Oh, and anyone who thinks we need to "cut back" to change conditions to survive should Google or YouTube "William McDonough", the designer and architect. He goes beyond sustainability to what he calls sustaining, namely that 100% of our waste could be food for the environment, as opposed to poison. This isn't pie-in-the-sky stuff. It's possible, here and now and yes, already taking root.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aZ1dECu5sSc

I like the way this discussion has gone. I also like the fact that many seem to recognize that the planet is just fine. It's our civilization that's at risk, possibly our species, but not likely. Pockets will survive and hold on until climate stability resumes and the whole thing will start all over.

Good times.

I have wondered for years exact what it is that humans bring to the ecology. Bees pollinate, beavers build dams that generate meadows for flowers and grasses, plants cycle carbon dioxide and oxygen.

But what about humans?

So I asked myself what distinguishes humans from other life forms? The answer is obvious and embedded in our mythology: we make fire.

From an ecological point of view, fire breaks up stored energy and returns it to the atmosphere -- back into the soup, if you will -- where it is available for conversion into plant matter, which is eaten by animals who are in turn eaten by still others and then their feces enrich the soil, and so on. No carbon in the atmosphere, no plants.

So I figure that's our ecological function, to un-store energy so it doesn't just pile up.

And let's face it, from the Promethean revolution on, energy releasing is what we do best. Our civilization is built on finding better and faster ways of doing just that. Wood, charcoal, coal, petroleum, natural gas. Even uranium. if there's energy stored someplace, by god, we'll root it out with remarkable efficiency!

Of course, like any species that does its job too well, Nature has in place its own checks and balances. Certain levels of carbon in the atmosphere result in conditions that knock our numbers back down to a reasonable size.

So let's stop with all the "eco-cide" and save the planet chatter here. Talk about ego! The planet will be fine. It seemed to survive that asteroid strike that killed just about everything about 65 million years ago. We don't even come close.

I also don't own a car. I don't believe I 'overconsume' (strictly speaking). My household generates very little garbage. We recycle. I use my bike as mode of transportation, whenever possible. During the winter, I use public transit. Capitalism would hate it, if everyone would consume as little as me. I live consciously, and don't sleepwalk through life. But there are still costs associated with my life. Though I live 'minimalist' for our climate, I do not live 'poor'. And yet, I do not share your belief that 6.5 billion... never mind 9-10 billion in the next 10 years - could live like I do. There are too many humans even for such a way of life.

Remember that the Kyoto targets - even if they were actually enacted, rather than the public theatre the discussions provide - would not eliminate or reduce GhG's. The biosphere as we need it, would still get destroyed.

Liberator,

I guess i disagree.

I believe that with different economics, appropriate technologies, and a change in "lifestyle" for those in the wasteful nations, the earth can provide 6.5 billion people with a fulfilling existence.

The problem isn't a shortage of resources, it is a maldistribution of resources.

My brother and his partner lived in Pittsburgh (now Toronto) and they don't own a car at all. Aside from the additional home heating required by the winter climate in these places, their carbon footprint is no larger than average urban dwellers in Mumbai or Shangai or Kinshasha. They also live perfectly fulfilling lives - they are happier, healthier, and better fed than the average exurban McMansion dweller.

PJD, are you nitpicking on semantics as opposed to over the substance of what I was saying? You surely know what I mean. And even though I do not know you, I am sure that, no matter how hard you try, the world cannot sustain 6.5 billion people living like you do at this very moment.

"How many of you are really willing to cut back your lifestyle by 90%?"

I find it odd that you consider it "cutting back" on you lifestyle.

When I moved to a city neighborhood, my car use declined nearly 90%, but my "lifestyle" - access to culture, diverse ethnic dining, the end of enormous wasted time in traffic on freeways, and a genuine sense of community - improved greatly.

I likewise am pesimistic, but it isn't human nature that is the problem, it is the immense inertia of our corporate capitalist economy - which quite deliberately offers most north Americans proflagrate fossil fuel consumption as their sole lifestyle choice - and any "freedom" of this choice is strictly illusory.

I work as a civil engineer and regulator in the coal industry, and I can guarantee you that global warming or whatever you want to call it, is not being considered in the least in any coal/oil/electric power/automotive/RE development corporations long term plans.

ecocide-genocide=all in a day's work in the life of any nabob.

Oh, and one of the first non-scientific groups to promote taking action to stop climate change was the insurance industry. The actuaries did the comparing of what happens if one side is wrong, and quickly concluded (mid 1990's) that they had better try and promote sustainable development, limit insurance on low lying seaside properties, etc.

