Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Worst Ever Carbon Emissions Leave Climate on the Brink
Exclusive: Record rise, despite recession, means 2C target almost out of reach
Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.
Economic recession has failed to curb rising emissions, undermining hope of keeping global warming to safe levels. (Photograph: Dave Reede/All Canada Photos/Corbis) The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius – which scientists say is the threshold for potentially "dangerous climate change" – is likely to be just "a nice Utopia", according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions.
Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel – a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009, according to estimates from the IEA regarded as the gold standard for emissions data.
"I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions," Birol told the Guardian. "It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say."
Professor Lord Stern of the London School of Economics, the author of the influential Stern Report into the economics of climate change for the Treasury in 2006, warned that if the pattern continued, the results would be dire. "These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a 'business as usual' path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path ... would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100," he said.
"Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce."
Birol said disaster could yet be averted, if governments heed the warning. "If we have bold, decisive and urgent action, very soon, we still have a chance of succeeding," he said.
The IEA has calculated that if the world is to escape the most damaging effects of global warming, annual energy-related emissions should be no more than 32Gt by 2020. If this year's emissions rise by as much as they did in 2010, that limit will be exceeded nine years ahead of schedule, making it all but impossible to hold warming to a manageable degree.
Emissions from energy fell slightly between 2008 and 2009, from 29.3Gt to 29Gt, due to the financial crisis. A small rise was predicted for 2010 as economies recovered, but the scale of the increase has shocked the IEA. "I was expecting a rebound, but not such a strong one," said Birol, who is widely regarded as one of the world's foremost experts on emissions.
John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said time was running out. "This news should shock the world. Yet even now politicians in each of the great powers are eyeing up extraordinary and risky ways to extract the world's last remaining reserves of fossil fuels – even from under the melting ice of the Arctic. You don't put out a fire with gasoline. It will now be up to us to stop them."
Most of the rise – about three-quarters – has come from developing countries, as rapidly emerging economies have weathered the financial crisis and the recession that has gripped most of the developed world.
But he added that, while the emissions data was bad enough news, there were other factors that made it even less likely that the world would meet its greenhouse gas targets.
• About 80% of the power stations likely to be in use in 2020 are either already built or under construction, the IEA found. Most of these are fossil fuel power stations unlikely to be taken out of service early, so they will continue to pour out carbon – possibly into the mid-century. The emissions from these stations amount to about 11.2Gt, out of a total of 13.7Gt from the electricity sector. These "locked-in" emissions mean savings must be found elsewhere.
"It means the room for manoeuvre is shrinking," warned Birol.
• Another factor that suggests emissions will continue their climb is the crisis in the nuclear power industry. Following the tsunami damage at Fukushima, Japan and Germany have called a halt to their reactor programmes, and other countries are reconsidering nuclear power.
"People may not like nuclear, but it is one of the major technologies for generating electricity without carbon dioxide," said Birol. The gap left by scaling back the world's nuclear ambitions is unlikely to be filled entirely by renewable energy, meaning an increased reliance on fossil fuels.
• Added to that, the United Nations-led negotiations on a new global treaty on climate change have stalled. "The significance of climate change in international policy debates is much less pronounced than it was a few years ago," said Birol.
He urged governments to take action urgently. "This should be a wake-up call. A chance [of staying below 2 degrees] would be if we had a legally binding international agreement or major moves on clean energy technologies, energy efficiency and other technologies."
Governments are to meet next week in Bonn for the next round of the UN talks, but little progress is expected.
Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, said the global emissions figures showed that the link between rising GDP and rising emissions had not been broken. "The only people who will be surprised by this are people who have not been reading the situation properly," he said.
Forthcoming research led by Sir David will show the west has only managed to reduce emissions by relying on imports from countries such as China.
Another telling message from the IEA's estimates is the relatively small effect that the recession – the worst since the 1930s – had on emissions. Initially, the agency had hoped the resulting reduction in emissions could be maintained, helping to give the world a "breathing space" and set countries on a low-carbon path. The new estimates suggest that opportunity may have been missed.
106 Comments so far
Show AllAnother one of these fright-whipping climate articles that is almost totally bereft of what ordinary people like me can do. United Nations Schmunited Nations! Governments schmovernments! Nothing, absolutely nothing on what I can do. I am puzzled why Common Dreams continues to publish such absolutely worthless papers.
