Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward
- It’s All About Israel
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- As Hurricane Victims Freeze, Billionaire Mayor Gives Away $1 Billion to Wealthy Med School
Popular content
Today's Top News
Take Me to Your Climate Leader
COPENHAGEN—“Politicians talk, leaders act” read the sign outside the Bella Center in Copenhagen on the opening day of the United Nations climate summit. Inside the convention center, the official delegations from 192 countries, hundreds of NGOs (nongovernmental organizations)—an estimated 15,000 people in all—are engaging in two weeks of meetings aiming for a global agreement to stave off catastrophic global climate change. Five thousand journalists are covering the event.
Outside, Copenhagen has been transformed into a vibrant, global hub of climate-change activism, forums and protest planning. In one square, an ice sculpture of a polar bear melts day by day, and an open-air exhibit of towering photos displays “100 places to remember that will disappear.”
While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this week designated carbon dioxide as a threat to health, President Barack Obama has said that there will not be a binding agreement from this summit. Many see the U.S. as a key obstacle to it and are seizing the opportunity to assert a leadership role in what environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben has described as “the most important diplomatic gathering in the world’s history.” At stake are not only the rules that will govern entire economies, driven for well more than a century by fossil fuels, but the very existence of some nations and cultures, from the tropics to the arctic.
The Republic of Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean, sent 15-year-old Mohamed Axam Maumoon as a climate ambassador. After attending the Children’s Climate Forum, he told me, “We are living at the very edge ... because our country is so fragile, only protected by the natural barriers, such as the coral reefs and the white sandy beaches.”
Most of the 200 inhabited islands of the Maldives are at most 3 feet above sea level, and projected sea-level rises would inundate his country. Even at his age, Axam comprehends the enormousness of the threat he and his country face, and starkly frames the question he poses to people in the industrialized world: “Would you commit murder, even while we are begging for mercy and begging for you to stop what you’re doing, change your ways and let our children see the future that we want to build for them?”
Farther north, in Arctic Village, Alaska, indigenous people are fighting to survive. Sarah James is an elder and a chair member of the Gwich’in Steering Committee. I met her this week at Copenhagen’s Klimaforum09, dubbed “The People’s Summit,” where she told me: “Climate change, global warming is real in the Arctic. There’s a lot of erosion, because permafrost is melting. ... And last summer, there was a fire all summer long, no visibility. Last spring, 20 villages got flooded along the Yukon. Sixty villages within the Yukon area never got their fish.”
Emerging economies like China and India are growing rapidly and are becoming top-tier carbon emitters, yet none approaches the per capita emission levels of the United States. With just 4 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. produces about a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases. The model for the past century has been clear: If you want to escape poverty, grow your economy by industrializing with fossil fuels as your main source of energy. Yet the wealthy nations have not been willing to pay for the environmental damage they have caused, or significantly change the way they operate.
Author Ross Gelbspan says poverty is at the root of the problem: Take care of poverty, and humanity can solve the climate crisis. He says retooling the planet for a green economy can be the largest jobs program in history, can create more equality among nations, and is necessary, immediately, to avoid catastrophe.
Tuesday, between sessions at the Bella Center, in the cafe area packed with thousands, a group of activists dressed as space aliens, in white spacesuits and with green skin and goggles, walked in. “Take us to your climate leaders!” they demanded. “Show us your binding treaty!” In the rarified diplomatic atmosphere of the summit, such antics stand out. But the calls from the developing world, both inside and outside the summit, to cut emissions and to compensate countries, from Africa to Asia and Latin America, for the devastating effects of global warming they did not cause are no laughing matter.
Protesters are planning confrontations as more than 100 world leaders descend on Copenhagen next week. The battle cry at the Klimaforum09 is “Mobilize, Resist, Transform.” The people are leading, while the politicians talk.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
89 Comments so far
Show All"With just 4 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. produces about a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases."
The U.S. should aim to be the strongest leader in actual reforms to reduce carbon emissions.
There is an argument out there that says the evidence for global warming isn't strong enough to justify spending money to mitigate against it for the benefit of future generations. Lets try the following analogy to see if that makes sense or not.
Say you are the primary bread winner for your family of four. Now both of your parents family's have a history of dying from brain tumors at a very young age. This doesn't mean you WILL die early from a brain tumor, it just means you have a higher CHANCE to die from one.
Now you have the opportunity to buy a large life insurance policy on yourself that will help to take care of your family for the rest of their lives. It is expensive, and will have some impact your ability to do the extra fun things in life, but you CAN afford it.
So what would you do? Would you take out the policy to insure the future of your wife and kids if you die young, or do you skip it so you can eat out a few more times each month or take a fancier vacation?
