As part of Eco Week environmental campaigner George Monbiot came into the offices of Penguin UK to talk about the problems facing the environment and steps we can take to combat global warming. Here is a short passage from his talk.
Featured Content
Discover the Amazing Natural Wonder of Galapagos Islands with Galapagos Cruises
As we know the weekend season will be arrive soon. Yes, the New Year... read more
Refreshing Holiday Vacation at Hilton Head South Carolina
In this busy work time like today, most people usually have spend most of their... read more
Surly the name calling and insults of the sceptics just go to show how shallow their arguments are and that they only have insults and not facts to throw around. More than 99% of scientists in the climate field of research believe in global warming which is stronger than the HIV – AIDS and the smoking and lung cancer science, yet we go with that without question becuse the evidence is still so strong. The truth is that the sceptics have nothing. Nothing, well except their name calling.
This is the bitterest pill as far as I’m concerned
Unbelievable. Disgusting nwo Fabian crypto communist liar!
Well, well.
Love miles don’t apply to Monbiot, do they?
Not for him is the pull of the moral compass.
at least he’s exploring realistic options/solutions as a human race… there will come a time when humans influence climate change at a frightening magnitude; before that time comes, his book will provide some guidance for us to prevent catastrophe. at
also, this topic isn’t just engineering related. much more is involved, such as politics and economics. so when it comes to technical details, give him a break.
no other alternatives? especially when he has to be somewhere on schedule?
he’s a regarded professor. i read his book; he exposes companies and organizations that pump false information in media and internet about climate change. he also investigates the actual efficiency proposed solutions and alternatives, such as renewable energy. for example, he talks about problems with current solar panels designs, and the idea of the energy internet. don’t judge monbiot so quickly.
Sir Jonathon Porritt is a well known environmentalist.
He has admitted that in one year he took 42 flights. Typical of these people, do as I say not as I do. If flying was really that bad why is he flying?
AIrcraft are massively lighter and necessarily more aerodynamic than any other form of mass transportation. A large aircraft has no peers in terms of efficiency. Just making the concrete and steel for a railroad will use colossal amounts of energy. Monbiot, of course, endlessly talks about things he doesn’t understand to (engineering and technology – he’s a zoologist) to other non-engineers so we can pretty easily discount what he has to say – he exists in a engineering iliterate echo chamber.
“Sceptics”: (a term you don’t deserve as it implies reasoned weighing of evidence), go die in a hole.
People worth talking to: Surely high-speed trains would be carbon neutral if they’re electric and the electricity supplied is from renewable sources? I can well understand the carbon cost of /building/ the things, not to mention potential local ecological damage, but I see trains as the best alternative to flying we have.
This guy is a major f*up – knwos nabsolutely nothing and pretends knows all — aaargh! — man you are such an ignorant f* — stop right there psuedo intellectual tripper and read paul pantone to start! Aaargh! is this really happening!
What a scam artist!
Oh lets care for the environment, find out more in my book.
Its scaremongering with his own profit at the heart of it.
The only ones who believes a word this man is saying are devout atheists who believes there is no order to the universe and its up to his speeches and lecturers to save this poor misguided planet and its population of greedy consuming polluters. If he acutally believes what he is saying, he’d stop flying and I bet he’s flown more miles than anyone listening to him and he’d plug his butthole so as to keep his methane from warming the planet
If you say so nob’ead.
Go George!
and, did it work? ;p
Perhaps the question we should be asking is that of ‘motive’.
What do the anthropogenic G.W. proselytizers stand to gain by their apocalyptic scare mongering?
And, conversely, what do the GW deniers stand to gain?
What about: the UN, the EU, governments, utilities, corporations, filmmakers, media moguls, newspaper columnists, filmmakers, to name but a few ‘concerned parties’?
Few of us can competently scrutinize climate science. But we can
unveil the real motives behind its sale or denial.
Go George!
Sailing ships could make a comeback. See the videos about SkySails on YouTube. Basically a large computer-controlled power kite for a ship. The first one cuts oil use by up to 30% on the MS Beluga SkySails, a cargo ship. Improved models could provide more tractive power.
However, traveling for the sole purpose of moving information is stupid. We can use high-definition videoconferencing instead. See Cisco’s Telepresence for a look at the future. Get off Hubbert’s curve and onto Moore’s law.
I am testing to post first comment
If we limit biofuels to use for air travel, there would not be pressure on land. Air travel only accounts for 1-2% of.
You need to specifiy the resource from which you are making biofuels … biofuels from corn is a disaster, like you say. However, next-generation Biofuels will have a good net energy benefit.
Read his book. He talks about the mass production of biofuels as one of the most ecologically disasterous trends of our time. Not only does harvesting crops for fuel raise the price of food and increase hunger, but the process of clearing land for and cultivating biofuels creates MORE atmospheric CO2 than oil drilling.
I think he is wrong … next generation biofuels could be developed to replace aviation kerosene.
If we use electric vehicles, then we would not need alot of land to produce bio-kerosene
If you read Monbiot’s excellent book (well sourced, but written in an accessible style) “Heat”, he examines the idea of hydrogen-fuelled aircraft. Such aircraft would be larger and lighter: by necessity they would have to fly higher, increasing the contrail effect.
(Biofuels are unsuitable because they typically have a higher freezing point.)
True, it is not entirely clean, and we obviously can’t produce that much, but i wonder if they have considered a hydrogen powered plane or a fuel for planes that is 50% biofuel and 50% keroscene.