Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Frustration Builds As Climate Talks Go into Overtime
DURBAN - After 12 days of wrangling, UN climate talks went into extra time Friday with China, the US and India under pressure to back a European bid for a new worldwide pact on greenhouse gases.
Greenpeace activists earlier this week at the COP17 climate conference in Durban, South Africa. As the talks went into extra time on Friday, the environment minister of the Maldives, Mohamed Aslam, joined several hundred green activists in a protest rally that blocked the main hallway outside the plenary venue. UN security guards peacefully dispersed the protest, expelling around two dozen people, including Greenpeace International head Kumi Naidoo. But the outcome remained unpredictable, with scenarios ranging from limited progress to a lowest-common-denominator deal -- or a diplomatic bust-up.
A core group of about two dozen ministers, representative of rich and poor countries alike, was expected to haggle into the night.
Assuming they found common ground, their compromise would be put to a plenary of the 194-nation UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on Saturday.
On the table is a European scheme which the EU claims is backed by nearly two-thirds of the world's nations.
The plan calls for a "roadmap" leading to a global accord, to be negotiated by 2015, which for the first time would bind all nations to legal commitments to tackle greenhouse gases.
Rallying around the European proposal are the least developed countries, the African bloc, small island states and Brazil and South Africa, said European Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard.
This left the United States, China and India to declare their hand, she indicated. The US and China are the world's biggest emitters.
"The success or failure of Durban depends on the small number of countries who have not yet committed to the roadmap and the meaningful content that it of course must have," said Hedegaard.
A compromise text put by South Africa to the core group was given a verbal lashing, prompting the chair to agree that a second draft was needed, according to a European diplomat.
Supporters of the roadmap dismissed the first text as worthless fudge.
They said it lacked the key words "legally-binding" and implied the pact -- which it described as a "framework" -- would take effect only after 2020.
"We will put the world in a process to be cooked," Bolivian delegation chief, Rene Orellana, head of the left-leaning Latin American ALBA group, told reporters.
"This is the death of climate," Orellana said in English.
Karl Hood, environment minister of Grenada and chairman of a 43-nation bloc of small island states, told AFP: "It is difficult for us to accept that you start a new process at the end of this that will finish in 2015, and doesn't become operational until after 2020. We are looking at God-only-knows when."
The roadmap seeks to beef up multilateral action in the coming decade, when scientists say carbon emissions that are driving the planet to worsening floods, drought, rising seas and storms, must peak.
The goal is to bridge the gap between the end of 2012 -- when the first round of legal-binding curbs commitments under the Kyoto Protocol expire -- and 2020, the date up to which countries have made voluntary pledges on carbon reductions.
Those pledges, scientists say, fall far short of what is needed to prevent the planet from heating up by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) beyond pre-industrial levels, the UN-embraced threshold for dangerous warming.
Beijing has said it is not opposed to taking on binding commitments after 2020, but tied that offer to a long list of conditions.
US negotiators, acknowledging a difficult domestic political context, have shied away from signing on to anything with the label "legally binding."
"China has been blowing hot and cold. If it throws its weight behind the EU position it would put pressure on the US to follow suit," said Thomas Spencer, a climate policy analyst from the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) in Paris.
Under the EU deal, Europe would sign up to a second round of Kyoto promises, thus satisfying developing countries clamouring to keep the landmark treaty alive.
As the talks went into extra time, the environment minister of the Maldives, Mohamed Aslam, joined several hundred green activists in a protest rally that blocked the main hallway outside the plenary venue.
UN security guards peacefully dispersed the protest, expelling around two dozen people, including Greenpeace International head Kumi Naidoo.
47 Comments so far
Show All@ >> ("The plan calls for a "roadmap" leading to a global accord, to be negotiated by 2015,")..<< Swell...
By 2015, all of the still living delegates for the climat conference will be laying awake at night wonderin how on Earth they could have been so ignorant and utterly stupid, because by 2015 global warming and the resulting climate changes will be a world wide living nightmare..
They had better make that by 2012,,, next month, orr sooner. .
Hi WR,
I think your timeline for the effects of climate change are too soon. Things wont be that different in 3 years time. But in 30 years time ...
Hi braithwa842... The timeline for what to oocur?
I believe a timeline of 2015 for runaway,, totally out of control global warming to begin is not just very possible,,, it is most likely.
In fact it could begin by next summer... Runaway GW will mean that there will be absolutly nothing we humans will be able to then do to prevent a world wide castastrophic disaster.
