Mike Hirn asked:


An Ice Age brought on by global warming was the scenario depicted in the movie THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. While the science on which the movie based has been called into question, there may be some merit in the theory that global warming could cause an Ice Age.

Why is Europe’s climate comparitively milder than other places at the same latitude? Alaska and Greenland, both the same distance to the North Pole as Europe, are covered with ice and permafrost while most of Europe is not.

The ocean currents called the Gulf Stream bring warm waters up to Europe from the Caribbean. This water brings warmth to the countries in its path. Cooler water from Europe feeds back into the loop and causes the water to flow back to the Caribbean in a continuous cycle.

The Gulf Stream has been significantly weakened in every major cooling event, including the last great Ice Age. In the past this weakening has been brought on by natural events. In current times, global warming brought on by human activities could be the cause of slowing or even stopping the Gulf Stream. If this were to happen, the cold waters would stay in the area of Europe and the Northeastern US and could mean an Ice Age for those regions.

If an Ice Age occurs, it will likely be due to the melting of polar ice. This will dump large quantities of cold, fresh water into the ocean. It would disrupt the Gulf Stream and cause the cooling of many areas that now have milder climates. The return flow of cold water from Greenland, which goes back to the Caribbean, has already showed a weakening over the last 50 years. There has been a twenty percent decline in the amount of current flowing in this direction. It stands to reason that the warm waters returning from the Caribbean have also decreased in volume. The change would not be gradual. This is a phenomenon that takes place rather quickly. Perhaps it does not happen as fast as depicted in THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. However, it could happen within a few short years.

A slowing or stoppage of the Gulf Stream would affect the entire earth. Observations have been made of current data and historical information gleaned by studying the ocean and the lands around it. With all the information at hand, it appears that it is indeed possible that global warming could bring about a modern Ice Age.

Mikhail Utin asked:


One and a half hours is my usual commute time to my current work place. It takes forty-five miles to get there. During winter storm it takes much, much longer… I certainly have enough time to listen to the Boston Public Radio (WBUR station), and my thoughts usually start with “WHY are we all sitting here?”, slowly moving, wasting fuel, and finally contributing our share to the Global Warming… Good Morning (or Good Night) America on Wheels!

WBUR is not for the weak of heart. Domestic topics range from how big is a golden parachute for a CEO who failed to manage a bank or corporation (usually an eight digit number), to sliding dollar and looming recession … All symptoms, all the information that could drive us crazy and push us out of our driver seats… Yet, I listen to my favorite radio station with great pride that we are still driving and going to our jobs to keep America moving …

Our destination is clearly articulated. The verdict for all of us is “guilty”; we are guilty of not spending enough or not saving enough and, it seems as if no matter what we do “We are doomed!”. But my Russian common sense forged in trenches of communism and hardened by capitalism is refusing to give up. There is a proverb from my old days “Saving life of a drowning man is the business of that drowning man!” Since I cannot separate myself from the rest of us sliding in to recession, I find myself thinking how to stop that. I have enough time; say a couple of weeks to find a solution. Otherwise, this contract with the bank will be the last of what I could get from this economy. Well, unemployment is still guaranteed, but it will not cover all my recent acquisitions and multiplying loans (Note: nobody can blame me for not spending enough to keep our economy running; I am a patriot after all!).

I am a deeply technical person. I am thinking in technical terms, and always trying to crunch through the numbers. How many of us are commuting every day? In fact, an overwhelming majority of people between 20 and 60 years old do, roughly a half of US population of 300 million. The analysis [1] gives us a number of 220 million. What is the average commute? It is approximately 16 miles one way. Expecting 20 miles per gallon, we consume about 300 million gallons of gasoline for the nation’s one working day commute. It takes up nearly 75% of the total US gasoline consumption according to at least two sources [2, 3]. These numbers represent quite rough estimate, and relate to gasoline only (there are also kerosene and diesel fuels), but we do not need exact numbers. It answers the question of who consumes most of the gasoline. We do! And we do that by commuting. Subsequently, commuting is a source of increasing fuel demand and pricing, air pollution, traffic creation, cause of political instabilities and intrigues around the world, etc. This list can go on and on for quite some time.

So what if we stay at home and work remotely (telecommute)… First question is how many people are doing that, and for how many days per week? Google search for “telecommuting in US 2006″ brings up pretty diverse information. The estimate ranges from 12 millions full time in 2006 (5.4% of working population) to more realistic 2% full time and 9% part time [5]. I observe the latter number of 2% in the bank department that I’m working for.

