Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Lost Years of Climate Change: Are We Just Going to Talk Our Way to Oblivion?
Did it stir something in the memory, by any chance, the extraordinary heat of a fortnight ago, when Britain met with its hottest-ever October day, and numerous places experienced their hottest day of the whole year? Did the sheer, seasonal abnormality of its glare give pause, and revive a concern which has faded almost completely, in the face of skepticism and the economic crisis – the concern that the climate might be drastically changing, with potentially deadly consequences?
If so, I suspect that the revival was brief, and that most people have gone back to worrying about their jobs. Global warming is an issue which has dropped off the pubic agenda almost completely. Yet in less than eight weeks' time it will dominate the headlines once again, when, at the UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa, the gaping split in the world community over how to tackle climate change will come to a crunch.
The essence of this split is simple; developing countries (like India, say) think the rich, developed countries should do it; the rich developed countries (like us) think that everyone should do it. The first position was enshrined in the current climate treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, in which the rich world agreed to cut its carbon emissions, while the developing countries were obliged to do nothing; and now Kyoto, which in its present version runs out on 31 December 2012, is up for renewal.
Is there to be a new Kyoto? Or is there to be something else, a more comprehensive treaty obliging the developing countries also to cut their soaring carbon emissions? This was the issue on which the global climate negotiating process came within a whisker of total collapse at the Copenhagen conference in December 2009; the process was damaged, but mended at the subsequent meeting in Cancun, Mexico, last December, by the expedient of parking the Kyoto question, shoving it on one side.
Now it can be avoided no longer. At Durban, the issue of Kyoto 2 will come to a head, and the positions which countries have been taking in advance are not encouraging. China and India, and a group of Latin American nations led aggressively by Bolivia, are insistent on a renewed Kyoto. Britain and the European Union, and a large group of other states, will accept a Kyoto renewal as long as there is also a parallel agreement to move to a comprehensive new climate treaty which would oblige all countries to act to cut carbon. But Japan, Canada and Russia will not be part of a new Kyoto, which would oblige them to act while major economic competitors did nothing.
That's a car crash in prospect. Wait for the bang. Looming car crashes can be avoided, though: brakes can be slammed on, steering wheels wrenched around. The best we can hope for out of Durban is disaster-avoidance, fudge: an agreement to disagree, perhaps, which allows the painfully-constructed climate negotiating process to continue.
Yet even two years ago, it wasn't like this. Then we were looking for the Copenhagen conference to deliver a solution, as thousands of young people flocked to Denmark and rechristened the city Hopenhagen: a global agreement to cut CO2 sufficiently to hold the world's temperature rises below the danger threshold of two degrees Centigrade.
Instead, what we have ended up with (if it doesn't fall apart in South Africa) is a long-term talking shop, like the World Trade Negotiations, which may at some date in the future bring about an agreement where all the countries of the world agree to cut their greenhouse gases in a legally-binding framework.
But it won't be now, it won't be in the next few years, which as everyone involved with global warming knows, are the years in which action would have to be taken to be successful; and they are slipping by, as we (entirely understandably) focus on the economic crisis and see our hottest-ever October day as a surprising but welcome anomaly. These are the lost years of climate change.
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...
57 Comments so far
Show AllWell, at least the U.S. reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 7 percent during 2010. Less industry, more burning natural gas (and less coal), less consumption generally (because we are poorer), reduced gasoline consumption (because--who needs to commute when you don't have a job?}.
Let's face it: petroleum is going to get burned, if not by us then by others. It is time to think of new energy solutions (because petroleum will become too expensive) and it is time to think of adaptation to a changed climate. I am too realistic to imagine that the human species will make sacrifices to avoid a catastrophe it sees as lying far in the future. We are a reactive people, not proactive.
Ever the Dem apologist... are you not due back over at Huffington post?
Hmm, yeah, it's about the "human species" not adapting now, not to mention the awesome mafia argument that "if we don't do it, someone else will". Honestly, I don't think people with a measure of honesty and intellectual integrity make these kinds of arguments too often - and I don't even consider them arguments rather than pretexts, after-the-fact justifications, rhetorical techniques: neither the biological determinist bullshit nor the "if not we than someone else" mob style crap is anything else.
And of course there's the ultimate bullshit, the "we" in "we are a reactive people". Is it the "we" of the decision makers or the "we" of the responsibility takers? Because, you know, these are not the same groups: a small group makes decisions, a large group takes responsibility for them. Subtly (as if) insinuating that these are the same is also a rhetorical trick, of the more disgusting variety, as it is pretty fucking obvious whose interests this division represents.
