Sustainability ideas in a nutshell
I'm collecting here a few ideas that I hope will be metaphorical seeds for a more sustainable future. Some are more controversial than others. I hope all will be thought-provoking.
Planetary CFO and World Balance Sheet
Most of the text here is inspired by a blog post by Solitaire Townsend at Futerra.
In 2014 I appointed myself Planetary CFO, currently an unpaid role.
Job Description - Planetary CFO
The Earth, a well established planet, has commenced its search for a Chief Financial Officer.
This is new role for the planet. The CFO will be given responsibility for strategic and operational leadership of the organisation, overseeing its financial planning, including controllership, accounting, budgeting, planning and reporting and management of the World Balance Sheet comprising Natural Capital and other assets and the commitment to provide for peak global human population in sustainable co-existence with an appropriately large and biodiverse population of non-human species.
An accountancy qualification is desired but appropriate experience will also be considered. Previous position as CFO of a habitable celestial body is not required.
Established for over 4.5 billion years, the Earth has approximately 7 billion human stakeholders, organised into about 200 independent sovereign departments. Our current aggressive recruitment strategy will result in projected stakeholder numbers reaching over 9 billion by 2050.
Ours assets include a still functioning biosphere, rather depleted mineral resources, depreciating poles, fragile oceanic ecosystem and currently habitable atmosphere.
The successful candidate will hold fiduciary responsibility for every natural resource, every human life and every stick and stone of infrastructure. Asset planning will be required for all the birds, trees, schools, water, bumblebees, power-plants, aeroplanes, crops, mobile phones, algae, shopkeepers and anteaters etc.
Unfortunately there are no audited accounts available yet. Indeed there is some controversy over which parts of the planet are assets, liabilities or even overheads. The current market valuation method of ‘Gross Domestic Product’ is under review and alternative suggestions are welcome.
We are interested in an outstanding individual able to deliver;
1) Topline growth
The planet's return on capital is currently unacceptable. Significant operations are currently provided to stakeholders for free (including water cycles, insect pollination, oxygenisation and soil fertilisation). We refer candidates to A4S's Future Proofed Decision Making report for insights on integrating environmental and social factors into strategy, finance and operations.
2) Remuneration Committee
The governance of stakeholder pay and other financial returns has been heavily criticised. Performance related financial returns should be considered, taking into account all costs including those currently externalised. Currently the best rewarded 1% of stakeholders control 40% of the global pot of financial returns. The bottom half of stakeholders own barely 1% of global wealth. The stakeholder satisfaction survey does not make happy reading.
3) Comprehensive risk management
The Earth is an innovation based enterprise, with a R&D ‘evolution’ department that has been the leader in the adaptability field for millennia. However, some infrastructure systems have shown only limited innovation over time. With the market threat of climate change some capex investment may be needed in upgrading critical systems, such as energy, cities, transport, food and, well, you get the picture.
This is a truly meaningful career opportunity for an individual interested in a genuine professional challenge on a planetary scale.
In 2014 I appointed myself Planetary CFO, currently an unpaid role.
Job Description - Planetary CFO
The Earth, a well established planet, has commenced its search for a Chief Financial Officer.
This is new role for the planet. The CFO will be given responsibility for strategic and operational leadership of the organisation, overseeing its financial planning, including controllership, accounting, budgeting, planning and reporting and management of the World Balance Sheet comprising Natural Capital and other assets and the commitment to provide for peak global human population in sustainable co-existence with an appropriately large and biodiverse population of non-human species.
An accountancy qualification is desired but appropriate experience will also be considered. Previous position as CFO of a habitable celestial body is not required.
Established for over 4.5 billion years, the Earth has approximately 7 billion human stakeholders, organised into about 200 independent sovereign departments. Our current aggressive recruitment strategy will result in projected stakeholder numbers reaching over 9 billion by 2050.
Ours assets include a still functioning biosphere, rather depleted mineral resources, depreciating poles, fragile oceanic ecosystem and currently habitable atmosphere.
The successful candidate will hold fiduciary responsibility for every natural resource, every human life and every stick and stone of infrastructure. Asset planning will be required for all the birds, trees, schools, water, bumblebees, power-plants, aeroplanes, crops, mobile phones, algae, shopkeepers and anteaters etc.