Well, we are not making much progress in telecommuting field. Good old UK was doing much better back in 2002 with telecommuting rate of 7.4% [6]. Another question is what is the percentage of workers who can telecommute without negatively impacting the business process? I did not try Google to find an answer to such a sophisticated question. What I see from my personal experience of IT professional, at least 50% of office work can be done at home. At my consulting job, I see some of my colleagues once in two weeks, if I walk by. Otherwise, I do my work glued to my computer monitor, exchanging information via email and internal chat system. We do remote conferencing and project management. I do it in the same way as many of you do every day.

I would like to set the following goal “Everybody who can stay at home and do his or her job remotely should do that!” As we transition more and more toward “service” economy, we have a chance to eventually move everybody out of the main office, or at least 90% of us sitting in a computerized cage and laying golden eggs by processing information.

Both government and business establishment generally agree that telecommuting is a good thing. That is all. The mutual agreement is that a good thing is good. Nothing more, nothing less. There hasn’t been a real concerted push toward telecommuting. Not even close.

Here is my proposal on how to move things forward. As all of my proposals, it is real, and it is doable. First of all, we need a technology to support telecommuting. The most of it is already in place. Internet infrastructure (many thanks to Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore) is available across most of the US. Computers are really inexpensive (about $600 for a telecommuting-ready system). There is IPSec VPN, and even better SSL VPN to connect to the main office. We might need an integrated solution out-of-the-box, which would be easy to install as in “VPN plug-and-play”. However, I would like to stress that we already have all the necessary ingredients to get started.

Secondary, we need to encourage all the US businesses to implement telecommuting as a solution as soon as possible. Here is the trick. I am proposing for US Congress to pass a legislation requiring all employers to pay for their employees commuting fuel expenses. That is it – an average of $1,200 per employee per year. I name it “Commuter Reimbursement” (CR).

Logically, why should WE pay for our commute in the first place? Commute is often not an important consideration when businesses choose their location. There is neither government nor business supported program for decreasing commute, thus saving OUR money. They simply do not have a strong incentive to care. We, commuters, do, and Global Warming and air pollution is a big concern as well.

I am not buying an argument that $1,200 will be an unbearable burden to US businesses. The credit is on the order of annual salary raise. Median income per US household member [7] is about $27,000, thus CR represents only 4.4% of it. After all, according to David C. Johnston “Free Lunch” [8], US corporate management owes us the salary rise since mid 70s, so please, be kind and give it us once in 30 years, thus indicating your participation in our mutual struggle with the rising fuel cost and inflation, Global Warming, pollution, you name it.

There is a good indication that CR will work. We all know how business management likes to save pennies (moving the bounty to golden parachutes), this price tag will work very well to encourage progress; I mean moving to real telecommuting with the goal of getting 30% or more of the US workforce working remotely.

How do we implement CR? I can think of several ways, but let’s leave it to the US Congress to figure it out. I got an idea, and they need to do their share as well. Hopefully, they will not invent a way to make it completely useless, so we don’t end up paying our employers for our commute!

How long would it take to implement? Considering that almost everybody is winning (see below), I would optimistically expect CR Law passing within one year. Thus, at the end of the second year we can expect a moderate reduction in commuting at 30%, with the year average of 15%. The price for the oil will drop possibly returning to $30 per barrel. The gasoline price will return gradually to $1.50 per a gallon (average for this year of $2,25). Thus, average CR for the second year will be around $750. For the third year we can expect it dropping even more to approximately $400, given that number of commuters stays the same. However, we should expect it to be slowly decreasing. As you see here, there is market self-regulation – initial CR of $1,200 should be dropping, and CR and the price of the telecommuting installation will regulate the number of telecommuters. This is a normal market regulation when we have enough resources, not the extreme we have now when any speculation fuels the market and drives price up continuously.

Let’s see who will be the winners. Of course, we, commuters, will win as well as all the people in the US and around the world. Businesses will make CR money back very soon (decreasing office leasing expenses), or significantly decrease the payment. I would expect at least 30% reduction in traffic (no traffic jams any more), and 30% less total US consumption of gasoline. That would be out real contribution to solving the Global Warming problem.