In other words; once "runaway" GW begins,, if we humans never burned another drop of oil or another hunk of coal,,, anyplace on the planet,, global warming will continue to accellerate because of triggered feedback loops.
My opinions on that issue are based entirely upon the words stated by some of the world's top scientists.
3 may be too short; 30 is almost certainly too long. But it depends...
Last month the International Energy Agency echoed most climate science models and revelations in expressing alarm over the fact that every time we learn something new about climate change it makes us aware it's happening faster and will be worse than we thought. They give us 5 years before some major fecal material impacts the rotating blades.
The truth is we don't know how long we have. No one knows how long we have. And it depends... on how soon more of the tipping points that trigger runaway climate change are passed, and on our definition of 'how long we have till what?' Ecological catastrophe is already here for several billion people; the biosphere's situation is so dire that it's clear our defintion of "disaster", and of "collapse" are:
When the horrors that have been happening to everyone else for decades or centuries start happening to me.
Or we could do something about it before it happens.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change
Very well stated ~J4zonian~.
The reason things have been happening much faster than the scientists computer rmodel have indicated, is because none of them had ever computed the amount of methane gas, CH4, which has been releasing from the Arctic region in massive amounts since 2008.
Every year the Arctic's CH4 releases increased and it will continue to increase every year from now on as the Arctic permafrost continues to rapidly melt and it is by far the most dangerous feedback loop to global warming.
Legally binding emissions targets are meaningless, as they would prove to be hopelessly inadequate. Consequences of global warming are naturally binding. The target of climate safety has been given as 350 ppm CO2, and it still stands. By 2015, before any business as usual changes in policy might take effect, Arctic summer ice will be mostly gone, and the average CO2 will be 400 ppm. The 2 degrees limit of warming has already been reached, but is still heavily masked by coal burning sulphate aerosol emissions. Further global warming accelerators are in progress.
There is no negotiation wiggle room with global warming as it now stands. Consequences are becoming such that every nations total discretionary resources will be used up in emergencies of catering for immigration, infrastructure repairs, water and food distribution. And there will not be enough resources. Political instability and fighting, famine and disease will accompany collapse. At some stage of collapse, coal burning emissions will fall, leading to an extra degree or two of fast warming.
There is no room for negotiation.
There is a suggestion on another thread to ban the World Bank from climate finance.
Do you see any merit in this?
========
Global carbon emissions going up and up.
Top 20 banks that finance big coal
. . . “Our figures clearly show that coal financing is on the rise,” notes Tristen Taylor of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg. “Between 2005 and 2010, coal financing almost doubled. If we don’t take banks to task now, coal financing will continue to grow.” . . .
So unless old coal plants are being closed faster elsewhere, (and China is said to be closing the worst ones), there is no hope. National emissions agreements are damned unbelievable lies. The flow of money controls economies.
Banks create money out of thin air, and give it to any one that looks like generating energy or products from resources. Unless bank finance for increasing carbon emissions is regulated on a global scale, national agreements are meaningless. And when is the last time that any government increased regulations on banks? Unless all global banking investment is heavily regulated towards stop funding of carbon emission increases, and funding proven zero emission technology, there isn't a hope in future climate hell.
Naomi Klein's article in "The Nation", "Capitalism vs. the Climate", seems to this reader a work of genius, and directly addresses the issues you have brought up.
I will highlight Naomi's main points, but the article in its entirety is in my opinion a must read for all progressives and environmental NGO's:
1. Reviving and Reinventing the Public Sphere
2. Remembering How to Plan
3. Reining in Corporations
4. Relocalizing Production
5. Ending the Cult of Shopping
6. Taxing the Rich and Filthy
Summary
"So let’s summarize. Responding to climate change requires that we break every rule in the free-market playbook and that we do so with great urgency. We will need to rebuild the public sphere, reverse privatizations, relocalize large parts of economies, scale back overconsumption, bring back long-term planning, heavily regulate and tax corporations, maybe even nationalize some of them, cut military spending and recognize our debts to the global South. Of course, none of this has a hope in hell of happening unless it is accompanied by a massive, broad-based effort to radically reduce the influence that corporations have over the political process. That means, at a minimum, publicly funded elections and stripping corporations of their status as “people” under the law. In short, climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative."