Unfortunately there are no audited accounts available yet. Indeed there is some controversy over which parts of the planet are assets, liabilities or even overheads. The current market valuation method of ‘Gross Domestic Product’ is under review and alternative suggestions are welcome.
We are interested in an outstanding individual able to deliver;
1) Topline growth
The planet's return on capital is currently unacceptable. Significant operations are currently provided to stakeholders for free (including water cycles, insect pollination, oxygenisation and soil fertilisation). We refer candidates to A4S's Future Proofed Decision Making report for insights on integrating environmental and social factors into strategy, finance and operations.
2) Remuneration Committee
The governance of stakeholder pay and other financial returns has been heavily criticised. Performance related financial returns should be considered, taking into account all costs including those currently externalised. Currently the best rewarded 1% of stakeholders control 40% of the global pot of financial returns. The bottom half of stakeholders own barely 1% of global wealth. The stakeholder satisfaction survey does not make happy reading.
3) Comprehensive risk management
The Earth is an innovation based enterprise, with a R&D ‘evolution’ department that has been the leader in the adaptability field for millennia. However, some infrastructure systems have shown only limited innovation over time. With the market threat of climate change some capex investment may be needed in upgrading critical systems, such as energy, cities, transport, food and, well, you get the picture.
This is a truly meaningful career opportunity for an individual interested in a genuine professional challenge on a planetary scale.
Eco-footprint labelling
It would be good to have products labelled with information about the total eco-footprint for the entire manufacturing and supply chain that brought each item to the shop/warehouse from which it's being sold. Ideally, that info would be available to any consumer (eg on-line). That way, the consumer could then compare:
Product X at shop A, adding advertised eco-footprint to the footprint for the shopper to go and buy it there (or have it delivered from there)
Product Y at shop B, adding advertised eco-footprint to the footprint for the shopper to go and buy it there (or have it delivered from there)
The consumer could then make the most ecological choice (if they wished). This draws inspiration from the Fairtrade traceability of product from source to shop. As an aside, this could also form the basis for eco-taxes. This approach would need some form of independent certification to maintain consumer confidence in the accuracy of the advertised footprints.
Product X at shop A, adding advertised eco-footprint to the footprint for the shopper to go and buy it there (or have it delivered from there)
Product Y at shop B, adding advertised eco-footprint to the footprint for the shopper to go and buy it there (or have it delivered from there)
The consumer could then make the most ecological choice (if they wished). This draws inspiration from the Fairtrade traceability of product from source to shop. As an aside, this could also form the basis for eco-taxes. This approach would need some form of independent certification to maintain consumer confidence in the accuracy of the advertised footprints.
Eco-pound (or Ecopound)
Having an asset-backed currency with a unit of sustainably managed land as the asset backing (without using a fractionally backed approach), would generate an incentive for beneficial actions, because the creation (or conversion) of (privately owned) land to sustainably managed land would in itself be a good thing while at the same time being wealth-creating for the landowner. Of necessity, governments or central banks would need to own (or control) significant reserves of sustainably managed land in order to provide this asset backing to their currencies. Not a problem to achieve in practice – they already own much land and could always use compulsory purchase powers to create adequate levels of such reserves within a balanced economy and ecosystem.
This new form of currency, which one could call, for example, the "Ecopound", providing it was taken up by reputable governments and central banks, could provide all the benefits of being a medium of exchange and could also provide a store of value (overcoming some of the shortcomings of gold as a historical form of asset backing) while encouraging the maintenance (and expansion) of the stock of sustainable land which backs it. By the very nature of the finite supply of the asset backing, this currency would protect against the worst boom-and-bust cycles of existing economic cycles, by providing a stable and limited supply of the asset (and therefore of the money supply). It would also prevent a recurrence of the financial meltdown of circa 2008 and the fall of banks such as happened to Northern Rock at that time.
This new form of currency, which one could call, for example, the "Ecopound", providing it was taken up by reputable governments and central banks, could provide all the benefits of being a medium of exchange and could also provide a store of value (overcoming some of the shortcomings of gold as a historical form of asset backing) while encouraging the maintenance (and expansion) of the stock of sustainable land which backs it. By the very nature of the finite supply of the asset backing, this currency would protect against the worst boom-and-bust cycles of existing economic cycles, by providing a stable and limited supply of the asset (and therefore of the money supply). It would also prevent a recurrence of the financial meltdown of circa 2008 and the fall of banks such as happened to Northern Rock at that time.