All the US population will win saving money, and our economy will bloom again.

US global interests will also be a big winner. Hugo Chaves (small but continuing headache) will lose as Venezuela cannot survive with less than $60 per a barrel, and outgoing Russia’s President Mr. Putin will lose a lot of his power as well. Putin has been busy helping Russia flex muscles against the West in the last few years, mostly by leveraging increasing Russia’s oil revenues. No more this sly Russian former spy and dictator will have funds to develop new missiles and nuclear submarines. Russia economic success of last few years had been squarely based on high oil price. If it drops, Russia’s government ambitions of Great Resurrected Russia will deflate as quickly as they did during USSR collapse.

Who else will loose? Of course, oil companies which were too slow to embrace alternative energy. Global Islamic terrorist network will suffer money shortage, as Middle East tycoons loose a substantial part of oil revenues. Somehow, I don’t think our nation will shed too many tears for them.

Does US Government have enough guts to move forward with my telecommuting incentive plan (i.e. legislating a $1,200 “Commute Reimbursement” plan)? Possibly not, if we are just talking about out commute problems and Global Warming; but it might change to “yes” considering that this plan can resolve its political problems as well.

Some people would say that the proposed solution is a temporarily one. Yes, but we need it now, we need to start cutting out fuel consumption now, otherwise WBUR and all the economy doomsday experts are going to say “See, we told you, the recession is coming…And you did nothing to stop it…”.

Self-advertising: Does my idea intrigue you? I have a few more. Interested parties, please feel free to contact me
3″ title=”http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2007/2007-10-01-097.asp

3″ target=”_blank”>www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2007/2007-10-01-097.asp

3. How much gasoline does the United States consume in one year? CNNMoney.com.

Hamish Fraser asked:


Today, ‘prevent global warming’ seems to be the necessity of the day. It is high time we noticed effects of industrialization on the planet. It is no more difficult to notice that global warming has been changing climate of the world. Large ice masses that initially adorned both the north and south poles are melting as a very fast speed. This shows warming is affecting us since the water levels will increase drastically. Melting of ice masses will also mean changing in climatic conditions all around the world. Effects of which will be difficult for humans and animals alike.

You can prevent global warming by uniting against it. It does not matter what your place of residence may be; however, you can contribute towards reforestation and help reduce green house gases and carbon dioxide considerably. You can also help in cooling the earth down substantially. Global warming is also the result of using fossil fuels like petrol, diesel, CNG, etc. with industrialization there has been growth in number of car owners, this has made global warming faster.

You can easily prevent global warming, you should use all those facilities provided to you consciously. A little saving of water, fuel, electricity, etc per person can make a lot of difference to our planet.

In order to prevent global warming there are several organizations which are working actively so they can increase forests around the world. Increasing forests is a good and a constructive alternative to solving this problem of global warming. It is true that rain forests and tropical forests around the world are being cut down to fulfill demand for wood and paper, this is causing deforestation. A simple solution to this problem is replanting the trees that have been cut off and letting these grow back again naturally. These lush green trees in the tropical rain forests have worked as lungs for all the world for ages. Reduction in these forests will accelerate the disaster brought in by global warming.

Several governments around the world are taking steps and implementing laws that will help curb production of green house gases and make the world a better place for our children. However, these laws will take time in being implemented. Till the time, these actually come into being, all world’s population can contribute a little more by planting trees around them and prevent global warming.

You will find concerns about global warming being echoed online too. In fact several organizations have opened their websites so that they can spread awareness about the current situation amongst general public. These organizations will also educate you about how a small contribution from you will make a ton of difference in world’s ecological climate.

You can contribute to this cause to as low as $10 just once, and a chunk of deforested land will be taken for reforestation so all its natural habitat can be restored. Such organizations generally specify the place where they are being carrying out reforestation so you can contribute and prevent global warming.

Greg Lucas asked:


Everyday people worry, some worry about how to pay their bills and others may worry about losing their job, these are very common fears that have been around for centuries and will probably continue to plague mankind for many more, but over the past few decades the number of things people worry about has been rising at a dramatic rate and is showing no signs of slowing down.

Worrying can also affect your health in many ways by upsetting your sleep schedule or eating habits, worrying can also cause some people to abuse alcohol or start taking drugs.