Manysummits
=====
PS
My own suggestion, perhaps in addition to those listed above, is "Rights for the Environment", a topic first elucidated in a powerful legal argument by Christopher Stone, Professor of Law in California in 1972, in his seminal "Should Trees Have Standing."
Every goal that Naomi spells out would be at least partially addressed were this Rights for the Environment to be accepted in International Law.
But I fear this is not obvious to the casual observer.
====
I have read comments on it, and I am still absorbing the implications. Global banks and capital have become the major controllers of governments and economies, and therefore peoples. A major revolution is required to turn this on its head, for our own good. To regulate carbon emissions, banking investment and capital markets need to be seriously regulated. Carbon emissions trading will not work unless it is taken deadly seriously. Unless global emissions control, banking, investment policy are integrated and controlled in a solution focussed and outcomes orientated plan, then national and global ad-hockey targets will fail. This involves national governments and banks giving over their sovereignty to new sets of rules and regulations in a big way.
Which they will never willingly do.
I don't know how to proceed, except to tell it like it is and hope that people's survival instinct will eventually kick in.
Mark Maslin, in his 2009 edition "Global Warming" (an Oxford "A Very Short Introduction"), speaks several times of "threshold bifurcations" in the climate system, and their possibly irreversible nature (on meaningful timescales). He relates how scientific advice to the UK regarding the Thames River and London was accepted and planning for a 4.5 meter rise in sea level is in effect, perhaps a powerful statement about AOGCM's used by the IPCC in their 2007 reports, all of which are incapable of modeling what we know with certainty from the paleoclimatic record are 'abrupt climate change' events, and their laughable 0.79 meter predicted rise in sea level by 2100.
Have you a feel for these tipping points?
====
Excellent post on Naomi Klein, MS, but here I have to respecfully disagree. We don't know what people will do until they do it. We may not reach all of the people who are at the bottom of delay. But we don't have to. It's entirely possible for us to reach enough of them to accomplish what we need to.
Our chances are far better of doing this if we act peacefully; to that end Occupy Oakland is putting it on the line Monday to close down the port (as we hope to shut down all West Coast ports) and I'm planning to be there. Who's with us?
A threshold bifurcation comes up every day.
There are other tipping points we can try to reach rather than avoid.
http://westcoastportshutdown.org/
Hello J4 - and best of luck in Oakland!!
I used to have some friends in Redwood City whom I met in Lunenburg Nova Scotia. I was in my tent on the hill, and they were in a small RV. I remember those days on the road, and I remember the Bay area. In fact, in 2005 my wife Julia and our two year old son Michael traveled down the west coast and we stopped again in your neck of the woods, on our way to Joshua Tree and the Twentynine Palms area.
How do you think "Rights for the Environment" is faring with the OCCUPY Movement?
========
The economic "experts'' do not care less about global climate disaster.
As Rep. Joe Barton stated,"All the people I know have air-conditioning."
The good news is that economic activity is slow due to the debt crises.
We need a change in conscience to live sustainably.
That cannot happen with humans brainwashed by media to consume.
There are. obviously, two opinions about every feature of the climate debate. As long as an organization like Common Dreams looks at only one side of the issue, pretends that all scientific knowledge about climate is completely determined, and the only solution to a problem is known by one side - then nothing will be done. Where is there an objective organization that will unemotionally (without calling names) examine the individual parts of the issue? Alas, there seems to be none. When will media begin telling us about the scientific ideas, theories and experiments of the Danish climate scientists? They have very different answers than does the IPCC. And the recent experiments at CERN seem to support them. Let's stop pretending that there is a scientific consensus and bring the issues out into the open..
There are two sides of the "climate debate," alright: the truth, and the horse manure. The last time jerrymat extolled the "Danish climate scientists" he was referring to long-discredited notions that global warming is not caused by greenhouse gases, but by cosmic rays.
What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?
Even the CERN scientist who ran the experiment admits that it "says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate."
This cosmic ray crap has been a favorite warhorse of the merchants of doubt for many years. It doesn't matter how many times you conclusively refute this propaganda, jerrymat will be back with another drive-by post on the exact same issue in another thread.
Are you referring to the work of the scientists from Denmark and CERN discussed here?
"The result simply leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate," stresses Mr. Kirkby
"...both Mr. Kirkby and Mr. Svensmark hold that human activity is contributing to climate change."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html
Those quotes are from a publication and an article sympathetic to your position, by the way.
There are two sides to a coin ~~jerrymat~~... There is (only one) side to the physics of how the planet's atmosphere works.