TBH these tricks are not really too sophisticated. You can do better if you try. Maybe I should make a list of the most common type of bullshit arguments so that only the interesting crap remains and apologists don't have to stoop this low.
Perhaps internet abbreviations could be standardized for all the trite bromides. Like IWDSEW for "If We Don't, Someone Else Will." With enough coverage, many posts could be reduced to a few dozen characters, as we collectively tweet ourselves straight to hell.
LOL
"Maybe I should make a list of the most common type of bullshit arguments . . ."
Already done. Be sure to bookmark as I have:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
"Well, at least the U.S. reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 7 percent during 2010."
Maybe not drosera
"In 2010, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the United States saw their largest absolute and percentage increase – 213 million metric tons or 3.9% – since 1988 when they rose by 218 metric tons or 4.6%, according to data released Thursday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration." ----from Forbes website, 8/18/11
In fact it was the largest single rise in 22 years
Drosera, your facts seem no more well conceived than the rest of your ideas, or is it just that you belong to that, too large, group of Americans for whom facts are of no consequence.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-fell-record-7-last-year/1
Errr, those are 2009 numbers. You can't have full year numbers in May. Maybe read what you post first.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2011/2011-08-18-091.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/08/18/u-s-carbon-emissions-exploded-in-2010-largest-single-year-rise-in-22-years/
But this is quite beside the point of course. Even small changes do not mean shit, partly because a lot of emissions that should be accounted to the West occur in China and India, but mainly because whatever's done, it needs to be large scale.
Mea culpa. But there was a net decrease over the recession years 2009, 2010. That was my point.
And, as I pointed out, it is a bullshit point. The decrease is meaningless, temporary and quite probably nonexistent if you take into account Chinese etc increases - as about (more than) a third of CO2 emissions needed for first world consumption are emitted in the third world (mainly China and India).
The Kyoto strategy: outsource our jobs and emissions to China. China isn't on the same planet, is it?
"We are a reactive people, not proactive."
You should have finished with 'We are the next dinosaurs."
If we do nothing to end the excessive carbon output of our 'lifestyle', we are COMMITTED to a worldwide sixteen degree Celsius increase in average temperature, probably by 2050, and definitely by 2100.
The last time we had those kinds of worldwide temperatures, snakes were the size of buses, and the largest mammal was the size of a rat due to the limits of self thermoregulation.
There will be NO ice masses of any size on the planet, and we will have massive methane discharges from Alaska, Northern Canada and Siberia that will be a death sentence on an extinction level for thousands of species. Sea levels will be upwards of 40-50 meters higher, so kiss any coastal cities goodbye.
There has been several calm and rational examinations of what it would take to drop our carbon emissions to the point that would ensure human survival. Those measures would mean the IMMEDIATE PERMANENT COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY AND UTTER ABANDONMENT OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY.
So how well do you think THAT idea went over?
To the original question of this article; "Are we just going to talk our way to oblivion?", the answer overwhelmingly borne out by simple observation and documentary evidence is "YES!"
Deep Green Resistance........took my stand years ago......won't live to see the collapse
I'll consider that my Good Karma . Good post Galenwainwright, thanks
"Let's face it: petroleum is going to get burned, if not by us then by others. It is time to think of new energy solutions (because petroleum will become too expensive) and it is time to think of adaptation to a changed climate."
Put your two sentences together, and you get coal tar sands. Or you get the insistence of one CD user whose usual spew is that you have no right to oppose nuclear energy if you use any fossil fuel at all. So, yeah, the situation is even worse than you imagine.
The best way to characterize his or her participation is called dodge and weave... usually this poster only shows up to bash Hedges; I guess things are a little slow over at Huffington and the DNC... :)
You and your buddies are no more tolerant of other views than the Tea Partiers. You see everything in terms of "with us" or "against us." Never any nuance, always the party line. I have no interest in the Democrats. I criticize Hedges because he is loose with language--a "liberal class"?, not because he is wrong about everything. And I suggest that petroleum will get burned because demand is increasing and alternatives are not yet in sight. And you say these posts are just too far from your mainstream to be considered? Doubt you can bring off your revolution with your small band of buddies. The world is one hell of a lot bigger than you imagine.