If you say you would sacrifice some now to take out the life insurance policy to guarantee your kids financial future, then why wouldn't you want to spend a little more now to mitigate the rise in CO2 to assure your kids planetary future?
Just thinking out loud here. Anyone want to argue against this line of thinking? If so I'd like to hear your reasoning.
Thanks,
Tom
Sure, Tom.
I would take out the insurance policy. I would not, however, take out such a policy for a stranger. That's his responsibility. My attitude toward his children is sort of one of benign indifference. I don't wish him, or them, any ill, but, as they say in the South, I didn't take 'em to raise. Similarly, I would give my child a kidney, but I would not give a stranger's child a kidney. I am not an "altruist" or plaster saint, just an ordinary egoist. I do not think that I am the Lone Ranger in that regard.
Nor would I agree to pay huge taxes for a public life insurance plan that would pay off the children of any citizen who died young. I prefer to look out for my own.
With respect to climate change, I don't happen to believe that we can predict the behavior of a complex system one hundred years out. But, let's assume that the results of climate change are going to be as bad as many claim. In that case, there is going to be competition for resources - i.e., a fight for survival - and I would want my own children to be well-positioned to prevail, wouldn't you? And that means that I would want my own country to be at or very near the top in terms of wealth, influence, and military power. Does that mean that a powerful country could not, if it chose, help the powerless? Sure - but it is nobler, and safer, to be the one in the position to give (or not)rather than to be the one who needs to receive. It would be foolish for any country to volunteer to weaken itself relative to its competitors.
Because I am very sure that the world will not come together as one to reduce emissions to pre-industrial levels, or indeed to any truly painful degree, I will maintain a wait-and-see attitude, and keep the powder dry.
With incredlbly insular, conservative attitudes like yours, we will continue to see all new energy, transportation infrastructure and building innovations coming from Europe and East Asia and the continued economic decline in the US.
Wind turbines are popping up everywhere to my east on the wind-resource-rich Allegheny plateau. Who is building, owning, and operating nearly all of them? The Spanish Company Iberdrola, S.A. Where does the turbine equipment and controllers all come from? Danish Vestas A/S, Spanssh Gamesa S.A., and German Siemens Gmbh.
All rail-trasit vehicles and control systems used in US cities for the past couple decades have all come from Europe, or French-Canadian Bombardier, Inc. too.
Read my comment on Toms remark above.
Your destructive, grotesque individualistic, so-called "libertarian" attitides will be the demise of the US.
I hate trains anyway. They combine the slowness of car travel with the discomfort, expense and inflexibility of air travel.
Only in the backward USA are trains slow. But even there, you are going to get killed trying to outrun a train on the eastern corridor - eve the slow local service goes 100 mph.
Trust me,
This guy dwatkins is not a libertarian. Libertarians do not condone activity that hurt others. This self-centered dwatkins could only be a NeoCON with his attitudes. He only thinks of the world in terms of his immediate body comfort. He'll drive a Hummer because he's too fat to fit in a train seat and too stupid to alter his diet.
His other shortcomings are that he has no character at all. He doesn't understand the concept of leadership to foster survivable behavior with other countries imitating the behavior of the US.
If you're the Captain on the Titanic, you don't run to your cabin and think that by hoarding guns and supplies and locking yourself in there that you're going to come out of this O.K. You stay on the bridge to coordinate emergency measures, and if you're any kind of man, you'll see to it that weaker members of society are helped first into the lifeboats.
Glaciers have lost over ten percent of their mass according to NASA satellite measurements and the mythical Northwest passage through the middle of Canada is wide open for Super Tankers. Greenland's having massive earthquakes from the Ice Cap dissolving.
This is not a drill. Titanic Earth is going down. The question about models and how long we have is moot.
WE ARE GOING DOWN. We have to start bailing right now even if it is hopeless, just to buy us some time.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
I had a real eye opening experience the other night when I was watching the PBS show Nightly Business Report. They were interviewing the new Fiat CEO of Chrysler. The Fiat CEO was asked if the proposed environmental regulations were going to be a big issue for the car industry and would they be able to meet them. He said no they won't be an issue, we will meet those standards because it is the right thing to do for the environment. He said we at Fiat have some of the cleanest running cars in the world.
I almost fell off of my chair. He didn't do the standard American CEO thing where they say this regulation will put us out of business and there is no way we can afford this. It was basically well if this is what we'll have to do then we'll do it. Apparently the "American Can-Do attitude" has been replaced by the "Italian/European Can-Do attitude". (I wonder exactly when that happened?!?!?!)
I can see why the Europeans are kicking our butts in the fields you mentioned. Their companies do, our companies lobby to avoid doing.
Cars are already meeting far more stringent emissions and fuel economy standards in Europe. There are dozens of cheap, ordinary, non-hybrid models that get 50-60 mpg.