OK Crowsnest, here are a few things you can do:
Go to http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx and calculate your carbon footprint. Then reduce it to 2 metric tonnes per year. THEN send climate articles like this to everyone you know, telling them how you have reduced your footprint and asking them to do the same.
To reduce your carbon footprint, try these:
AVOID eating beef. That includes hamburgers.
AVOID flying in airplanes.
TURN your thermostat to 55 for heating and 85 for cooling. Learn to dress properly. Remember that central heating is a new idea, and that people lived for thousands of generations without it. You can do it. I use 45 and 90 (under 55 I keep a warm room - a central half bathroom where I take sponge baths, and over 85 I put on a wet tee shirt).
AVOID driving a personal vehicle - and if you must, drive with the purpose of saving gas (my car is rated 26 MPG city, and I get 39+).
GROW your own food as much as possible, and buy food grown locally whenever you can. If you eat bananas, which are flown to the US in refrigerated airplanes, switch to fruit grown in the USA, like apples and peaches.
REMEMBER: ALL social progress starts at the grassroots, and someday our grandchildren will be asking, "What did you do during the climate crisis?"
email me at peniwize@gmail.com if you are willing to reduce your carbon footprint and/or if you want more ideas.
Sure, I will train to swim the Atlantic Ocean to visit my sister who lives in Germany.
Or walk to San Jose California where my son lives. Or to Austin where another son lives.
To the best of my understanding horse and buggies are not allowed on Interstate Highways.
That is just nonsense.
Amtrak goes to California, by three different routes, by the way. You can get as close as Oakland, then find transportation from there. BART, then commuter bus (or rail?) to San Jose.
And passenger service is available of freighter ships. One can even travel from Cleveland and Chicago to Europe by ship.
Well, now we know that timewasting Trolls inhabit Crowsnests!
Why is Crow's nest a troll? Because he won't immediately sign on to a program which for most people is pretty extreme? Most people, for insatnce, don't have the time to take a train across country, and then get passage on a freighter to Hamburg-to see a relative in Germany. Elapsed time for the entire trip would be about 20 days, assuming a fast freighter and seamless connections (not likely).As for raising your own food, that's not something most people can do, or are equiped to do.But I applaud the people who can do this, and eventually more will join in.Taking an ass bath is not something I will do-but I do turn my thermostat down in winter, and I have never used air-conditioning, I walk as often as I can, or use public transport when it's convenient. Our (one) car is a Prius, most of our household equipment is ancient- except for our apliances which are very efficient. I don't feel guillty about taking one airplane trip a year to see old friends on the East Coast. All of this is my current comfort level, but that could change.
Everyone should do whatever they can - good for you for trying. I thought he was being a troll to ask what he could do, get good advice, and pick out the most extreme of what was offered to argue with. Some people who call others extreme, probably have a guilt complex because we are Americans and know we all live like kings and queens while one billion people live in slums. Some people in Calcutta have to search through garbage dumps to survive. It's all a matter how much you suffer in life, that makes you lower your comfort level. When it gets so bad that everyone is suffering they will be throwing rocks at cars all over the world. That will be an interesting time. I often wonder if I will witness it.
most people don't have relatives all over the world, and most that do can't afford the trip. Should we continue providing the moneyed class with more rides in the theme park. Are the pollutants we merrilly spew into the upper atmosphere potentially harmfull? Who knows? One could just as easily say, my six pack of empties, out the window; I only do it on weekends.
Crowsnest,
“Sure, I will train to swim the Atlantic Ocean to visit my sister who lives in Germany.”
A crow’s nest is “a shelter or platform fixed near the top of the mast of a vessel as a place for a lookout to stand.”
How interesting that a person who names him or herself after a part of a sailboat would not realize that a sailboat can be used to cross the Atlantic.
Perhaps Crowsnest’s intent was to ridicule the idea of personal responsibility by presenting a case which he himself must know is ridiculous, and presenting it as if it had been suggested by someone else.
Before the internal combustion engine people would visit their sister in Germany by sailing across the Atlantic. Yes, it took a long time. It’s supposed to take a long time.
Today we have the technological ability to fly to Germany, but there is a trade-off.