It's a bit rich talking about "nuance" when your best arguments boil down to "rather us than them" and "it's human nature". Make an actual reasoned argument, express an actual view, or at least use more sophisticated tricks to make your posts more interesting.
To answer your superficial "critique" of Hedges, which lacks substance and merit: Hedges' "liberal class" is not really inaccurate: if you care to read his books and explanations, you'll know exactly what he means. He means the liberal intelligentsia part of the establishment, whose task it was to channel popular energies into incremental reform type change. His book on this topic is pretty excellent; he may be "loose with words", but what he says has actual merit and is not just transparent sophistry. Nuance my ass. It's intentional misinterpretation and nitpicking, and a focus on superficialities instead of substance.
Apparently you have difficulty discriminating between an argument and an opinion. I expressed an opinion that others would be burning fossil fuels if we don't. I did not supply arguments to support that opinion--neither do most of those posting here. At any rate, my reasons for holding such an opinion:1. The wealthy of the world will burn petroleum whatever the price. 2. Airplanes require concentrated energy with plenty of BTUs per liter. Competing fuels are too expensive and not energy rich. 3. Inertia: the present system is in place--a new system will require an enormous investment. 4. Politics: Like it or not political leaders plan policies in order to preserve access to petroleum. 5. Suppose much of the world did develop alternative sources of energy. The net result would be to lower the cost of petroleum since demand goes down. With lower costs, more people will use it.
As far as Hedges in concerned, the word "class" has a socioeconomic denotation. A "liberal" can be a ditch digger or a banker. I cannot see the common interests of the two. The only bond they have is that they vote for the same person in an election. Hedges just wants to find a way to lump people together he disagrees with. He's done that before--in his book castigating atheists, for one. He's a great orator but he does not pay attention to word meanings.
"Apparently you have difficulty discriminating between an argument and an opinion."
This is the relativist "opinion" defense. In fact you neither expressed an opinion nor made an argument - you only offered excuses for keeping up the status quo. I don't really think you would accept either as "argument" or "opinion" the reasoning of a five-year-old who ate all the cake prepared for a birthday party who defends himself by saying "it would be gone after the party anyway" - and this is pretty much a more refined and believable version of your "if we don't do it, someone else will" rhetorical pattern. Sorry for accidentally calling it an argument and not qualifying it with "pseudo".
Seriously, if you want, I can go through your numbered list in detail later, but I'm leaving soon and will have no access to internet until tomorrow. In short, all of them boil down to this: we are doing something now, and we won't change, so things will get worse - even though what we are (should be at least) discussing is why and how we should change. Simply saying that we won't is not exactly making a good point, or any point, and you definitely don't need to say anything more than "I don't believe we'll change" in a post - except if you're being honest and add "so fuck it, I'm going to live it up, and after me, the toilet can be flushed." All of the points you use are effectively the same - in terms of world view they all boil down to some form of social or biological determinism. I'm not too enthusiastic about discussing this kind of meaningless stuff, but if you want me to, I can explain in detail tomorrow.
"As far as Hedges in concerned, the word "class" has a socioeconomic denotation. A "liberal" can be a ditch digger or a banker. I cannot see the common interests of the two. The only bond they have is that they vote for the same person in an election. Hedges just wants to find a way to lump people together he disagrees with. He's done that before--in his book castigating atheists, for one. He's a great orator but he does not pay attention to word meanings."
He actually explains what he means by "liberal class" quite well. A class or not, it is quite clear which group of people he means, how they can be identified, what their social functions are and why they're in trouble. He does not lump people he doesn't like together, he explains the social function of their group and how this relates to their commonalities and his explanation is pretty accurate. He describes, in detail, with some very cool insight, what the social functions of the liberal intelligentsia/liberal class were and how they are becoming more and more meaningless.
I think you are also mischaracterising his views on atheists and atheism. He approached them from the same point of view as he did religious fundamentalists in his previous work, and he says quite a few intelligent things that the more militant atheists should take to heart. (And btw I've always been an atheist and I base this view on the memory of my more militant phase :-) ).
As for the "small band of buddies" crap: it's a straight out lie. In actual fact, a large number of people are aware of the issues with global warming, resource waste etc and think they're important and want to do something about it. The problem is not at all lack of awareness, stupidity and ignorance of the masses or whatever crap you try to believe in, but interests of concentrated power colliding with the public interest and overriding it undemocratically. In other words, the problem is not with the majority (whose ignorance - because there is some ignorance no doubt - has to be maintained actively by incredible investments in shit that make people dumb), but with a minority (that you seem to be shilling for) that has enough concentrated power to suppress majority opinion, suppress important information and deny majority participation in decisionmaking.
