Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiClimate Change: We Must Believe We Can Make a Difference
To Stop a Climate Catastrophe We Must First Believe We Can Make a Difference
Climate scientists are hyping the global warming crisis in order to keep themselves in jobs, conferences and research grants to exotic locations. Their snouts are wedged deep in a lucrative trough.
So goes the familiar chant from the climate naysayers - those who are convinced climate change is not caused by people nor that its effects are overblown.
So the results of the Guardian's poll of climate experts showing that most believe we don't have a hope in hell of keeping planetary warming to below 2C - the threshold the EU defines as "dangerous" - are all the more remarkable.
It blows the lid on a very different sort of conspiracy: that climate scientists have actually been toning down their message lest the worst-case scenario becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As one respondent put it, "Great things can only be achieved by everyone believing it can be done. How do you think the second world war was won? Churchill didn't stand around saying most people think we will lose the war. He said we will fight it on the beaches."
Far from over-playing their hand to swell their research coffers, scientists have been toning down their message in an attempt to avoid public despair and inaction.
Just 7% of the 261 experts surveyed (200 of whom were researchers in climate science or related fields) said they thought governments would succeed in restricting global warming to 2C. Nearly two-fifths thought this target was impossible and 46% thought a 3 to 4C rise by the end of the century was most likely.
A 3 or 4C rise might not sound much but the climatic shifts accompanying it would be massive. At 3C one to four billion extra people would face water shortages and 150 to 550 million more people would be at risk of hunger. With an extra degree of warming on top of that, seven million to 300 million would be put at risk of coastal flooding due to sea level rise.
In the face of such apocalyptic scenarios it is natural for people to feel like giving up. Small personal actions such as turning the TV off standby, turning down your thermostat and lagging the loft have always seemed pitiful in the face of a global catastrophe.
But if the scientists are saying the bad stuff is going to happen anyway then it is tempting to think we might as well stop punishing ourselves, jump on that no-frills flight and be done with it.
Unfortunately, the climate doesn't give us a milestone beyond which we can stop bothering. Warming the planet to 3C beyond pre-industrial levels is a lot worse than a 2C rise, but it is a walk in the park with mum buying you an ice-cream compared with a rise of 4C.
Likewise, stopping us getting near 5C is very much worth the effort. Sea-level rise at that global temperature increase will take out cities including London, New York and Tokyo. The poles will be transformed by warming.
Scientists must stop sanitising their message. World leaders and their people need to hear the warnings loud and clear and follow through with radical action that matches the scale of the crisis. Only if they do will future generations look back on what is looking decreasingly likely to be our "finest hour".
24 Comments so far
Show Allokay wait I just had a good idea and it's really simple to put on a Tshirt
FREE ELECTRICITY FOR VEHICLES
rebuild the grid, use big government wallet to build geothermal, tidal, solar, wind, power plants hither and yon as appropriate - and change the world by offering FREE ELECTRICITY FOR VEHICLES. wouldn't the world's fleet of farty cars and trucks and trains and freighters switch over to the new fuel lickety split?
yeah. I had a few beers.
keep up hope! love each other! think!
Maplefudge
As most of you know, Dr James Hansen is the former director of the Goddard Space program and this means he has a wide perspective of the planet and he is a GREAT communicator and well as smart scientist. You can listen to an hour long lecture with the proper graphs and bullet points and a joke or two and here it is:
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16048&subject=sci
this comes from www.uctv.tv which has EXCELLENT programs on global warming.
For Earth Day, April 22 we are having our students pick up trash and also exhibit art work on the topic of earth day and in another town we are doing chalk drawings on the side walk and we will be flying a kite with comments from the kids on it about the topic.
Do something within your community.
Also Oct 24 will be international teach in and awareness day and you can find out about it on www.350.org the number refers to the safe amount of carbon dioxide that we must achieve as soon as possible and that is 350ppm but we are at 387 ppm now and it is VERY challenging to get down. Dr Hansen explains well why the cap and trade does not work well and also why coal plants must be stopped.
