It must have at least two decades since British environmentalist Norman Myers articulated this memorable advice:

“If we live as if it matters and it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter.
If we live as if it doesn’t matter and it matters, then it matters…”

Myers was referring to climate change. He was making the rather obvious point that the potential consequences of inaction over reducing greenhouse gas emissions are much more severe than the consequences of action.

Greg Craven: bringing sanity to the debate about our global climate destabilisation experiment

So this is not a new idea in the climate change debate.It was part of the original tool-kit of arguments used from the late 1980s to argue for action to reduce emissions.

It has always seemed to me the most powerful argument available to those of us who believe in the need for a precautionary approach to emission levels. It’s the argument hardest to refute. It makes much of what does pass for ‘argument’ over climate change policy besides the point. Who cares whether polar bears float on ice-drift? Who knows if the latest wildfires are ’caused’ by climate change? So what if it’s icy-cold in London this Christmas?

Unfortunately, I think the risk management proposition is one of the most under-used arguments in the environmentalists’ armory. There have even been occasions when it has been used – only to attract carping from environmentalists themselves!

I’ll use an example from Australia. In February this year, the once (and future?) Australian Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull voted against his own party in Parliament in support of an emissions trading scheme. He said:

“Climate change policy has to recognise these real risks, these real threats to the safety of our planet. It is an exercise in risk management and no reasonable person could regard the risk as being so low that no action was warranted.”

I recall that Turnbull copped a smattering of criticism at the time even from the pro-conservation side of the debate, some of whom took offense because they considered he was in some way giving comfort to ‘climate change deniers’ by using the term ‘risk’. They wanted to hear him speak with ‘certainty’. I think they’re wrong. Dead wrong. Turnbull was right in this case (the ETS he supported at the time was lousy policy – but that’s another topic).

Risk analysis IS the key to winning the climate change debate; scolding opponents for holding the ‘wrong’ opinions is a counter-productive waste of time.

I’ve written material myself along those lines before, such as the optimistically-titled Not Far from Climate Change Consensus for Action blogged here a couple of years ago. A serious review of the general literature, I’m sure, would reveal the risk management argument has been used capably many times.

In any event, I recently came across a resource on the web that has clearly been very popular – although I managed to miss it for more than three years.

It’s The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See by Oregonian, teacher and activist Greg Craven. He makes the case for precautionary action to reduce emissions better than I’ve ever seen it done before. This guy has a first-class intellect and he’s a superb communicator! Funny too!

Apparently some 7.5 million people have seen The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See by now. Mr Craven used it to generate intense debate about the issues he discussed on his website – GregCraven.org – and he’s used that feedback as the basis for a book entitled What’s the Worst That Could Happen? A Rational Response.

Watch Greg Craven’s more recent video (2009) in which he introduces this inexpensive, action-packed dead-trees treat…

Why not buy a copy or ten and hand them around? You can order the book with a DVD here.

It’s time to build consensus around sanity. Each of us who understands this can help by spreading the word.

A tragedy is a tragedy, wherever it happens. Fire raging out of control, while it’s part of the natural cycle in many parts of the world, can be terrifying by any measure. According to reports, 40 people have already been killed in wildfires that broke out near Haifa in northern occupied Palestine and continue to rage at this moment.

Wildfires rage near Haifa, December 2010 (BBC)

In no way is this short article an exercise in gloating. The people of that part of the world are in strife and they deserve sympathy – just as sympathy poured in for Victorians when bushfires created havoc there back in the southern summer of 2008.

They also deserve help . Wisely, Netanyahu has asked for help. Apparently he’s been in contact with numerous countries in the region including Greece and Cyprus, who are sending firefighting equipment urgently. A massive Russian water-bomber is on the way. It’s reported countries as far away as the USA and Australia have pledged assistance.

The irony of Greece and Cyrpus helping Israel with airplanes in its time of crisis is hard to pass over unmentioned. The Zionist State boasts one of the most sophisticated and largest military airforces in the world. Costly too – although the USA paid for most of it. But Israel’s airforce is geared up for war fighting and terrorizing – not civil disasters. It can bomb with napalm. It can bomb with depleted uranium. It can bomb with high-explosive bunkers busters. It can bomb with deadly silent drones. It can ever spray thick clouds of tear gas, this very day, to disperse protestors at Ni’ilin.

On the same day as the wildfires, a cloud of teargas disperses Palestinian protestors at Ni'ilin

But water-bombing? It seems no Israeli planner thought of that.

Fortunately, helpful neighbours can share theirs…

Wildfire is natural, but there are indications wildfires are on the increase worldwide. Israel has just experienced its driest November on record. It’s  consistent with rapid human-induced climate change. In many parts of the world, scientists anticipate more and more frequent wildfires as the century progreses. accompanied by accelerating ecosystem change and loss of biodiversity.

The world community knows it must deal with the problem of climate change – urgently. It’s a crucially high priority for us all. At least, it should be.

But in our bizarro world, the centrally-important USA is now so brow-beaten by Zionist power that its far easier to get bipartisan congressional consensus for launching a new illegal war at Israel’s behest than it is to agree serious measures to avert rapid climate change – which has potentially devastating consequences for all humanity.

When the fires are out, the Zionist plutocrats who stand behind this rotten project of the apartheid rogue state of Israel should take a long hard look at themselves and their vile sectarian policies.

What price international dominance?

Global ecocide?

