that the price paid by all life on Earth for our unintended change to the climate would be high in the short, medium and long term. Property values in some places would evaporate, destroying the capital resources that might aid in paying for any transition. Who will - literally - ant to buy the fabled swampland in Florida when 30% of the most populous areas in Florida are converted to salt water swamps by climate change?

But my curiosity has been aroused. What WOULD the world be like if it was several degrees warmer and the seas did rise? Might it actually end up being......BETTER?

A mischievous thought, I know....but: "What if?" We may well find out if the lack of real commitment to addressing the causes of climate change remains the norm.