Keep on trucking--- don't give up--- we love our planet--- it is a miracle-- keep it going for your grandchildren.
Denial of climate change has so many levels.
Denial of the facts.
Denial of the most accepted explanation of the facts and what they predict for the future.
Denial of the far reaching drops in world fossil fuel and natural resource consumption that are required in a serioius effort to avoid the predicted results.
System denial is strongly reinforced. Although many people who are able to are changing to a lower consumption pattern, and the underlying industrial capitalist model is undergoing a serious world depression, the required drop in consumption and its ever increasing urgency still requires a near total economic breakdown, not just a slow down. Habit and the inability to sabotage our own livelihoods means that each of us still does our job in the system to keep the whole going along. Many people would need to throw the off switch, abandon their critical system jobs, at the same time in many different parts of the globe in order to bring the current system to a near halt. The more critical a job is to the system, the better is the corresponding pay and lifestyle, and much greater is the inability for sabotage or abandonment. And we have not even started to deal with government and military power used for the vested interests of the wealthy. Where is the revolution demanding that coal power stations be shut down now, or better still masses of people trashing them directly? Waiting for solar power in this pressing climate emergency is like waiting for Godot.
The biggest significant contribution we all can make toward reducing green house gasses, is to get behind the Electric Vehicle. If you don’t know anything about them, Learn! Write to your Senator and at least one Congressman and ask them to make sure that the Government will help subsidize the public purchase of these vehicles when they come out next year. Until they have been around awhile, they will be expensive and it will be hard to get enough of them on the road to make a difference.
The Electric Car will make an enormous difference in so many ways. They will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, thus helping our economy big time and allow us to revise our foreign policies toward the Middle East. They will reduce pollution in our cities and cut down on health care costs. They will contribute greatly to the reduction of global warming CO2 emissions. They will reduce our transportation costs and give us more incentives to modernize our electrical production and distribution.
The Big Oil Companies have been using tremendous power to delay the coming of Electric Cars. They know they will come, but they want to pump as much oil as possible before they give in. Only the people can stop them and get our government behind pushing this agenda to the forefront.
Great things can only be achieved by everyone believing it can be done. How do you think the second world war was won? Churchill and Roosevlet didn't stand around worring about the possibility of losing the war. That was never an option.
Beyond that, we need to redesign our communities so that automobile use is *rarely necessary*.Instead we should be able to rely on walking, bicycling and on public transit to get where we need to go.
In many places in the US now, people drive everywhere. Electric cars or not, this is neither a sustainable nor desirable way of life.
We need to live within a few miles or where we work and have walkable access to shopping and services.
Food production, too needs to become local (as transporting goods, food included, accounts for a lot of road transport). Those of us with yard space should have gardens or greenhouses in colder climates, community gardens should be prevalent and we should also have urban commercial farms.
There is no one solution to our problems and certainly not one that avoids the issue of redesigning our systems and lives so that we simply consume less in every way.
Marian Swanzy-Parker
Actually, the biggest significant contribution we all can make toward reducing greenhouse gases is to become vegetarians.
Before we start mass-producing electric vehicles wouldn't it be nice if we at least had a plan to make electricity exclusively from renewables? Otherwise it's putting the cart before the horse, isn't it?. We might reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but if you just replace oil with coal, it won't do anything for climate change
"Scientists must stop sanitising their message."
And so must activists.
The "50 Simple Things You Can Do" paradigm is worse than useless, in that it gives the impression that cosmetic changes will be sufficient, and that the status quo can be preserved. The reality is:
1) Endless-growth economics CANNOT continue
2) We in the over-developed world MUST implement lifestyles that consume FAR less energy and material resources than at present--probably 80% less in the long run.
Climate-change activists who fail to promulgate these messages are not really being sincere and serious, no matter how well-intentioned they may be.
I've been watching this issue for a few years and have absorbed more than most casual observers, but less than most scientists. But scientists are experts in narrow fields and find it hard to communicate their conclusions to regular folks. Let me offer some dots that you can connect as you see fit.
