How CO2 is stealing the show

This is a post from another blog that I started but have unfortunately discontinued. But only so I have more time to focus on SustainaBee :-). So this post might sound a bit more serious, because it was for a more serious blog. Here it is:

===

News about climate change is increasing. And more and more the focus is set on the big bad Greenhouse Gas called Carbon Dioxide, also known as CO2. The focus of many studies is how we can reduce CO2 emissions, be it through more efficient technology, by consuming less, by driving less and so on. Study after study are confirming: Yes, CO2 actually IS bad.

Maybe because CO2 is so specific and is (relatively) easy to explain we read about it in the newspapers. Some companies are betting on nuclear energy because it is almost CO2-free. CSS is an up-and-coming technology that stores the CO2 emitted by coal power plants. Some are putting their money on nuclear fusion, e.g. the international ITER project costs 5 billion Euro for construction and another 5 billion Euro to keep up and running. All noteworthy, but what happens when we have found a source of CO2-free energy? Are all our problems solved? Not quite.

One of the main reasons we start to care about CO2 is - selfishly - because our winters are getting warmer and oil is getting more expensive. It sort of initiated this green wave, which I hope lasts quite a bit. What happens when oil prices drop dramatically and we have a cold winter (which is possible for a short term), is global warming put into the book shelve next to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", picking up dust?


The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
What about biodiversity? What about the poor people especially in the third world most affected by nature's changes? What about overfishing? It is quite a shame that while the UN-backed IPCC (Climate Change Report published in 2007) report got as much notice as a Take That Reunion Tour the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment from 2005 is comparable to the Spice Girls (something's happening, but no one really cares).

Similar to the IPCC report the Ecosystem Assessment is UN-backed, more than 1,000 scientists worked on it for a period of about 4-5 years. Even the structure is based on the IPCC report (and might I add, the design and layout of the Ecosystem report is quite much better). The board of members included renowned scientists, leaders and several nobel prize winners. And some of the scenarios were just as horrifying but not that many people took notice.

(The first image is a statistic on cod fishing in Newfoundland)