There is (nothing at all) to debate or argue about in respect to that physics and science ~jerrymat~... Nothing to argue by any intelligent, honest, reasonable people who have a decent degree of common sense.
The time to briefly argue it was more than 18 years ago,, then stop the obtuse, silly, very dangerous political and ecomomic arguing, accept the proven and well established physics and start doing things to prevent what we are now experiencing.
Any who wish to argue that phsics should write, publish and sell their new proven physics in science text books and apply for a Nobel Prize or a Rush Lowbrow Prize in physics... Okay?
What ideas, theories and experiments of what Danish climate scientists? Without reference or URL pointing to a clearly explicated and evidenced online publication, nobody knows what you are talking about. But I guess its supposed to be the "cosmic rays" variability influencing cloud seeding and solar reflectivity. But while these mechanisms are yet to be fully worked out, there hasn't been any measured significant change in cosmic ray flux to cause this centuries global warming, whereas there does exist a huge smoking carbon dioxide gun and serious ocean acidification.
I guess some people would rather believe anything else, and clutch at any old straw, in order to deny that the energy basis of current civilisation is causing its demise.
Cosmic rays and clouds potential mechanisms
Cosmic ray variance
let me clarify...'arrogant' ignorance..and you're looking for 'objective organization' help.' Your suggestion would drag everything backwards 40 years and end up with the same pile of nonsense spewing out of the mouths of people who DO NOT UNDERSTAND the science. damn Do you even KNOW who the scientists are? or the organizations, or are you just spamming Fox?
jerrymat -- I don't think it's CD, but many contributors to it, who are looking at only one side. Let me stress that I believe action is needed and the hope for meaningful international response to the problem is minimal at best. The claims that the problem will be equal to that of the great asteroid impact 65 million years ago within 5, 10, or 50 years, are viewed skeptically by most scientists. How do I know? If the evidence of such a catastrophe was as irrefutable and clear as the doomsday folks claim, scientists wouldn't be conducting further studies. They would be bombing power plants and factories, spiking major highways, and who knows what else. Or at least organizing to do those things if world leaders fail to do the equivalent. But of course scientists aren't doing that, because they see more than one side and are studying and working hard to give all of us better understanding. There is consensus that GW and AGW are tremendous problems. There is no consensus that the problem is equivalent to the asteroid of 65 million years ago striking the planet at some point in the next, say, 50 years.
~~manning 120~~ For starters; global warming serious enough to cause a mass extintion of life, does not have to duplicate the catatrophic results any previous asteroid strike.
If and when (runaway) global warming begins due to a trigger of GW feedback loops, there will be nothing we will then be able to do to prevent a caststrophic world wide disaster for all life on Earth... Runaway GW may begin at any time within the next 1 to 15 years or less.
That would not mean a mass extintion of life will begin in the next 5 to 15 years or less,, it means GW will continue to accelerate and over time a mass extintion of life is more than just possible, it will be most likely.
How many years that would take is highly debatable... It could be five years or 50 years or more or less... In the meantime,, life on Earth will become increasingly unbearable for humans and other life forms... Think Haiti or worse,, with a great deal of a lack of safe edible food and or clean water and summer temperatures above 140 degree F in the shade.
Finally ~manning 120~; scientists have never as yet (proven) an asteroid strike alone caused the mass extintion, there are other reasonable theories,, from massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia, with poison gas suddenly circling the globe,, to massive amounts of methane gas entering the air and quickly killing most life and then a million years of continuing GW until almost all life was finally eradicated 260 million years ago and then again a less serious mass extintion 65 to 55 million years ago. They are all theories.
What is now occurring is not a theory, it is a fact and we can see it happening.. We just are not sure of when runaway GW will commense.. By 2015, to 30 to 50+ years are the arguments.
What is an absolute certainty is,, unless strong action is taken now to prevent runaway GW, it is absolutly going to happen... The key words there are "absolutly",, "runaway GW" and "unless".
It is truly insanity to ignore the fact that runaway GW could happen very soon and do nothing at all about preventing it... Talking will not help.
WayneWR -- The good news is that you and others seem to have moderated your views ever so slightly. I was prepared to nail you if you again accused me of being a paid "denier," on the ground that since you entertain such an idea with no basis whatsoever (I admit readers will have to trust for now that I'm not paid and not someone who actually denies GW and AGW), your thought process is governed by something else than a desire to state and explain the truth, and so your views about climate change are tainted. So, I congratulate you and the other two (I assume I'm dealing with different people) for backing away a little from that.
