Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAl Gore Calls for Tougher Global Limit on CO2 Levels
Gore, a former US vice president, told UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland that even the most ambitious existing targets would be unable to hold world temperature rise to safe levels.
![[Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore gestures as he gives a speech during the U.N. climate change conference in Poznan December 12, 2008. (Reuters/Kacper Pempel)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/gore-1212.jpg "gore-1212.jpg")
He called for a new global goal of limiting carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million (ppm) - current levels are already over 380ppm, up from 280ppm before the industrial revolution.
"I call on the people of the world to speak up more forcefully," he said. "We need to focus clearly and unblinkingly on this crisis rather than spending so much time on OJ Simpson, Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith."
He called for world leaders to meet several times over the next few months, to ensure a new global deal on climate change is agreed at a UN meeting in Copenhagen next year.
Gore spoke of ending the "old divide" between rich and poor countries and said the developed world needed to combine efforts to fight poverty and reduce climate emissions.
He said people across the world faced with the threat of global warming deserve better than "politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing".
His speech was a rare show of ambition at the Poznan talks, which are edging towards the low-level achievements predicted at the start by negotiators. The talks aim to set the stage for a global agreement in Copenhagen in 2009. British officials said the only likely process would be to formally launch a new negotiating phase when they conclude tonight.
Campaigners have criticised rich countries for failing to commit to new carbon reduction targets at Poznan. Insiders say no progress on that is expected until Barack Obama makes his intentions clear as new US president in the spring.
Gore admitted that progress at Poznan appeared to be "painfully slow" but said he was optimistic that Copenhagen would reach the required deal. "I say that it can be done and that it must be done."
And he described the EU effort in Brussels this week to reach a compromise between environmental and economic priorities as a "struggle between hope and fear".
Gore's call for a new global carbon target of 350ppm echoes warnings by Jim Hansen, a climate expert with Nasa, who argues that carbon levels must be brought down to prevent catastrophic warming and sea level rise over the next century.
At present, most scentists and politicians in the developed world focus on a target of 450-550ppm, which could raise temperatures at least 2C-3C.
Earlier this year, Kevin Anderson, a climate expert at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University, said it was "improbable" that levels could be stabilised below 650ppm, because of booming carbon emissions since 2000.
16 Comments so far
Show AllObama will enter the Department of fresh conflict with Iraq's neighboring countries in particular "Syria and Iran because the trends toward this administration will stabilize the situation in Iraq while the governments of those countries have intentions to strike the stability In Iraq For the failure of the Iraqi experiment toward democracy. Any repeat of what happened in Lebanon
Obama will enter the Department of fresh conflict with Iraq's neighboring countries in particular "Syria and Iran because the trends toward this administration will stabilize the situation in Iraq while the governments of those countries have intentions to strike the stability In Iraq For the failure of the Iraqi experiment toward democracy. Any repeat of what happened in Lebanon
snydly
The scenario is speculative, but I think, backed up by data from disparate sources.
The ice core data used as a basis of the Gore/IPCC Nobel show spikes of CO2/Temp-deviation-from-mean. Six over the last 650ky. The main characteristic of a spike is a rapid/sudden change in the status quo, in this case climatic parameters. These spikes beg the question, "what type of weather/geo-tectonic event(s) can defeat and reverse such a momentous rise?" Hollywood has taken an overly dramatic stab at it with "Day After Tomorrow". The long and short of it in regard to nuclear power plants is that they are extremely vulnerable to the sudden onset of massive amounts of ice and snow. My overly dramatic take on that is that a plant, if not perfectly and timely shut down in the face of a devastating ice storm of planetary proportions would likely meltdown. A meltdown covered with ice would soon form an ice chimney spewing radioactive steam into the ecosphere, be incorporated into the water cycle and pollute the entire hemi-sphere.
The case for sudden change is strong: ref: "Under a Green Sky", and ice core chart.
The case for meltdown is strong: old plants, Chernoble, 3mi.Isl.
The case for geo-tectonic event lies at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean in the paleo-magnetic striping record, which the Navy might have. It can be inferred that since the earth bulges at the equator, the mass of land-based melt water will spin to the equator, changing the earth's angular momentum, tweeking the plates, which, along with the rising of unburdened formerly ice-covered land masses, will loose under-sea volcanism, flash-heating the oceans, charging the atmosphere with moisture and providing the energy to move that water back to the poles in a grand and magnificent manner. A forcing of the forcings, if you will.
Counter-intuitive and non-linear.