On the one hand we have the convenience which allows Crowsnest to visit the sister in Germany in a manner which is convenient to Crowsnest.
On the other hand, we have the inconveniences.
- A climate catastrophy which, according to the best estimates of scientists (as well as the projection by the US Military) will result in about a billiion unnecessary human deaths (approximately one death for every present day frequent flier).
- A food production system converted to the production of combustible fuel, which already has contributed to a food price increase which is causing starvation (which means literally that people are dying as you read this).
- The risk that the reckless use our technology will create the sixth mass extinction event (defined as the loss of 75% OR MORE of the living species). If we avoid that risk our species may easily prosper for another hundred thousand generations.
So, it’s a question of framing. The I-me-mine frame of reference ignores the damage to others, and thinks solely of the convenience. The personal responsibility frame of reference thinks also about the consequences.
In this discussion personal responsibility is also being poo-pooed by those who argue that the climate disaster will happen anyway, so there is no payback in behaving responsibly.
Both the I-me-mines and the poo-pooers have forgotten the most valuable potential we have as humans - the ability to be happy. But, once again we have a frame of reference problem.
In the value system of the US Empire, I-me-mine is supreme. Our economic system, for example, is built on the “free” market idea that we all will be better off if we all act out of the I-me-mine frame of reference.
On the other hand, all of the world’s religions have a version of the Golden Rule - do unto others... And they all agree that if you follow the golden rule you will be on the path to real happiness.
Each of us has a choice. Will it be “The winner is the one who dies with the most toys” or will it be “To do what is best for everyone is its own reward”?
Collective problems demand collective solutions. There ARE things individuals can do, and adopting a vegetarian diet is a good start, but keeping my thermostat at 55? Nah, I'll pass on that one. I keep it at 65-67 and think that is enough. Below 65 I start to feel cold all the time. I have a thyroid condition and get cold easily. Can't avoid driving a car 'cause I live in the suburbs and one simply cannot live without a car here. Much of the US is like that, and there clearly are no individual solutions to that one. Basically, I don't see us getting a handle on this problem at all, until we have a revolution and reclaim our airwaves from the oligarchy that controls them. Most people will remain in a manufactured complacency of denial and poo-pooism...you can make all the heroic sacrifices you want, but until this fundamental elephant in the room is addressed, there will be no serious grappling with what is at a fundamental level a collective problem. I agree that solutions begin at the grassroots, but the problem is a media and govt. controlled by energy conglomerates, weapons manufacturers, agribusiness, etc.
"until we ... reclaim our airwaves from the oligarchy that controls them"
I completely agree. I don't think we need a revolution, just a paradym shift in the publics mind about the cost of an informed democracy (answer: airtime), and who should bear that cost (answer: what cost? we are talking about our OWN friggin' airwaves, here!).
The publics been hoodwinked into thinking its too expensive for politicians to get their message out over our airwaves, and thus the politicians must resort to quid-pro-quo for cash to get their message to the public. But, wait a minute, how is it expensive to get a message out over our airwaves? Aren't they OURS? The fact is that media bandwidth is a public utility that the public sells at public auction to private corporations with very few strings. Clearly, one of those strings should be that airtime should be made available to our candidates for getting their message out. Lots of airtime, especially around elections. Since this impacts all stations equally, no media corporation is at a competitive disadvantage, so it really doesn't matter to them. More fundamentally, who cares if it does? Who owns those airwaves in the first place? We should just admit that charging the public top dollar to access its own airwaves, in order to conduct an informed democracy, is a great recipe for developing an uninformed democracy, which is clearly the democracy we have.
Its not a revolution to point out what is already ours, and demand it be given back to us. Nothing is more important than an informed democracy. And if you've seen what meaningless trash the media corporations choose to fill OUR airwaves with in the first place, you can be forgiven for wanting it ALL back.
Candidate commercials, for all candidates, should be 30 minutes long, NOT 30 seconds. Get them speaking long enough to tell us who they are, or we'll keep getting VP candidates like Sarah Palin, and 3/4ths of the population will continue to 'just say no' to voting.