Some things we worry about we can actually have an effect on such as paying our bills, for example if you worry about being able to pay your bills then you might try to get a second job or cut back on your spending so you would then be able to pay off the bills, but many things people worry about are beyond an individuals control, things like Terrorism, Nuclear Proliferation, and Global Warming.

Worrying about things like Global Warming accomplish nothing positive, in fact at this point we have not even proved that Global Warming is real, let alone that we as humans caused it or can affect it either way so why worry about it.

One very effective way to stop worrying about things beyond your control is to develop a fun list, a fun list is nothing more then things you really like to do, things that you can do to keep yourself busy whenever you start to worry about things like Global Warming.

Here is an example of a fun list:

1. Walk your dog.

2. Flirt with someone you have a secret crush on.

3. Play free arcade games.

4. Go fishing.

5. Read a book.

7. Ride a bicycle.

8. Surf the net.

9. Exercise.

10. Clean your house.

Whenever you catch yourself worrying about things beyond your control you should think of your list and pick one and start doing it right away and keep doing it until your forget all about whatever you were worrying about, at first you may have to do this many times a day but it should become less and less frequent as time goes on and before you know it you will stop worrying about things beyond your control and you will have a much better attitude and hopefully a healthier and happier life.

So remember the next time you start to worry about something out of your control like Global Warming or Nuclear Proliferation to stop and take a deep breath and then do something on your list right away like play some free arcade games and enjoy yourself instead of worrying. If you do this you will live a happier and healthier life.

Enviro Saver asked:


A common mistake made by people who have a limited understanding about global warming will often loosely refer to the problem as either climate change or global warming. While the two have much to do with each other, they are two separate things that are related to the same cause, which is carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by human activity. Global warming is referring to the rise in the average global temperature. It is this rise in temperature that causes the climate changes being seen around the world.

It may seem like it isn’t a big deal, but this really is something people should be concerned about. Global warming has been proven to be greatly caused by the greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide that people are putting into the air through their daily activities. These emissions are caused by cars, airplanes, factories, businesses, or anything else that burns fossil fuels. While there are other greenhouse gases put into the air, carbon is what makes up the largest contributor from human activities. Many don’t realize that global warming affects everyone, perhaps not in the most obvious way every day, but it does affect everyone. Global warming is what is causing the earth to warm, which, as mentioned before, causes the major climate changes that are being seen. What are some of these major climate changes and what does this have to do with people? Floods, severe hurricanes, odd weather patterns such as abnormally cold or warm winters; all of these are products of global warming.

Food and resources come from the natural world and if global warming causes severe drought (which it is in many places around the world), the crop yield will be much lower and money is lost. Not to mention that it’s less food available to people. Global warming is also what is warming the polar ice caps and drying up other fresh water resources. Life needs fresh water and without it, life tends to die.

It is something that people can change if they can take responsibility over it. It is possible to slow and stop the global warming, making the world a healthier place with the necessary resources available. It means that the burning of fossil fuels has to stop. Using energy sources that don’t require the burning of fossil fuels is what is needed. The sun and wind are both excellent examples of the tireless sources of energy available to humans. Saving water and producing less waste is also needed to reduce the carbon emissions. As more people turn to alternatives instead of burning fossil fuels, global warming could be stopped, which in turn would stop causing the major climate changes that have been the cause of such devastation in recent years.

James Nash asked:

This business about global warming is actually starting to look like a nightmare for humanity. It’s becoming more a ghastly proposal, not an “inconvenient truth.”

Global warming is occurring at even a more accelerated pace than what was originally predicted, many who are expert sources on this issue posit. Most are still a bit skeptical of the Global Warming issue. It’s commonplace for the press- listening and reading public to be cynical and even critical today. It’s not only that opposing views of any issue are part of the mainstream “Op-Ed” consciousness; it’s just good business and idea salesmanship to keep everything murky, dusty and convoluted.

The news – especially science news – is so hazy and muddled with political and religious sources traditionally centered in spin, connotation, even stigma that trying to believe in anything today is very hard. In a society that cannot decide if a little white wine each day can cure cancer or lead to alcoholism, finding a Gregorian “middle ground” is tough.

And because science is always based in theory, it’s even more confusing to sort out good theory from bad; and just the way scientific theory is designed and argued, nothing is really set in stone and is not fact, per se, rather, scientific theory is just what its name implies — it is theory. Considering much of the fingerprint and harbinger evidences surrounding global warming, however; this theory becomes more denotatively arguable and convincing with each new day.

