Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIgnoring the Climate Change Alarm
George Bush's agreement at the G8 to halve carbon emissions by 2050 won't make up for his climate change obstructionism
The recent G8 meeting seals President Bush's legacy as the president who blindly blocked all serious efforts aimed at domestic and international action on greenhouse gas emissions. For more than seven years, Bush has used every tool at his disposal to stop states like California from reducing their emissions, to stop Congress from adopting greenhouse gas controls and to stop the international community from developing a serious follow-on to the Kyoto protocol.
No surprise that climate scientists have become increasingly desperate for action. In November, for instance, the head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, said: "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." And remember that Pachauri was handpicked by the Bush administration to replace the "alarmist" Bob Watson.
Now compare his alarm call to the nonchalant language of the Declaration on Environment and Climate Change from the G8: "We recognise the importance of setting mid-term, aspirational goals for energy efficiency." Translation: hit the snooze button.
Some people seem excited by the fact that Bush signed a G8 deal to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. But here are three reasons this won't keep any insomniacs awake.
First, the G8's statement on the matter was:
We seek to share with all Parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognising that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities."
The language couldn't be any more watered down than if it had been in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.
Second, what is the baseline for this 50% reduction? Today's level of emissions? The text doesn't say. In fact, we probably need a 50% cut from 1990 levels.
Third, who really cares if the G8 pledges to share their vision and to consider and adopt a global "goal" of a 50% cut in emissions by 2050? What we need to know is not what the G8 thinks the world must do but rather what the G8 itself is prepared to do by 2050 - and by 2020. At a minimum, the G8 needs to establish firm targets and timetables that return to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. If the state of California can make such commitments, the G8 can.
The world knows that Bush has been feverishly working behind the scenes for years to block any new international emissions accord. And, of course, Bush famously reneged on his 2000 campaign pledge to regulate utility greenhouse gas. Judging Bush on his seven years of global warming denial and obstructionism, he has made a major step forward at the G8. Judging Bush on the basis of what he has done for our children, their children and the next 50 generations, he has solidified his record of helping ensure that billions and billions of people suffer the grim consequences of catastrophic climate change.
Bush will have one of two historical legacies. First, the next president of the United States, together with Congress and the American people and the rest of the world, could sharply reject and reverse Bush's energy and climate policies. That might save the climate and leave Bush's administration as a small historical footnote - an utterly irrelevant anti-science president.
Alternately, the US and the world might fail to overcome Bush's lost decade. Then future generations will view him bitterly as the man who, more than anyone else on the planet, ruined their health and well-being. Let's all hope and pray we end up with the irrelevant Bush.
Joseph Romm is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress where he runs the blog ClimateProgress.org. He was acting assistant secretary of energy in 1997.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
34 Comments so far
Show AllT O __ T H E __ W H O L E __ W O R L D,
Yes, I've finally done it, I've climbed out the CLIMATE CLOSET Namaste « Presence »
U S A n,
Perhaps there is a priori belief that shapes the "consensus" view of man's primary causality in ( stipulated ) Global Warming ?
Perhaps the current modeling limitations ( see THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE forcing functions, elimination of 'little ice age' period, and ~1000 year latency between peaks of CO2 and those of temperature ) will only adapt to the larger picture through a significant paradigm shift.
I would not be a denier, as I agree whole heartedly to the observed Global Warming trends.
What I am is skeptical of the cart pulling the horse, being that there is a LAG some 1000 years between the temperature change ( say to a + peak ) _and_ then we see the resulting CO2 follow in time that same trending direction.
How can the cause of man-caused Global Warming be occurring after the effect ?
Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
The deniers are out in full force today!
Thomas More even used the "it's only a theory" remark - showing his ignorance of the most basic aspects of how science works.
Virtually all science is "only theory"! A scientific notion can be elevated above "theory" only if there must be NO change of a contrary observation or revision. The building you are in is standing because of "only a theory" (material mechanics theory). every electrical gadget works because of "only a theory" (Maxwells equaton and quantum theory)
And MiCcS - you are using faulty logic in pursuit of a desired answer - the classic polluters-argument. The is no valid reason to "dilute" human CO2 emissions among natural sources and then say they are insignificant. This is because the human emissions are the ones that are upsetting a formerly finely balanced system.
