Interview with Cuger Brant

What's the story behind your latest book Four Hundred ppm?
It sends the same message as 'End Game' and 'In Denial', but from a different perspective. Being a trilogy on the subject of Global Warming and human nature.
Analysis of numerous papers on the projections of global warming offer a stark and unremitting assessment of the climate change challenge facing the global community.
Moreover, the impacts associated with 2◦C have been revised upwards so that 2◦C now more appropriately represents the threshold between dangerous and extremely dangerous climate change. Consequently, with global emissions returning to their earlier levels of growth 2014 represents the tipping point.
Given the view that reductions in emissions are not compatible with economic growth, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are, in effect, are conceding that avoiding dangerous (and even extremely dangerous) climate change is no longer compatible with economic prosperity. But common sense dictated that we knew this all along, as what government would insist on economic suicide?
Our hopeful (though ultimately ineffective) save the planet, climate summits are good for publicity, but as the inevitable procrastination's set in, they have in effect, brought us one step forward and two steps backwards.
Ask yourself; what about of these tidal surges, floods, super hurricanes and arctic vertex changes etc, are they just ‘freak’ weather conditions or a precursor of what is to come?
Well, if you wear rose tinted glasses they are the former, and today’s news is tomorrow’s fish and chip wrapper, however, if you are more scientifically minded, you will know, the inevitable is catching up with us fast!
What do you think of climate change skeptics
You can find examples and analogies (and there are thousands out there) on effects, causes and consequences of climate change, but by now even you should realize they are talking to deaf ears. With all the scientific evidence of eminent minds telling you there is global warming and it is dangerous, those whom believe are convinced, those who do not, will never believe until it hits them square in the jaw. Then those deniers, those disbelievers will finally realize the truth and try to buy their way out of the situation. Then will come the Geo-engineers with their schemes. Ideas what we now see as ludicrous, nutty, far-fetched and outright dangerous will be accepted. It will be akin to taking a panacea from a travelling salesman, hoping out of sheer terror for a cure all. The current cycle of global warming is changing the rhythms of climate that all living things have come to rely upon. How will we cope with the changes we've already set into motion? While we struggle to figure it all out, the face of the Earth as we know it—coasts, forests, farms, and snow capped mountains—hangs in the balance.
The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole, and everywhere in between. Globally, the mercury is already up more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius), and even more in sensitive Polar Regions. And the effects of rising temperatures aren't waiting for some far-flung future. They’re happening right now. Signs are appearing all over, and some of them are surprising. The heat is not only melting glaciers and sea ice; it’s also shifting precipitation patterns and setting animals, insects and disease on the move.
The fact that people around the world have engaged in so little response to climate change is that they believe that everything is fine. Although we all know the facts most do not think climate change is happening; believe that their governments will take care of things; or that international agreements on emissions reductions will be effective. This perspective could be a variation of; climate change skepticism, blind faith in government or blind faith in our ability to produce a technological cure.
Now you can talk of the psychological reasons for this until the cows come home or save yourself time by equating it all to the same thought process (or denial) of our ultimate demise at the end of our personal life span. In truth it is a sense of knowing and not knowing, of having information but not thinking about it.
Ask yourself; how often do you think of death? Ask yourself; do you live your life as a consequence of this, are you keeping yourself in optimal health, do not drink, smoke, eat too much? Well, do not bother to answer because like you, we all feel guilty but we all still have our ‘bad’ habits and to hell with a few more weeks months years of prolonged life. Now take that a stage further (Attitude to Climate change) and you have the answer!
Why is a lack of understanding regarding the basics of climate science a universal constant even though people’s knowledge has increased? Because people like to think it is too far off to worry about in our lifetime (especially politicians) promising the Earth but know they will not be in office for that long.
Why is concern about climate change inversely correlated with the wealth of a nation or a person? They are more informed people, but have less concern or sense of responsibility towards climate change because they realize that real sacrifices have to be made!
The problem is the math in your head because you think 2 degrees is insignificant but the world’s oceans do not and neither does the troposphere.
Neither do those eager beavers in waiting; the millions of tons of methane hydrates patiently biding their time to raise their ugly heads and use 2 degrees as the catalyse for 3 degrees, 4 degrees, 5 degrees and hell on Earth!
Are we reducing greenhouse causing emissions?
