Hope you had a Happy Christmas, if you celebrate Christmas. If you don’t, I hope you are getting a little holiday.
It’s a good time to reflect on things.
As for me, I’m reflecting on climate change. I didn’t do it on purpose today. It’s just that I was looking at the Tasmanian Glenorchy Council documents about it. I was looking at how the planning rules are affected by climate change.
That’s relevant to our Superpod® project coming up in Tasmania. A planning permit will be needed. We want to build certified passive houses there. That’s because the Passive House Standard is the world’s best practice for comfortable, healthy living for the lowest energy consumption. These certified passive house buildings don’t use much energy because they RECYCLE ENERGY in a really clever way. And that in itself is the BEST WAY for buildings to HELP US AROUND THE WORLD TO RESIST CLIMATE CHANGE. But I digress.
The Glenorchy council says:
“3. Extreme sea level events
High water events causing coastal inundation comes from a combination of sea level, tide, storm surge and wind waves. Sea level has been rising at a rate of 3.3 ±0.4 mm/year in the recent period, and are expected to continue rising with further climate warming.
The upper range of model projections indicates a rise of up to 0.82 m global average sea level by 2100 under a high emissions scenario.
The sea level rise varies in different locations, and for Tasmania the sea level rise for this scenario is close to the global average.”
Back to the title of this blog. What I don’t understand.
I don’t understand why there is ANY DEBATE about climate change in certain high profile sectors of the community. (Just like I don’t understand why people would prefer a cheap big uncomfortable unhealthy power guzzling house to a smaller, comfortable, healthy, low power house. But I digress again.)
This public debate amongst certain noisy high profile sectors is particularly ironic sometimes. Particularly when local councils around the country just accept the scientific truth, as it is accepted around the world by the scientific community. And as the Paris talks have just confirmed.
When you look at planning requirements for local councils around the country, they say stuff like the Glenorchy Council in Tasmania, Australia.
If local councils get it.
If local councils require us to build higher in the face of rising sea levels, noting that those sea levels are connected with emissions, as articulated by the international scientific community,
Why are there people still who are not humiliated by making public statements to the effect that our climate isn’t changing, or that humans have no effect on our climate? (And why don’t people start to build buildings that use less power?)