The minority has to invest a lot of resources in keeping people uninformed and ignorant, and it doesn't even work very well; the reason shills love to depict this engineered ignorance as some genetic law of human nature that can not be changed and call it realism is because their interests lie in supporting the outcome of non-popular decisions, and they are willing to give up their integrity for it and live with a very large amount of cognitive dissonance. They don't have much else to contribute.
Do you visit places outside of college towns? Where I live, people love SUVs. They not only permit coal-fired power plants, but they build them. They rarely bring recycled bags to the store. They buy as much crap as they can afford. They are quite skeptical about climate change. And I do not think they differ much from most other people in the U.S. They are the majority. If not, then explain to me why political leaders at every level avoid making statements about global warming for fear they will be perceived as being too radical. You are living in a bubble--wherever you live.
I do not like anecdotal evidence so I prefer to read opinion polls, which usually show a very significant (and mostly increasing) acceptance of the fact of AGW, despite the huge propaganda effort. It is of course not complete and universal, but more and more people are seeing it - and compared to public opinion, the representation of AGW in political action is basically nonexistent. Which shows that the problem is not really with "dumb people".
>>corvo wrote: "Or you get the insistence of one CD user whose usual spew is that you have no right to oppose nuclear energy if you use any fossil fuel at all."<<
I do not know who you have in mind here. I AM one of those that insists that burning coal should be at the TOP of the list of things to go FIRST. I came to this position after reading James Hansen's book "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity". I still believe continued burning of coal is THE most dangerous thing going on. And James Hansen has also said if tar sands operations continue and were to expand, then it's "GAME OVER!".
So, yes, there are all kinds of dangers. And there is still a great demand for energy. And most countries still have not shown adequate signs of sanity. So, under the circumstances, when we are stuck with a dangerously insane crowd, it is best to focus on the biggest threat.
I have consistently been arguing for massive, massive conservation as being MORE IMPORTANT than even renewable energy systems. ALL non-essential use of energy should be strictly curtailed and rationed. There was rationing everywhere during war time and the current threat is many times bigger than any war.
I DO NOT agree with building NEW nuclear power plants AT ALL, for a variety of reasons. They are obviously dangerous, but they are also expensive, carbon-intensive to build and their overall efficiencies are highly questionable.
However, closing down existing nuclear plants that have already been built and operating, should follow the shutting down of major coal power plants and major coal mining. To insist on closing down nuclear first, without consideration of the other danger, and without explaining how to meet the energy demand, is just plain NIMBY-ism and childish, and that is what I was objecting to.
You mention "one CD user". Go ahead, name names, and I would also like to hear your exact proposal as to what is to be done.
Hansen's support for nuclear boils down to his view that this is the only option that corporations will allow, which is hardly a scientific argument.
I don't see that as the basis of his position at all. Hansen being an American, after all, probably genuinely believes that people are going to NEED a certain amount of easy-to-use energy. And he probably sees some limitations for renewable energy to meet all this demand in a short enough time - like, in the next 5-10 years, which is all we have, realistically, to make some major, major cuts on GHG emissions.
Same with James Lovelock. These people, despite their extraordinary intellect and passion, still come out basically as westerners who probably think a certain way of life cannot be sacrificed, and probably do not question how all of this luxury came about. They probably do not question the ethics of the brutal conquest of the "New World", without which the so-called "industrial revolution" could not have happened. At least not the way and the rapidity with which it did, with such disastrous consequences.
Despite extensive estimates and all kinds of reports on the disastrous effect of large-scale meat production on climate change ("Livestock's Long Shadow", for example), I have not heard Hansen and Lovelock calling for drastic cutting back or giving up of meat.
They probably see that it is futile to call for RADICAL changes everywhere, at all levels, even though the only sane option could be considered "radical" - that is, to give up, or cut back big time, on ALL that is non-essential, as in not truly required to live. People like Hansen and Lovelock are being "pragmatists" when it comes to nuclear power, and nothing more.
As for me, I make a deliberate point about this whole coal vs. nuclear "debate" - as to which should go FIRST. Because I see NIMBY-ism at work. (Probably also what motivates many Nebraskans to oppose the Keystone pipeline. But I'm OK with that, because the pipeline doesn't yet exist.) Let's close down all nuclear plants, by all means. But I would still like an answer for what to do about the energy demand and what to do about coal. Even while making this point, I repeat that I do not support building NEW nuclear plants. Let the nuclear industry go to hell, for all I care.