Whole System Impact analyses
From an exchange from a LinkedIn "Green" group discussion ("Tiny minds of environmental prophets of
doom") in January 2013, based on an infrastructure project in the USA, which I've copied into my blog entry at: http://greencleantech.weebly.com/1/post/2013/01/whole-system-impact-analyses.html
I raise the idea of a Whole-System-Impact analysis, along the lines of Environmental Impact Assessments
doom") in January 2013, based on an infrastructure project in the USA, which I've copied into my blog entry at: http://greencleantech.weebly.com/1/post/2013/01/whole-system-impact-analyses.html
I raise the idea of a Whole-System-Impact analysis, along the lines of Environmental Impact Assessments
Eco Taxes
Eco-taxes (along similar lines to the way VAT works in the UK), could be used to both manage demand for eco-intensive goods and services and provide government revenues for investment in sustainability developments that otherwise wouldn't obtain investment funding because of market failures.
For example, if eco-taxes were levied on each distinct stage of the manufacturing and supply chain, the payment of eco-tax could be based on the difference between "input-eco-footprints" (ie footprints of all inputs) and "output-eco-footprints" (ie footprints of all outputs from that stage). Other (ie existing) taxes could be adjusted to prevent the effects of the eco-taxes falling disproportionately on the poor.
To avoid the accusation that "taxes are best suited to kill the middle class and starving the less favoured", in my view, it's
extremely important that state welfare systems are adjusted alongside any changes in tax systems, so that the poorest and most vulnerable are protected from any financial impacts on a net basis.
For anyone who has concerns about VAT being a cost to the end-consumer rather than a cost to the polluters, this is because, in effect, the final seller is mandated (by law) to charge VAT to the end-consumer, who has not added any value but just consumes the product and pays (to the seller, not the government) the full VAT of the entire supply chain, thus reimbursing the supply chain for the VAT it (ie the supply chain) has had to pay over to the government. This is a weakness in the design of VAT.
However, I don't think VAT was designed on a 'polluter pays' principle, whereas an ecotax system could be designed for this. VAT has also been 'tweaked' over the years to achieve other objectives - for example to make children's clothes cheaper to help poor families - this was an example of mixing multiple objectives for political reasons and we have seen it again more recently in the UK in the mixing of measures to address energy efficiency in buildings and fuel poverty. In my view, a better way to have helped poor families would have been to increase welfare payments to poor families rather than fiddle with the VAT system.
The polluter pays principle could apply with a VAT-like ecotax. Some products and services don't have VAT applied to
them (and, indeed, even where they do apply, there are various rates of VAT). An ecotax, on the other hand, could be related to the embedded eco-footprint at each stage in a supply chain where a product or service was passing from one entity to another. Even in VAT, the VAT is collected (by Government) from each entity in the supply chain in proportion to the material inputs the paying entity has put into that product or service, for example from the point it bought in components, applied heat, light, water and energy , to the point it sells the product to the next entity in the supply chain. At the earliest point in the supply chain, for example a farmer producing cotton as a raw material, the farmer pays to the government an amount of VAT on the cotton it sells, but can also claim against it the VAT on VAT-able inputs from other entities (eg a water company that sold the farmer water). The farmer only pays to Government the VAT on the 'value added' by the farmer. So, the VAT has been collected by government from each of the 'value-adders' to the extent that they have done something with the inputs they have turned into outputs. In the same way, an ecotax could be constructed so that it is collected from each entity in a supply chain based on the eco-print of its activities in turning inputs into outputs. I think where an ecotax could differ from (and improve on) VAT is just to take away the requirement to tax the final consumer (who doesn't add any further ecofootprint but just consumes the final product). This would then leave it totally free to the final seller to decide whether they pass on any of the 'pollution' costs to the end consumer.
Reflecting further on the above - the farmer is in a difficult position with an eco-tax, because many of his/her inputs have come from nature, or the global commons, and because they have not come from a 'tax-registered supplier', he/she could not claim much 'input-ecotax' as a deduction from the 'output-ecotax' payable to government on the sale of the agricultural produce to the next entity in the supply chain.