Most people stay convicted to their beliefs even long after their beliefs have been denigrated or sometimes even proven totally false. In the case of global warming, ever increasing scientific theory is an ongoing constant, though, and this leads to a very unsettling future forecast for Mother Earth, the human race and really, most types of species that reside here. Validation surrounding the global warming theory is so stacked it’s alarming.

One such truth: The rapid buildup of killer carbon dioxide in large lakes like Nyos in Africa (which saw an explosion kill about 1,700 people) creates stern consternation by those who are even slightly to the side of “green.” If it happened to Lake Nyos, what’s in store for Lake Superior, Erie, Huron or the “thousand lakes of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri or Finland? What’s in it for Loch Ness in Scotland? How’s about the Mississippi and Nile rivers? Can we include about every body of water here if our waters continue heating? Carbon dioxide buildup in large lakes is not the stuff impossible fictions are made of – this is a stark reality – and global warming is the root of the problem, scientists argue.

Just to reiterate and try to ring the alarm a bit louder: It’s an enigma why people aren’t up in arms about this – and if the implications behind global warming are true, it might indeed be the biggest crisis humankind has ever faced.

Scientists say the dinosaurs went extinct due to climate changes brought on by a comet hitting the earth 65 million years ago. The estimated 6-mile-wide comet slammed into the Mexican Yucatan Peninsula region “leaving a hole 112 miles wide. It wiped out the dinosaurs and more than 75 percent of the species on the planet, throwing up a cloud of dust that blocked the sun for months, killing off plants at the base of the food chain and causing ecosystems to collapse worldwide; it was a global environmental catastrophe”.

Are we going to go extinct because of our factories’ creation of plastic ornaments on lawns? Is the Earth heading for a quick demise because SUVs and trucks are two of the planets biggest polluters? Tables, chairs and houses are taking the place of rain forests; and through the rapid buildup of developing nations’ industrial revolutions, our world has been kidnapped – and there’s little that can be done to stop global warming – many who are very familiar with this issue contend.

Even the most drastic actions – which entail a global greening in very strict, drastic and complete uniformity – may not be enough to fend off the inevitable greenhouse effect that is predicted.

As things continue to unfold concerning global warming, however, a lot of us are seeing that all this fretting over the world’s environment isn’t a political trick or a smoke and mirrors routine. No. Our atmosphere is becoming more like a microwave and we’re rotating around on the big dish inside.

I’d really like to see proof to the contrary but everything coming out lately points to making valid the global warming theory. To be honest, I’m getting quite upset over the spicy forecasting that’s being done these days. With the threat of the equatorial waters getting about as hot as a chili pepper over time, what’s there to even plan in the mid-century we’re living within?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that this warming is due to anthropogenic factors (mankind is cooking things up here). The Intergovernmental Panel’s Fourth Assessment Report, completed in 2007, found that even if temperatures stabilize, the world is expected to heat up during most of this millennium. The sea level has risen 4 to 10 inches (10-25 cm) on a global scale over the past 100 years. “With additional warming, sea level is projected to rise from half a foot to 3 feet (15-92 cm) more during the next 100 years.

On average, 50 to 100 feet (15-30 meters) of beach are lost for every foot (0.3 meters) of sea-level rise. Local land subsidence (sinking) and/or uplift due to geologic forces and coastal development will also affect the rate of coastal land loss. There seems to be a lack of real, viable solutions for keeping Mother Earth blue and green and not gray and black.

Dilip Dahanukar asked:

The Earth is being heated by the Sun every day. Almost 174,000 Terawatts of energy hits the Earth. One Terawatt is equal to one million megawatts! So the Sun is heating the Earth with 174 billion megawatts of energy! Of this, about 30% is reflected back due to the white reflectivity of the Earth which is known in science as the albedo effect. So the net energy absorbed by the Earth is 122 Terawatts.

If so much energy is being absorbed by the Earth, it should continue to heat up and its temperature must continue to rise constantly. Within days the temp should surpass the maximum that any life could bear. All life would die and the trees whither and char.