Safety standards are comparable too - although bumper standards mostly focus on minimizing the injury to pedestrians and bicyclists rather than other cars. Europeans prefer people to inanimate machines.
Fiat did do away with Chrysler's electric car program, though.
Don't forget how small Europe is.
dwakins9, on this issue your children will be in the same boat as everyone else's. You're not going to be able to send them to another planet. This is it, Earth is where mankind, including your future generations, is going to make it's final stand on this issue one way or the other.
I agree that we can't predict the climate 100 years out, but if you read up on the subject you'll see things are changing all over the world already. Even the mainstream news is covering the changes this week because of the climate change talks. Just turn on the TV and you can see it with your own two eyes.
And as far as having a country that is very near the top in terms of wealth, influence and military power goes? We'll we are apparently so broke that we can't afford to provide health care for all our citizens like EVERY OTHER modern society does. Also China is our banker. We get into a resource war with them and we will be financially ruined.
As far as military power goes, well we have been fighting 8 years in Afghanistan and Iraq and we still don't have a victory in either country. And remember these countries are relatively small and very militarily weak.
Your probably right that the world will not come together to reduce emissions. Hell, we can't even come together on this website, but I must disagree with you on your wait and see attitude, but I do agree about keeping the powder dry. Not so much for climate change issues, but more for issues that will arise from the financial crash that we appear to be heading for.
No need for a new planet, and tough conditions on this planet, if any, will not be universal. There will be winners and losers, as with any big change. Goal is to make sure, if possible, that one's own are among the winners. Do what we can for strangers after that, if prudent. In general, you shouldn't help your enemies. The whole earth will not be rendered uninhabitable - some areas may get better, some worse.
Not sure what health care legislation has to do with climate change.
Re: China being our banker, a parable: If you owe your bank a hundred thousand dollars and can't pay, you have a big problem. If you owe your bank a hundred million dollars and can't pay, the bank has a big problem.
Also, private borrowers from banks can't settle things with weapons. Nations exist vis-a-vis each other in a state of nature.
I agree that we are still in for some tough economic times, but the Chinese are stuck with us in a marriage of convenience (to change the metaphor :-) from which they cannot easily extricate themselves. The West could if need be weather a divorce more easily than they, I'll wager.
Saddam's Iraq is essentially conquered. Afghanistan seems to be nearly ungovernable, and will require continued attention like it or not. The POTUS seems to understand this. In any event, for better or worse, military power is always the ultimate bottom line. You can't safely rely on the arms of others.
I think your first paragraph goes very nicely with Mairead's Russian roulette analogy. If the US happens to be in sweet spot for climate change great. If not moving hundreds of millions of people is not going to be an option. If the climate models are correct most of Florida will be underwater. Where are all those millions of people going to go? Who pays for their destroyed homes?
Climate change is going to be one of those pay me now or pay me later deals. And the pay me later is going to be VERY expensive.
"In any event, for better or worse, military power is always the ultimate bottom line."
It seems to me as time goes on military power seems to solve less and less. Since WWII the wars appear to get longer, and the outcomes get murkier. Again, more than 8 years of fighting and we are still bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq does not make me sleep soundly at night about our militaries ability solve the big issues on this planet.
dwatkins9,
Your thinking is like that of a violent paranoid sociopath. Frightening.
Military power is not the ultimate bottom line.
All people other than yourself are not your enemies.
This seems to be the hurdle you can't get over.
"Saddam's Iraq is essentially conquered"
You consider that an accomplisment? As a military accomplishment it ranks right up there with Germans kicking Polands rear, Tanks against horses.
"military power is always the ultimate bottom line"
The last resort, yes, but never the bottom line. Anything but military force first.
"I would take out the insurance policy. I would not, however, take out such a policy for a stranger."
Thanks for illustrating the narrow-mindedness that condemns the Pacific Islanders and the world's poor to utter destruction. And "they hate us for our freedom" hummph.
What "utter destruction"? Such hyperbole - and then the climate scolds wonder why they are not persuasive. If the islands start to go under, move the people off the islands - simple. Allow for emigration. It's not going to happen overnight in any event. Lots of time to adjust.
That's easy for you to say.
Displacing indigenous people leads to their destruction.
Just move those pesky polar bears to the Sahara-simple.
Let the Sioux live in the Badlands-simple.
Let the Inuits move to Cleveland-simple.
Where would the immigrate to? Which country would take them? Either side of the question is not that easy.