However, the farmer would have to reflect this in setting his/her selling prices. One way or another, in an economic, market-based system, the cost of externalities, if made transparent by an ecotax (or by carbon taxation, for example, on all carbon inputs to the supply chain) would be borne by members of the supply chain, and each would have to decide whether to pass those costs on to the end-consumer.
At the end of the day, the end-product would probably reflect the true cost, including all externalities. A future sustainable world might be a very expensive world, but this is not necessarily a bad thing - it would influence behaviours across the whole supply chain that bring the total human system within One Planet Living. If (as I say above) welfare systems adjust accordingly, then the poor can still be provided with the means of basic subsistence and the rest of society will be encouraged (through market mechanisms) to live a more eco-efficient life and cut down on the things that are carbon-profligate, like
flying on foreign holidays etc.
The effects of ecotaxes on the poorest members of society could be addressed by adjusting welfare payments, and this
could be paid for by adjusting income tax rates to provide a just and fair distribution of the tax burden on citizens.
For example, if eco-taxes were levied on each distinct stage of the manufacturing and supply chain, the payment of eco-tax could be based on the difference between "input-eco-footprints" (ie footprints of all inputs) and "output-eco-footprints" (ie footprints of all outputs from that stage). Other (ie existing) taxes could be adjusted to prevent the effects of the eco-taxes falling disproportionately on the poor.
To avoid the accusation that "taxes are best suited to kill the middle class and starving the less favoured", in my view, it's
extremely important that state welfare systems are adjusted alongside any changes in tax systems, so that the poorest and most vulnerable are protected from any financial impacts on a net basis.
For anyone who has concerns about VAT being a cost to the end-consumer rather than a cost to the polluters, this is because, in effect, the final seller is mandated (by law) to charge VAT to the end-consumer, who has not added any value but just consumes the product and pays (to the seller, not the government) the full VAT of the entire supply chain, thus reimbursing the supply chain for the VAT it (ie the supply chain) has had to pay over to the government. This is a weakness in the design of VAT.
However, I don't think VAT was designed on a 'polluter pays' principle, whereas an ecotax system could be designed for this. VAT has also been 'tweaked' over the years to achieve other objectives - for example to make children's clothes cheaper to help poor families - this was an example of mixing multiple objectives for political reasons and we have seen it again more recently in the UK in the mixing of measures to address energy efficiency in buildings and fuel poverty. In my view, a better way to have helped poor families would have been to increase welfare payments to poor families rather than fiddle with the VAT system.
The polluter pays principle could apply with a VAT-like ecotax. Some products and services don't have VAT applied to
them (and, indeed, even where they do apply, there are various rates of VAT). An ecotax, on the other hand, could be related to the embedded eco-footprint at each stage in a supply chain where a product or service was passing from one entity to another. Even in VAT, the VAT is collected (by Government) from each entity in the supply chain in proportion to the material inputs the paying entity has put into that product or service, for example from the point it bought in components, applied heat, light, water and energy , to the point it sells the product to the next entity in the supply chain. At the earliest point in the supply chain, for example a farmer producing cotton as a raw material, the farmer pays to the government an amount of VAT on the cotton it sells, but can also claim against it the VAT on VAT-able inputs from other entities (eg a water company that sold the farmer water). The farmer only pays to Government the VAT on the 'value added' by the farmer. So, the VAT has been collected by government from each of the 'value-adders' to the extent that they have done something with the inputs they have turned into outputs. In the same way, an ecotax could be constructed so that it is collected from each entity in a supply chain based on the eco-print of its activities in turning inputs into outputs. I think where an ecotax could differ from (and improve on) VAT is just to take away the requirement to tax the final consumer (who doesn't add any further ecofootprint but just consumes the final product). This would then leave it totally free to the final seller to decide whether they pass on any of the 'pollution' costs to the end consumer.
Reflecting further on the above - the farmer is in a difficult position with an eco-tax, because many of his/her inputs have come from nature, or the global commons, and because they have not come from a 'tax-registered supplier', he/she could not claim much 'input-ecotax' as a deduction from the 'output-ecotax' payable to government on the sale of the agricultural produce to the next entity in the supply chain.
However, the farmer would have to reflect this in setting his/her selling prices. One way or another, in an economic, market-based system, the cost of externalities, if made transparent by an ecotax (or by carbon taxation, for example, on all carbon inputs to the supply chain) would be borne by members of the supply chain, and each would have to decide whether to pass those costs on to the end-consumer.
