The world seem to be divided today between those who wants to go 150 years back and those advocating to invest all our resources in developing green and clean energy technologies. After reading few articles on this topic I must admit I’m rather confused. Coal has a high potential in future energy supply, only once new technology to reduce CO2-emissions from coal combustion will become economically viable. But currently they aren’t and the fact of the matter is that 40% of the global carbon dioxide emissions are due to coal.

If you want to read more on this subject you should read the debate between George Monbiot and Arthur Scargill few months back in the Guardian. The EU Energy Policy Blog also written some illuminating facts about the future of coal-based energy.

The reason for this lengthy introduction is a new Greenpeace campaign. Inspiring, engaging environmental campaigns are difficult to pull out. Especially these days, when the economic meltdown is contributing to the already short and fatigued attention span of the general public in relation to green issues you have to produce something that will stand out and cut through and I think that Greenpeace have managed to pull a nifty little campaign called….CoalFinger:

The campaign is topical and full of funny moments and the microsite is nicely designed with clear, plain English articulation of the problem.

Well done Greenpeace.

Yet our capitalist system is based on the principle of economic growth - growth that is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and unsustainable practices. Just look at recent events; governments are terrified by anything that threatens economic growth – pouring billions of public money into failing financial systems. In addition, many economists see growth not only as desirable but as essential. They claim it lifts the poor out of poverty, feeding the world’s growing population, supporting the costs of rising public spending and stimulating investment and technological development.

The dilemma is how can we square Earth’s finite resources with the fact that as the economy grows, the amount of natural resources needed to sustain that activity must grow too. I am clear in my conviction that economic growth in its current form is unsustainable. We need a new paradigm that limits (or reduces) the global population, a meaningful shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, increasing energy efficiency and the adoption of more sustainable lifestyles. This will require courageous, co-ordinated and global government policies that ensure we don’t use up resources faster than the world can replace them.

Many will dismiss this as a utopian ideology. But isn’t it a utopian ideology to carry on blithely down a path that will ultimately lead to catastrophe? Yes, it will require a new world-view and radical changes but I think we have several grounds for optimism. Firstly, sustainable economies are more stable – whilst growth may be lower than in traditional economies it will be more durable in the longer-term and less volatile. Secondly, the shift towards a sustainable economy would create new opportunities, jobs and greater stability. Thirdly, the potential for conflict between nations is reduced as our dependency on fossil fuels reduces over time. Finally, there is a growing recognition (albeit begrudgingly) amongst governments that the current situation is unsustainable and the mood seems to be shifting from one of cynicism and self-interest to one of genuine commitment to tackling the problem.

The prospect of a truly sustainable global economy, fuelled by renewable energy sources coupled with a stabilised human population and harmonised with biodiversity is an ambitious yet achievable goal. But it’s a goal that requires a re-appraisal of the current meaning of economic growth.

The credit crunch, wall street crumbling, markets dropping all around the world , ‘Times they are a changing’.

What significance does this have for the Environment?

Well in times of hardship people become more prudent with their spending. Generally this is good on a local level, people start to buy second hand items, get things fixed and become less obsessed with buying new things all the time. This means less resource consumption, less shipping and less pollution. Though on a negative note any country whose economy is sustained by exports will suffer in a global recession.

Deeper than this is something interesting. Something that could spell a change for the global political system for years to come.

What we’re seeing now is state interventionism in the market unlike we’ve seen before. This is especially important in global development, because the world is divided between those that believe that market forces are the best means of governance and those that believe that the state can do a better job. A series of state intervention failures in the past, such as the World Bank’s structural adjustment policies of the 1980s, has meant the free market vision has been winning.

That is up until now. The USA - a champion of the free market and capitalism - has taken an unprecedented U-turn. It has recognised the failing of the banks and intervened. Not just once but in various different ways: Bear Sterns, Fannie Mae and now the $700 billion bailout plan.

So why is this a good thing? Well personally I’m hopeful that it might mean a quicker turn around in terms of state intervention for environmental problems. Take the Olympics for example. China managed to clean up it’s air quality in a matter of weeks by just switching off it’s industry. Would this been as quick if they relied on the free market? Personally I don’t think so. People might not like the controlling nature of the state, but sometimes it’s necessary to sacrifice some economic freedom in return for change. Change that doesn’t mean bigger material gains. But change that leaves society feeling greater and happier. But this change won’t come without tears and fears.

For many years people have deliberated the moral hazard of bailing out developing countries from their debts. Why should we help those that have squandered our money on wars and corrupt dictatorships. All of a sudden the argument has come home to roost. Now the questions is why should we bail out those that have taken limitless risks and profited from this risk?

I can’t guarantee the world will change overnight. But one things for sure, the direction of global politics is changing. I’m optimistic the shifts we are seeing now will ripple into a number of political areas in the future and facilitate change for the better.

Recently the UN have forecast a boom in green jobs, so not everything is doom and gloom. We’re just beginning our new economic journey.

I believe that there is a strong, moral argument against the continued burning of fossil fuels even if it didn’t cause climate change. What is the basis of this belief?

Firstly, the rate of fossil fuel use is increasing year-on-year as demand from economies such as those of India and China grows. In tandem, many experts predict that we are close to (or have already exceeded) peak production of fossil fuels. Simple economics shows that increased demand and decreased supply equals increased prices. In my view, this situation will inevitably lead to further conflict as countries vie for an increasingly scarce resource. And even if we weren’t already at peak production then the conflict situation will only have been at best postponed.