But this does not happen. The Earth has its own temperature stability. Why? Because, at night the Earth radiates the heat absorbed during the day into deep space. Of the 122 TW that the Earth absorbs from the Sun, it radiates 121TW back into deep space and the difference is converted into work for moving the air, the clouds and the sea currents and tides. Radiation always takes place between two bodies, the heat going out from the hotter to the cooler body. We can actually feel this cooling effect at night, but the truth is that it is happening all 24 hours. The Earth is constantly cooling by radiating out its energy into deep space. We don’t feel it during day because the effect of the Sun’s radiation is to annul the cooling and go on further to warm the Earth. Over the millions of years the Earth has achieved a balance of its temperature equating the heating by the Sun and the cooling at night.

The sea has a vast reserve of water which is capable of absorbing the heat of the Sun without change in its temperature. Sun’s radiation penetrates a long distance down in the water and the heat is absorbed into a very big mass of water. In places where there are algae or plankton as a mixed layer, its depth makes some difference. Observations of sea surface temperature (SST) where there was ocean mixed layer (OML) at 5 feet below surface showed a day night temperature difference of 1.5 degrees centigrade. But when the OML was 50 feet deep, the  temperature difference was only just 0.1 degree!

The Oceans hold 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water. Physics has given us a way to calculate the rise of temperature of water knowing its mass, specific heat and the amount of heat input. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming is 1.6 watts per sq. meter which works out to a heat input of 800TW on the surface area of 500 Tera sq. meters for the whole planet. This heat input for the whole year without considering the night-time radiation from the sea surface, can only raise the temperature of the sea by ½ degree over a period of 111 years! It is therefore impossible for the global warming arising out of the greenhouse gases to warm the sea enough to melt the polar ice caps from underneath.

eMaya the expert on Climate Change, suspects that it is more likely caused by undersea volcanic activity. You can read how she plans to stop global warming in the book ‘eMaya’ at  http://oneearth-onechance.com/global-warming-more-inconvenient-truths/

Diana Trimble asked:

It’s not just the planet that’s hotting up, it’s the whole debate about global warming. Especially now that we can see and feel its effects every day. Yet you’ve probably noticed that when it comes to taking action, the focus always seems to be on what each of us can do personally. We the people must use energy-saving light bulbs, fly less, recycle, use green energy, take our appliances off standby, and so on. But perhaps, like me, these entreaties leave you feeling a bit ripped off. Perhaps you, too, are wondering what part business, industry and governments have to play? It’s certainly true that there are things individual citizens can and must do, but surely really significant reductions ultimately depend on tough, international legislative action. After all, if personal responsibility were all that has ever been necessary to solve problems, why were political systems and governments invented in the first place? Once we’ve taken individual action, is that it? Or is there more to be done? What really seems to be needed is a way of acting collectively to ensure that governments around the world start co-operating to solve global warming instead of talking more hot air while the planet burns.

In his film, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore rightly points out that collective action depends on political will, but this, he says, is in short supply. Right again! The reasons for its scarcity, he suggests, are that it’s simply not in the short-term interests of the main polluting nations and their industries to take substantive action. So far so good, but the cartoon image he uses to hammer his point home is an unfortunate one: a pair of scales with gold bars on one side and the entire planet on the other. Gore uses this to demonstrate the absurdity of those who see economic prosperity and a healthy planet as an either/or choice: after all, what value could gold bars have if there’s no habitable planet in which to enjoy them? It’s plainly ridiculous, and so too, suggests Gore, is the reluctance of some to give up the gold bars.

But rather than ridicule those who fear for their short-term interests, shouldn’t we be trying to look at what may be their perfectly legitimate point, and trying to understand the forces that keep it relevant? Gore may have faced the inconvenient truth of global warming, but he is yet to face a second inconvenient truth: that stiff action on the part of the rich countries WILL have adverse economic effects, at least in the short term. And if global warming is dealt with in isolation, those costs WILL fall heaviest on the USA and on other big polluters. To deny the barrier to action that these short-term costs and disincentives represent, as Gore seems to, is to fall into the same trap as those who deny global warming itself.

I laughed along with everyone else when I saw the gold vs earth cartoon, but making fun of those who are wary of economic backlash is hardly likely to elicit the consensus Gore seeks. It also seems like a cheap shot when you keep in mind that had Gore actually become President in 2000, he would inescapably have joined the ranks of those he’s poking fun at. The president of the U.S. has only four years before facing another election, so Gore’s popularity and tenure in office would have been directly influenced by his corporate funders and their support for short-term gains to the US economy.