Consider that the Arab countries won't take any of the Palestinians in....who takes these Islanders?
dwatkins9! You are utterly self-involved and ignorant. I don't say that as a means of name-calling, but to simply say that you truly are uneducated and unfeeling. Guess you're not one of those who believes, "We are all connected in the web of life" or "What happens to the least of us, happens to the greatest." Good luck with your wait-and-see attitude, although it seems that you are not the seeing type b/c, as others have mentioned, there is climate destruction happening already. I pity your children if they maintain the attitudes that you have brought to this discussion.
I am glad that I surround myself with people who care about each other, their communities, and the earth - without boundaries. We are all in this together. What you are arguing for is a place among what will sooner than later be the very lonely fools who believe that might makes everything right. I wonder how you sleep at night if indeed you do.
I would say more re: your other comments, but others have replied as I would have.
WISECRONE WINS HYPOCRITE OF THE YEAR AWARD!
WiseCrone December 9th, 2009 8:19 pm
"Do you enjoy calling people names? You know I've done a long stint as a social worker and long ago got my degree in psychology. Name calling is often a defense mechanism for those who have low self-esteem. Is that your problem? Enough is enough! Discuss the issues with us and lay off the name-calling."
WiseCrone, December 9th, 11:08 pm::
"You are utterly self-involved and ignorant. I don't say that as a means of name-calling, but to simply say that you truly are uneducated and unfeeling."
I know the year is not over yet, but the Committee on Rank Hypocrisy, after having perused all 894 outstanding contributions to these lists over the past year, awards WiseCrone the coveted Hypocrite of the Year trophy, for executing the rare and difficult hypocrite maneuver of the double somersault, and all within less than three-hours!
To wit: At 8:19 pm yesterday, he issues a starchy, priggish lecture to another poster on the evils of name-calling; less than three hours later, at 11:08 pm on the same day, he not only unfurls an abusive stream of name-calling at another poster, but denies he is doing it in the very sentence in which he is doing it ("truly uneducated," "unfeeling")! BRILLIANT! The consummate hypocrite's double somersault!
Congratulations, WiseCrone--Hypocrite of the Year, and well earned.
dwatkins9, I have to give it to you for being honest about your thinking - in that sense, you've done better than Obama has. And, in the slim chance that you were actually playing some kind of a devil's advocate à la Stephen Colbert, you've done a great job.
We need posts like this. We cannot just talk to ourselves. I am sure that each one of us has an uncle or a neighbor who makes these arguments. The information, links and lucid answers given by Mairead, Alcyon, Wisecrone, Jennifer and many others here give us ammunition to answer common misconceptions and concerns in a down to earth way. I am always learning something here, either facts or ways to discuss issues.
As for dwatkins9 I say "Do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." It may be some faroff islanders who will be the first to suffer, and, as humans, that should be sufficient to motivate us. But soon enough the destruction of the oceans and agriculture, the rising of the water, the disappearance of species, the spread of disease to new regions, the disruption of the web of that supports agriculture will affect every one of us. Do you really want to condemn your grandchildren to a bunker mentality and life spent beating off people who want the canned goods in their basement?
Joe
This is exactly the argument I've been making, but from the point of view of what engineers do every day. Building codes and requlations inclide all kinds of provisions tht require buildings to be designed against forces of nature or accidents (Storms, earthquakes, fires) which have only a very slim chance of ever happening over the life of the building, but if they did happen, and the building wasn't designed for it, a lot of people would die.
And, complying with these codes and requirements costs businesses a lot of money.
So, why don't these same business people ctirical of global warming action also decry building codes as "alarmist"?
They do, while the bill is being discussed. Once it becomes law, they use the provisions as competitive advantage, and go on to oppose the next "threat to the economy."
Nope, that sounds a good argument to me, Tom.
Another example would be Russian roulette: how much would have to be offered before people would play Russian roulette? $100? $1000? $10,000? $100K? $1M? $100M? How much if instead of 1 bullet and 5 empty chambers, it was 5 bullets and 1 empty chamber? $1M? $100M $1G? $100G? Is there *any* amount that would make such a risk worthwhile to an ordinary, healthy person?
Or poker. How big would the pot have to be before an ordinary, healthy person would be willing to bet everything they own on the outcome of a poker hand? How big would the pot have to be before someone would bet everything including their life and the lives of their loved ones?
Mairead, two great analogies, especially your first one.
I think one reason that some people don't buy into the global climate change thing is that for so much of human recorded history the climate has been so stable that many can't imagine it ever changing drastically.
Thanks, Tom.
And I agree with you completely that the reason people can't wrap their heads around what's going on is that it's happening too slowly to be easily detected as something terminally awful.
It's basically the same problem that German philology prof called out in "They Thought They Were Free" about the rise of Naziism: if the worst horrors had come at once, everyone would have been shocked and mobilised against them, but everything was so gradual that people could never really get it together.
Like that chestnut about frogs on the stove: if the worsening is gradual, people adapt again and again until it's too late.