Except the airwaves, by defacto, are not "ours," they belong to the capitalist class, the owning class, i.e., General Electric, Time Warner, Wall Street banksters, et al. And they are not going to give it back to us absent a revolution. It's working pretty good for them right now. But for the sake of discussion, I don't think it would change much to have laws mandating 30 minute commercials. We'd then get to choose Obomber and Mitt Romney for president, and similar corporate-candidates at every level of govt. We'd be able to make more informed choices about which corporate servant should be elected. At every level, the corporate class has taken over the commons and runs roughshod over the public interest. They own "our" political parties, our electoral system, our food, water, airwaves, media environment, etc. And even in social democracies like Greece, govt. expenditures on public welfare are under attack by the same forces. The problem is capitalism, which is inimical to democracy. To put it another way, decisions which affect public welfare should not always be made on the basis of what is profitable, but what benefits most people. Decisions about healthcare policy should not be made on the basis of who can make the most profit from it, but of what benefits most people. But everything in this rotten system is on its head: as we saw with the Obomber healthcare legislation, the HMOs and Big Pharma vetoed any possibility for any non-profit system from the get go. Obomber wouldn't even consider Medicare for all, because of a defacto veto by the capitalist class.
Interesting how people who do the most ranting about how the corporate oligarchy is the cause of global warming are also the ones who "simply cannot live without (fill in the blank). I see BP, I see Buying Public. If you really bother to look, you will find Public Transit in most suburbs.
You ever try to work, say, as a self-employed house-cleaner in a suburb while taking the bus? Give it a try sometime. Doesn't work.
Avoid flying in airplanes! How am I supposed to fly!?
Yogic flying of course.
Although, I think the flying of fruits and veggies from one part of the world to the other is a better thing to avoid. I'll eat the local stuff and can what I want to eat in the winter.
Because voluntary individual action is very limited in what it can accomplish.
I know first hand. From non-use of of AC in summer, low heat settings in winter, to meeting most of my personal transportation needs with (experimental and problem-laden shoddy Chinese) electric motor scooter, or the bus, no neighbors or friends have followed my lead or even inquired about it.
Sure, do all those things to reduce your personal footprint, only governments can establish a system where the population can live no other way but low-carbon - through renewable and low-carbon energy, mandated graduated energy usage rates, community design that makes cars redundant.
"community design that makes cars redundant". Not possible. I live in Houston. Very early every morning hundred of trucks loaded with food for approximately 2 million people enter the city to deliver the needed foods. How do you propose to change this?
A scant few decades ago, all the food came to Houston and most US cities, by train to a central wholesale warehouse district. (I noticed that Toronto still does it this way, and Pittsburgh largely did until the 1990's). The tracks or grades and rights-of-way are still there, unused. Trucks were used only for the local deliveries to the stores.
A lot more food was grown locally too. Remember when New Jersey was called the "Garden State"? The state, plus adjoining Pennsylvania, largely fed New York and Philly). Even today, most of my groceries come from within 150 miles of home for much of the year (particularly Pennsylvania).
No one is proposing a total ban on vehicles; that is a red herring. But, local personal car use can be largely eliminated in most cities. It will be a tough job in places like Houston and most cities that followed the US "sunbelt" model of car-driven ultra-low density big-box-and mall hyper-sprawl, for which the Levittowns of the 1950's look like model communities in comparison. But then again, Houston grew almost overnight, it can be changed quickly too. Or maybe it should just be abandoned. The South and Southwest was once a land of sleepy and small cities like Montgomery or Chattanooga (but still with good public transit) for a reason. Today, there would be no bus in Montgomery for Rosa Parks to even get on.
http://www.carfree.com/
http://www.endofsuburbia.com/
Your point about central wholesale districts is a good one. But even when they existed, much of what they sold was grown locally. When I grew up in a suburb of NYC in the 40s and 50s, because the shipping infrastructure was relatively primitive, much was grown locally. There were truck farms in Westchester county and on Long Island, from where, I believe, most of the vegetables we ate came. In the winter, these farms largely shut down and we could not get many of the things available in the Spring and Summer.
Were we deprived? Malnourished? Do we really need things grown in New Zealand or Greece?
"But even when they existed, much of what they sold was grown locally."
Yes, I thought that I made this point.
A size 13 carbon footprint is mandatory in Houston. I suggest you relocate.
Why? It's called stirring the base. The reality is that nothing can be done unless all the countries of the World cooperate (no cheating!) which will never happen. Next topic please.