Secondly, increased demand for fossil fuels is leading to encroachment into, and destruction of, natural habitats such as those in Alaska and Africa. Even offshore oil drilling is now firmly on the agenda in the US (depending on the outcome of the election). The result will be further degradation of forests, wildlife and natural habitats to feed a growing oil addication.

Thirdly, and probably the most obvious yet most overlooked point, fossil fuels are fundamentally a finite resource. It really doesn’t matter whether we are at peak production or not – fossil fuels will ultimately run out and an alternative will be needed. Talk of ‘it won’t be in my lifetime’ or ‘it will be way in the future’ is really just apathy and denial from people who lack vision. Global economies cannot simply be switched from one energy source to another – it takes many years, even generations, to make the transition. The pragmatic approach is to start the shift now from our reliance on fossil fuels to renewable and sustainable energy sources.

Finally, economies which rely on fossil fuels are becoming increasingly vulnerable. Recent events have shown that increases in oil prices can destabilise markets and send inflation soaring. Longer-term stability and economic growth cannot be sustained in economies which are heavily oil-dependent – a point now begrudgingly accepted by politicians.

Of course, if the burning of fossil fuels is a major cause of global warming as most scientists now believe, then the preceding points simply add weight to an already compelling argument!

Dr. Gary Robertshaw

The Green Providers Directory

“I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country,” she said. Bring it on I thought, this is America’s first possible female Vice President. Sarah Palin’s gusto image invoked a warm glow in my soul. Don’t be deceived, this Alaskan coined herself the pitbull with lipstick for a reason.

You may be thinking why you should care about what the British, or for that matter any other country, think who you vote for. Well unfortunately for the rest of us, American policy influences so much of the world. I hate the fact that any country in the world has so much power. But that’s the legacy that World War II has given us.

I hope that those that were brave enough to start the new world in the name of freedom, democracy, trust and liberty can see the light of day, and vote with their heads and their hearts. The world desparately needs leadership styles we haven’t seen since the likes of the Second World War, to tackle issues just as important: Climate Change, Poverty and Energy Crises.

“We must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas.

More than half the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas.” Not my words, but those of former President Harry Truman and call me skeptical but I don’t think he’d like Sarah Palin.

Green isn’t a dirty word - It’s an opportunity. An opportunity to bring the world together, to unite to solve common goals, to change the way we make a living for the better. In many ways, the problems we now face require the embodiment of the American spirit. Which lets face it, is the reason we used to love America in the first place.

You can be a hunter, a fisherman and a member of the National Rifle Association and still be green. Many professional hunters, kill for food in a sustainable manner. Some may say it’s cruel, but at the end of the day if you are a meat eater you can’t deny that this free range method is better than factory farming. Some hunters even seek to conserve the environment to maximise the quality of game, take the British Association of Shooting and Conservation as an example. Unlike economists these people already recognise the importance of all parts of the ecosystem.

Palin couldn’t give a hoot about Green Issues. Check out some of her environmental credentials:

1. Has supported oil drilling in some of the most ecologically sensitive areas in Alaska - The Trail, 29 Aug 2008
2. Sued the ‘Bush Administration over its decision last week to place the animal under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, claiming that climate models predicting the continued loss of sea ice - the main habitat of polar bears - are unreliable.’ - The Times, 23 May 2008
3. Has oppposed protections for salmon from mining contamination. On the Issues, Aug 2008
4. Doesn’t attribute Climate Change to being man made. Time 1 Sep 2008

So forget the consensus from 1000’s of scientists, forget what the Pentagon have said about the threat of climate change, just forget all that climate change mumbo jumbo. Palin knows best, and she’s on her way. (Apparently!)

“I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country,” but she can only really do this if she wakes up to climate change.

Ironically Governor Sarah Palin’s official website for Alaska has just declared that it’s Energy Efficiency month. Call me cynical but I can’t help but wonder if that’s political spin, or a genuine concern.

Why not drop Governor Palin a line and make this thing called democracy work for you?

Perhaps you’d like to tell her how much you know about climate change? Or maybe just throw her a few wise words.

governor@gov.state.ak.us

But whatever you do, just vote in a good pair of good leaders this time. Whoever they are.

Dr. Gary Robertshaw

The Green Providers Directory

Dr Gary Robertshaw has been a valued contributor on our blog for some months now, writing guest posts on a variety of subjects such as his very own ‘The Green Providers Directory‘, climate change and renewable energy. I’m very happy to announce that Gary has officially joined the GGG team I for one will look forward to reading more from him.

Gary’s plans for GGG are to stimluate debate and challenge the views of climate sceptics. Visit Gary’s editor profile page to find out more about him and his views.

A big welcome to you Gary and happy blogging!

Visit our ‘Editors‘ section to find out about each of our Green Guys, what they do and their plans for this blog.

You too can get involved and write for Green Guys Global so see our ‘Contribute‘ page to find out how.

If you’re a business looking for publicity then we have lots of creative ways for you to advertise right here, including Guest Editor opportunties, reviews and videos.

Check out what our Green Girls Global friends are talking about too, straight from the RSS feed on this blog.

We’re recruiting new editors too - get in touch to find out more.

Enjoy the new site!