Your reference to nuclear energy reminded me that one proponent of it is James Lovelock, the guy who formulated the Gaia Hypothesis. He is probably the world expert on how the atmosphere works. He made his living from royalties on patents for equipment that NASA uses to study planetary atmospheres. His opinion is that nuclear energy is the only feasible substitute for fossil fuels.
Regardless of all of the problems nuclear energy has, there does not seem to be any other alternative which is feasible. We seem to have a Hobson's choice.
What are you more afraid of: CO2 or Strontium, Cesium and Plutonium? There's no contest, IMO. If Fukushima keeps spewing out several Chernobyl equivalents per year, decade after decade, no one will be around to care much about global warming/cooling/stasis. Ironic, isn't it, that concern over the environment and climate change could lead to a resurrection of nuclear power, and that ends up killing off the environment once and for all?
On the other hand, what about recent reports that solar will be able to compete, without subsidy, with fossil fuels within 5 years? Of course, that's only electricity: for transportation we'd need to convert to an electric fleet and build much more capacity, and improve public tranportation as well.
There is a problem with semantics in this piece, one that's almost universal: conflating "countries" with the tiny group at the top who make the decisions for them. What developed or "developing nations want" in this scenario has nothing to do with what the people want--the people are never consulted. Instead, most countries hold elections in which the poeple choose between two or more vetted candidates representing wealthy interests, and the winners go on to craft policy in the interest of the wealthy and the corporations. Nonetheless, it's also true that in many countries the public is largely apathetic about the climate crisis, in part because they are unaware of its severity and in part because it's more comfortable to engage in denial.
I have a cartoon on my fridge in which a doctor in speaking to the "patient" on the examining table, a large globe. The caption reads, "The bad news is you have advanced-stage humans. The good news is they've just about run their course and you should be on the mend soon." Is this an accurate depcition of the situation--are we an affliction the Earth would be well rid of? Lately, it appears that the answer is yes. Most people will condemn their grandchildren to world in which survival will be a struggle and air conditioning, in hotter summers than ours, will be illegal or more likely impossible, so they can enjoy their current lifestyle in which they blast greenhouse gases to bring their homes down from 78 to 70 degrees. They have a sacred right to as many children as they choose, and to drive huge vehicles as much as they choose, and if gas gets expensive it's an outrage. This is the reality in the US--are people more responsible elsewhere?
are people more responsible elsewhere?
No. It is just that some places are more wealthy thant others.
Same pig headed attitudes in Australia. The Phillipinos and the Brits are not better. I suspect we are about the same everywhere.
No idea, but I think these behaviour patterns are not genetically determined but socially conditioned, in other words people would in fact be able to live with a much smaller footprint in a different economic system. Personal consumption is just one drive behind material waste (in addition to super wasteful or even destructive control structures (mainly the military) and vanity projects etc) and its constant increase is driven by social pressures, not actual human needs. Of course if you think that things are already fucked anyway, it's better to believe that a better world is not possible, it's just that this way of thinking is also clearly a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy, ie. a capitulation before a belief, not a real world loss against facts.
And it is a fact that it is the Western political-economical model that is the actual driving force behind environmental destruction. Maybe humans couldn't do better anyway, but we shouldn't blame human nature and laws of nature and so on when the actual, real world reasons are obvious for everyone to see.
I totally agree. The problem is not human nature--there have been countless responsible civilizations (depending how you define that word--maybe I should say societies), and it isn't some gene tied to pale skin that causes this destructive behavior, it's a culture of aggressive domination, which has gradually taken over the whole planet.
If a car crash is imminent, we need to get off the accelerator pedal.
The true cost of oil is at least $12/gallon. One way of making solar more competitive is to shift the cost of our oilfield-occupying wars onto the actual price of oil, sort of a cash-and-carry for our perpetual Hades on earth. Then we need money for all the asthma the fumes create, money for the Oil Depletion Allowance and other oil company subsidies, money for more FEMA trailers... This is similar to taxing cigarettes for all the medical problems they cost the rest of us.
Actually, I see solar electricity as low as 2 cents per kilowatt-hour and solar building heat retrofits at natural gas prices now. The problem is that the government has gum on its shoe and can't get around to the little guy. They're too busy fawning all over Dudley Dursley.