At the end of the day, the end-product would probably reflect the true cost, including all externalities. A future sustainable world might be a very expensive world, but this is not necessarily a bad thing - it would influence behaviours across the whole supply chain that bring the total human system within One Planet Living. If (as I say above) welfare systems adjust accordingly, then the poor can still be provided with the means of basic subsistence and the rest of society will be encouraged (through market mechanisms) to live a more eco-efficient life and cut down on the things that are carbon-profligate, like
flying on foreign holidays etc.
The effects of ecotaxes on the poorest members of society could be addressed by adjusting welfare payments, and this
could be paid for by adjusting income tax rates to provide a just and fair distribution of the tax burden on citizens.
Steady State Economy
This approach provides a vision (and practical ideas) for building an alternative future economy that is more sustainable than the one we currently operate. The main thrust is to challenge the notion that perpetual economic growth is both possible and desirable. The main constructive suggestion is to re-envision a future economy where growth (in aggregate) is neither desirable nor necessary in order to achieve a fair, balanced and sustainable future for subsequent generations.
Doing It Ourselves (including 12 min video animation)
The video linked here is called "What the economic crisis [of 2008] really means - and what we can do about it".
Best reading on the subject of sustainability
THE TOP 50 SUSTAINABILITY BOOKS (as voted by the alumni of the Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership)
1 A Sand County Almanac Aldo Leopold (1949)
2 Silent Spring Rachel Carson (1962)
3 Unsafe At Any Speed Ralph Nader (1965)
4 The Population Bomb Paul L. Ehrlich (1968)
5 Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth R. Buckminster Fuller (1969)
6 The Limits to Growth Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers and William
W. Behrens III (1972)
7 Small Is Beautiful E.F. Schumacher (1973)
8 Gaia James Lovelock (1979)
9 The Turning Point Fritjof Capra (1982)
10 Our Common Future (‘The Brundtland Report’) World Commission onEnvironment and
Development (1987)
11 The Dream of the Earth Thomas Berry (1988)
12 A Fate Worse Than Debt Susan George (1988)
13 Staying Alive Vandana Shiva (1989)
14 Blueprint for a Green Economy David Pearce, Anil Markandya and Edward B. Barbier (1989)
15 For the Common Good Herman Daly and John B. Cobb Jr (1989)
16 Human Scale Development Manfred Max-Neef (1989)
17 Changing Course Stephan Schmidheiny and Business Council for Sustainable
Development (BCSD) (1992)
18 The Ecology of Commerce Paul Hawken (1993)
19 Maverick Ricardo Semler (1993)
20 When Corporations Rule the World David C. Korten (1995)
21 Biomimicry Janine M. Benyus (1997)
22 Cannibals with Forks John Elkington (1997)
23 The Hungry Spirit Charles Handy (1997)
24 Banker to the Poor Muhammad Yunus (1998)
25 The Crisis of Global Capitalism George Soros (1998)
26 Factor Four Ernst von Weizsäcker, Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins (1998)
27 False Dawn John Gray (1998)
28 Development as Freedom Amartya Sen (1999)
29 No Logo Naomi Klein (1999)
30 Natural Capitalism Paul Hawken, Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins (1999)
31 Business as Unusual Anita Roddick (2000)
32 The Mystery of Capital Hernando de Soto (2000)
33 The Civil Corporation Simon Zadek (2001)
34 Fast Food Nation Eric Schlosser (2001)
35 The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg (2001)
36 Cradle to Cradle William McDonough and Michael Braungart (2002)
37 Globalization and its Discontents Joseph E. Stiglitz (2002)
38 The Corporation Joel Bakan (2004)
39 Presence Peter Senge, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski and Betty Sue Flowers (2004)
40 The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid C.K. Prahalad (2004)
41 The River Runs Black Elizabeth C. Economy (2004)
42 Capitalism as if the World Matters Jonathon Porritt (2005)
43 Capitalism at the Crossroads Stuart L. Hart (2005)
44 Collapse Jared Diamond (2005)
45 The End of Poverty Jeffrey D. Sachs (2005)
46 The Chaos Point Ervin Laszlo (2006)
47 Heat George Monbiot (2006)
48 An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore (2006)