"All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
-- Declaration of Independence, 1776
From the article:
"Emerging economies like China and India are growing rapidly and are becoming top-tier carbon emitters, yet none approaches the per capita emission levels of the United States .... The model for the past century has been clear: If you want to escape poverty, grow your economy by industrializing with fossil fuels as your main source of energy..."
The developing countries not only escape poverty by industrializing but also make it more difficult for the wealthy countries to bully them and control them. The US elites are determined to maintain control over the developing world and that is one more reason for the position of the US that developing nations must sacrifice as much as the developed nations. It is as if the US is trying to order them to "stand still so we can crush you."
>>>The US elites are determined to maintain control over the developing world and that is one more reason for the position of the US that developing nations must sacrifice as much as the developed nations.
The mask is coming off, isn't it? And there are other resource-rich countries that don't want to cut down their emissions - simply because they would rather keep mining, drilling and excavating their resources and chopping off their forests and sell them - because they already have the infrastructure in place. And changing course is not easy for these countries - because that would mean actually developing new technologies and actually competing with other countries on the basis of their technology and price. And yet they would want to be taken seriously on the world stage - you know, members of the G8 and all that.
"Author Ross Gelbspan says poverty is at the root of the problem: Take care of poverty and humanity can solve the climate crisis. He says retooling the planet for a green economy can be the largest jobs program in history, can create more equality among nations, and is necessary, immediately, to avoid catastrophe."
Key words? retooling the planet.... can create more equality among nations... to avoid catastrophe. Which is exactly why the current government of USA will make sure that doesn't happen. The attitude of American exceptionalism that permeates the general culture here will permit the global elite to propagate their plan for complete domination of the rest of us.Global climate change won't be a disaster for the current generation of power holders, just the rest of us.
The super elite will have in place figure heads like Obama or Gordon Brown , who if necessary can be sacrificed in a Ceausescu manner to temporarily appease the populace as the world declines but you're delusional if you think they would cede wealth or power to solve what they perceive to be our problem and their advantage.
Write up was done on Dec 9, Wednesday and no mention of "Danish text" !! even thought rest of world knows by Tuesday even CD has posted http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/08-3
What is written is not new, at least to some or many here. Time for what "I did " and who did "I talk to", what they answered and what was the environment around Bella Center are over.
Its time to grab people in power and ask them hard and tough question. Ms. Goodman should have asked question or make her audience aware of the key facts of 'Danish Text' the politics behind it. Below are key facts from that secret memo circulated within "selective" members..
• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";
• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
Avatar,
The author of this article, Amy Goodman, opened her 8:00 AM (Eastern US time) December 8 radio/television program with a comprehensive report on the leaked "Danish Text" incident!!
She didn't refer to it here because it wasn't the subject of the article.
Unfortunately, her program is broadcast in a limited number of US cities. and her program is the only one that covered the Danish Text to any degree. The big corporate media completely ignored the story.
But your concern is well-taken. The USA citizens live behind an information blackout, an electronic iron curtain more effective than anything the Soviet Union ever had.
>>>pjd412 wrote: The USA citizens live behind an information blackout, an electronic iron curtain more effective than anything the Soviet Union ever had.
That's spooky, isn't it? You see it during elections, preparations for war, bombing in Gaza and events like these negotiations/conferences. The MSM make it look like they are covering them in depth, with new graphics, "experts" and all that - and yet not much of substance is said. It's spooky because officially there's no censorship. Going to the internet to find real coverage of events obviously takes more work than pushing the buttons on the TV remote.
"Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Electric Iron Curtain!"
Thus says the mighty Wizzard of OZ (Australian Rupert Murdock of NewsCorp)
The other way you find out about it is simply to regualrly talk to someone in Europe, or even Canada. The news topics of worldwide importance buzz about there, and here - nothing. Meanwhile, topics that the media stangely seems to think are so improtant here - boy-an-a-baloon, Tiger Woods, even the the hacked e-mails, get little or no coverage there.
What stories get picked for coverage and those picked for burial (Orwell used the term "memory-holed") is easily prdictable if you have read Herman and Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent".
What is so amazing about the process is that no one actually meets in any proverbial smoky room to cooridinate what they want the masses to know and not know. It simply gets integrated into the workplace culture of the mainstream media, and the thinking processes of the journalists. Orwell referred to this in this quote: "The circus dog jumps when the trainer cracks his whip. But, the well-trained dog turns somersaults when ther is no whip."
"Yet the wealthy nations have not been willing to pay for the environmental damage they have caused, or significantly change the way they operate."