>>"...developing countries (like India, say) think the rich, developed countries should do it; the rich developed countries (like us) think that everyone should do it. The first position was enshrined in the current climate treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, in which the rich world agreed to cut its carbon emissions, while the developing countries were obliged to do nothing; and now Kyoto, which in its present version runs out on 31 December 2012, is up for renewal. Is there to be a new Kyoto?"<<
By leaving out the most important details of the Kyoto Protocol, this article appears dishonest. And there seems to be a continued, deliberate dumbing down of the whole damn subject. Why not present how the Kyoto Protocol was arrived at, especially since the title talks about "The Lost Years of Climate Change"? The title is exactly right: almost 15 years have been lost since climate change was accepted as an urgent crisis that the whole world was facing.
Yes, "Kyoto," signed practically by all the countries, required the rich countries to take the first step of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 6% below 1990 levels. This was based on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities". While every nation had a responsibility to limit the emissions, historically the rich countries had a much, much larger share of emissions. And the CO2 concentration that existed in 1997 was NOT just emitted in 1996. It was a result of reckless burning of fossil fuels since the so-called industrial revolution.
The top-most emitters, historically, that is, since about 1800, have been Britain, USA and Germany, in that order. Britain was part of the EU and EU as a whole is on target to meet its emission reduction target. That is because Germany absorbed the bulk of the reduction load, cutting its emission by more than 22% below 1990 levels, so that EU as a whole could meet its 6% target.
Australia did not sign the treaty initially, but did so when Kevin Rudd was the PM, but was allowed to start at a much higher baseline, instead of 1990 levels. Canada and Japan signed the treaty, their parliaments ratified it, but decided they were not going to meet the target. In the case of Canada, emissions INCREASED substantially over 1990 levels and today the Canadian govt. is talking about 20% reduction by 2020, but based on 2005 (or 2006?) levels. That is just plain fraud and obscenity.
And that leaves the biggest criminal in this whole saga - the USA. Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol, but never sent the treaty to Congress for ratification. He did not even fight for it, as obviously he had his eyes on something more important - that is, for him, personally.
Now re-read the original quote from the article. Some of the rich countries, while moving a lot of the "dirty" industries offshore, STILL managed to increase their GHG emissions over 1990 levels. And they show NO SIGN of committing to any major cuts in emissions, even though, technically at least, these countries have all reached a certain level of basic development, where the capability to provide the basic necessities to all their people already exists. (Extreme inequalities are a different thing, nothing to do with their level of development).
The developing countries have a clear case for demanding major cuts from the rich countries first. However, it is dangerous to insist on just this and not take action within their own countries to follow a different, less carbon-intensive, path to development. But the blame clearly lies with the rich countries here.
What took place in Copenhagen was called COP-15. "COP" stands for "Conference of the Parties" to the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change). The COP meetings are an annual affair. "Kyoto" was COP-3. And Durban would be COP-17. And everyone connected with these negotiations KNEW that COP-15 was to be a major, major meeting, to decide on the follow-up treaty to Kyoto. All this was agreed upon years ago.
But the trend was clear to see for everyone: the US did not commit to Kyoto, Canada reneged, and without the US committing, would not do so any more. And that makes all the other major emitters reluctant to commit. So why would the developing countries commit to strict limits when the biggest criminals are not ready to play ball?
Not only that, the so-called "climate-gate" was stirred up just before Copenhagen and the right-wing nuts (and some left-wing nuts too) went crazy over it all. These crazies most probably did MORE reading about the so-called conspiracy and scandal than they would have done to understand global warming and the climate negotiations in the first place. The host country of COP-15, Denmark, by this time was firmly under the control of the empire, its chief negotiator having resigned and the whole thing was a charade, with the outcome most effectively sabotaged by the denial industry. The possible role of Russia in the so-called "climate-gate" is also something not talked about much.
This is unfortunate, it is dangerous and it is just plain insane. Only massive public action in ALL the countries can bring in some form of sanity to the whole thing.
Do we have any idea at what level the feedback mechanisms will take the problem out of our hands and send the planet beyond the "tipping point?" We need a good estimate of where that is if we are to gauge just what reductions are meaningful. Otherwise any new protocol is just a feel-good ploy. I, for one, believe that only a drastic change in our way of life, nearly ending fossil fuel use, can make any difference. But I have never seen a good argument for just what level of greenhouse gases puts climate control out of human hands. Anybody know of one?