The unfortunate result of the kind of excess you and the others have engaged in is that it turns off people who would be willing to listen to the facts and reasonable conclusions based upon the facts. I think it's one reason that the proponents of action to prevent precipitous climate change have been losing ground, that international action to combat the problem has stalled, and that the ranks of true deniers are increasing, not decreasing.
By the way, I don't think anyone has taken issue with my contention that there is no scientific consensus that we face a catastrophe in the next 50 years equal in gravity to the asteroid impact of 65 million years ago, unless humans keep GHG increases below certain levels. It would be helpful if your thinking on this aspect could be elucidated.
Reply to manning at the end of the comments.
Readers,
Please don’t be misled by manning into pointless arguments which accomplish nothing but to give him or her a forum to deny, delay, and confuse.
manning has spewed exactly this same nonsense before
www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/11/24-0#comment-1989429
Nov 27 2011- 10:37 pm
and it has been answered, reanswered and proven to be untrue (my next 2 replies to him/her as well as others’).
There have been many posts on 2 of the best scientific websites dealing with climate catastrophe, RealClimate.org and Climateprogress.org. about why scientists don’t revolt en masse (although they certainly should). Read them.
Manning,
you are, intentionally or not, spreading lies and confusion about what is clear, settled science and obvious fact. You are thus delaying the solutions that we need to pursue with all possible haste to avoid the worst calamity in history and prehistory. Disassociate yourself from those who generate and pay for those lies in order to reap profits for themselves and their clients and masters. Read up so you know how dire the problem is and what the solutions are. Then please come join us in helping to push those solutions through: efficiency, solar, wind, some geothermal, tidal, and other renewables; reforestation of the world, replacing agriculture with local organic permaculture; rail sail, mail (deprivatization) and scale (i.e., smaller). Biomimicry in industry; closing the circle on all materials loops; living lives of more meaning, more psychological and physical health, more intimacy and less harm.
Some excellent sources: Tim Flannery, The Weathermakers; James Hoggan, Climate Cover-up; Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science; and other books by Joseph Romm, James Hansen, George Monbiot, Bill McKibben, and many articles and websites devoted to the science of climate change.
J4zonian,, you wrote,,, > ("Please don’t be misled by manning into pointless arguments which accomplish nothing but to give him or her a forum to deny, delay, and confuse. manning has spewed exactly this same nonsense before")......... Thank you for the lessons on what we should write here.
However J4zonian; you then go on and reply to ~manning~ and give him/her a lecture... LOL ... "Do as I say, not as I do" is your advice for us "readers"... Very good... Is it alright fou us "readers" to reply to ~jerrymat~ and other such of that type?
Whenever I reply to the GW deniers, it is not my intent or purpose to try and alter their flawed dumass thinking... It is because some may read their comments and tend to agree with them. So I offer the flip side of the coin,, like you have done here J4zonian.
I have a few words of advice for everyone, all of us here "readers"... Everybody had better get wise to what is happening in the Arctic with massive amounts of CH4, methane gas, which is now bursting out of the rapidly thawing permasfrost,, because by 2020 or sooner, it is going to cause all of us to be doing nothing but attempting to survive and we then won't be typing advice on our keyboards when runaway global warming hits us like an incoming asteroid.
My advice is to attempt to convince your local congressperson of that clearly obvious threat and deadly danger of the most serious issue humanity has ever faced, the Arctic methane... That is my advice.
Wayne,
yes, it’s a contradiction, I know. Patience.
As far as tipping points, methane ain’t the only one so don’t focus on it to the exclusion of everything else going on. Fires, dying forests and ice melting all over the world are obvious enough for anyone who isn’t systematically avoiding knowledge.
I am stunned by the continuing ignorance of the 'side' that thinks everything is peachy keen. Fine, when your judgment day comes, there will be hell to pay. The rest of us who are well informed and cognizant of this crisis will continue to work to save our own, and likely your sorry, asses in the meatime.
I'd like someone here to paste up the exponential curve of change we are already in the middle of. It puts the end of it all somewhere between now and 2050.
This is the best outcome to hope for? A roadmap to negotiations over binding emission limits in 2015, to take effect in 2020? I agree with responses above suggesting that the road mapped by the EU proposal is heading right off a cliff.
