My Bloghttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009-09-18T16:00:00Zhttp://www.webjam.com/enTHE BERKELEY LINEhttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009/09/18/the_berkeley_linehttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009/09/18/the_berkeley_line#Comments2009-09-18T16:00:00Zhttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009/09/18/the_berkeley_lineThe one thing which will change everybody’s attitude and alarm all people to the grave danger posed by Global Warming is a climate which is changing more rapidly than until the present. The best definition of how fast this change needs to be that  is the Berkeley Line. A temperature above this line will alarm everybody and allow global action to be taken to curb Global Warming. On the other hand until this line is exceeded it will be very difficult to persuade the world community to act effectively to combat the climate threat. The Berkeley line temperature is a temperature of 0.6 degrees Celsius above the global temperature until 1976 in 2006 or before and then the line increases at 0.15 degrees Celsius per decade from that time onwards. It has not been exceeded so far. It is dated from 1976 because it was from that year onwards that the most recent rise in global temperature began.

 

The Berkeley Line temperature for any year can be measured simply. Thus the Berkeley Line temperature for 2011 is 0.68 degrees Celsius above the 1976 level. Since the 1961 – 90 global average is 0.1 degrees Celsius above the level until1976 exceeding the Berkeley Line in 2011 will mean a global temperature of 0.58 degrees Celsius above the 1961 – 90 global average. The Berkeley line is measured over a three year period so the global temperature for 2011 will be the average of the global temperature for 2010, 2011 and 2012. Alternatively if the Berkeley Line temperature for a particular year were to be exceeded by a significant amount, say 0.05 degrees Celsius or more, that will have the same effect as exceeding the figure for a three year period.  Massive warmth for a few months ie exceeding the line by a large amount , will have the same effect. Exceeding the Berkeley line will be obvious when it happens but being aware of this line will allow campaigners to react more quickly to obtain agreements to cut greenhouse gas emissions when this becomes possible. The alarming fact is that if it were exceeded, say as an example, in the 2011 period, 2010 – 2012, reaching 0.58 degrees Celsius above this average implies a jump in global temperature of 0.12 degrees Celsius almost immediately. This may not lead to the deaths of many people but the local climatic effects would be obvious to almost everybody in the world, more than even say the flooding of New York or a devastating drought in South India.

 

The simple fact of changing everyones life to some extent will mean that the pressure on governments to react will lead to an agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions very sharply with almost immediate effect. 

]]>Environmental Parliament - Science Media Center - John B Davieshttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009/09/16/environmental_parliament__science_media_center__john_b_davieshttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009/09/16/environmental_parliament__science_media_center__john_b_davies#Comments2009-09-16T18:35:00Z"environmental parliament - smc - john b davies", "private emissions allocations"http://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009/09/16/environmental_parliament__science_media_center__john_b_daviesA simple outline of what I propose saying is as follows.

An equal carbon allowance per person is a very difficult and probably undesirable situation in most nations.

However it is probably true that every state needs to move much closer to equal emissions per person than is now the case.

The need for very large cuts in emissions will occur almost overnight. This will result from the almost certain failure of the talks in Copenhagen. The ultimate cause of this failure will be the fact that global temperatures have been below the Berkeley line so that people around the world have not experienced sufficient disruption from Global Warming to date.
When the Berkeley line temperature is exceeded there will be grave concern around the world and every nation will be ready to make desperate reductions in carbon emissions and probably to sanction the use of geo engineering.

The most effective method of deep and immediate cuts in carbon emissions will be a severe and high carbon tax. There will need to be a higher guaranteed in come for the poor. The effect of this is that many people in society will have almost equal, though very restricted, access to carbon produced energy.

In this situation it is essential that people react in different ways to the problem so that the optimum solution to the very restricted energy budget is arrived at. Hence there should be very little regulation other than the carbon tax. It was a mistake to remove incandescent light bulbs and to have efficiency standards for motor cars and also many of the safety standards like crash worthiness and the requirement for seat belts. In addition to all this passenger duty for airline passengers should be removed as should all other taxes other than an enormous carbon tax on motorists.

The reasoning behind this is that if everyone makes their very different choices about how to spend their money then the highest possible living standards will be arrived at. As regards motoring many people will give up motoring altogether a few will probably opt for safer motoring in cars which retain all the safety features but will not travel very far. A  larger number probably will opt for cheap cars with very little in the way of safety standards other than the good brakes which will be retained as a safety feature and will freewheel down hills at higher speeds than are allowed at present.
This is the only way that personal mobility will be maintained.

The motoring illustration illuminates the huge variation in the ways in which people will spend their money, which is effectively very largely a carbon allowance. Only by allowing freedom in the way this allowance is spent can the community gain the highest possible freedom wealth and satisfaction.