This kind of "blame the rich" thinking is not productive, even if containing elements of truth. The point is to reduce carbon emissions. The poor can't do it because they do not have the means. Forget about casting blame for environmental damage and give the poor countries what they need to modernize their energy systems. If poor countries pollute, they must pay as rich countries must. The earth's atmosphere does not care if carbon dioxide comes from coal burned in Laos or coal burned in the United States. Both sources cause the same amount of damage. The difference between the two situations is that Laos is not able to fix the problem, while the United States is. For that reason, rich countries need to donate money and expertise to reduce emissions.
But that does not let poor countries off the hook. Indonesia, for example, is permitting the wholesale destruction of its forests, an act that furthers global climate change as much as burning fossil fuels. Should they get off scot-free, not having to change their policies simply because they are poor and do not cause as much damage as Western countries? Hell, no. We are all in this together.
Very well argued. *Everyone* must stop the damage they do. And the consumer countries have to not only stop the direct damage they do, but stop the proxy damage by refusing to buy the products of damage caused by others. No beef from cattle raised on former rain-forest land. No lumber from clearcutting.
And we *must* cut down population growth.
To round out the perspective, this one on China's creeping sands is worth a read:
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/climatesos/2009/12/200912712326318562.html
Sanctuary, that news story you referenced has this part:
>>A protective ring of trees were also planted in the area where Yan lives. "The farmers are satisfied," says Yan. "But you can't plant trees like this everywhere," Zhang adds.
It shows that they're at least thinking and acting in the right direction. Desertification has occurred in parts of India and in other countries too. It has been stopped or even reversed in some places - by focusing on bringing back the vegetative cover. The first thing to do is to stop grazing of cattle and other livestock - such as sheep. Unfortunately, certain aid agencies in Africa are doing the opposite - by donating cows and sheep to poor people, many of them landless. While it may provide a short-term relief for them, it exacerbates drought conditions, possibly leading to desertification.
I'm glad someone brought up the main problem in all this and that is population growth.
I am of the opinion that its best to practice the art of the possible rather than the impractical. Perhaps it would be better to take a less alarmist tact?
Calling people "deniers" and denigrating them because they don't buy the AGW mantra is less than helpful. I can't decide for myself because the science and the "consensus" is not convincing.
No matter how much someone declares its a proven fact, that there is no doubt about it, a declaration simply doesn't make it so. And as far as I can tell, anyone that says there is no doubt at all might want to look again.
Declaring it fact rather than probability, denying there is no chance mistakes have been made and that AGW has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt convinces me that someone doesn't want anything questioned. Nothing based on numbers is ever that certain.
I believe thats why nothing will be done in the foreseeable future....I think.
"No matter how much someone declares its a proven fact..."
Henry, we keep telling you there are no proven facts in science, whether its climate change, evolution or gravity. Science only proceeds by disproving possible hypotheses. Nevertheless I would not jump off a cliff as a test of gravity.
Everyone makes mistakes, even Newton but we didn't find out until Einstein came along. Another reason I cited gravity is that it has properties that cause paradoxes that are not resolved.
In life I go along with the best possible interpretation that has yet been made, based upon observation and measurement, particularly if they fit with my own observations and knowledge (Occam's razor). I have known for over 50 years that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. I have seen the carbon dioxide measurements from Mauna Loa (chosen for its global isoation from contaminating influences) over the past 50 years. I have personally witnessed major changes in the ice cover over Greenland.
AGW is, to me, the best explanation for these observations but I will concede that it is not proven. I don't need to pour over all the minutiae that are being added that bolster this hypothesis, I have better things to do. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your alternate explanation or even better disprove AGW. Perhaps you are merely sceptical of science in general, but surely you recognize the value of the parsimony principle?
TheProf
My friend, I would be delighted to enlighten you, problem is I don't have any light.
As to climate change, there is no doubt. Never was, I thought.
As of this date, I simply don't believe the opinions presented are conclusive. I noted above as I read over things, articles, I noted the absolute assault on anyone, and in the sciences too that even suggested there was any other conclusion.
Frankly you are representative of one of the points I was lamely trying to make, you present your arguments (rather conclusion) sensibly without a "the sky is falling" or " the Earth will end tomorrow" if you don't do as I say rhetoric.
Every time I read your postings I feel more confident of thinking well, maybe it is true.
"Henry, we keep telling you there are no proven facts in science"
Thats another of the things that bother me, if you'll notice, its not presented that way, there is no doubt, the science is settled, the models are infalliable, this is what will happen if you don't give us the power. Thats the way its presented.
I am skeptical of people that claim things and destroy the basis of their claims. Makes me nervous. And then a lot of weak explanations.
Us idiots are just trying to figure things out and darn it, they keep making it harder.
In any case I shall not test the gravity theory personally, but will accept that as proven science.