What an absurd comment. They don't publish articles after finding out what YOU personally can do about the issue. It's called informing people, so people who have a bit more sense can figure out what they can do--like political action, where it always all begins.
The S-Curve of change in atmosphere and ocean ecology will continue to accelerate beyond any of the current estimates offered by worried scientists.
Drastic consequences are observable today and what the near future holds is unimaginable to the informed let alone those in denial. Transformational adjustments equally drastic are required to mitigate outcomes. Business as usual is certain extinction of the human population before the turn of the next century. I don't hear anyone talking reality, yet. We will shortly see...
Yeah why die of famine, drought, fire, wind or flood, when nifty Nuclear cancers and other mutations are available.
Renewables, available, doable but fascistically prohibited.
So Mark, how's it going? You are living according to your beliefs, er…assertions, close to a nuclear power plant under meltdown right? How's the sushi? I'm sure the local farmers appreciate your business. Is it kind of lonely in the exclusion zone? Your nuclear isotope bravado is very impressive. What's the current reading on your Radex RD1503?
Go away.
RIGHT!!! ENTIRELY, unutterably TRUE! What keeps people locked in the torture chamber of GREED and LUST??
If you read the article it mentions nuclear many times and each time it's as an answer to carbon, or, blaming leaving nuclear for causing more carbon emissions. It could have been written by the company you're shilling for, dude.
Roasty toasty down here in the Triad area of NC. Temps in the mid 90s for as long as the extended forecast goes out (6 days I think). It should be in the mid 80s this time of year.
Last week I watched the M$M coverage of the Tornados. One of the M$M reporters was talking to a climate change scientist, and he "asked" her a few times, was it true that there was no way to say that these specific storms were the result of global climate change. Of course she had to say no. Just like you can't say without a doubt that a smoker definitely got his/her lung cancer from smoking. So what I came away with from that interview was that the denial and the status quo WILL be maintained at all costs.
Oh well I have more pressing matters to deal with, (that I can do something about any way). I got a couple of woodchucks eating their way though our garden. I ordered one of those live catch traps. Now the only question is will it get here before they finish the garden?
Oh wait, what was I thinking? I'm an American, and this is America. I can just deny it's happening! There aint no stinking woodchucks out there, and our disappearing garden is gods will. (She does work in mysterious ways you know!) Problem solved!
It may hit the mid 90's F up here too for the next couple days, before moderating to the relatively "cool" mid 80's day, upper 50's night. Normal is high 75, low 53.
At least we stay reasonably comfortable without AC up here as it almost always cools at night. Open windows and fans by night, closed windows and shades with ceiling fans by day. Make sure the attic fan is working. And get used to sweating a bit!
I grew up in the DC area and I certainly won't be living in that SE Piedmont country again. Summers there are awful - and the suburban sprawl around those VA and NC cities. It guarantees that you will be doing your part to make it even hotter. When I moved up here, my car usage went from at least 25K miles per year to 4-5K miles per year.
We are "retired" now, more by necessity than choice. People my age are now unemployable, so I ended up taking my pension VERY early.
Anyway as a result our car usage is probably in that 4-5K range too. Also usually after sunset we turn off the AC and switch to fans. We are originally from CT so we traded our long cold winters for somewhat longer hotter summers.
I am still stuck in this area as well and refuse to participate in the madness known as the freeway and sitting at every red light America.
Instead I have opted to start a small fledgling business, making things at the house and letting the fedex and ups man deal with the $4 fraud fuel prices and the traffic out there.
The only vote we have is where we decide to individually direct our lifeforce energy.
Non Servium and dropping out of this dead end paradigm rat race is all we have available as a tool to fight and try to change this path of madness we have been set upon.
Why are you silent on the big CO2 polluters of industry?
Or the Military??
http://therisingriver.tumblr.com/
Sure, I will train to swim the Atlantic Ocean to visit my sister who lives in Germany.
Or walk to San Jose California where my son lives. Or to Austin where another son lives.
To the best of my understanding horse and buggies are not allowed on Interstate Highways.
I just heard something on Leonardo DiCaprio's "11th Hour" video:
Deepak Chopra was quoted by a commentator:
"People are doing their best given their level of awareness" (as best I can remember the quote)
Intuitively, this veteran environmental blogger, that would be me, has always known that if people know the situation, they will do the right thing.
