Cool Earth

A change of pace, but bear with me, this is important.

As climate change rapidly bears down upon us, please give a few moments to adding your support to Cool Earth.

The only effective option for controlling carbon emissions and halting climate change is by tackling tropical deforestation. Cool Earth is a unique organisation that works with the world’s biggest names in business and the world’s biggest eco-resources to arrest global warming. With cross-party support, unrivalled levels of corporate funding and the full co-operation from local communities, Cool Earth is addressing climate change on a global scale.

I don’t know about you, but my TV is switched off standby, my phone charger unplugged, my lightbulbs switched to low energy, my loft insulated and my food (mostly) locally produced, so it comes as a hell of a relief to know that as the weather gets scarier and the news gets worse there is something more, and more effective we can do. There is much more about the Cool Earth idea here and here; please read the articles and consider lending your support (they just need names, not money at this stage) to the campaign. The only good thing about climate change is that it is still, just, in our hands. Let’s not lose that too.
Thanks.

2 thoughts on “Cool Earth

  1. Tim,

    Now that I’ve finally got round to reading the articles and Cool Earth’s proposal I find myself in something of a quandary. On the one hand, I’m delighted to discover a new approach to tackling the problem of global warming, and (on the same hand) I’m pleasantly surprised that someone has managed to invent a proposal that tackles the problem from an economic perspective, which is apparently the only way of impelling anyone to do anything in the modern world. But, on the other hand, I find the suggestion that we have the power to arrest carbon emission – thereby solving the problem of global warming – rather worrying.

    Cool Earth’s argument is quite powerful, mostly because their statistics suggest that deforestation is at present at least as environmentally destructive as mankind’s exploitation of the earth’s energy reserves. However, so far as I’m able to understand it – if we’re able to stop further deforestation we’ll only be stalling the rise in carbon emissions for about 50 years – which isn’t at all the same thing as solving the long-term problem. It seems to me that exponential population growth and the consequential draining of the earth’s stored energy resources by the developed world will continue to be of increasing importance unless we are somehow able to stabilise energy requirements.

    I don’t want to be too negative about what seems on the face of it to be a magnificent step in the right direction [at least they’re tackling the problem] but I’m afraid of Cool Earth’s proposal becoming a comforting palliative to the overwhelming destructiveness of global commercialisation.

  2. Guthry – I agree. I don’t think Cool Earth is the one-stop solution to global warming (I don’t think anything is). But it is an apparently powerful contribution to an overall solution – and even buying us 50 years isn’t to be sneezed at when most analyses don’t give us anything like as long as that to find a solution. I guess the two reasons it most appeals to me as an idea is that it allows even those of us who try to be environmentally conscious in our energy use to do still more without having to make major lifestyle sacrifices; and it is tied to an economic model which, as you rightly point out (and Lord Stern agrees) is the best way to ensure that something gets done.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s