Apparently there are some European bankers about to lose big on their carbon-market bets, if everything falls apart in Durban. Kyoto had some laudable goals which could have been built upon, but the toxic part of the Kyoto legacy is the open invitation to corruption set out in carbon-market mechanisms. Should these markets now collapse, some financial interests will be caught short. That's what the EU is worried about, not the climate.
Andrew Light at Climate Progress just filed a report on the current status of negotiations, which is somewhat informative if you've acquired the skill of reading between the lines.
"Apparently there are some European bankers about to lose big on their carbon-market bets, if everything falls apart in Durban."
So the newly appointed Goldman-Sachs employees in Greece, Italy, and Spain are quite fairly crapping their britches right about now. There have been a host of 'last minute' deals flying about the Euro-zone, all in an effort to keep the foundering Euro on life support until another financial sector bubble can be pumped up.
The message you saying, if I am understanding you correctly, is that a lot of these deals have been hinging on the pre-agreed upon >failure< of the Dustbin climate talks, so the already understood to be useless carbon credit trading scam could be continued as just another Ponzi scheme run by the Corporate owned banks to generate even more fiat currency generated derivative profits. Any meaningful talks or agreements would cripple the scam.
Damn.
Strangling these bastards, the bankers and the useless Government negotiators alike, with their own intestines is too gentle a punishment.
I'm not sure if we're on the same page, here. It's an open question whether an adoption of the EU proposal (the roadmap to 2015-2020) should be called a "success" or a "failure" of the Durban climate talks. Certainly this outcome would be meaningless - a failure as concerns doing anything about global warming. But some people would call it a success compared to no agreement at all.
My conjecture is that the proposed agreement advanced by the EU is mainly intended to preserve existing carbon markets, for the sake of banking interests. So far as I know, some revision of this agreement is the only thing going, so in this case no agreement at all might be a better outcome.
Last I heard, all discussion of emission reductions has ceased, many of the delegates have already flown home, and some stragglers are struggling to apply bandages to funding mechanisms: the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) and the GCM (Green Climate Fund). Are REDD and GCM worth saving? Probably not.
Aleph,
You’re not sure if an agreement that accomplishes absolutely nothing except to allow liars to deceive people who aren’t paying attention is a failure?
A massive failure with delegates walking out, bitter recriminations in public between countries, denunciations of Obama by scores of heads of state—that would be the ideal situation. It would expose the fiction that everything’s hunky dory because they got an “agreement”. It could be the start of “Occupy the biosphere”.
Of course, from my own point of view, it's a massive failure. Whether or not it's a success from the perspective of the negotiators at Durban depends on the motivations of those people. It looks to me that the most influential forces went into the negotiations with the intention of preserving carbon markets, and whitewashing (or greenwashing) carbon emissions. They were quite successful in that.
When you find yourself falling, it is best to relax and go with it, if you get lucky you'll avoid a lot of unnecessary pain. If people do not want to believe in bad news, your words will be as empty air. Give up trying to awaken the world. Look after yourself. The common dreams of your words will have no more effect on our future than a dust mote in the eye of God. We are not structured to accept our fate as witnessed by our egotistically vain attempts to use words to effect change. As usual, it would be funny if it weren't so sad. Why do the majority of people wish for life after death? It`s easier than facing the naked truth of the human condition. Life ends.
Very informative posts on this page thanks to all. and well said Mr Callaghan
'life ends' . yet we have answers which is why it so frustrating. Back in the 70's we knew this was coming and formulated solutions to the impending catastrophes we are witnessing. Our priorities were for sustainability, manufacturing for sustainability, local decentralized energy sourcing and farming, bullet trains, light rail, monorail. knowing that life ends, yes, but not for our children quite yet and their children, for life is a miracle, each moment a brilliant gift and the planet itself is a garden planet suspended in space. Truly a miracle of miracles. Leaving the 'campsite' cleaner than when we arrived.
it is sad to see her so abused, species dying out every day. Arctic ice melting. Very sad and tragic. Cars choking our freeways going nowhere. Answers abound for rejuvenation yet the forces of reaction and ignorance might just be too much. Put our lives on the line this one last time in the belly of the beast?
Reading Richard Black's commentary on Durban on the BBC, I was struck with a thought which now seems blindingly obvious, but just hadn't made it into the frontal lobes.
Why are these talks ending at all?
Forget setting a date for the next conference.
Make the Kyoto Protocol discussions permanent - establish in every nation state a Climate Department, and proceed until CO2 is at 350 ppm, and then continue ad infinitum. This problem is not going away - ever.