The first thing I saw was the big chart projected on a wall by Al Gore in his movie, "An Inconv Truth". I bought the book to take a longer look at it.
It shows cycles of climate about 110,000 years long, from the warmest to the deepest ice age. We are at the top of a warming period at about the level where previous cycles have reversed---as shown by a sharp spike on the chart.
That chart shows GHGs 50% above any historic level. That's the part we can work on, in fact, must correct. It's our doing and we are the ones who must fix it.
A natural cycle is going to take place as in the past---unless those GHGs modify it some way. I doubt very much that we can escape that even if we had the will and means, but humans have survived a cycle before.
We've been around as "modern" homo habilis(?)/sapiens for 200,000 years. But we have forms of technology and organizing skills that they may not have had. And I say "may not" intentionally.
Science tells us that the top 4/5s of the Greenland ice sheet has been deposited since the top of the last cycle, so, other things being equal, we may have until most of its ice sheet melts off to remedy the GHGs and/or prepare for the inevitable onset of the natural cycle.
That's why everyone is so tuned in to the mean planetary temp and trends that might change the schedule. GHGs trap heat.
Just how the defeat and reversal of a temperature spike takes place is an open guess. I have an idea, and have posted it in CD over the last year, but will save it for another time.
It's time to leave oil, nukes and coal for good and sufficient reasons even beyond climate disruption. They are the fuel of a clever, not wise, species. They bring us war and concentration of wealth and power which are obviously unsustainable, and wrong for this planet. How can we war over sunlight and wind and waves?
We have to decide if we are going to make it, individually and societally. Not very often have we been presented with an opportunity to change out of a bad system into a good one while saving our bacon at the same time.
If we can make the paradigm shift, we deserve the future. If not, who knows.
Many have a lot to add to the discussion.
If you haven't yet seen that chart and others like it, get on Jms Hansen's site and find his lecture at Virginia Tech last year.
"It shows cycles of climate about 110,000 years long, from the warmest to the deepest ice age. We are at the top of a warming period at about the level where previous cycles have reversed---as shown by a sharp spike on the chart"
So, we should reduce GHG so we can reverse the cycle and live the next 100,000 years in an ice age? During the last ice age, man had not yet relied on agriculture, they survived as hunter gatherers. Another ice age would reduce population by 5-6 billion people. There are some who would like to see that happen. A motive perhaps?
Thanks for the feedback.
Have you seen the chart?
The last 3-4 cycles of 110,000 yrs+/- are like a heartbeat.
Study the chart.
WELL, I'M NOT AFRAID OF PREETY MUCH LIVING AS WE DID 100 OR MORE YEARS AGO... I THINK THAT OLY PLACES LIKE HOSPITALS AND SUCH PLACES WOULD GET THE ELECTRICITY ETC.
The problem is that not everyone is willing to do this. I find it difficult to give up my job-there is nothing else close to me that would help me pay a mortgage..\\
BUT IF THE MORTGAGE WAS ALL I HAD TO PAY NO ELECTRIC, NO CAR, NO EXTRA "STUFF" THEN YEAH- WE COULD MAYBE GET BY... BUT MY KIDS WOULD STILL BE AROUND OTHER KIDS WHOSE PARENTS ARE LIVING THE "MIDDLE CLASS" LIFE STYLE OF RUNNING AROUND TO FOOTBALL GAMES AND HOUR AWAY GOING TO PRACTICE GFOR THIS AND THAT, GETTING MAJOR ELECTRONIC "TOYS" FOR CHRISTMAS" ETC.
WE DON'T EVEN GO ALONG WITH A LOT OF THAT STUFF. .. BUT THE LITTLE MY KIDS GET THEY WOULD FEEL LEFT OUT, SOCIALLY...
bUT LIKE I SAID IF EVERY ONE WAS IN THE SAME BOAT IT WOULD WORK....
we ALL JUST KEEP GOING ALONG AS IF NOTHING IS HAPPENING.
