AFP / Antonio Scorza

According to the latest poll by British  market research company Ipsos Mori, there has been a sharp decline in public  conviction that climate change is a threat, writes the Guardian,

the proportion of adults who believe climate change is "definitely" a reality dropped by 30% over the last year, from 44% to 31%.

Same goes for the American public, where poll after poll over the last months has shown that less and less people believe that climate change is a serious problem - or, if so, that it is manmade. According to the latest Rasmussen report on US public opinion,

47% think long-term planetary trends are mostly to blame, down three points from the previous survey in January. Eight percent say there is some other reason, and 10% aren't sure. (...) Belief that human activity is the primary cause of global warming has declined significantly. In April 2008, the numbers were nearly the mirror image of the current numbers. At that time, 47% blamed human activity and only 34% named long term planetary trends as the reason for climate change.

Reasons? All this comes after months of controversy about leaked emails from climate researchers and allegations of manipulating data. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to admit mistakes in their estimate that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 (they are melting nonetheless, but slower than the IPCC has written in their 2007 report). And the human tendency ignore problems that are too slowly developing to really  comprehend  and require too much change from us.

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

There are,  a new study published  by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found,

strong historical linkages between civil war and temperature in Africa, with warmer years leading to significant increases in the likelihood of war. When combined with climate model projections of future temperature trends, this historical response to temperature suggests a roughly 54% increase in armed conflict incidence by 2030, or an additional 393,000 battle deaths if future wars are as deadly as recent wars.

How will we face this development? The military seems to have put quite a lot of thought into the violent social consequences of climate change, shows a statement by retired vice admiral Dennis McGinn before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on Ocober 28:

Climate-driven disruption is such a viable threat that the Pentagon has already started to prepare contingencies for such scenarios.

Warns Bradford Plumer from The New Republic, we shouldn't "militarize the climate debate". The frame military planners set might be to limited -  as they focus  mainly on armed responses.

But since neither politicians nor consumers seem to do enough to reverse course, one day we might have no other choice than turn towards military strategists for help.

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

The Guardian and the  Independent both report today that a new study by the Global Carbon Project , led by Professor Corinne Le Quéré, of the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, has found that there has been a 29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008. This, writes the Independent,

means an annual increase in emissions of just over 3 per cent over the period, compared with an annual increase of 1 per cent between 1990 and 2000. Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000 and resulted from the boom in the Chinese economy.

And it means a far higher increas in global temperatures than predicted by the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast just two years ago. The study argues that we could be on course for a 6C rise in temperatures by 2100. If in doubt about the implications of such a rise, i.e. the combustion of the rainforests, the acidification of the oceans and the consequences of irreversable tipping points, I suggest you read Mark Lynas' book "Six Degrees. Our Future on a Hotter Planet", a detailed description of a truely apocalyptic future.

Yet there are still people around who do not accept the human factor in climate change. Thomas Friedman, the voice of choice for mainstream liberal America, rebukes these incorrigible deniers in his column in the New York Times today - from a purely American perspective and for pure self-interest ( and, yes, there could be worse reasons for campaigning for a change of America's energy policy).

So, as I said, you don't believe in global warming? You’re wrong, but I'll let you enjoy it until your beach house gets washed away. But if you also don't believe the world is getting more crowded with more aspiring Americans — and that ignoring that will play to the strength of our worst enemies, while responding to it with clean energy will play to the strength of our best technologies — then you’re willfully blind, and you're hurting America’s future to boot.

And the world's, I might add.

Christopher Furlong / Getty Images

Whole Trees Construction & Architecture

There are trees, there are houses, there are treehouses, and, well, there are houses based on and supported by trees. Who did not envy Jane for Tarzan's villa high up in the sky, all mods inc? Even when Johnny Weismuller's oily torso was all over the place.

There is a nice feature in today's NYT on an architect, Roald Gundersen, who incorporates whole trees  into his design. Hence the name. Might not be to everybody's taste, as it looks quite  rustic, definitely not minimalist or urbane. But then, is houses resurrrect old childhood memories of Sunday afternoons with Johnny and his tree house.  And, of course, it is in the middle of the woods. There could be worse ways to battle the sellout of nature.

And then I will have to find out whether designs like this are allowed in Germany. I fear they aren't.

What happens when Copenhagen fails (and using when rather than if is quite deliberate)? A few months ago, a dark political thriller was published that envisions a world where Kyoto and its successors have all failed. It's 2032, the coasts of the world are under water, droughts and wildfires are raging. The planet is close  to disaster.  The newly elected American president has to strike a deal with China, by then the world's worst polluter... They talk, diplomacy becomes a struggle of wills, the end is surprising - and frightening. Because there is an ultimatum.

The book is set in the future, but it could just as well describe political dealings and interests today. Says the Economist,

“Ultimatum” does a better job of convincing the reader about the price the world will pay for its complacency about global warming than any international grandstanding or dry scientific reports.

I couldn't stop reading. "Ultimatum" is visionary, but never implausible. So, if  you still need frightening scenarios to be convinced or convince others - go get it. Otherwise, have a great night reading anyway.

... what has a melting glacier in Argentina  to do with hanging laundry outdoors in Florida?

Quite a bit.

An common sight in Europe (sometimes even a tourist attraction), hanging laundry in your back yard is  not allowed in parts of America. Many communities,  gated, private, otherwise, have specific rules against it. It pushes down property prices. Or that's what they believe - clotheslines make a neighborhood look poor. But since everybody uses a dryer instead, by NOT hanging your washing you are producing a lot of CO2.

In fact, writes Alexander P. Lee from the Project Laundry List,

the tumble dryer is the second largest energy-consuming appliance...There is no such sense as an Energy Star dryer; these machines are inherently inefficient, using natural gas or electricity to heat air.

Some Americans start to question these community rules and  try to change it,  writes the New York Times.

Should Americans have the right to hang their laundry outdoors, even if many of their neighbors oppose it and community rules ban clotheslines as unsightly threats to property values? Legislators in Colorado, Hawaii, Maine and Vermont have prohibited anti-clothesline rules, and similar action is being considered in several other states.

If the rules are changed, it would be inefficient, energy-wasting suburbia that could help prevent emissions. And yes, laundry will smell a lot nicer.