While we're at it, begin the process which will establish an overarching department, the "Rights for the Environment Portfolio."
Or something along these lines.
Politics is here to stay, just like the climate.
Our hope is that we can diminish injustice in this world of our own creation, so that we might look back on our work in this life and say - well done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16124670
Manysummits
======
Michael Desautels -- Good ideas. Hadn't heard before the suggestion of continuous addressing of the problems rather than intermittent conferences.
Talk is cheap. Action ain't. Go fix global warming yourselves. Get rid of big government.
One of the leaders at the climate conference said the following to reporters this morning.
("We are working to the very last minute to secure that we cash in what has been achieved and what should be achieved here." )
Cash in on what has been achieved? ___ The cash that has been achieved will not be enough to buy a slice of bread.... Talk is cheap.
Deleted - wrong place.
Well ~manning~,, it may SEEM to you that I have moderated my views about something, but my views about global warming have never changed since I first began to have a great deal of interest with the issue more than 10 years ago... In fact over the years my opinions have become much stronger as more scientific data about the issue is discovered by highly qualified scientists..
As to professional paid GW Deniers, I don't know which of the ones who deny GW here at CD are paid, or just ignorant volunteers who support the bullshit published by the corrupt, lying ~Anthony Watts~ crowd and the financial backing of the Koch bros',, Exxon and other big business .. Volunteering or being paid makes little or no difference to me, they are still all wrong and have created a tremendous amount of damage by causing so much doubt and skepticism among others about the most serious issue humanity has or will ever face... If one joins in with the paid GW Deniers they are guilty of stupidity.. If one lives in a shithouse they will smell like a shithouse.
Now you wrote and I'll quote,,, > ("By the way, I don't think anyone has taken issue with my contention that there is no scientific consensus that we face a catastrophe in the next 50 years, etc.") Unquote.
No; there is no "consensus" of the many thousands of (climate scientists) about that I am aware of ,, but there are many very highly qualified scientists who are certain that when the Arctic's methane releases by 2% or more over a one to five year time period that it will be the beginning of a continuing cause of a world wide catastrophic disaster for all life on Earth and there will then be nothing at all that we will be able to do to reverse it... For an example, if we fire a gun and the bullet comes out of the end of the gun barrel, the results are irreversible.
The reason most by far climate scientists have not gotten on the very important Arctic methane threat band wagon,, is because none of them had ever computed the Arctic's methane threat into their climate computer modeling and therefore their climate models are seriously flawed as to (*time periods*) of when a catastrophic event will take place because of global warming.
I will post something here which I have posted on another CD thread and you may choose to mull it over, if you are one of the volunteer GW deniers and are just ignorant of the facts... Perhaps you will learn something you obviously are currently unaware of... Whatever you may do in that regard is strictly your business of course and I don't care what you may choose to do.
http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?173262/Warming-Arctics-global-impacts-outstrip-predictions
Comments,, paragraphs from that article and again,, the scientists downplay the time frames of a catastrophic disaster beginning... Quote,, > ("This report shows that it is urgently necessary to rein in greenhouse gas emissions while we still can," Dr. Sommerkorn said. "If we allow the Arctic to get too warm, it is doubtful whether we will be able to keep these feedbacks under control.
"The Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Global Implications report, released today, outlines dire global consequences of a warming Arctic that are far worse than previous projections. The unprecedented peer-reviewed report brings together top climate scientists who have assessed the current science on arctic warming."
"Simply put, if we do not keep the Arctic cold enough, people across the world will suffer the effects."
"What they found was a truly sobering picture,' said Dr Martin Sommerkorn, senior climate change advisor for WWF’s Arctic program. 'What this report says is that a warming Arctic is much more than a local problem, it’s a global problem." ... End quotes.
There are many other scientific reports available on the web which back up what these scientists are reporting... Google (arctic methane) and do some web searches of similar studies by earth scientists,, geologists,, paleontologists and ocean bio-chemists who have many years of experience in their chosen fields of study and you may alter your flawed opinions of the issue.... You don't want to continue to smell bad do you manning?
WayneWR – I certainly hope you’re not a paid shill trying to discredit organizations like CD by making it appear that the site is a comfortable home for irrational extremists, and thus, for rational people trying to figure out what to do about climate change, not worth paying attention to. If you are, I’m just wasting time responding. I do consider you irrational and extreme on this matter, but your latest remarks seem to have toned down a little.
