Fossil fuel use must be stopped

Torstai 9.11.2023 klo 19.42 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Use of fossil fuels is still increasing, although there cannot be any doubt about climate change. This year (2023) is going to be the hottest one globally in the recorded history, and unnormal weather – heavy rain, drought, storms etc. – has occurred throughout the world. In spite of the increasing cost of repairing infrastructure after foul weather and wildfires, which have also increased drastically, the conservative parties throughout the world maintain that one cannot go away from oil-based economy: according to them the continued use of fossil fuels is the only way to avoid going deeper in debt and thus required for the sake of future generations.

However, it is quite clear that oil, gas and coal burning are causing the climate-related problems. It has recently also become clear that climate change occurs more rapidly than has earlier been predicted. We are already approaching many tipping points, which cause problems for future generations’ lives. And whereas monetary loans can be left unpaid, changes in the physical environment cannot just be written off. Loan is just an agreement in which the lender gives money to the loaner taking interest, i.e., profit on the amount given. Since loan market functions, there must be funds somewhere enabling the loan-based economy. That is completely different from the physical condition of the world. There is no planet B which we could start to use once we have spoiled the Earth.

The conservative thinking that we can continue the use of fossil fuels to avoid getting deeper in debt is fallacy and not sustainable. We should get our priorities right: first, we must have healthy environment. If that cannot be done without increasing debt, we must loan more money.

Kommentoi kirjoitusta. Avainsanat: climate change, conservative, temperature increase, debt, sustainability

Urban life and climate change - nature-based solutions

Maanantai 5.3.2018 klo 12.23 - Mikko Nikinmaa

These days most people live in cities. Actually urban life is probably the most compatible with sustainability provided that measures are taken to implement actions that on one hand decrease the effects of urban settlements to the environment and on the other hand decrease the effects of environmental changes on the feasibility of urban life.

Why is urban life sustainable? All the distances can be made short so that one does not need anything but public transport. (And public transport between urban settlements suffices). Energy and electricity production can be centralized and use effective and environment-friendly means. Also garbage collection can be made effective: in fact, there would not be the huge plastic pollution problem, if garbage collection had been effective.

However, the present cities are not planned to be sustainable. In many cases they are not built for people (minimizing distances) but for cars (maximizing the road area). The cities are largely concrete and steel, and all the water needs to run in canals lined with cement etc. Most cities are coastal, and the concrete, cement and asphalt continue to the sea-city interphase. With these properties, the effects of climate change in cities are maximal. In the absence of vegetation, the temperature can be several degrees higher than in a forest. Since the waterways do not contain any wetlands, heavy rains cause flooding, and since there is no free, absorbing vegetation between tha sea and the city, the storms also cause flooding of the cities. To change these features, one would need to build green roofs, small absorbing wetlands in the city's water channels, and stretches of coastal forests between the sea and the city. In fact, one of nature's innovations in storm-suspectible coasts is mangrove forests. With the help of the above changes in the outlook of cities, many of the extremely expensive damages caused by unusual weather could be altogether prevented.

The incentive to writing the above came from acknowledging the set of open access books on Environmental Science by Springer https://www.springer.com/gp/page/oabook/environment. One of the important areas covered is the relationship of urban landscapes and climate change.

Kommentoi kirjoitusta. Avainsanat: temperature increase, green roofs, floods

Climate change - fallacies in the studies of the sceptics

Lauantai 9.9.2017 klo 16.20 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Although more than 95 % of scientists and 95 % of the reports agree with the climate change, the climate sceptics are very vocal, and as a result, their opinions in the media get much higher coverage. Recently, a common feature of climate change deniers has been to say that "the majority of scientists has also earlier been wrong". They consider themselves (or are considered to be) modern day Galileos, who dare to differ from the mainstream opinions. There is, however, a drastic difference: Galileo's opinions were based on the fact that the observations and calculations could not be explained by the earlier theories as well as by his. In contrast, the climate change deniers do not in their studies include the data that do not fit their ideas. This is actually quite ridiculous, since the same people often claim that the studies supporting the climate change do not take all the data into account. These and other problems in the climate sceptics' studies are described in detail in the open access article by Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland & John Cook in Theor Appl Climatol (2016) 126:699–703 "Learning from mistakes in climate research"

Kommentoi kirjoitusta. Avainsanat: temperature increase, IPCC

G20 and climate change

Lauantai 8.7.2017 klo 9.28 - Mikko Nikinmaa

In the G20 meeting, it is 19-1 for climate change actions. Only Trump is still against. I am not saying my opinion of the person, but the denial is irresponsible. Even if climate change were for a large part a natural phenomenon, as climate sceptics maintain, one cannot deny that human actions contribute. This being the case, man should take any action possible to reduce human effects.

And there are clearly effects seen. There are already climate refugees in the USA. Places where people lived in Mississippi river delta in Louisiana are now under water. Clearly Trump government doesn't care that people in his own country have had to move. Also, one just heard the news that a huge iceberg may be loosening from Antarctica - the size is 7 x the area of New York. Further, temperature records have been broken - there have been three consecutive days with over +50 degrees Celcius in Iran. Unnatural weather: winds, floods, cold spells, heat waves occur very frequently all over the world.

Aren't these indications enough to show that something has to be done?

Kommentoi kirjoitusta. Avainsanat: climate refugees, temperature increase, energy production