NO. By definition, there is a ‘gap’ to overcome on paper to enable a forecast of emission reduction by 2020. But with the forecast of coal based power generation increasing 42 % by 2020 and that does not include de-forest diesel or bio-fuels or natural gas, it is pie in the sky and any ‘fuel shifting’ calculations are immaterial as a consequence.
To me, the’ Emission Gap Report’ is akin to that paper Mister Chamberlain waved at the public after returning from Munich having amicable talks with Herr Hitler and proclaiming; peace in our time!
After reading the 2013 IPCC report on climate change ‘the physical science basis it is pretty obvious that there are only two factors to be implemented: Radically increase nuclear power and radically reduce the birth rate! But that is the cold, logical science which nobody wants to discuss.
The inability, to live at our current numbers, without causing environmental degradation, is the very definition of carrying capacity overshoot and as we have learned from other species, this manifests itself initially with a crash, for humanity, this portends a potential cataclysm exceeding anything in our history.
The planet is struggling to cope with human demands being placed upon it, urbanization is a major source of greenhouse gases when an indirect effect on productivity is considered, but we find that when countries urbanise, the labour supply is more productive, meaning that it contributes more to the growth of GDP. People are working in sectors that contribute more to economic growth, which increases energy demand, which increases emissions.
The Earth is already being stretched far beyond its carrying capacity; however a lower population growth alone would not be enough to prevent dangerous climate change. We need a combination of even lower population growth, reduced per capita consumption and better use of technology.
The third international ‘Adaption’ to climate change conference in due in Brazil should be reading the IPCC 2013 report on climate change and hold a joint summit with COP 20 in Lima this year titled; ‘How to survive a heat-wave like Melbourne; a cold snap like New York; a shower and a tidal surge like England’, why? Because those are the climatic variables and seasons coming our way!
Did we not save the ozone layer?
As far as the ozone layer is concerned we are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
It has taken a bashing because of industry and science and because of this the Montreal Protocol was established. This was to stop us being torched and irradiated by the Sun because of our bad habits of taking the use of chemical compounds and their release into the atmosphere for granted.
Since the Montreal Protocol came into effect, the atmospheric concentrations of the most important chlorofluorocarbons and related chlorinated hydrocarbons have either leveled off or decreased as the use of CFCs were substituted with HCFCs. In a 2001 report, NASA found the ozone thinning over Antarctica had remained the same thickness for the previous three years however in 2003 the ozone hole grew to its second largest size.
The most recent (2006) scientific evaluation of the effects of the Montreal Protocol states, "The Montreal Protocol is working, there is clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric burden of ozone-depleting substances and some early signs of stratospheric ozone recovery" unfortunately, the HCFCs (hydro-chlorofluorocarbons), and HFCs, hydro-fluorocarbons are now thought to contribute to anthropogenic global warming
On a molecule-for-molecule basis, these compounds are up to 10,000 times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. The Montreal Protocol currently calls for a complete phase-out of HCFCs by 2030, but does not place any restriction on HFCs. Since the CFCs themselves are equally powerful greenhouse gases, the mere substitution of HFCs for CFCs does nothing but put another nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming.
What about adapting to climate change?
The most important assumptions on which international negotiations and national policies are founded—that we can stabilize the climate at some level, that overshooting and returning to a lower target is feasible, and that we can accommodate 2 or more degrees of warming by adapting to it—have no foundation in the way the Earth’s climate system actually behaves. When one understands these facts, the state of political debate around the world takes on an air of unreality, as do those Climate summits as they go on year after year, in strange paradox, deciding only to be undecided, resolved only to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.
Rich country policies—including cutting emissions by a few per cent and outsourcing most of the cuts to developing countries; waiting for carbon capture and storage technology to save the coal industry and continuing to pollute at high levels until that happens are so at odds with the scale and urgency of the emission cuts demanded by the science as to be almost laughable.
They reflect a child-like belief that climate change can be averted by ignoring the truth and hoping for the best, a form of wishful thinking whose costs will prove incalculable.
The truth is in front of us all, the wolf is at the door as one in a hundred year flood, drought and fire events occur with unerring consistency around the globe.
Pakistan Australia, mainland Europe Britain, America to name a few victims of these now common ‘phenomena’ , but most forgotten until the next news flash of a climate surge of one kind or another.
Soon there will be a climatic abnormality which none of us can ignore; will it be the Gulf Stream changing course or even diminishing to the point of extinction, a super heat-wave, a super rainstorm causing massive flooding or a super prolonged ice vortex?