I STILL THINK THIS SUMMER WILL CHANGE THAT...
Dr. David Suzuki at his April 8th presentation in Portland said that the natural systems of earth can currently process one ton of CO2 per human inhabitant per year. Each American, on average, produces 22 tons per year. In the so-called developing world most people produce 1 to 1.5 tons of CO2 per year. I suggest that the so-called Developing World and the so-called Developed World be renamed the Sustainable and Non-Sustainable Worlds, respectively.
As Hildegard of Bingen said over 900 years ago "Nature will not be mocked". Bad generals loose wars. Bad decisions end societies. Look at the Leif Erickson era Greenlanders. They failed to adapt and all died.
The current actions are symbolic beginnings of the greater than 95% reduction in just CO2 production that must begin.
Read Peter Ward's "Under a Green Sky" or "Out of Thin Air" to learn what the composition of the atmosphere has been over the last 600 million years and what life forms can exist under some of the past atmospheres. We are headed toward an atmosphere that will not support us.
Look at the map in the current issue of National Geographic of projected near future rainfall changes as a consequence of rising CO2 and other greenhouse gases and consider where you want to live and how many can live there.
Another good source is, "The Great Ice Age", by Wilson, Drury and Chapman.
It's expensive/hard to get, but really nails it. Written in 2000.
Another good source is, "The Great Ice Age", by Wilson, Drury and Chapman.
It's expensive/hard to get, but really nails it. Written in 2000.
Her are some if the individual actions I've taken:
1. I have kept my thermostat at 62 day/57 night.
2. AC use limited to the 3 or 4 hottest days of the year.
3. Buy local generated wind energy credits.
4. When my job moved to an outer suburban area, I bought my current residence based primarily on carbon-footprint considerations:
- walking access to basic shopping
- A older, closer-in community that still has sidewalks and a main street
- short walk to a frequent bus route
- Less than 6 miles to work
- Smallest floor area necessary.
5. I use modified battery-electric motor scooters for most local transportaton, and commuting, weather permitting. Energy-equivalent fuel economy - about 350 mpg.
But am I making a difference? Yes, like a drop in the ocean until others start doing it, and others won't do it without incentives, and, when necessary, mandatory measures.
I also can't help to notice that all the individual things proposed so far are pretty minimal - CF bulbs, some more insulation, add some air to the car tires,
a solar panel that will reduce electric consumption a bit.
The really significant things - reduced termostat settings and proper clothing in winter and sane AC use in summer, reduced car usage - moving to a community and workplace where a car is needed very little if at all - the things Carter exhorted us to do way back, are still too radical for even so-called "climate activists" to dare suggest.
Individual responses are possible and can be especially useful when there is critical mass, as in the Western/Northern world we do live overall quite wastefully, but individual responses need to be put in perspective.
What immediately came to mind in reading your post is economics/class.
You are fortunate in having the ability to readily choose (and buy) your residence and I'll assume your job (opportunities most poor and many working class and even middle class people don't have). You have control over your thermostat and can choose the energy sources you use to heat/cool your home, level of insulation, etc.(something most renters cannot claim). Even access to neighborhood shopping, is something that is not readily available in many poor communities - with residents (who often cannot afford to move out of these communities) having to travel very far from where they live, just to buy groceries.
I think the changes you have made in your life are laudable, but the survival of the planet is too important to be left to individual choice, especially when, as is currently the case such choices often require quite a bit of maneuvering (and a certain amount of privilege/opportunity) to achieve.
We should be moving towards a situation in the US in which legislation and regulation requires, encourages and promotes sustainable living across the board. So, that even lazy or heedless people are steered towards a sustainable way of life and the poor and working class are taken into account.
I'll give a Canadian example: Canada has passed legislation to ban incandescent light bulbs. So, that when the law goes into effect there will simply be no incandescent light bulbs for sale in stores whether shoppers care about conserving energy or not.
This is one tiny and fairly isolated example of the kind of change that could happen if we had governments bold enough to make the necessary moves.