You say, “there are many very highly qualified scientists who are certain that when the Arctic's methane releases by 2% or more over a one to five year time period that it will be the beginning of a continuing cause of a world wide catastrophic disaster for all life on Earth and there will then be nothing at all that we will be able to do to reverse it.” I would like to know more exactly which, and how many scientists, not just “many.” Certainly the release of a large amount of methane would introduce a new (correct?) and very important forcing into the mix. If scientists are as concerned about this as you are, I would expect there to be elaborate testing facilities set up where the releases are expected. I’m unaware of any such established facilities, or continuing testing expeditions, or whatever it would take to immediately detect the large releases you speak of (are you saying 2% more than previous releases?). If “many very highly qualified scientists” thought as you do, I would expect methane detection proposals would be pending before governments everywhere.
You speak of “the beginning of a continuing cause of a world wide catastrophic disaster for all life on Earth.” Beginnings can be modest or major. What is the scientific consensus? And would it require the 2% increase to continue for a year, two years, or five years, before this “beginning”?
Again, “The reason most by far climate scientists have not gotten on the very important Arctic methane threat band wagon,, is because none of them had ever computed the Arctic's methane threat into their climate computer modeling and therefore their climate models are seriously flawed as to (*time periods*) of when a catastrophic event will take place because of global warming.” I find it odd that you, who haven’t claimed to be a very highly qualified scientist, know so much more about this than climate scientists. What allows you to understand the situation so much better?
I will in time study your information and assertions about methane more, but for now answers to the foregoing would be appreciated. By the way, I hope you continue advocating for what you believe in. My complaint is that you’re not making progress because of the way you’re doing it. But I’m at least listening, and you've convinced me that arctic methane releases are important.
Well ~maning~ it is clear you replied to me before you conducted your own web searches about the Arctic methane issue.
I do believe you will find that comment that no climate scientists have computed the Arctic methane releases in their computer modeling in the link for the article I offered.
I don't make thing up here, the things I write about the Arctic methane are words of some of our top scientists. I have posted many links to back up what I have written over the years… One serious problem is there have been little written about the issue since 2009 which is available on the web.
I have no clue of why you would suggest I "shill" for anyone who would attempt to discredit Common Dreams... I find Common Dreams to be the most important news site available,,, anyplace, and I have frequently said so over the years... Because I disagree with things you write does not support such an irrational assumption.
WayneWR -- I'll stand by my last comment for now. I don't think you addressed several of my questions.
I don't give a ratsass what you do ~manning~.. You can stand on your opinions until Doomsday for all I care, suit yourself... I'm not your teacher or your mommy, do whatever makes your heart pump.
Yor said you wanted to learn about the Arctic methane threat issue... I suggested you Google _ arctic methane_ and other related web searches and read up on it... I have poste two links here for excellent articles, one is below this post which you didn't respond to and discuss. There are quotes by some of our very top scientists that back up what I had posted.
Argue with the scientists if you wish to disagee... Again; I don't give a rip what you do, who you are, what you think, or what your opinions are... You have fun now.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050718214744.htm
Comments from the article,,, ('Drew Shindell, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, believes we need to look at the GHGs when they are emitted at Earth's surface, instead of looking at the GHGs themselves after they have been mixed into the atmosphere.")
("According to new calculations, the impacts of methane on climate warming may be double the standard amount attributed to the gas. The new interpretations reveal methane emissions may account for (*a third*) of the climate warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases between the 1750s and today. The IPCC report, which calculates methane’s affects once it exists in the atmosphere, states that methane increases in our atmosphere account for (*only about one sixth*) of the total effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases on warming.")
If only 10 billion tons of methane releases from the Arctic's melting permafrost it would be equivalent to a trillion tons of Co2.. That is because methane,, CH4,, is 100 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than Co2 is… It is estimated by ISSS team scientists that near 3 billion tons are now releasing from the thawing Arctic permafrost every summer.
Scientists are quite concerned that 44 billion tons of Co2 was emitted by human activity in 2010.. I do believe a trillion tons would be far more worrisome and 10 billion tons is far below the 2% amount of Ch4 in the Arctic's permafrost.
Once methane begins to release from the Arctic permafrost it will continue to release and accelerate as more permafrost melts... It is a very dangerous feedback loop… It will not stop unless the Arctic ice begins to recover,,, which now is very unlikely.