James Hansen thinks we are nearly at the tipping point now. Considering how long major policy changes take to implement, we might as well get used to the idea that we are going to experience some unpleasant consequences.
We are likely racing towards a precipice. We KNOW that the cliff is out there, in front of us and that we had better slow down. We may not know exactly how far ahead the cliff is and visibility is poor. The ONLY sane thing to do is to take the foot off the gas pedal, apply brake, shift gear all the way down, and to be prepared to apply even the handbrake if necessary. Jumping out is not an option for most people. Arguing about how far we have to go before slowing down and braking is the last thing we should be doing.
So, yes, you are right: "... only a drastic change in our way of life, nearly ending fossil fuel use, can make any difference."
And when the danger has clearly passed, we'll see.
James Hansen thinks we have a chance of retaining a habitable planet if atmospheric CO2 peaks around 400 ppm and declines to 350 ppm by 2100. He calculates a scenario to accomplish this in his best paper, "The Case For Young People And Nature."
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf
What is necessary, according to Hansen, is phasing out carbon emissions by 6% per year, accompanied by massive reforestation. A steadily-rising carbon fee which the public could support because there's a 100% dividend paid back to the people is the remedy Hansen recommends.
Our concept of THE tipping point is probably an oversimplification. The disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice (expected as soon as 2016) is most worrisome, because at some point thereafter Arctic methane hydrates could vaporize. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas - this is one aspect of the "game over" scenario: triggering a natural methane discharge which is much larger than human greenhouse gas emissions.
It is commonly held (e.g. in climate negotiation documents) that 2°C is the maximum safe amount of warming. We're nearly halfway there, with enough thermal momentum already in Earth's system to carry us the rest of the way. But this threshold was arrived at more politically than scientifically. Hansen has said that 2°C of warming is dangerous. Climate negotiators are considering giving up on 2°C and shooting for 3°C at this point, and so it goes (as Vonnegut said).
The Earth has never heated up as quickly as now. Our global experiment is unprecedented in geologic history - not even paleoclimate research can shed light on the uncharted waters we've embarked upon. We are now at 392 ppm of atmospheric CO2. The danger threshold could be at 375 or 400 or 450 ppm. Nobody really knows.
"It is increasingly clear that if the world strays significantly above 450 ppm atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide for any length of time, we will find it unimaginably difficult to stop short of 800 to 1000 ppm." - Joe Romm
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/04/science-nsf-tundra-permafrost-methane-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-venting/
Conservation, the longest four letter word! Would life even be worth living without micro waves, big screens, toasters, washers, dryers, multiple vehicles, dvds, iphones, air conditioners, mixers, a thousand battery powered gizmoes and toys, endless lights in mcmansions with more toilets than butts. And on and on and on.
The candy man came, and we bought everything he was selling. Now, all we have left is an addiction. Alas.
I was just watching the Gene Wilder version the other day...
Bill: Who can take a sunrise
Sprinkle it in dew
Cover it in chocolate
and a miracle or two?
The candyman
The candyman can
The candyman can cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good
Who can take a rainbow
Wrap it is a sigh
Soak it in the sun
and make a strawberry lemon pie?
Children: The candyman?
Bill: The candyman
The candyman can
The candyman can cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good
Willy Wonka makes
Everything he bakes
Satisfying and delicious
Talk about your childhood wishes
You can even eat the dishes
Who can take tomorrow
Dip it in a deam
Seperate the sorrow
And collect up all the cream?
The candyman
Children:Willy Wonka can
Bill: The candyman can cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good
And the world tastes good cause the candyman thinks it should
And yet somehow every generation throughout human history, up to the last three or so, lived this way--and most imagined their lives were worth living.
More than 40% of the earth's population do not have access to electricity. Those who are aware of it want it. But if climate change and all the other environmental deteriorating processes keep going, those who don't use it will be more likely to survive a big tipping point shift in the human ecological condition than will we "civilized" folks.
The only smidgen of good news is that there are a lot of ways of generating electricity, not all of which involve greenhouse gas release. Switching to those methods could be done. I don't, however, know what would get the changeover going.
"Are We Just Going to Talk Our Way to Oblivion?" Probably.
"But if climate change and all the other environmental deteriorating processes keep going, those who don't use it will be more likely to survive a big tipping point shift in the human ecological condition than will we "civilized" folks."