Let's look at your numbers (source?) a little more objectively:
Emissions:
203 gigatons (GT)emitted from natural sources per year
7 GT emitted from human sources
210 GT total per year
Absorbtion into sinks = 207 GT per year
net into atmosphere = 3 GT per year
Net if no human emissions = 203-207 = -3 GT per year
Net with human emission = 210-207 = +3 GT per year
So, the human contribution looks pretty damn significant to me - it is the diference between brakeing a car to avoid hitting a wall versus accleerating as one approaches the wall. And no, the -3 gt per year if no human emisisons does not mean we are preventing an ice age because this extra CO2 being removed from the atmosphere is likely due to the natural systems working "as hard as they can" to absorb the extra human emissions.
The total quantities are not particularly relavant to the discussion, as the system is non linear and small quantity changes make a big difference. But the total carbon figures do come in one way - they represent the greenhouse gases (CO2 and Methane) that could be emitted if human emissions trigger a runaway global warming doomsday scenario. such events represent the major catastrophes in the geologic record - like the grat P-Tr extinctio envet of the Paleocene thermal maximum event.
I very much recommend the dvd documentary, The Eleventh Hour. It's very inexpensive in stores and at Amazon. It is highly informative and explains the stark nature of what is happening.
"During the three day grounding of commercial aviation directly after 9/11, the US experience a period of brightening that was statistically relevant using standard measurement tools in place around the country. During that same period, diurnal temperatures also spiked 1dC (nearly 2dF and the largest swing measured in thirty years). "
Do you have a source for this?
Part of the problem in obtaining statistical proof that points directly to CO2 alone as "the" climate key, is that there are more factors to consider. I am not suggesting that it's not "the" primary culprit, but there are more players in the game and it's tough to separate the effects... and that makes it easier for denialists to play their numbers game.
One of the factors is the mask created by "global dimming"... the man-made particulate and cloud layers that reflect solar radiation back to space. The reversal of global dimming (starting soon after the mandated reduction of aerosol pollution), may be causing some of the spike in climate change. The dimming layer that bounced back a significant percent of the sun's radiation and provided an inherent cooling effect, is being eliminated somewhat and may be revealing the real effects of greenhouse gases.
During the three day grounding of commercial aviation directly after 9/11, the US experience a period of brightening that was statistically relevant using standard measurement tools in place around the country. During that same period, diurnal temperatures also spiked 1dC (nearly 2dF and the largest swing measured in thirty years).
After some head scratching, the simple elimination of aircraft contrails was determined to have enough effect on dimming/brightening/temperature to provide empirical evidence of the direct tie-in to climate. We may be entering a continued brightening period as those particulates are increasingly eliminated, but dimming may be increased in the future as China and others burn more coal without tight particulate controls in place.
Another factor that affects both dimming and increased warming that is second only to the CO2 layer, is the increased pollution of airborne black carbon from the burning of fossil fuels. It acts as a storehouse of heat from solar radiation.
This all points to a complicated formula for an effective solution to global warming. Less solar reflection from ice and cloud layers coupled with increased heat containment from the expanding CO2 layer provides us with a real mess that may not have a viable solution.
The one thing that is certain is that the formula provides an easy way for denialists to point to a single factor and lie with statistics.
G8 was a bad joke.
jakenewton July 10th, 2008 2:11 pm
"We've agreed and disagreed before and I'm sure we will again,"
How can that be when we are paid shills?
Got me again!
"We've agreed and disagreed before and I'm sure we will again,"
How can that be when we are paid shills? :-)
jakenewton July 10th, 2008 12:20 pm
Agreed jakenewton and again thanks for understanding my point. I'm beginning to think whoever said there was an increase of intolerance and rigidity on CD may have been correct.
We've agreed and disagreed before and I'm sure we will again, but I usually learn something and its never discussed rudely. Between you and dsome others here I've actually changed my stonelike mind at times! My appreciation.