All is pure conjecture, but all is reality under the present climatic overload of carbon dioxide is it not, after all, who is the expert under such conditions, climatologists are, after all, just scientists collecting date for computer experts to collate are they not?
And that optimistic breed (the deniers) will continue to see though leaden glasses and imagine all is well while excusing ever increasing climatic disasters as ‘natural phenomena’ which is all part of the planets natural cycle.
In a way they may be right, the planet does have natural cycles, but one of these might well be the extinction of the human race as the planet’s atmosphere gets overloaded by billions of human beings lighting fires in one way or another, after all it has happened to other dominant species in the past.
Is our world becoming overpopulated?
A paradox: Why are scientists bent on increasing the population? With mankind already draining the Earth’s resources, we are hell bent on forever inventing new ways of producing edible matter with genetic engineering like In-vitro food which placates animal right fanatics and ‘greenies’ and genetically modified crops to make money for big business, but just what is the purpose, where will it all end?
Do they, like Britain, go along with the philosophy that more is better, more immigrants equates to more labour, more money for business, more manufacturing etc.?
Does not anybody realize that even if you can grow a ton of wheat on a square metre of land or grow meat in a lab it has consequences and finding ways to feed an ever increasing population is not a good idea, all it will do is increase a problem we are turning our heads away from?
Population growth needs more of our natural resources than just food and it is a problem we must face sooner or later. An ever increasing population will produce more Co2, drain ever receding resources and stifle humanities’ way of life and space.
Now scientists are advocating and extolling the virtues of in-vitro food (Soylent Green) using the help of any fringe movement to promote it and even when finally the human race is so overcrowded that we are standing shoulder to shoulder, what will we be doing?...finding ways to feed people
Fundamentally we need to ask; what is the greater threat to human welfare; the possibility that human efforts to address population growth might be abused; or our on-going failure to act to prevent hundreds of millions, even billions, dying as a result of global ecological collapse, which is no farfetched possibility?
Environmental scientists insist we have overshot the Earth's carrying capacity of three billion and by any definition of logic, if the carrying capacity of the population is 3 billion then 7 billion and rising very fast, the proof is everywhere.
How do you see our future?
Climate change brings us face to face with the reality that we can and we are changing our climate, however it is not just a science issue, it is also a political and philosophical one. This is because the question of how to respond depends on a few things beyond climate science. When scholars of the future write the history of climate change, they will wonder why with all the facts on the table, why was not soaring public interest and ambitious political action inevitable?
They will ponder on why was such a lack of interest and even outright denial more widespread now than they were in the year of the first climate change summit and how did the rational arguments of science fail to win the day? The IPPC report of September 2013 provided plenty of factual ammunition and was inevitably attacked by climate deniers. In response, rebuttals, de-bunkings and counter-arguments poured forth, as fighting denial has become a cottage industry in itself as climate change becomes more and more associated with left-wing ideals, hippies and benefit claimants with nothing better to do.
None of it makes any real difference. This is for the simple reason that the argument is not really about the science; it is about politics and values. The real way to engage the public on climate change is to find ways of making it resonate more effectively with the values that people hold, as it is human values, more than science and technology, which shape public perceptions.
The IPCC's declaration that the world will warm by anywhere between 0.3 and 4.8 °C reflects social and political uncertainties, not scientific ones. Climate scientists study the climate. They just give us the facts and it is us who choose whether to believe or disbelieve, to take action or remain dormant. We can choose to limit warming, or continue with our carbon rise and take our chances in a world that will be around 3 °C + and rising in the very near future and all the unforeseen consequences that it will bring, it's up to us!
The first half of this century we are carrying on business as usual: we rely heavily on fossil fuels. We did not introduce any dramatic changes to our life styles or activities in terms of consumption, travel and the number of children we have. Almost imperceptibly the ecosystem services and its cycles are collapsing as heat waves, droughts, forest fires, torrential downpours and floods become a perpetual cycle of climatic events. These events will be more noticeable and more aggressive as we near 2030.
Towards the middle of the century, the consequences of climate change will became too difficult to ignore. As a result, our governments will slowly begin introducing some unambitious policies to regulate emissions. Ocean acidification will be so severe that the marine animal death toll will be hard to ignore and the Arctic will not have had ice during the summer for several years as the polar bear faces extinction.