It looks like the last two degrees of temp rise will come from undersea volcanism as melt water off land-borne ice relocates at the equatorial bulge and tweaks the earth's angular momentum exciting geo-tectonic activity at the plate boundaries.
We must get the magnetic striping info off the mid-Atlantic Ridge.
cheers
Scuse you, scuseyou.
Yes, those and other problems are monumental and need to be solved.
But try reading some science--not Newsweek's puff pile of reports on the "controversy" about global climate catastrophe's existence, human cause, or CO2's huge part in it, and certainly pay no attention to anything on television. Those controversies exist only in the corporate media, not in the scientific community.
Which brings me to: THE 3Cs.
We have 3 interlocking problems in this country and most of our other serious problems stem from them. Climate catastrophe, environmental racism, toxics, wilderness loss... health care crises, poverty and depression, war, torture, the ongoing food and farm disaster... all and more are inextricably intertwined. We need to:
1. Stop Global CLIMATE Catastrophe and other ecological destruction
2. Restore the CONSTITUTION and the rule of law
3. Reduce the power of CORPORATIONS over our lives, elections and politics.
Imagine these in one of those recycling symbols with the 3 arrows, only going in both directions. Start somewhere. But do it smartly. Everything's connected to everything else.
"Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop away from you like the leaves of Autumn." John Muir
I agree with almost everything you have written and support your call for the prevention of environmental catastrophe.
You imply, however, that 'science' has demonstrated that CO2 is the cause of our problems. This is patently false.
I suggest looking again at the data sets used and speaking with scientists whose funding is not directly connected to the climate change juggernaught. Further, I suggest one keeps a skeptical mindset when contemplating the veracity of computer models which are very limited tools but seem to have been taken as gospel by the public and the media.
"You imply, however, that 'science' has demonstrated that CO2 is the cause of our problems. This is patently false."
The greenhouse effect is about as well established as anything in physics, and is based on the most successful scientific theory ever devised: quantum mechanics.
If you have some evidence that the greenhouse effect is erroneous, or that CO2 loses it GHG properties at densities above 280 ppmv, you should document this insight and await your eventual Nobel in Physics.
Almost all of what I have come to understand about the climate crisis has come from Al Gore/IPCC's chart of CO2/Tempdev. Ironically, I have heard exactly zero about the characteristic which seems to be the most significant feature of that chart---the six ice age cycles it clearly shows, and the spikes of CO2/T upon the last of which we find our sorry asses. Humans were around for all of them and all were survivable----the planet will not escape a cycle no matter what we do or don't do. The kicker is that we have definitely driven (pun) the GHGs well out of historical norms, which is what the thrust of the movement to cut GHGs back to norms is, so we have a snowball's (sorry) chance of somebody making it through this cycle.
Read the damn chart like a tracker would read a trail and tell us what you see.
Then raelize that the previous cycles started before much ice melted off Greenland (otherwise, no core samples, right?). Then see Nat'l Geo's article on G-land melting.
Most scientists say we have 2 more degrees to go before shitonfan time.
I say the last 2 degrees come from undersea volcanism, and we're due. (See above post)
AND, I want my Nobel Prize!
Seriously. Ship it!
Here are URLs for a powerpoint and a scientific paper by Kevin Anderson (who is mentioned in the last paragraph of the article). His point is that we are headed for 650 ppm CO2e unless early and swift action is taken. This is among the most cogent views of the problem that I have seen, and I have been looking deep.
"Reframing climate change: from long-term targets to emission pathways," powerpoint.
http://www.tenalpsevents.com/ContentFiles/1315%20KEVIN%20ANDERSON.ppt
"Reframing the climate change challenge in
light of post-2000 emission trends," document.
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf
Al "Occidental Petroleum" Gore is peddling his "we can stop climate change" swindle everywhere he can.
The only constant with the planet's climate is change; the climate has never been stable or static. The notion that limiting a minor greenhouse gas (H2O vapour is a much more significant greenhouse gas than CO2) will somehow stabilise the climate is fanciful at best.
By distracting the debate with blather about CO2, 'Occidental' Gore is fighting to (1) introduce new political and profit control mechanisms and (2) to protect the 'pollute for free' paradigm that transnational corporate polluters currently enjoy.
Long before sea levels rise to swamp our shores, we will have choked to death on the dioxins, radioactives and other equally noxious pollutants that this conman's benefactors spew into our precious environment. Our top soils will be depleted by agribusiness. Our water, already fouled by pollution, will be sold back to us by Bechtel. You get the idea.