49 When the Rivers Run Dry Fred Pearce (2006)
50 The Economics of Climate Change Nicholas Stern (2007)
1 A Sand County Almanac Aldo Leopold (1949)
2 Silent Spring Rachel Carson (1962)
3 Unsafe At Any Speed Ralph Nader (1965)
4 The Population Bomb Paul L. Ehrlich (1968)
5 Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth R. Buckminster Fuller (1969)
6 The Limits to Growth Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers and William
W. Behrens III (1972)
7 Small Is Beautiful E.F. Schumacher (1973)
8 Gaia James Lovelock (1979)
9 The Turning Point Fritjof Capra (1982)
10 Our Common Future (‘The Brundtland Report’) World Commission onEnvironment and
Development (1987)
11 The Dream of the Earth Thomas Berry (1988)
12 A Fate Worse Than Debt Susan George (1988)
13 Staying Alive Vandana Shiva (1989)
14 Blueprint for a Green Economy David Pearce, Anil Markandya and Edward B. Barbier (1989)
15 For the Common Good Herman Daly and John B. Cobb Jr (1989)
16 Human Scale Development Manfred Max-Neef (1989)
17 Changing Course Stephan Schmidheiny and Business Council for Sustainable
Development (BCSD) (1992)
18 The Ecology of Commerce Paul Hawken (1993)
19 Maverick Ricardo Semler (1993)
20 When Corporations Rule the World David C. Korten (1995)
21 Biomimicry Janine M. Benyus (1997)
22 Cannibals with Forks John Elkington (1997)
23 The Hungry Spirit Charles Handy (1997)
24 Banker to the Poor Muhammad Yunus (1998)
25 The Crisis of Global Capitalism George Soros (1998)
26 Factor Four Ernst von Weizsäcker, Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins (1998)
27 False Dawn John Gray (1998)
28 Development as Freedom Amartya Sen (1999)
29 No Logo Naomi Klein (1999)
30 Natural Capitalism Paul Hawken, Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins (1999)
31 Business as Unusual Anita Roddick (2000)
32 The Mystery of Capital Hernando de Soto (2000)
33 The Civil Corporation Simon Zadek (2001)
34 Fast Food Nation Eric Schlosser (2001)
35 The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg (2001)
36 Cradle to Cradle William McDonough and Michael Braungart (2002)
37 Globalization and its Discontents Joseph E. Stiglitz (2002)
38 The Corporation Joel Bakan (2004)
39 Presence Peter Senge, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski and Betty Sue Flowers (2004)
40 The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid C.K. Prahalad (2004)
41 The River Runs Black Elizabeth C. Economy (2004)
42 Capitalism as if the World Matters Jonathon Porritt (2005)
43 Capitalism at the Crossroads Stuart L. Hart (2005)
44 Collapse Jared Diamond (2005)
45 The End of Poverty Jeffrey D. Sachs (2005)
46 The Chaos Point Ervin Laszlo (2006)
47 Heat George Monbiot (2006)
48 An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore (2006)
49 When the Rivers Run Dry Fred Pearce (2006)
50 The Economics of Climate Change Nicholas Stern (2007)
Why is there so much Climate Change denial out there?
There's a great (3 minute) video of Naomi Oreskes and Nick Minchin on the reasons why (perhaps) there is a lot of climate change denial out there currently:
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/why-deny-dangers-of-global-warming.html
Everyone can make up their own minds about whether Naomi is right or not - I suppose it depends on how thoroughly a climate change denier has looked at the evidence, and whether they have a cogent and valid challenge to the evidence, its part in the picture and its impacts on the conclusions. I think here there is a difference between scientifically valid scepticism and 'blind' denial out of fear of facing up to the 'truth' and consequences of accepting climate change as fact.
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/why-deny-dangers-of-global-warming.html
Everyone can make up their own minds about whether Naomi is right or not - I suppose it depends on how thoroughly a climate change denier has looked at the evidence, and whether they have a cogent and valid challenge to the evidence, its part in the picture and its impacts on the conclusions. I think here there is a difference between scientifically valid scepticism and 'blind' denial out of fear of facing up to the 'truth' and consequences of accepting climate change as fact.
National Geographic - If we melted all the ice ...
There would be a sea-level rise of about 200 feet. This would be the effect on Europe.