I am not in denial about Climate Change - which description I find much more frightening than Global Warming -, but I am in 100% denial about humanity being able, not to mention being willing, to change.

Just as Evolution has programmed us to breed and overpopulate to the point of bursting at the seams, we have likewise been programmed to "hunter-gather" and accumulate 'stuff' to the extent of our ability. That is why the Capitalist Market can so easily exploit humanity in offering its wares. Of course, combine the incessant drive to procreation with the incessant desire to accumulate and products that are made "to be thrown away", with as short a useable 'lifespan' as the market will endure, and you get the result of complete ecological disaster.

To expect humanity to do the absolutely impossible - which is, to be able to overcome the natural instincts ingrained in us - coupled with the fact that nobody even knows if climate change could be stopped even if we would stop consuming as we do (which of course also means mass-unemployment), is utterly naive.

How many of you are really willing to cut back your lifestyle by 90%? It is easy to call on governments to "do something", but the real implementation of what is necessary to have a chance at stopping what is happening to our planet, would draw massive protest & massive unemployment.

From my perspective, the future is terrifying, even though I am already well into what I expect to be the second half of my natural life. Population is expected to increase by 50% within less than 10 years. Arable land is being used to ensure that the affluent can drive their SUV's, instead of food production. Oil is becoming more scarce, and with it will come a reduction in synthetic fertilizers to keep food production as artificially high as it has been for decades. Weather patterns, and precipitation, which food production depends on, are becoming erratic.

Call me a pessimist if you like. I see nothing but bad news on the horizon. "Mother Earth" is preparing for a 'cull' of the "mammalian herd", and it won't be pretty. If it was unconsciounable to place a child into a world of war in the past, it is nothing compared to "the world to come" which young parents are birthing their children into today. Those who reject all warnings will rue the day.

Christmas is upon us, and many of us are spending a lot of money on useless junk. Just remember that every dollar spent on this stuff is driving another nail into the coffin of our biosphere. Reality is a nasty bitch.

Cutting through the whole "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" terminology debate, I recommend the term "CLIMATE EXTREMING".

That covers it. "Climate Extreming" is better than both the bland and sometimes fuzzily comforting terms "Climate change" and "Global warming" – both of which can too easily be perceived as neutral and unthreatening.

"Climate Extreming" points directly to the main characteristics of the events. "Warmer, Wetter, Wilder" has been a summing up of the ongoing global weather change. Collectively naming these events "Climate Extreming" is apt.

That said, the last permutation of "Global Climate Warming Change" can be used as a set term to refer to the social and political consequenses of Climate Extreming, as a snap reminder of basic conditions we now live under. This is "Global Change".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7561

What about this facet of the debate?

The US has been trying for years to be able to 'modify' the weather so as to have a deadly advantage over everyone else, but DUH.. the Earth is a sphere/circle and what happens 'somewhere else' will have an effect on us as well. Stupid humans!

Let's keep the conversation a bit more real. Let's try global human pollution - or even more directly apprpriate - human extinction. I like to view myself at sort of the top of the food chain. But really this is only my own ego - the chain is a circle so there really is not top or bottom without an unnecessary amount of arrogance. At the top of the food chain - since I am an arrogant and egotistical human - I require the little things to survive at the bottom to feed the middle to feed me at the top. It is no more basic than this 2nd grade science class teaches us about the symbiotic relationships of Life. we can debate the causes of this or that phenomenon - but understand that this is all simply rhetorical food for the ego - or money or both. We are in no real risk as a planet - only as a species. With mass die offs occuring of amphibians as early as the late 1980's we are well into whatever changes are occuring. The cycle has been broken and unless we look seriously at fixing it we are in danger of becomeing extinct ourselves. Try to look in the mirror and see what changes you yourself can make now to effect changes in the way we live and consume natural resources. Do not wait for guidance to change our unsustainable way of living - rather become your own guide and be the change you want to see in the world. This is the only way. Blaming others for things we should all be aware of innately is not going to solve any problems. Oil companies are evil right? Unless you work for one. What about those of us who continue to use the oil? Oh right - we can blame the government or whoever else - OPEC. In truth we are equally responsible for the state of our earth. If we all look to make changes and focus energy there rather than blaming or attacking others we will begin to make changes, not until then. Find peace in your own heart first before offering it to others.

Global warming and climate change are but euphemisms for what is a mass extinction event already in full swing, over 140 species per day, gone forever, with the human species marked as an endangered species. Call it what it is, a mass extinction event.