We must all resist this effort to introduce conrtol mechanisms that even Orwell could not imagine. We must do it to protect our planet from the real threats (as opposed to the CO2 bogeyman) and to protect our liberty from the growing influence of unelected and antidemocratic transnational extra-governmental organizations.
Hasta la victoria siempre.
Scuse you, scuseyou.
Yes, those and other problems are monumental and need to be solved.
But try reading some science--not Newsweek's puff pile of reports on the "controversy" about global climate catastrophe's existence, human cause, or CO2's huge part in it, and certainly pay no attention to anything on television. Those controversies exist only in the corporate media, not in the scientific community.
Which brings me to: THE 3Cs.
We have 3 interlocking problems in this country and most of our other serious problems stem from them. Climate catastrophe, environmental racism, toxics, wilderness loss... health care crises, poverty and depression, war, torture, the ongoing food and farm disaster... all and more are inextricably intertwined. We need to:
1. Stop Global CLIMATE Catastrophe and other ecological destruction
2. Restore the CONSTITUTION and the rule of law
3. Reduce the power of CORPORATIONS over our lives, elections and politics.
Imagine these in one of those recycling symbols with the 3 arrows, only going in both directions. Start somewhere. But do it smartly. Everything's connected to everything else.
"Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop away from you like the leaves of Autumn." John Muir
Really. I don't think we humans are having that much influence on global climate change. The Earth is billions of years old and we have information that shows major changes in global climate long before humans were doing anything to interfere.
That being said, I think all of us us should do what we can to limit pollution of our air and water and to monitor our use of fossil fuels. In the meantime, we should do whatevere we can to encourage the use of solar energy, air power and any other sources of eb=nery that do not pollute our environment.
Additionally, I am a strong supporter of health education, sex education and family planning. Because if we don't find ways to encourage educated, voluntary populaiton control, I fear that the the Powers that Be will resort to other, more dastardly measn.
"Really. I don't think we humans are having that much influence on global climate change. The Earth is billions of years old and we have information that shows major changes in global climate long before humans were doing anything to interfere."
Yes, the climate has had wide swings in the past (from Snowball Earth to hot, humid Dinosaur Earth). Nobody is saying that climate would be rock-steady if not for humans influence.
What they are saying is, since the end of the last Ice Age, the climate has been very well suited for agriculture and the development of world civilization. *All* of our history has taken place since the Ice Age ended 12,000 years ago. This climate might have gone on for another 5,000 or 10,000 years, a nice, steady, human-friendly climate.
But the massive combustion of fossil fuels *is* having a measurable, accelerating effect on climate. That is totally independent of what might have happened 'naturally' in the next 10,000 years, if humans were not changing the climate. A forest might 'naturally' die in 10,000 years, but that doesn't mean humans can't cut it *all* down in 10 years.
The physics of the atmosphere is well understood, and the climate models are predicting the changes which are occurring. It doesn't matter if water vapor is a larger component of the atmosphere, and is also a greenhouse gas: the longterm water vapor amount is the same. Humans are not pumping underground water stores that have not been in the atmosphere for 60 million years, but they *are* pumping out carbon that has been buried for that long (oil, coal, natural gas). The CO2 is steadily climbing (parts per million by volume), and this *DOES* affect the climate. It has already, and it will continue to, at an accelerating rate (the CO2 is increasing at an accelerating rate).
The fact that humans would have been *more* screwed by the climate 635 million years ago is not a valid argument that humans are not changing the climate for the worse *now*. For the worse, for humans; bacteria won't care one way or the other.
Al Gore meeting with the president-elect for two hours is change I can believe in.
I sure hope you're right. I saw a still photo of the two at the table together...I was struck by Al Gore's body language. I got a very negative feeling from it. Two possibilities come up. As Mr. Obama speaks, Mr. Gore, his hands folded on the table before him, as would an obedient child in class listens to an authority, expresses however a stoney faced condecension. Is this just sour grapes, still being felt by Mr. Gore, who should have been elected president? Or, does Mr. Gore know somehow, though he is given "air time" as the environment's chief champion, that Mr. Obama will somehow not exert the maximum needed effort toward the radical reductions in CO2 that the USA needs to exhibit to the rest of the world?
Another effective wsay to reduce CO2 is for Al Gore to talk less and do more (as in reducing the size of his several McMansion residences to the room that he and Tipper need instead of having places the size of mini-malls.
Poet
We'll get a pause in the growth from the global economic crisis.