I don't think so. I think the rich are way more likely to survive than the poor, mainly because the economic system that a lot of poor are depending on is not separate from ours. It's not like people are poor because they are still depending on an earlier stage of economic development, which may not be as productive (human labour efficient) as capitalism but may be more robust, it's just that their dependence is of a different kind. But this dependence is more fragile than ours, not more robust. The rural poor who have been pushed into urban slums are not part of a sustainable economic system, for example - that system is mostly destroyed, and from the point of view of this current system, they are unnecessary, meaningless non-productive waste. Would be nice if you were right :-/
Won't be nice for me. I'm stuck here in the civilized world economy that's going bad fast. "The rural poor who have been pushed into urban slums" are too part of so-called civilization. The few who may survive are subsistence farmers in isolated villages who can grow enough food to support their populations. There can't be more than a few million such folks. The rest of us are in deep excrement, deepening daily.
I am not completely sure of course, but I am pretty sure that even average people in richer countries will have an easier time of it. Usually it's also easier for individuals in richer countries to prepare for these things in advance.
If things go as bad as I think they're likely to -- and I really hope they don't -- the rich will only have it better for a little while until they see that they can't stay in their gated communities, fat sassy and comfortable, while the rest of civilization crumbles. They need food, electricity, and other services too despite what they seem to think/
Imagine a scenario where NYC, for whatever reason, was unable to supply ten million people with food or get rid of their waste. Think Katrina X ten. Rich and poor would suddenly find themselves in a sinking ship. The poor, with a survival instincts equal to the rich, might find it necessary to act in ways many would find uncomfortable. It could never happen here, though.
>>Atomsk wrote: "... the rich are way more likely to survive than the poor..."<<
I have to agree. And I think the super-rich people would agree as well. And that MUST BE their thinking or plan.
Consider this: why would the rich countries be storing up all kinds of seeds in the "Svalbard Global Seed Vault" or the so-called "Doomsday Seed Vault" in a Norwegian island in the Arctic region? And why would the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invest $30 million in this project (as of 2007)? Check out this article from 2007: ""Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic - Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t":
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23503
And the same Foundation promotes GM crops elsewhere?
The rich KNOW that climate change is happening and it could be potentially disastrous, but probably think they can survive, while watching a massive culling of human population, with a small number left to work as slaves. They live on higher grounds, have the money, have most of the resources under control, dictators in place, technocrats in other places who could become dictators if necessary, they have the guns and now the drones. It's only a small sociopathic leap from that comfortable position to believe they can ride out the disaster.
Sad to say that you may be right :-/ A decade or so ago I may have considered this a conspiracy theory, but not any more. And don't get me started on the BMGF. They only deal in super retarded cartoon evil stuff, the collection of the most fucked up crap imaginable. Anything fucked up, from geoengineering to education "reform", they're involved.
Where I live, tv commercials are about fast cars, big pickups, and pills to allow you to have sex, and then the rest. The interstate always has semi's unless the road is closed. The trains go by, but the coal trains carry the most. At the elementary school nearby, there are lots of mothers with more than one kid.
The variety of tipping points may give us an amazing experiential learning method about living on this planet, and systems theory. I wonder if things will shift slowly, or if a drought will be extended, and flooding will be yearly, forests die and invasions of pests will be common. Economics will be a study in crisis, when the oldest theories about limited resources become impediments to growth. Water will be an issue, and transportation will become an issue. Food and water may surprise us. The cost of chicken food went up 50% in less that a decade, so do you think KFC will absorb that? A billion people live on less than a dollar a day?
Systems are amazing, and if you are studying a system, you should include yourself as part of it, and add every other system that is connected to you and see how many interactions there are. I can't imagine what the Japanese debris pile is like in the Pacific Ocean, and where the radioactive plume is going. The thin ice of the Arctic. Oil sands, traffic in the city nearest you, weather events, the price of corn, people camping in the streets, and over fished oceans. I practiced being poor in my twenties so I have a rudimentary understanding of living by needing little and wanting less. I am glad for the experience because this time, I have skills like growing food, which is harder because average freeze dates aren't as helpful. The weather always changes, but new pests require knowledge and pesticides and herbicides have their own input in the system.
Once there wasn't free O2 in the air and it took forever to increase. Now we are trying to double CO2 in a few hundred years and we have no idea what kind of change it will create, so let's add methane to it, add water vapor, and ten thousand new chemicals not seen before in the natural world, and try to control it by using a mental construct we call economics, or is it politics? Photosynthesis altered the world and that wasn't the only time most of the life forms died. I don't think humans have given enough thought to living the consequences of our actions.