"I can't decide for myself because the science and the "consensus" is not convincing"
Some further reading to help you decide on the science:
Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat
Hansen 2005 http://classes.engr.oregonstate.edu/engr/fall2006/engr350/Climate%20Change/ Science%20Global%20Heating%20Simulation.pdf,
Murphy 2009 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml,
Schuckmann 2009 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JC005237.shtml,
Trenberth 2009 http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2634.1
Animal and plant species are responding to earlier springs. Eg - earlier frog breeding, bird nesting, earlier flowering, earlier migration of birds and butterflies
Parmeson 2003 http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Parmesan_2003_Nature.pdf
The distribution of tree lines, plants, birds, mammals, insects, fish, reptiles, marine invertebrates are shifting towards the poles
Parmeson 2003 http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Parmesan_2003_Nature.pdf
A shift towards earlier seasons
Stine 2009 http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/seasons.pdf
Lake and river ice cover throughout the Northern Hemisphere are freezing later and breaking up earlier
Magnuson 2000 http://www.uvm.edu/~pbierman/classes/gradsem/2005fall/Magnuson_et_al_2000.pdf
Hodgkins 2005 http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3002/pdf/fs2005-3002.pdf
Changes to physical and biological systems across the globe are consistent with warming temperatures
Rosenzweig 2008 http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf
Pitcher-plant mosquitoes are genetically evolving to adapt to shifting seasons
Bradshaw 2001 http://www.pnas.org/content/98/25/14509.full
Arctic permafrost is degrading
Anisimov 2006 http://permafrost.su/storage/files/articles/Ambio.pdf
plus warming at greater depths in the permafrost
Stieglitz 2003 http://nhg.unbc.ca/publicationfiles/2003GL017337.pdf
Global sea level rise is accelerating
Church 2006 http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf
Antarctic ice loss is accelerating
Velicogna 2009 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass
Chen 2009 http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo694.html
Greenland ice loss is accelerating
Velicogna 2009 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml,
van den Broeke et al 2009 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5955/984
Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate
WGMS 2008 http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3
Stroeve 2007 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029703.shtml
The height of the tropopause is increasing
Santer 2003 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/5632/479,
press release https://www.llnl.gov/str/March04/Santer.html
Jet streams are moving poleward
Archer 2008 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033614.shtml
Seidel 2007 http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/abs/ngeo.2007.38.html
Fu 2006 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5777/1179
Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases
Lastovicka 2008 http://www.ann-geophys.net/26/1255/2008/angeo-26-1255-2008.pdf
The tropical belt is widening
Seidel 2007 http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/abs/ngeo.2007.38.html
Fu 2006 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5777/1179
There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures
Meehle 2009 press release http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp.
Empirical evidence indicating that human activity is the cause of recent warming: Humans are emitting CO2 at such rates that atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level over the past 800,000 years
Brook 2008 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/pdf/453291a.pdf.
The rate of increase is the fastest in 22,000 years
Joos 2008 http://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1425.abstract
Satellites measure less infrared radiation escaping out to space at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy
Harries 2001 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Griggs 2004 http://www.ggy.bris.ac.uk/personal/JennyGriggs/paper_4.pdf
Chen 2007 http://www.eumetsat.eu/Home/Main/Publications/ Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/
document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
Surface measurements find more infrared radiation returning back to the Earth's surface
Philipona 2004 http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
specifically at the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs energy
Evans 2006 http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
But, hey! At least we can throw out the CRU surface temperature data!! That leaves, what, THREE other surface temperature paleoclimate compilations?
"Climategate: the end of global warming!" LOL
ubrew12
It was very kind of you to take the time to list these links and articles and trust me, I will read every one.
Climategate settles nothing. Those e-mails introduce doubt of the scientists involved and of their data. Thats news? I read as many as I could and most are like the..." Don't tell anyone about the Freedom of Information" act here in the UK" that could easily be a joke and most surely was. E-mailsd are like postings, it depends on who wrote it as to how its read. My postings are a great example. I post as I talk and many have trouble trying to figure out my point.
Once again, Thanks!!
ubrew12, Wow! - Great links! A little tip for you and anyone who wants to post links, especially long ones. If you copy the link, then go to bit.ly you can paste it into the "shorten" link line and all your links will be easy to post; just hit copy and go to the page you want to post them on. You can even name your shortened links on bit.ly for future reference. I just learned about this trick and it's helped me immensely. Very user friendly too.
Henry8,
I think you actually misunderstand the real problem with AGW. You seem to expect that science can provide definitive yes/no answers, but this is very rarely the case outside of mathematics. In reality, the predictive ability of science is quite limited, particularly in the context of highly complex systems.
The real problem with AGW in my view is that it forces us to directly face the limits of scientific prediction. That is to say: what actions should we take in the face of uncertainty?