Today, there may only be few people who still cling to denying global warming. But knowledge and acceptance can’t effect change by themselves. What is urgently needed is a means to unlock the short-term barriers and disincentives that prevent decisive collective action – nationally and internationally. Make no mistake: in today’s globalised and largely borderless world, capital and jobs generally move to wherever in the world environmental and social costs are lowest and profits therefore highest. Any government moving first to significantly increase environmental costs or regulations in a bid to reduce emissions would definitely see investment and jobs moving elsewhere, thus making the nation uncompetitive. That’s why nothing changes except the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just keeps on rising. Prime Minister Tony Blair at least seemed to recognise these realities when he pointed out that “The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge”.[i]

Unlike Gore, Blair clearly recognises this second inconvenient truth and he should not be blamed for stating it. But his statement only holds true IF nations fail to act together. This is the barrier that keeps the gold bars firmly on one side of the scales. However, if all nations co-operated, the necessary regulations could be implemented without any nation fearing capital or employment flight because there would be no low-cost haven for them to run to. Corporations, too, would have nothing to fear because all corporations would be subject to the same additional costs, so maintaining their relative competitiveness and their relative profitability. Think about that for a minute.

But there is a further problem: the biggest polluter, the USA, would have the biggest adjustment cost, so it has the least incentive to sign up to any cooperative agreement. This is why the Kyoto Protocol is not supported by the USA and Australia, another big polluter. It is also why the provisions of the Kyoto agreement are so mild and relatively ineffectual. Because if the nations supporting Kyoto agreed to tougher, more significant curbs, the costs involved would make them uncompetitive with nations, such as the USA and Australia, who refuse to participate.

The net result is a recipe for missed targets and an intergovernmental dead-lock of a kind which raises the third, final and most important inconvenient truth; this time one that concerns not so much governments or businesses but each of us as individual citizens. It’s a truth which all citizens around the world must urgently take on board: that we can no longer abdicate responsibility for taking collective action to politicians and governments alone. If free-riding governments are to be compelled to co-operate, then it must be citizens who force them to do so. We have no choice but to take the initiative, and stop assuming that politicians are in the driving seat of the global economy. It’s time to grab hold of the steering wheel and find a way of driving our politicians and governments toward co-operation. What’s needed is a method of achieving cooperation which removes the barriers and objections, takes away the fears of being uncompetitive, and replaces those fears with an enthusiasm for shared problem-solving.

When Al Gore became fully aware of the dangers of global warming, he travelled far and wide to gain a deeper understanding of the science and its real-world effects, and justifiably so (although I do hope he planted plenty of trees to personally offset his carbon emissions). But Gore and the rest of us have so far failed to embark on another, far more urgent line of enquiry. If we genuinely wish to solve global warming and other global problems, we need to gain a deeper understanding of the barriers to collective government action under globalisation. For the deeper truth is that global warming and many other global “problems” are not the real problems at all. They are merely symptoms, albeit terrifying ones, of our failure as a global human society to co-operate. Until we understand the dynamics of co-operation and how to achieve it, and what we as citizens can do to unblock the barriers to it, international inaction, missed targets and deepening chaos will continue and global warming may well destroy human civilisation.

The Simultaneous Policy, a global citizen’s initiative, claims to have begun this vital journey and to offer a plausible and effective way that citizens can use their right to vote in a new way that drives the politicians of all parties and nations to collectively implement the measures we so desperately need. It seems that political representatives would find it a welcome relief to be freed from the restrictions that keep them beholden to big business interests and confined to wholly inadequate policies dictated by the need to keep their nations “internationally competitive”. This is reflected in the fact that already politicians from opposing sides of the spectrum – nationally and internationally – are pledging their support for the Simultaneous Policy as a result of voter pressure and/or enlightened social responsibility. Check it out for yourself at www.simpol.org – as Noam Chomsky commented, “Can it work? It’s certainly worth a serious try!”

Dave Wheitner asked:


Idealists frequently entertain ideas about how our lives and the world around us might be different. Our thinking extends beyond current reality, as we spend significant time considering the “big picture” complexities of how everything fits together in the world. Because of this, we see many problems and many possibilities that others often miss.

In fact, we may spend so much time thinking about the issues of the world that we ignore ourselves–and the future. Because living authentically is also important to us, this can decrease our personal sense of satisfaction and fulfillment, and it can decrease the energy we have to create what we care about the most.