It is difficult to send out the message, and it is difficult to comprehend the appalling seriousness of what we are all facing.
But not impossible - awareness is the crucial first step I think.
The crucial second step is not to lose heart.
Manysummits
=====
Sorry, Michael, but your intuition (which is a very common assumption) is off base. It is nice to think that if people just knew more or knew better, they would change their minds and/or their habits. Study after study has proven that to be false. Yes, awareness is indeed the cruicial first step for everything - without it, there is no impetus for change. But it is far more difficult to get people to change their minds and behaviors after they obtain the information.
Besides, individual actions do little to minimize the impacts of climate change. It is corporations even more than governments that need to change. In fact, it is corportate capitalism that has caused this calamity, and perhaps the more dire (in my opinion) ecological catashtrope of toxic pollution, in this world.
Without refraining from "growth" in production and consumption, without going back to simpler mechanical technologies, without living locally, without destroying ALL large scale manufacturing, commerce, etc. we are completely living in a dreamworld in terms of thinking we can possibly be sustainable on the planet.
Pensatrice:
Have to disagree.
People are not aware of the true situation - most think they are not personally threatened with death and destruction - and believe with a few bucks thrown at the problem - the greening of the planet will be both profitable and the damage reversible.
Neither assumption is true. Our entire way of life is about to change - and it is going to kill - has already killed - millions. We in the western democracies think it will be someone else who dies - at first, and in the past - yes. But our turn is coming.
We are leveraged to complexity to such a degree the house of cards, when it comes down, is going to be to a first approximation - all inclusive.
Witness Katrina - Fukushima - Joplin.
Before the truly awesome power of nature we are impotent.
Our hope lies in finally comprehending this - and as Wallace Broecker was want to say - not tweaking the dragon's tail.
We must re-learn what millions of our distant ancestors learned the hard way - as we will soon - to live in such a way as not to compromise and foul our nest.
Manysummits
=====
I agree with most of what you say above, but I am not sure if the lack of awareness of the true nature of the problems we face is due to lack of information. On the one hand, I do think that the dire emergency you describe - with which I wholeheartedly agree - is somewhat suppressed in media, both mainstream/corporate and otherwise. But I think this is all less due to lack of awareness and I think it is largely due to denial.
In my circles of environmentalists and environmental scientists, people who speak of the truth you describe are deemed "doom and gloom" sorts. Nothing in terms of the content of what you (and I) say is diputed academically, only the "negativity" is questioned. Here in America and elsewhere, everyone is trained to be falsely and delusionally hopeful. False positivity is a disease that our culture - especially the dominant corporate capitalistic paradigm - feeds every second of the day.
But again, my main point is that even if and when people really, truly break through the denial and know the facts (as friends of mine do), they are resistant to change habits. They also feel helpless, so they do not change. Research has demonstrated this fact that information does not change behavior. Plus, many people are so invested in our way of life and they have no desire to take on the fight. Then, there are others who, no matter how much they are bombarded with facts, will not change their opinions. In fact, research shows that in these situations, opinions become even more entrenched, even when the facts contradict them.
Hello Pensatrice:
Good to hear from you.
Probably we are are only talking about definitional inexactitude:
'aware' or 'information' versus 'real and visceral understanding'.
Denial I've investigated thoroughly. Of course at first this is natural, and of course 'the lobby', as I call them, feed this denial, and promote disinformaton, and attack the messengers.
Contemplating a crevasse or an avalanche slope from afar is one thing - being right there, about to cross a snow bridge or step out and across a lethal avalanche slope is quite another, and most especially so if the full import of the dangers of both, combined with past experience to give that intuitive dread of both - is another.
Having said that, it is also true that no one alive today has experienced, or knows anyone, who has experienced - a planetary change of state. But the small scale analogues are enough I think - Katrina, Joplin, Fukushima etc... I suppose a good imagination helps a lot - that is a difficult subject - comparing people's different mental means of assessing danger.
But the real problem, I maintain, is that most people simply don't get it - how staggeringly serious is the danger just around the corner, because while they may be variously 'aware' - they do not truly believe, or know who to believe - in this very cynical age.