Galen July 10th, 2008 11:56 am
Good lord....get some treatment.
" the scientific consensus on climatic changes related to global warming is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen between 0.4 and 0.8 °C over the past 100 years. "
While not disageeing with the factoid on the temperature rise, the article does not subtantiate the "consensus".
"Thanks for getting what I was trying to say and for your civility, which the others lacked."
In many forums, people who disagree with you are unwilling or unable to debate the points you make, instead they tell you who or what you are while ignoring your points. This of course is a fallacy of logic and rightly dismissed out of hand.
Thomas More- So you admit that your 'maker' is a creature of deceit, pain, suffering and pointless bloodshed who revels in the saccharine adoration of those who commit murderous atrocities 'in His name'?
Good on Ya!
Admission is the first step to recovery.
All About Global Warming
Global warming is the term used to describe a gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and its oceans, a change that is believed to be permanently changing the Earth's climate forever.
While many view the effects of global warming to be more substantial and more rapidly occurring than others do, the scientific consensus on climatic changes related to global warming is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen between 0.4 and 0.8 °C over the past 100 years. The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other human activities, are believed to be the primary sources of the global warming that has occurred over the past 50 years.
Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate carrying out global warming research have recently predicted that average global temperatures could increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C by the year 2100. Changes resulting from global warming may include rising sea levels due to the melting of the polar ice caps, as well as an increase in occurrence and severity of storms and other severe weather events.
For more information on global warming, including the long-term effects of global warming, the causes of global warming, the latest global warming news, and more, just select any global warming article or other interactive feature below.
http://www.livescience.com/globalwarming/
Thomas More July 9th, 2008 2:59 pm
Global warming is still not an agreed fact as far as I can tell. For every plausible scientist that says yes there are one or more that say no.
I'm afraid the preponderence of proof isn't quite 32 to 1. The scientific community is fairly split about what is causing climate change. As far as I can tell that is.
Afraid you are wrong Tommy.
The preponderence of proof is 32 to 1.
Where did that figure come from? And thanks for the civility of your disagreement.
Part of the confusion is my mistake in using Global Warming in my first post rather than saying as in the second that the split was on and what I was referring to was the cause. We probably do have Global Warming, indicators say we do, though some say we don't. Ice is melting on one cap, but forming on the other.
None the less, if you had read the second you should have seen what I was tring to say, if I'm not clear, either ignore me or ask for a clarification.
An intolerant response filled with personal attack and opinion not fact simply reflects badly on you. But to say there are no more than a dozen or so recycled by rightwingers that disagree with Global Warming is of itself silly. As to the cause, the number is legion.
And Siouxrose, I am surprised at you. When I meet my maker I will be able to look him directly in the eye with no apologies and he will know me. I always try to do the right thing and try never to judge people on a whim.
jakenewton July 10th, 2008 7:14 am
Thanks for getting what I was trying to say and for your civility, which the others lacked.
Here is a list of global warming skeptics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics
For the record, I am skeptical but not a denier
"GW causes instability and a greater polarity of temperatures plus regional changes. "
So the last two *mild* hurricane seasons, were they evidence of "GW"?
"Thomas More is not dense. He's either a paid hack or an idiot. "
Rather than tell us who you think he *is*, why not instead focus on what he *says*?
Afraid you are wrong Tommy.
The preponderence of proof is 32 to 1.
Thomas More is not dense. He's either a paid hack or an idiot. Global Warming is a fact, it's happening now, and every measure that can be done supports the conclusion that man is heating up the planet by burning off what's left of the fossil fuels. The way to shut people like Thomas More up, is to simply ask them where they get their information from and the names of the scientists who are in denial. In my case, there wouldn't be a single one that More could name that I am not already familiar with. This same group of less than a dozen individuals gets recycled through the right-wing media over and over and every single one of them can be traced back to their corporate masters by following the money, and not one of them does any research or has published any report that shows anything but the burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming. What they do is give their unqualified opinion on the subject. So the standard, "I disagree..." or "...in my opinion..." is all they have. They can never say, "Well in my recently published research I was able to show that Global Warming is mostly caused by the hot air emanating from the mouths of the GOP, not from burning fossil fuels."