A warning for you, no, rather a prophecy: We will begin to experience super flash floods, major tornado’s and storm surges on a regular scale. You can forget those one in a hundred year events and even the deniers will be worried as this century progresses.
What about the plastic carrier bag?
Who are these wonderful ‘eco-educated’ people, these willing prophets for the government’s ‘green’ strategy and its tenets, to bring death and destruction, by way of elimination to the evil plastic shopping bag, and thus save the planet?
Yes that most reviled and objectionable polluter, the very antithesis of a clean atmosphere, the plastic carrier bag! If the government is so adamant that the plastic carrier bag is the be-all and end-all of our worries, what about the plastic bottle, the plastic chair, the plastic utensils, crockery, cloths, fabrics, fleeces, tights, toys, televisions, game consoles, fizzy drink bottles etc, etc…
Let’s look at the facts of that lightweight, durable, tensile, strong, low cost, water- and chemical-resistant innovation of the plastic carrier bag. It takes less energy, fewer chemical requirements in manufacture and fewer atmosphere emissions. It can be re-used for numerous other purposes.
It has actually less net environmental effect than a manufactured paper bag. It requires less energy to produce, transport or recycle. Paper in today's landfills does not degrade or break down at a substantially faster rate than plastic does. In fact, nothing completely degrades in modern landfills owing to the lack of water, light, oxygen, and other important elements that are necessary for the degradation process to be completed. The only issue is quite simply ‘education’ in re-using and disposing of plastic carrier bags properly.
The time has come; when you are in a supermarket and the cashier looks at you with a contemptuous glance as you ask for a plastic carrier bag to put your goods in. She will inform you that it is bad for the marine environment and the planet. She will tell you it takes a thousand years for your evil carrier bag to decompose in a landfill site (she is the expert, as she read this fact on her iPad somewhere or has been told what to think. Be calm, admire her plastic glasses, uniform, coat, chair and the plastic checkout. Ask her to be gentle of the plastic egg carton, milk carton, fizzy drinks bottle, bleach bottle washing up liquid bottle etc., all plastic that she is putting in your wicked plastic carrier bag.
You could ask...Does all the other plastic have a halve life of a week then? Or you could confuse her and say that the issue of the plastic carrier bag is utterly irrelevant in combating climate change as we have now reached four hundred ppm of C02 in the atmosphere and rising, that the only real resource we had in combating climate change was squandered at all those ‘Summits’ of no purpose and left us no ‘time’ at all!
Do you believe in your books?
This is what I believe on the subject of climate change: When any government focuses on economic growth they are confronted with policies on emissions reduction. But it is inevitable that economic growth that will win out every time, it has to for any industrial or economic growth plan to work.
Last year, global coal use surged by 2 million barrels of oil equivalent per day; that increase in coal use, more than any other factor, is what is driving the rise in carbon dioxide emissions In any reality bio-fuels, wind-farms, solar-panels are dubious ‘sustainable’ alternative pipe dreams. They are breadcrumbs thrown down by governments to placate the ‘greenie’ element. Climate scientists warn about carbon dioxide emissions and their effect on the atmosphere and global temperatures, but politicians cannot ignore the basic physics and math of the world’s appetite for energy. If policy makers are committed to reducing global carbon dioxide emissions, then they will have to get serious about promoting sources of electricity production that can compete with coal on price. Those sources must used all over the world now, and only these sources if we are serious about reducing carbon emissions.
Fortunately, we already have those energy sources; they are, and in reality, can only be; natural gas and nuclear.
Will climate change start with the 'tipping point' we hear about?
The 'tipping point' you mention has passed like a ship in the night, silently unnoticed. We are now in transition.
As greenhouse emissions rise steadily over the last two decades, it has been noted uncannily that temperatures have not been rising as fast as expected. Until now, climate scientists have wondered where all the excess heat was and is, going. It is now evident that the oceans have been absorbing this excess heat deep down within the depths the seas of the world. The capacity to absorb this heat, however is not infinite.
Within the next ten to fifteen years this vast ‘storage radiator’ in the depths of the earth’s oceans will begin to release this heat. It is now realised that there is, and always was, a thirty year cycle of heat exchange where the oceans absorbed, stored then released this heat. Now the global temperature plateau is higher as the atmosphere globally increases in temperature as more and more greenhouse gasses are emitted into our atmosphere. That heat, when released, will not dissipate into the atmosphere as it did in the past, it will just add and increase the global atmospheric temperatures overall.
The question is; is this going to be the trigger for the age of methane hydrates and the beginning of runaway global warming? Or will it be the next cycle of even higher temperatures of atmospheric heat? Well we have only fifteen years at most before we find out and the second phase of the transition.
There is no getting away from the logic. We are heading for a catastrophe of such magnitude that the very existence of the human race is in the balance!
Well, if you are easily frightened, stop reading from this point on. Firstly, climate modelling forecasts will become irrelevant (more so than they already are) At some point warming will become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect (rising temperatures will release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water) this in turn will hold more gasses, causing the oceans to overheat thus going acidic and losing the ability to act as a carbon sink. As an upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, floods and strong tropical storms will increase in both frequency and severity and unpredictability due to abnormal fluctuations of the Jet Stream because of a warming arctic and the Arctic will have a completely ice-free summer in the very near future and big business will be arguing over mineral/oil rights in the region. While they are arguing, sea level will rise will flood many coastal areas including cities causing a hundred million people to become ‘climate change refugees’ who will start migrating. There will be large-scale food and water shortages having catastrophic effects on wildlife as well as humans. Then in all probability the ocean's circulation system, will be permanently altered causing unforeseen changes. The average temperatures (which have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 150 years) will vastly increase. Climate change deniers and politicians will become irrelevant as society begins to fragment and fall apart.
All this in your and your children’s lifetime!
In your view, can severe climate change be averted?
As far as future climatic events both local and international are concerned it is no longer tenable to say that catastrophic damages are highly unlikely. Positive feedback effects are still uncertain, but if anything the trends in climate science are is becoming more worrisome, not less:

1. Global mean temperature rise.

2. Days of unusually high or low temperatures.

3. Extreme rainfall events.

4. Duration of drought events.

5. Global mean sea level.

6. Ocean acidity.

7. Hurricanes of a category 3, 4, or 5 level.

If these seven climate outcomes prove to be severe, as climate scientists predict, the stance of ignorant politicians knee jerk reactions(as i said in my books) is patently obvious and the MP for Somerset’s quote: “This never flooded to this level ever in living memory, and we’ve got people who have been here for a long time. If you look back into the mists of time you don’t have this.” Is the indication of future reactions to public demand for immediate action in way of salvation for the voters by those 'in charge' will be not only be irrelevant but prove disastrous. The psyche and pressure of politics is far, far away from rational thinking in such crisis, and 'weathering the storm' as proved in such minor events is not an option for the; I want, I need, public, as it was in those stoic past days of character and grit have been watered down by the nanny state. There will be a hard teacher arriving in the classroom of life and the lessons will be strict, long and hard.
Where do you get your information
Anywhere and everywhere online: Special mention to: 1 Copenhagen Accord. 2009 FCCC/CP/2009/L.7. Copenhagen, Denmark: United Nations. Climate Change Conference. 2 Anderson, K. & Bows, A. 2008 Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000. Emission trends. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 366, 3863–3882. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0138) 3 Macintosh, A. 2010 Keeping warming within the 2◦C limit after Copenhagen. Energy Policy. 38, 2964–2975. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.034) 4 Shell.5 IEA. 2009 World energy outlook. Paris, France: International Energy Agency. 6 Stern, N. 2006 Stern review on the economics of climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge.University Press. 7 Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., Raper, S. C. B., Frieler, K., Knutti, R., Frame, D. J. & Allen, M. R. 2009 Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2◦C. Nature 458, 1158–1162. (doi:10.1038/nature08017. 8 CCC. 2008 Building a low-carbon economy—the UK’s contribution to tackling climate change. Norwich, UK: The Stationery Office. 9 Hulme, M., Neufeldt, H., Colyer, H. & Ritchie, A. 2009 Adaptation and mitigation strategies; supporting European climate policy. Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.

