QUOTE (Dalriada @ Post °)Human causes of the global warming is controversial the same way the theory of evolution is.
Nope. People that negate the Theory of Evolution act on their religious & moral beliefs in order to change the academic curriculum . In doing so, they aim to undermine secular society, or at least to widen the audience for their religious, conservative, intolerant views. It's a revisionist attitude : "We have new proofs that call the Theory of Evolution into question. Teaching it as an established fact was wrong . We want to set things straight." (blah blah bleah bleeah
)
Climate change negationists argue that humankind plays no major role in global warming in order for the governments to spare them the obligation to take action against air pollution - which is said to be responsible for the rise in temperatures.
It's the tenant's defense against the landlord : "this was broken even before I rented the appartment - so you have no right to take money from my deposit".( so you say
)
Both negationist views come up against hard-proven scientific facts, yet their proponents have huge vested interests in ( = lots to gain from) overturning the opinion currently held by the majority.
But similarities end here :
* the creationist (anti-evolution) current of opinion is not confined to the US of A : it was first the brainchild of american conservative christian lobbies, but it has encountered adepts within other countries (ex: Canada) and other religions (mostly muslim conservatives).
* the environment-haters come mainly from the business milieu. They are liberals (economically speaking - which allows them to be conservatives socially speaking, and thus to be both Evolution-haters and environment-haters), therefore they are spread evenly throughout the world.
* the creationist claims have had little political reach so far - they have not triggered any sweeping reform in the teaching of evolution in biology classrooms; however the number of supporters of creationism is increasing globally - and therefore their political influence too
* the climate change negationists on the other hand have successfully prevented any environment - safeguarding legislation being passed in the US, and have hampered international concerted action against global warming. However their credit with the world deciders has taken a blow from the IPCC report and is rapidly dwindling as evidence for human role in climate change is increasing by the day.
Thus, while both subjects are highly debated, their respective reaching spheres (social & political vs. economical & health) are totally separated, the numbers of actors participating ( only scientists & clerics vs. basically everybody) are quite different and - most of all - their impact (slow social evolution or slow social regression vs. brutal climatic events or painful economic adaptation) is to be measured on different scales.
*******************************************************************
That's it for Dalriada's comparison.
Now, about climate change,
The 14th UN Climate Change Summit opens tomorrow 1st december in Poznan, Poland.
Maybe a new post is needed - or even a new thread - to highlight this subject.
Anyway, among the subjects likely to be debated :
1) Carbon credits and corruption.
Funds invested by industrialized nations in order to make up for their CO2 emissions (in short 'carbon credits') may reach as much as 500 billion $ by 2020. Hence the risks of embezzlement in poor & developing countries that are set to benefit from these investments.
2) Africa and responsibility for climate change
Obviously African countries hold little blame over climate change in comparison with industrialized nations and BRIC. Therefore they may decide to adopt their own seperate standards in dealing with climate change.
3) The effectiveness of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
Some of the projects proposed and undertaken by industrial companies in order to obtain carbon credits are poorly priced (in terms of credits) ; other projects are just fraud : they are ineffective or even counterproductive when it comes to fighting the greenhouse effect.
4) Not only CO2, CH4 too
Methane (CH4) is also a greenhouse gas - the second most abundant after CO2 (water vapour excepted, as it is not man-produced). Methane emanates from organic waste, and to the day, there are too few projects dealing with the capture of methane.
This would be all the more welcome as methane is also a source of energy: it represents over 90% of natural gas.
5) Can Europe still lead on climate change ?
Germany and Poland are dragging feet on the 'Energy and Climate (spending) Package'. Europe has been up to day the main trendsetter in terms of the carbon credits market, caps on emissions, fuel efficiency standards, CFC banning etc.
Will they overcome internal bickering ?
So ! What topics interest you the most ? Are there other subjects that you think are worth to be discussed ?