__________________________

Postscript (December 4th 2010)

Antaea Darom has an important follow-up article, focusing especially on gratuitous anti-Arab commentary in some of the Israeli media regarding the wildfires that continue to blaze – see Israel’s Carmel Fire: Racism Rears Its Ugly Head Even in Tragedy

This morning Julia Gillard made her major pre-election address on the subject of climate change.

For reasons best known to her advisers, she chose to give the speech in Queensland on a university campus.

Perhaps Friends of the Earth moles work inside the PM’s office?

University of Queensland climate change protest

That link again? Six degrees.org.au

Quadrant of Belief on Climate Change and 9-11

Many issues divide public opinion around the world. This chart depicts just TWO prominent issues:

1. belief that the International Panel on Climate Change ‘consensus’ is broadly correct on climate change – versus the belief that climate change is NOT a serious threat to humanity’s well being.
2. belief that the official reports on the 9-11 atrocities is broadly correct – versus the belief that the 9-11 atrocities were not orchestrated by ‘Al Qaida’ and consequently the 9-11 attacks were a ‘false-flag’ operation.

A quarter century ago, neither topic was on the agenda.

In 1985, the atrocities of September 11th 2001 lay 16 years in the future. To state the obvious, no-one could have a view about 9-11 at that time.

‘Global Warming’ and ‘Human-Induced Climate Change’ were also topics unfamiliar to most scientists in the mid-1980s – let alone the general public. It’s was only around then that irrefutable evidence became widely available indicating steadily rising carbon-dioxide levels in the global atmosphere.

I was actively involved in the environment movement during the 1980s and took a keen interest in the climate change issue. It came to prominence around the same time that satellite data was confirming an alarming growth in the so-called ‘ozone hole’ over the poles, especially the Antarctic. At the time, hard-to-refute evidence that human activity was changing the entire global atmosphere in significant ways was a novelty.

In the 25 years since, the scientific community has moved slowly but decisively towards embracing the concern that the impacts of altering the greenhouse-gas composition of the atmosphere may indeed prove disastrous. The first International Panel on Climate Change report – back in 1990 – was a cautious document. Warnings from successive IPCC reports have grown progressively stronger.

Even so, significant numbers of people in the English-speaking world are deeply sceptical of the IPPC / masinstream scientific view about the seriousness as an issue of human-induced climate change. They tend to be suspicious they’re being sold a con. Some believe the science of climate has been perverted to suit a pre-set agenda. Some are concerned that international measures to tackle climate change are really a sinister, ‘globalist’ plot to centralize political and economic power.

I believe they are wrong on both counts.

No-one knows the future with precision. I’d very much like the sceptics to be correct in their belief that human-induced climate change is not a genuine phenomenon. But as I’ve explained previously, I wouldn’t gamble the future of the planet on a hunch. That’s irresponsibility verging on the crazy.

Regarding centralization, it is true that effective action on climate change requires strong worldwide collaborative action. But this is simply the reality of our globalized world, whether we like it or not. We should certainly guard against the entrenchment of corrupt sectarian power at every level. But like it or not, our whole species now has a collective impact on the planet such that unified action to manage this wonderful planet responsibly is necessary.

Interestingly, some of the most popular and heavily promoted ‘climate change sceptics’ are the very same people, often promoted by or employed within the Murdoch media, who also push an agressively pro-Israel, pro-war agenda. They also tend to be deeply ‘unsceptical’ about 9-11, missing few opportuinites to ridicule anyone querying the official 9-11 narrative.

The whole of Fox News in the USA might be entered as ‘Exhibit A’ for this proposition. In Australia, New Corp commentator Andrew Bolt is perhaps the quintessential pro-war Zionist shill who is ALSO a noisy climate change ‘sceptic.

Yet in fairness, there are also a lot of journalists and commentators working for Murdoch’s News Corp – and elsewhere in the mainstream media – who don’t share his climate change scepticism. Those commentators accept the scientific mainstream view on this subject and typically support strong action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Overall, there’s a semblance of genuine debate about the topic of climate change within the mainstream media. A lot of the debate is poor quality. Fox News, notoriously, barely gives voice to the mainstream view and makes ‘climate change scepticism’ the norm. But most of the mainstream media – including most News Corp media – do provide space and airtime for different perspectives on the complex issue of climate change.

The mass media’s coverage of ’9-11 scepticism’ is very different. It has shown no interest whatsover in giving fair coverage to the sceptics.

Websites such as What Really Happened and Rense.com – aggregator sites that give first class coverage on issues connected with war and peace, civil liberties and Zionism – hold the strange view that climate change is a hoax, akin to the 9-11 false flag operation? I wonder why? I can think of various possibilities, but don’t pretend to know the answer.

It’s beyond me why anyone would think that the likes of Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and Andrew Bolt are utterly wrong about foreign policy, civil liberties, war and peace, Israel, false flag attacks such as 9-11 and more – but correct and insightful about climate change scepticism.

Ultimately, I believe everyone is well-advised to make up their own mind about the complex and important questions of our time. To do this, we need all sides of issues fairly debated in the public domain.

The obvious determination of the western mass media to squash informed discusssion about  the realities of 9-11 is a disgrace and suggests it is protecting people with much to hide.

Ignorance is no excuse for well-paid commentators who make a living foisting their opinions on others.

Participating in mass deception about topics such as mass murder is itself a serious crime.