You know, the massive diminution of cynicism is one of the lesser known benefits of living full-time in the mountaineering world, which is to say, in the natural world, in the wind and the weather, in the presence of danger. The breakdown products in the adrenaline series, aside from being potent pain-killers, promote clear and accurate decision making, and virtually eliminate depression. Climbing is a form of meditation, I was told by a psychologist.
Contrast this to the way most us us now live.
But I have seen the magical effects when people from the city and farm approach and then engage in the hills - there is a transformation - and then - upon return to the domesticated life - a reversion - to cynicism, to the 'rat race' - to a collective depression ("Most men lead lives of quiet desperation" Thoreau).
To sum up what may not be the most clearly written post - once people are truly aware of the danger, they too will 'transform' into the skilled and courageous hunters we once all were.
Manysummits
======
"That is a risk a sane person would seek to drastically reduce." There goes the farm, Gracy. Not one single sane person among all those electeds, playing with our lives in the global crap shoot known as capitalism.
It's ironic that people so willing to believe in the Rapture can't see the floods, tornados, wildfires, melting glaciers, dying coral reefs, rising sea levels and temperatures as a sign.
The science is plain enough. The problem isn't the reality but the perception, People won't accept the reality because it's too damn scary and uncomforable.
What we need isn't a scientist but a fire and brimstone preacher who can put the fear of God into people. We're living in a slow-motion apocalypse and our children and grandchildren will pay dearly for our sins.
Crowsnest - may I humbly suggest that you use SKYPE to visit your loved ones? My family is 4400 kilometers away and I can see them as often as I like on this little screen. I can pick up my laptop and give them a tour of my renovations, show them the dog's new tricks, etc. It's a great way to keep in touch and never have to eat airline food.
Ah the Carbonazis are at it again I see. Where do I begin? First of all CO2
is not a poison, its plant food. CO2 is the food of photosynthesis, and plants
produce oxygen. Are we seeing the interrelationship here? If you restrict it
you will reduce plant life and consequently animal life. We want more CO2
not less. When the world was a little warmer and we had a few percentage
points higher concentration of CO2 in solution in the atmosphere we had
no deserts and a much more lush biosphere. With an increasing population
the LAST thing we want to do is reduce CO2. This carbon trading nonsense
is about a tax on breathing for the ruling elites to move globalization forward,
it has nothing to do with climate.
Fred, "with an increasing population the last thing we want to do is reduce CO2."
As coral reefs disappear, snorkeling down Wall Street might become popular.
We are just beginning to witness the violent transition climate change produces. All the Texas text books and oil drenched politicians cannot hide the truth.
If you're serious then you're confused, I'm afraid.
Our problem is an *imbalance* in CO2. We are putting out far more CO2 than the remaining trees (the most important consumers) and other vegetation can handle. And every day the problem is made worse by people killing more trees and using the money to buy the means to generate more CO2.
The solution is MANY more trees plus MUCH lower CO2 production.
Ah the Rushdumbasszis are at it again I see.
Water is also good for life, so Fred, go ahead and drink say, 2 gallons of water in the next say 30 minutes, and try to get back to us. May I suggest a nice relaxing room in your house pumped full of CO2, so you can enjoy some "food" in your lungs as well.
Seriously Fred, just in case you don't know already, you CAN DIE from drinking too much water in a short period of time, so DO NOT ACTUALLY DO IT. See, I care even about schmucks like you.
The more interesting question is: why does the United States remain the only industrialized country in the world where human-induced climate change remains a "debatable" point, in which the media treats the topic as if there are actually two equal sides to the issue?
Other countries like Finland and Spain and Japan and New Zealand came to terms with the overwhelming conclusions of the climate scientists a long time ago. Granted, most of those countries aren't doing a hell of a lot to reverse the trend of increased GHG production ... but the first step in overcoming an addiction is admitting you have a problem, and at least they admit we have a problem.
Tragically, magical thinking doesn't make a real problem go away, regardless of what the New Age gurus may say.
As a scientist myself, I'll admit there may be a 5 to 10% chance that the climate scientists somehow have gotten it completely wrong with their models. However I'm not prepared to explain to my grandchildren why my generation refused to do shit because there was "only" a 90% chance we were going to turn their planet into a hellhole. So much for the Precautionary Principle.