Your view seems to be to do nothing whatsoever. The problem with that viewpoint can easily be demonstrated with a simple example: You are driving at night on a curvy road in deep fog. As your visibility decreases and the road ahead becomes more uncertain, do you: a) slow down to provide increased time to make adjustments as necessary, b) maintain your current velocity and assume that the road will follow the same pattern and steer according to that assumption, or c) accelerate and pray that you'll be able to react quickly enough?
With regard to the environment, increasing CO2, release of methane clathrates, and combustion of all types are actually accelerating. Yet it is clear that we need to slow down because there is a high level of uncertainty about what these changes will induce. That uncertainty in estimates of future changes has been sold to the public, and unfortunately, many have bought the argument that without "proof" or 100% absolute certainty, any attempts to reduce AGW would be economically cataclysmic. It is sad that so many people have been convinced that science can provide anything approaching certainty, opening the door for charlatans to peddle their doubt. Think tobacco, asbestos, etc. etc.
Lastly, I couldn't disagree more about the relationship between population and energy use. The fact is that the relationship is weak, if it exists at all. What better example do you need than one provided in the article, stating that the US contributes 25% of global warming gases, yet comprises only 4% of the world population? That is to say, it is the level of technology multiplied with the population multiplied with the level of affluence of the citizens of that country that counts. The classical formualation is Impact = population X affluence X technology, or I=PAT. I flat-out dispute your claim that AGW is driven by population. It is driven largely by affluent people who burn stuff. I have a friend who is an abortion doctor. She is fond of saying - and I agree with her - that she makes more of a contribution to reduce AGW than anyone she knows by eliminating would-be first-worlders. I'm sure if she was practicing in Africa, for example, the impact to AGW would be miniscule.
wildcard
"Lastly, I couldn't disagree more about the relationship between population and energy use."
While you are correct in general, I would suggest that you consider the fact that while the figure you use of 25% was true, you'll find that its less now. China is taking up the slack and so is India. Consider the sheer numbers involved of these countries and others reaching our living standards. Or the staggering increase in emissions as they strive to do so.
As each person has a carbon footprint, larger than most think even in non industrial societies, I would say numbers do matter. Each of those folks must be fed and clothed. So I feel that my point is valid in that light.
"Think tobacco, asbestos, etc. etc."
Excellent point.
"The real problem with AGW in my view is that it forces us to directly face the limits of scientific prediction. That is to say: what actions should we take in the face of uncertainty?"
I think thats a fair statement.
"You are driving at night on a curvy road in deep fog. As your visibility decreases and the road ahead becomes more uncertain" I would "slow down to provide increased time to make adjustments as necessary"
Actually that is my view. AGW is uncertain and science has yet to reach consensus and repeatable results as far as I know. And I have a real problem with the models as models almost always turn out to be off the mark.
A good example is Cap and Trade whose stated result at best is so microscopic as to be worse than useless.
Mt view is like most of us mutts I think, we need to be far more sure before taking such dire and drastic actions, paying the staggering amounts of money involved, ceeding that enormous amount of power....and to be sure, I dion't believe for a moment that Americans will stand still for a unilateral action.
Henry8,
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. And that choice has consequences, whether you acknowledge them or not.
What is money besides a collective delusion that little pieces of paper with pictures on them actually represent real value. I think it is particularly dangerous to confuse things of real value, like water, food, a stable climate, shelter, love, etc, with things that are inherently worthless, i.e. paper money, gold, treasury bills etc. As for the amount of money required to address AGW, I have seen no plausible plan, much less one quantified monetarily. Are you sure you are not projecting your unstated beliefs about the "staggering" cost onto the entire question of whether AGW is ocurring or not? I ask because that's how is sounds to me.
The thing about most people who argue that it will be too expensive to address AGW is that they try to use the utilitarian premise of cost-benefit analysis, without ever examining the benefits. You worry about the costs - irrationally, in my view - but you cannot see any obvious direct benefits from dramatically reducing our energy usage, and hence our ecological footprint?
Then there is the cost of doing nothing. Remember that the ecosystem does not require an economy to exist, but an economy absolutely requires an ecosystem to exist. So the two systems: economics and ecosystem are not even directly comparable. Are you seriously arguing that the economy should take precedence over the ecosystem?
And I'm with Alcyon. The argument made by the Oregon teacher is essentially bulletproof. It's all about type I and type II errors, and which way one should lean in cases of high uncertainty. He makes an effort to qualitatively estimate the costs and the benefits, which in my mind is much more honest about what we don't know than someone who indefinitely refuses to come to any conclusion whatsoever. Were we to actually live our real lives as you suggest, reading and researching in great depth until we approached total certainty, we would never get out of bed. Life has risks, and one must take chances. The trick is in knowing how to mitigate easily forseeable risks.