The changes we need clearly aren't happening now not because the changes themselves are impossible but because even their suggestion meets **strong corporate/industry opposition**.
While it becomes clearer and clearer every day that new **systems** (in contrast to individual action) must be put in place, the powers that be, work to keep things or return things back (as in the case of the current recession) to "normal."
Marian Swanzy-Parker
Best comment I think I've read on this subject. yeah, you do this stuff and realize, what's the big deal? Why do we insist that these actions are unreasonable to have expected of us, and not worth doing? That somehow, to be a real American means to have the right to excess and waste?
"I have kept my thermostat at 62 day/57 night.....The really significant things - reduced termostat settings and proper clothing in winter and sane AC use in summer, reduced car usage - moving to a community and workplace where a car is needed very little if at all - the things Carter exhorted us to do way back, are still too radical for even so-called "climate activists" to dare suggest."
I live in a part of the world where winters see temperatures as low as 45-50 degrees. There is no heating system in most homes. You wear sweaters or jackets inside to keep warm. Sounds like you are living it up by keeping the thermostat so high.
Also, population density is so high you can get everything you need within walking distance. People have to deliver their trash to the trash trucks, which stop within walking distance from homes in every neighborhood, so they don't have to drive as much picking it up from each house.
The thing is, in the US it is impossible for everyone to do as you do. Unlike where I live, population density is too low, jobs change, not everyone can work within 6 miles of their job as the jobs are so spread out and changeable. You can suggest it, but it's not possible, and so is impractical as a national solution.
Well, on most of the temperate US thermostats at kept at 75 in winter, and air conditioned to 65 in summer. Go figure.
The spreading out of the the US population in sprawling suburbs was a symbiotic decision by big Detroit and big real estate developers. It took only a couple decades to depopulate US cities and spread the population out into the the suburbs, mostly following WW2 - so it can certainly be reversed in a couple decades.
The issue for me is less what individuals can do to stem further global warming, but what governments can do with legislation and subsidies to help individuals do better.
Whether or not we have environmental change for the better should be less a matter of personal emotion (despair or resolve) and initiative than of government mobilization.
Incidently, the article also does not touch on the need for preparation for the coming disasters, if indeed temperatures will surely rise by 2 degrees. Much of the preparation takes the same shape that prevention measures would take.
That said, where are the tax breaks and subsidies for geothermal home heating and passive solar building technologies in cold countries? For wind and solar electricity production (on a personal or municipal scale)? Where are the regulations and legislation to support local, small-scale agriculture, water conservation and gathering? Where is the encouragement and planning for a way of life in which we walk, bicycle and take public transit over using automobiles, in which we eat fresh, organic, local foods over packaged, chemical-doused foods?
The emphasis must be placed where it belongs on changing the massive systems that shape our choices and lives - a governmental-level task and not on individuals.
Marian Swanzy-Parker
"Incidently, the article also does not touch on the need for preparation for the coming disasters, if indeed temperatures will surely rise by 2 degrees. Much of the preparation takes the same shape that prevention measures would take"
I agree with you, the focus should be on preparing for climate change, be it warming or cooling, and not trying to engineer climate. Climate always changes, and we understand so little about how climate works.
But this movement is about getting people to give more control to government over how they live, and the shock doctrine says scaring people and allowing disasters to happen is good for governments and big business, as it gives them a good excuse to take more control and increase prices and taxes. Disaster prevention does not work for them.
First we have to distinguish between scientists and industry shills.
No, first we have to stop thinking and theorizing, and end our lifestyle frenzies. We've tried "distinguishing" long enough. The whole time we're doing it, we're building up a better atmospheric greenhouse. Stop flying. Turn crap off. Realize we were fed a snow job about what humans need to be happy.
Scientists are either backed by government or industry, and even corporate-government shills. There is no science possible without money, so there is conflict of interest in virtually all science. Government wants carbon cap and trade as a revenue source for government spending, essentially a hidden tax on the middle class, so you know what their scientists are going to promote.