10 Clarke, L., Edmonds, J., Krey, V., Richels, R., Rose, S. & Tavoni, M. 2009 International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Econ. 31, S64–S81.(doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2009.10.01311 Anderson, K. L., Mander, S. L., Bows, A., Shackley, S., Agnolucci, P. & Ekins, P. 2008 The Tyndall decarbonisation scenarios—part II: scenarios for a 60% CO2 reduction in the UKEnergy Policy 36, 3764–3773. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.002) 12 Wang, T. & Watson, J. 2008 Carbon emission scenarios for China to 2100. Tyndall Centre

working paper 121 13 Sukla, P. R., Dhar, S. & Mahapatra, D. 2008 Low-carbon society scenarios for India. Climate Policy 8, S156–S176.

14 Clarke, L., Edmonds, J., Jacoby, H., Pitcher, H., Reilly, J. & Richels, R. 2007 Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Washington, DC: US Department of Energy. 15 European Commission. 2007 Limiting global climate change to 2 degrees Celsius: the way ahead for 2020 and beyond. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission 16 Anderson, K., Starkey, R. & Bows, A. 2009 Defining dangerous climate change—a call for consistency. Tyndall Centre briefing note 40 17 DECC. 2009 The UK low carbon transition plan: national strategy for climate and energy. London, UK: Department of Energy and Climate Change 18 Miliband, D. & Miliband, E. 2009 Copenhagen: in the balance press briefing. London, UK: Foreign Office and Department for Energy and Climate Change. 19 Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. M, Tignor, M. & Millier, H. L. (eds) 2007 Contribution of working group 1 to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 20 Smith, J. B. et al. 2009 Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘reasons for concern’. Proc. Natl Acad Sci. USA 106, 4133–4137. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0812355106 21 Mann, M. E. 2009 Defining dangerous anthropogenic interference. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 4065–4066. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0901303106 22 New, M., Liverman, D. & Anderson, K. 2009 Mind the gap. Nature 912, 143–144. (doi:10.1038/climate.2009.126) 23 Mander, S. L., Bows, A., Anderson, K. L., Shackley, S., Agnolucci, P. & Ekins, P. 2008 TheTyndall; decarbonisation scenarios—part I: development of a backcasting methodology with stakeholder participation. Energy Policy 36, 3754–3763. (doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.003) 24 Bows, A., Mander, S., Starkey, R., Bleda, M. & Anderson, K. 2006 Living within a carbon budget. Manchester, UK: Tyndall Centre. 25 Allen, M. R., Frame, D. J., Huntingford, C., Jones, C. D., Lowe, J. A., Meinshausen, M. & Meinshausen, N. 2009 Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458, 1163–1166. (doi:10.1038/nature08019) 26 Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A. & Zickfeld, K. 2009 The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459, 829–832. (doi:10.1038/nature08047) 27 Garnaut, R. 2008 The Garnaut climate change review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress 28 PRIMAP. 2010 The PRIMAP model. Potsdam, UK: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research 29 IPCC, Pachauri, R. K. & Reisenger, A. (eds) 2007 Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 30 Boden, T., Marland, G. & Andres, R. 2009 Global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 1751–2006. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 31 The MET office. ALL OBTAINED ONLINE.
What do you think of sustainable energy?
Sustainability; conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources: OED.