These are just the first little signs wait until the bigger ones come along, and then it starts to get real interesting, human survival is not looking that great but the good news is that the earth will continue, maybe not as it is today but as earth, a make over is a good thing right?

Climate change is the more correct term. It includes changes in rainfall patterns, wind, ice, etc. Global warming is just a part of it.

BBR-001 -- Yes it will be a "global" catastrophe for our favored biosphere haunts, but not as far the Earth's bigger picture, which has seen far worse millions of time before.

Let's try get some perspective here, as if mankind's place in the universe was no more special than say the extinct dinosaurs.

Billions of years ago, after an impact event thousands of times larger than the dino-killer rock, scientists believe that all of the oceans were vaporized, and what life remained, lived underground deep inside the Mt's deepest crevices as a few different types of slime molds.

One might consider that humans are as a malignant infestation, that the host eventually notices, and just shrugs off, to provide room for more worthy life.

Wake up people, responsibility means the ability to respond, while the window stays open and that is still possible.

If we want to continue "to be fruitful and multiply" we need a different strategy and new leadership, a new way of being and a moral re-awakening.

Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »

Robert Settgast, the stability of the economy is not the primary concern of the right wing. Their primary economic concern is immediate gains on Wall Street translated into profits by the richest among us.

The issue of terminology is important because the language that we use influences the debate and people's perception of their peril. While climate change ought to concern people more since it indicates a loss of livelihood and a threat to the ecosystems in which people live, global warming is a more immediate term. It is easier to understand to the common person and indicates a more significant scale of disaster, i.e. global.

Call it what you want, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, and we are adding 1.6 ppm every year. (Even faster if the "carbon sinks" become saturated.) If nothing changes, most Americans under the age of 45 will be around when we cross the 450 ppm point of almost certain global catastrophe.

Most people are unaware of the variety of change coming, and I can only guess what it will be like. But I am sure we will see dustbowls instead of crops, fierce forest fires and severe water shortages (we already have those), flooded coastal areas worldwide, including in the US, tropical diseases in once temperate zones (we're already seeing that), ecosystems ravaged by encroaching diseases and pests, and severe weather conditions including climate change.

Just wait until the Gulf Stream stops. I hear it's already started staggering, and over the last 12 years, 30% of the north flowing warm water is being diverted into the southward stream toward Africa. The prediction for Great Britain is a climate like Canada.

In fact, we're already seeing the early signs of all of the above.

All the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put humpty together again. Call it what you like. Population is rising at the same time that the earth's ecosystem is becoming more and more damaged. There will be a drastic reduction in the world population and this will be in the relatively short term. Thirty years max.

coyotebreath;
I know what you mean/meant. I'm living in a place where there are a lot of people who realize what is happening, but thanks to the oil interests not much is going to change. The climatologists who argued that warming was occuring were treated like their name was Cassandra by politicians who think the world is a new Troy.

I think the ship's hit the iceburg, some argue we have time to overcome the effects of a warming world, not me. I don't think it's the end of human civilization, nor will it be the end of humanity. Call me optimistic, but I think even if the worst happens and the seas rise 50 feet and the Earth itself cannot support human life any longer we do have enough brains to avoid extinction. It might take a few generations for our decendents to find a new planet to wreck, but the ancient Romans argued that their ancestor's came from Troy...

Ecocide by any other name...

I like that, kelmer: "climate terror" sums up the problem better than anything else I've seen yet.

Although I'd argue we humans are in fact the terrorists, not the Earth.

How about climate change in the form of global warming?

Check out

Meat Eating and Global Warming at www.ivu.org/members/globalwarming.html

How about
Climate Terror

Its a form of terrorism isnt it? The earth is saying change your ways or I will do this...

And with an official policy "we dont talk to terrorists" i guess it explains everything.

My point is, language and perception of the meaning of language are critical in this battle.

Don't cede the symbolic battle. It is the most critical one of all, if we are to change the way people see the issue.

Skippy,

I didn't mean to imply that climate change/global warming was a good thing. I understand very well the implications of climate change and that it may indeed spell the end to this phase of human civilization, which has flowered only because of the climate stability of the last 10,000 years.

At this point in time, there is a war raging over the perception of this danger. Whether it is something severe or something innocuous. The outcome of this battle will determine our future.

To use your Titanic metaphor, the ship has not yet hit the iceberg and there is a raging argument between those who think it's insane to be going so fast in iceberg-laden waters and those who believe in the Titanic's supposed unsinkability.