Idealists gravitate toward causes including environmental sustainability, health and medicine, animal rights, social justice, ethical leadership, labor rights, and world peace. We may take on very formal roles such as nonprofit executive director, political leader, advocate, educator, counselor, physician, or entrepreneur of a socially and ecologically responsible business. We may occasionally volunteer or engage in civic action. Or, we may possess great concern about the issues of the world but feel too overwhelmed to act.

Coaching, whose power has long been recognized by successful corporations, is of particular benefit to idealists for many reasons. First, because we like to imagine a better world, idealists must often challenge the status quo. Humans innately resist change, so we may feel pressured to compromise our purpose and values to be accepted and viewed as practical. Coaching motivates us to explore and clarify key components of our foundation or “good side,” i.e., the core of who we are. This may include our life purpose, what things we value most, and our strengths and virtues.

Idealists, more than most, must build a particularly strong sense of self so that we’re not simply marching to the drumbeat of others. Taking the easy road may lead to feelings of conflict and lack of integrity, meaning we’re not living as energetically or powerfully as we could be. And until we learn to do this, it’s difficult to be a model for others, and to “be the change we wish to see in the world,” per Gandhi. Imagine being able to live and lead authentically, even in the face of pressure to do the same old, same old!

Secondly, our world is already filled with myriad negative images and soundbytes–violence, poverty, political leaders verbally attacking one another, crime, and so forth. Where the news media ends with this approach, those involved in social and ecological causes often begin, using shocking images and data to educate others about world problems.

Thus, many causes such as environmental sustainability, social justice, animal rights, worker rights and world peace have difficulty attracting other individuals, instead turning them away unintentionally. In fact, even organizations with common interests often end up competing rather than collaborating! This does little to advance one’s efforts, and may lead to feelings of isolation.

Life coaching can address such issues from a few angles. On one hand, coaching encourages one to practice an approach that’s proactively driven by visions of desired end results. This stands in stark contrast to the more common type of approach that’s reactively mired in problem-solving and fear. As a number of authors have explained, visions attract and energize people who can assist with our endeavors, while problems and fear do not create lasting motivation and progress.* After mastering a vision-based approach in one’s own life, one can apply a similar philosophy to larger endeavors involving other people.

Additionally, awareness of our own priority values enables us to communicate on a deeper and more meaningful level with people about common values–even if their positions or beliefs about how to solve issues are quite different from ours. Imagine engaging in meaningful and mutually beneficial dialogue, rather than simply debating and learning nothing!

Thirdly, given the daily stressors they often face, those in idealist professions must contend with exceptionally high rates of burnout, compassion fatigue, feelings of martyrdom and subsequent turnover. This is true of both paid employees and volunteers. Many individuals leave their position or even an entire field after a short time; and talented idealists often don’t remain in a field long enough to aspire to leadership levels. In several large cities, the nonprofit community is projected to have a significant shortage of qualified candidates to fill executive director positions in just a few years.

Some of this can be mitigated by learning and adopting a more positive vision-based approach, as noted above. Clarifying one’s purpose, values and wants also helps to increase energy levels and resilience, and it enhances our ability to say “No” and “Yes” more intentionally. Along with identifying our strengths, this helps us to engage in activities that resonate with our “core self” and decrease involvement in those that don’t. By learning to advocate for ourselves to the same degree we advocate for our causes, we can sustain our energies.

Related to the above, coaching can also help us to separate what matters most to us from the superficial “shoulds” that we’ve adopted from others. We may be working exceptionally hard to do the right thing, when we could actually be having more impact with seemingly less effort by living more authentically. Imagine being fulfilled enough so that you also have plenty to give others, and can focus your efforts to make a visible difference!

Life coaches can’t stop global warming on their own. Nor can they single-handedly create a world where all have the opportunity for a healthy and enjoyable life, nations are at peace, people of all races and backgrounds enjoy equal rights, humans respect other living beings, and leaders behave ethically. However, if socially and ecologically conscious individuals and organizations take full advantage of what life coaching has to offer, then a vision for a healthy and sustainable world is within our collective reach.

*A number of authors and bloggers have written on various aspects of the value of a vision-based or results-driven approach, including Bruce Elkin, Robert Fritz, Shakti Gawain, Hildy Gottlieb, Napoleon Hill, Hal Williamson and Walter Winch. I thank them for inspiring much of my thinking on this topic.