Profits don't fit into the GW issue.
BUT THE COMPANIES that are lobbying those elected officials don't have a green product so they don't want it. The new jobs created in a green industry are not in coal or nuke or oil industry so these companies profits drop.
Thomas More, please stop acting so dense. "You are correct in pointing out that the weather is changing, warmer or cooler depends on who you talk to". No, it has nothing to do with who you talk to, it has everything to do with scientific measurements. GW causes instability and a greater polarity of temperatures plus regional changes. Where I live in Canada the winters are considerably warmer overall but with extremes of cold. The overall warmth is registered by an increase in deer numbers further north and an increase in associated predators. These animals are unaffected by partisan politics, religious beliefs, views held by climatologists, climate deniers or CD posters etc.
Yes, you can look out your window and see the change. Were it just one window it would be statistically irrelevant but if you look out of millions of windows over decades and start to see a correlation then it becomes statistically meaningful.
I have no personal expertise with climatology but I have followed the concerns of scientists since around 1980. Back then it was the concern of just a few and anyone such as myself who echoed that concern was considered paranoid and stupid. Now that the vast majority of scientists are convinced of GW we are still considered paranoid and stupid. The inertia is simply stunning and when even a board like CD is full of deniers I have to conclude that there really is no hope for mankind. The Earth will achieve a balance eventually but whether the narrow range of existing life, particularly the more advanced forms, fits that new equilibrium is moot. I hope none of you have children.
Here are the players in the carbon cycle and how much carbon they hold.
the atmosphere 760 gigatons (increasing at a rate of about 3 gigatons per year)
the ocean surface layers 800 gigatons
the deep ocean 38,000 gigatons
plants and soils 2,000 gigatons
Man emits about 7 gigatons of CO2 each year. So every year, man emits CO2 into the atmosphere that is equal to 1% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. The total emissions from all sources are about 210 gigatons , and each year there is a net uptake of about 3 gigatons. So 98.5% of all CO2 emissions are absorbed into the various sinks as part of the carbon cycle. How exactly is mans CO2 emissions due to energy consumption contributing 50% or more to the 3 gigaton uptake. Shouldn't our share be 3% of this, or 0.09 gigatons? If we reduce that by 50%, so what, we might lower CO2 levels by 2 ppm.
But you know what they say? IPCC and their ilk says mans CO2 stays in the air and gets left behind for over 100 years. The plants won't eat mans CO2, the oceans won't absorb mans CO2. Hold your breath and think about that for a minute. Does it make any sense? If it does not make sense to you, there is hope.
"Try looking out your window. "
Don't confuse "weather" with "climate". Whatever you believe about climate change, it is *not* what you see outside your window.
You live up to your name--Thomas, doubting THOMAS, and on this subject it's really proof of being UNINFORMED. As another poster related, the only scientists who use their credentials to lend doubt (like medical doctors who side with those seeking huge settlements from insurance companies when their injuries are being beefed up) are those ON THE PAYROLL. Get it? There IS a consensus, it's about 98% and based on PEER REVIEWED research. KEM PATRICK and others have offered links MANY times on this site.
What we CAN do is scale back. I am very minimalist with objects, use of electricity, use of gas/car, and food. Americans use far too much of any remotely fair share of global resources and as a result, climate change has begun to increase dangerous storm activity and placed MILLIONS at risk.
When you meet your maker, you will have to answer for HOW you lived. Either that, or the lords of karma tally up the score and it's based on the same premise.
I'm afraid the preponderence of proof isn't quite 32 to 1. The scientific community is fairly split about what is causing climate change. As far as I can tell that is.
cromerovich July 9th, 2008 4:27 pm
You are correct in pointing out that the weather is changing, warmer or cooler depends on who you talk to, I'm confused about it anyway.
The Earth is essentially a closed system and there is always an effect from a cause, unless you feel physics needs rewriting according to political beliefs.
A lot was made not long ago about the US not signing the Kyoto accord. China and India were exempt. Whats the point of usless things like that?