And believe me, the global warming deniers are winning. The have a lot on their side. The inertia of public belief (the inability to imagine something so unprecedented as climate change) and the financial power to spread their message.

To prove my point, consider that only a few years ago, the debate was over whether the phenomena was even real. Now that the reality has been acknowledged, the argument has shifted to severity and causes, and, by extension, whether we can do anything about it.

In short, the deniers don't quit even after the denying is discredited. THAT's what we're up against. Like the Terminator, they will never quit, they will never get tired.

Only when some large industry is financially impact (look out Big Agro, look out Big Insurance) will maybe something start to change. The united front of industry will fracture. But by then it will likely be too late.

I've never understood why Luntz thought that changing "global warming" to "climate change" was more soothing. On blog after blog you will see ignorant people being content that winters are getting warmer, and in addition the measure used, average increase, seems tiny. Two degrees seems nothing (and seems even less when American readers don't understand that it is 2 degrees centigrade, not 2 degrees farenheit), even five degrees seems nothing really. But climate change seems (and is) a very big deal - climate is what supports agriculture and fisheries and forestry, quite apart from those birds and bees and butterflies - and the thought that climate change (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/Climate_change/) is accelerating is, or should be, very frightening indeed. But warming is the mechanism which is changing the climate, and I tend to use both depending on context. In a house fire, whether you die from heat or inhaling gases is academic.

Coyotebreath; I agree, from the perspective of a northern town the idea of Global Warming is a nice idea. Who the hell enjoys temps that drop below 35C and stay there for three months, not any of the million residents of Edmonton, Alberta that's for sure. Winter was something that we used to endure, but rarely enjoy; yah, the snow crystals on the windows are cool - except that they form because of poor insulation - snow frost on trees is a very nice sight, the first snowfall is awesome.

But those things are happening later and later every year, the ammount of rainfall on the northern prairies has fallen, and looks like it'll continue to fall until the dustbowl days of the 1930s seem rainy by comparison. The glaciers are going away, with them gone Canada won't be a storehouse of freshwater anymore.

End note talking about what words that we use to describe the weather is starting to sound like people arguing about the causes of what sank the Titanic; whatever the explaination is, the result is not going to be a pretty thing.

GLOBAL WARMING ARROGANCE
The US rejections of Kyoto, then the Bali Conference, & now rephrasing the term, underscore the dangerous control that special interests exercise over this administration's policies. Their distortions of scientific data typifies their unconscionable war on science. Evidence linking carbon pollution to warming has long been as close to certain as science can be. Its causes, consequences, and mitigation requirements have been documented by many dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.

Special interests argue that the current warming trends follow historic warming cycles, and hence reflect natural weather patterns--but they omit obvious differences: The earlier warming trends developed at slower rates which permitted the ecosystems to adapt. Morever they resulted from temporary natural events, which allowed transitions back to normal temperature patterns--by contrast, the current warming patterns result from artificial causes that will only intensify unless mitigated.

By all indicators, global warming will self perpetuate as the melting ice sheets absorb rather than reflect heat, as the melting permafrost releases more CO2 & methane, and the list goes on. Inundation of low lying areas, spread of tropical diseases to temperate latitudes, sea life destruction from changing ocean chemistry, & currents, are only some potential consequences.

Often overlooked is the fact that, the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were no issue. Conservation, alternative energy development, anti- pollution refinements, etc are essential for other vital environmental reforms such as air and water quality, reductions in toxic waste generation, land preservation, etc.

Contrary to right wing assertions, measures to reduce greenhouse gases could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependance on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect that has resulted from our rejection of Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionally to carbon pollution. With our participation in international efforts, China & India could no longer use our non-compliance as an excuse for their non-participation.

The environmental and social damage from our indifference to carbon pollution can only worsen if we allow this administration, guided special interests, to continue their war against our planet.

As a writer and word guy, I find this distinction very interesting.

My own perception was dead wrong. For me, the term "climate change" is much more frightening. Global warming has a touchy feely sense to it. Global is a nice word, and warming likewise. Like one big spring time.

Climate change suggests storms and floods and failed crops. To me, anyway.

I'm also from a place that has Siberian-style winters, but I associate "global warming" not with relief but with DROUGHT, MELTING ICE CAPS, RISING SEA LEVELS, EXPANSION OF DESERTS, LACK OF DRINKING WATER. Nothing "touchy feely" there! "Climate change" sounds totally innocuous. What kind of change? It's not obvious within the expression. It could even be interpreted as a change for the better.