Sustainability is a nice word but it is meaningless, it is a myth, a weasel word invented to distract us from reality. It is just green-wash. It was firstly invented by the inhabitants of Easter island (well it might as well has been) and while the last tree was being cut down the deniers finally woke up to reality.
Most sustainability science focuses on efforts to improve standards of living and reduce environmental impacts at local to regional scales. These efforts will ultimately and inevitably fail because the global system is unsustainable. Modern humans have already exceeded global limits on population and socioeconomic development, because essential resources are being consumed at unsustainable rates. The bottom line is that the growing human population and economy are being fed by unsustainable use of finite resources.
The idea that any community can be sustainable relies on the principle that we don't consume what we can't replace. Unless we go back to living in wooden houses, all other forms of dwellings are innately unsustainable. Sustainable development assumes that such initiatives do little or no harm to local ecosystems. But the replacement or renewal of natural resources is impossible.
Most people know almost nothing about the mechanics of sustainability, the architects, planners and politicians expounding on the virtues of sustainability know even less. It's the biggest problem facing the world today and it isn't being talked about is if we care if anything will be left for the next generation.
Every manufactured thing today requires that at some point in the manufacturing process that oil or a derivative of oil must be used in the process. Your clothes, furniture, cars, packaging, machinery - you name it, it's all unsustainable even if it is only the ink on the label.
All that is sustainable is natural products such as wool, cotton, silk, wood, leather and so on. But not if they are harvested, manufactured or delivered by anything beyond a horse and horse or ox drawn implements or conveyances, get my drift?
Anything else is ultimately draining irreplaceable resources. Using the word ‘sustainable’ as we do fools people into thinking we are doing the right thing. Eventually in the future if there is one, our descendants will start to run out of materials, options and necessities such as food. At that point civilization will begin to crumble as resources go off line one after the other. That threat has never existed before and the fact that it does speaks to how irresponsibly we are consuming resources. This is part of the future we are leaving the children to face who are being born from now on.
Published 2014-08-25.
Smashwords Interviews are created by the profiled author, publisher or reader.