All the Best,

John B Davies personal
]]>Environmental Parliament - Science Media Center - John B Davieshttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009/09/16/environmental_parliament__science_media_center__john_b_davies_iHPWk6bgfIhttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009/09/16/environmental_parliament__science_media_center__john_b_davies_iHPWk6bgfI#Comments2009-09-16T18:35:00Z"environmental parliament - smc - john b davies", "private emissions allocations"http://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009/09/16/environmental_parliament__science_media_center__john_b_davies_iHPWk6bgfIA simple outline of what I propose saying is as follows.

An equal carbon allowance per person is a very difficult and probably undesirable situation in most nations.

However it is probably true that every state needs to move much closer to equal emissions per person than is now the case.

The need for very large cuts in emissions will occur almost overnight. This will result from the almost certain failure of the talks in Copenhagen. The ultimate cause of this failure will be the fact that global temperatures have been below the Berkeley line so that people around the world have not experienced sufficient disruption from Global Warming to date.
When the Berkeley line temperature is exceeded there will be grave concern around the world and every nation will be ready to make desperate reductions in carbon emissions and probably to sanction the use of geo engineering.

The most effective method of deep and immediate cuts in carbon emissions will be a severe and high carbon tax. There will need to be a higher guaranteed in come for the poor. The effect of this is that many people in society will have almost equal, though very restricted, access to carbon produced energy.

In this situation it is essential that people react in different ways to the problem so that the optimum solution to the very restricted energy budget is arrived at. Hence there should be very little regulation other than the carbon tax. It was a mistake to remove incandescent light bulbs and to have efficiency standards for motor cars and also many of the safety standards like crash worthiness and the requirement for seat belts. In addition to all this passenger duty for airline passengers should be removed as should all other taxes other than an enormous carbon tax on motorists.

The reasoning behind this is that if everyone makes their very different choices about how to spend their money then the highest possible living standards will be arrived at. As regards motoring many people will give up motoring altogether a few will probably opt for safer motoring in cars which retain all the safety features but will not travel very far. A  larger number probably will opt for cheap cars with very little in the way of safety standards other than the good brakes which will be retained as a safety feature and will freewheel down hills at higher speeds than are allowed at present.
This is the only way that personal mobility will be maintained.

The motoring illustration illuminates the huge variation in the ways in which people will spend their money, which is effectively very largely a carbon allowance. Only by allowing freedom in the way this allowance is spent can the community gain the highest possible freedom wealth and satisfaction.

All the Best,

John B Davies personal
]]>Environmental Parliament - Science Media Center - John B Davieshttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009/09/16/environmental_parliament__science_media_center__john_b_davies_l9MpEaI0lRhttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009/09/16/environmental_parliament__science_media_center__john_b_davies_l9MpEaI0lR#Comments2009-09-16T18:35:00Z"environmental parliament - smc - john b davies", "private emissions allocations"http://www.environmentalparliament.org/johnbdavies/$my_blog/2009/09/16/environmental_parliament__science_media_center__john_b_davies_l9MpEaI0lRA simple outline of what I propose saying is as follows.

An equal carbon allowance per person is a very difficult and probably undesirable situation in most nations.

However it is probably true that every state needs to move much closer to equal emissions per person than is now the case.

The need for very large cuts in emissions will occur almost overnight. This will result from the almost certain failure of the talks in Copenhagen. The ultimate cause of this failure will be the fact that global temperatures have been below the Berkeley line so that people around the world have not experienced sufficient disruption from Global Warming to date.
When the Berkeley line temperature is exceeded there will be grave concern around the world and every nation will be ready to make desperate reductions in carbon emissions and probably to sanction the use of geo engineering.

The most effective method of deep and immediate cuts in carbon emissions will be a severe and high carbon tax. There will need to be a higher guaranteed in come for the poor. The effect of this is that many people in society will have almost equal, though very restricted, access to carbon produced energy.

In this situation it is essential that people react in different ways to the problem so that the optimum solution to the very restricted energy budget is arrived at. Hence there should be very little regulation other than the carbon tax. It was a mistake to remove incandescent light bulbs and to have efficiency standards for motor cars and also many of the safety standards like crash worthiness and the requirement for seat belts. In addition to all this passenger duty for airline passengers should be removed as should all other taxes other than an enormous carbon tax on motorists.

The reasoning behind this is that if everyone makes their very different choices about how to spend their money then the highest possible living standards will be arrived at. As regards motoring many people will give up motoring altogether a few will probably opt for safer motoring in cars which retain all the safety features but will not travel very far. A  larger number probably will opt for cheap cars with very little in the way of safety standards other than the good brakes which will be retained as a safety feature and will freewheel down hills at higher speeds than are allowed at present.
This is the only way that personal mobility will be maintained.

The motoring illustration illuminates the huge variation in the ways in which people will spend their money, which is effectively very largely a carbon allowance. Only by allowing freedom in the way this allowance is spent can the community gain the highest possible freedom wealth and satisfaction.

All the Best,

John B Davies personal
]]>