Are we doing it? Is it Mother nature? What do we do about it? Should we do anything? I don't know. The one thing I'm sure of is that no one else does either.
Which is all I was trying to say. The weather is changing. Why we don't know. Scientifically there are a number of theories, not proff positive, just theories.
The G8 believe in the word "Global" but not in "Gaia". Do not worry, humanity and Gaia can only die once. A pity it was so premature.
For there inaction, the leaders need to be disposed by the people and lynched.
Too little too late.
Hot air is not a viable solution.
The few scientists who deny the catastrophic trends of climate change have their pockets lined with Exxon-Mobil gold and silver. The political leaders who are so nonchalant about the situation are part of this same club that who worship only money and power. These "scientists" and politicians are infidels who deny any reality except that which makes them richer and more powerful. They give not ratsa$$ for anyone living at the present time outside of their small cicle of friends and relatives. Their concern extends no further than their noses, and does not even include their great-granchildren, let alone animals and plants.
So, what can we do? Live in a way (simply, so that others may simply live) that reduces our carbon footprints and denies the greedheads their profits. And, concurrently do all we can to support the movements and politicians that will both deal directly with the problems, and sweep the denying greedheads out of power.
I just had a synchronistic moment; as I was writing the last paragraph, I received a call from NYPIRG requesting my support (like instant put up or shut up). I will, and urge you all to to so. Conservation and renewable energy!
We need to phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible, in the U.S., and globally. The national network I direct, GlobalWarmingSolution.org, released its emissions reduction proposal, "Rosie Revisited: A U.S.-Led Solution to GlobalWarming", www.globalwarmingsolution.org , in July, 2007. (DVD also available) The report demonstrates the technological and economic feasibility of reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2025. In addition, the straightforward methodology we employed for the U.S. energy system could be applied in countries around the world so that these urgently needed emissions reductions are global…as they must be. It is the most aggressive emissions reduction proposal of any U.S. national environmental group. Help us make it happen!
Im not a scientist and i know that global warming may be impacted by mankinds actions but we are not the cause or even remotely responsible.The Earth is a living thing.And it has cycles as do most things.And we are at the end of one of those cycles.The time frames proposed for Kyoto are almost a cruel joke if it werent so ironic.But at the end of the day those who have the most, have the most to lose.
Thomas More: Try looking out your window. Global warming as a result is a fact; weather everywhere in the world is different from a few decades ago. You may disagree on whether human input is the cause but I have yet to hear a plausible argument against the indisputable GHG's that mankind is emitting. The Earth is essentially a closed system and there is always an effect from a cause; unless you feel physics needs rewriting according to biblical beliefs.
For every scientist who says no there are 32 plausible scientists who say yes.
Global warming is still not an agreed fact as far as I can tell. For every plausible scientist that says yes there are one or more that say no.
Leaders like Bush and Harper are Evangelical Right Wingers with unquestioning belief in Armageddon and they each will do everything in their power to hasten and facilitate this Rapture. They both apparently commune directly with God on these matters, so no questions need be asked. Global warming is one excellent way to make the world an eventual inferno; as countries fight dwindling food and resources "nookeller" will do the rest. Bush and Harper, being of course true believers, will be beamed up a la Scotty before the inferno destroys Earth. These are the people we elected to care for us.
Self-fulfilling religions and politics should be separated. Now.
Why hasn't Obama and the Dems taken a leadership initiative on this issue? What have they done? Their constant defeatist beliefs (we can't win so why bother? You bother because once people know the information, it is indeed possible to "WIN"; and because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!!
"Bush's lost decade" ?
I wish that is all the time that was lost.
Ronald Reagan accelerated climate change as soon as he was inaugurated in 1981 by revising regulations, tax & monetary policy to favor fossil fuel and ignore renewables. Removing the photovoltaic panels from the White House roof (that were installed by the Carter Administration) just days after he was inaugurated sent a message to the polluters that he was on their side, and sent a message to the renewable energy industry that they best leave the US. Fortunately, Japan and Germany embraced the renewable energy industry and progress was made in spite of the US during the past quarter century.