Books by This Author

Four Hundred
By
Series: The Kyoto procrastination, Book 3. Price: $1.99 USD. Words: 20,290. Language: English. Published: August 6, 2013. Category: Fiction » Science fiction » Apocalyptic
In writing this book I have decided to approach Global Warming in reverse, from back to front. I am looking at it from the future. If nothing else it is food for thought, but if my ‘reverse psychology’ approach has an effect on you, then do something about it! If, it proves truthful then our children will despise us!
Of Mirth and Men
By
Price: $0.99 USD. Words: 2,950. Language: English. Published: December 8, 2011. Category: Fiction » Science fiction » General
An examination of time travel. Have you ever wondered if time travel is a possibility? Have you ever pondered if a time traveling device could possibly be made or asked yourself; has one already been built? If you have; the answer these questions are in my little treatise on time travel.
The Good Shepherd
By
Price: $0.99 USD. Words: 2,260. Language: English. Published: November 21, 2011. Category: Nonfiction » Religion and Spirituality » Theology
A true ghost story; believe it or not. Do you ever smell an odour which moves around the room from one particular spot to another? Have you ever seen a doorknob rattle knowing there is no one on the other side? Have you ever walked down a road and seen someone standing there whom no one else can see?
Fecundity
By
Price: $0.99 USD. Words: 16,990. Language: English. Published: November 19, 2011. Category: Fiction » Science fiction » General
It had to happen sooner or later; with Man playing God, continuously interfering with nature and the natural order of life. None neither heeded nor cared for the consequences. Too late the Geneticists realised that treating natural selection with contempt or something to experiment with would have unforeseen ramifications. A mistake was made, a terrible, incalculable mistake.
Electro Magnetic Pulse
By
Price: $1.99 USD. Words: 13,550. Language: English. Published: November 3, 2011. Category: Fiction » Science fiction » High tech
What is an EMP? How is it is capable of putting you and the society you live in, back into the stone-age? Just how much do you love your mobiles, your Blackberry’s and other such electronic comforts? Ask yourself; just how naked, vulnerable or lost would you feel without them? What would you do if they all switched off at the same time: never switch to on again?
In Denial
By
Series: The Kyoto procrastination, Book 2. Price: $2.99 USD. Words: 29,740. Language: English. Published: May 31, 2011. Category: Nonfiction » Science and Nature » Environment
Why are we in denial when predictions of climate change from such eminent bodies as the IPPC to academic foundations studying this anthropogenic phenomenon predict sea level rise enough to engulf tens of thousands of square miles of coastline world-wide, super hurricanes and super storms, droughts and crop failures? Are not Katrina and the ‘Super Storm’ Sandy at least pricking your conscience?
Clone
By
Price: $1.99 USD. Words: 14,040. Language: English. Published: May 26, 2011. Category: Fiction » Science fiction » High tech
What is our purpose and where is it supposed to lead? Will our logic lead us to that destiny or will our DNA dictate our final destination? A wise soul contemplates, ponders and philosophises on this thought but most leave that divine question and answer to the Almighty! Re-gens don’t! They know their purpose, and their logic is most definitely not in their DNA. They have no DNA!
As Simple As... A B C
By
Series: The Tunbridge Wells trilogy, Book 3. Price: $1.99 USD. Words: 16,600. Language: English. Published: January 16, 2011. Category: Fiction » Science fiction » General
This is a book about inner fear, everyone’s inner fear, a scenario which every nation world- wide dreads. It is a book about inevitability.
Melodie's Secret Book of the Fey, Charms and Spells
By
Price: $1.99 USD. Words: 18,030. Language: English. Published: January 15, 2011. Category: Fiction » Children’s books » Concepts / Date & Time
A little book of charms, potions, Goodness and light. Of fairies, magic and spells, with a pinch of wisdom. A random miscellany of fairy facts, universal laws, delights, spells and curatives for you to practice at home. A gentle guide to magic for; goodness, love and positive feeling for yourself and others, to help you in life.
A Christmas Carol
By
Series: The Tunbridge Wells trilogy, Book 2. Price: $0.99 USD. Words: 8,820. Language: English. Published: July 26, 2010. Category: Nonfiction » Inspiration » Personal inspiration
To me, the original story by Charles Dickens ‘A Christmas Carol’ encapsulates a ghost story, a sci-fi story and a moral. It ‘hits a chord' with me, and if you have a heart, most likely with you too. With very great respect and admiration to Mr Dickens, I had this inner need to 'rewrite' it, update it, as to let ‘modern’ day poor souls digest the moral and spirituality of the prose.
Radiological Dispersal Device
By
Series: The Tunbridge Wells trilogy, Book 1. Price: $0.99 USD. Words: 17,470. Language: English. Published: May 2, 2010. Category: Nonfiction » Politics and Current Affairs » World politics
Just how imminent is an attack by a Dirty Bomb? As our society grows in technology, it gets more fragile, more sensitive. A whisper of a fuel crisis would create a panic stricken queue at a gas station. A rumour of a food shortage would lead to panic buying at a food store. What would happen if an RDD went off in the centre of your city, how would you react, would you survive?
End Game
By
Series: The Kyoto procrastination, Book 1. Price: $2.99 USD. Words: 37,730. Language: English. Published: April 16, 2010. Category: Nonfiction » Inspiration » Personal inspiration
That fragile thing, the very air we breathe, is taken for granted, treated with contempt. That very delicate, well-balanced thing that stops you and me freezing to death, roasting to death or even choking to death, is being mercilessly polluted. It is only a matter of time before that well-balanced, gaseous, circulatory system is thrown out of sync and collapses.
Something Wicked This Way Comes...
By
Price: $2.99 USD. Words: 58,840. Language: English. Published: April 9, 2010. Category: Fiction » Science fiction » High tech
These are a set of ‘WHAT IF?’ stories. I have written them to stretch your imagination and your awareness. I hope they give you pleasure, food for thought and change your perception about you, your world, and your safe little place in it. I hope to get your inquisitive mind working and in doing do, stopping that inquisitive mind dismissing a concept, an idea, and putting down an unread book.