Climate Change? Try, Climate Breakdown
What's clear from Copenhagen is that policymakers have fallen behind the scientists: global warming is already catastrophic
The more we know, the grimmer it gets.
Presentations by climate scientists at this week's conference in Copenhagen show that we might have underplayed the impacts of global warming in three important respects:
- Partly because the estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) took no account of meltwater from Greenland's glaciers, the rise in sea levels this century could be twice or three times as great as it forecast, with grave implications for coastal cities, farmland and freshwater reserves.
- Two degrees of warming in the Arctic (which is heating up much more quickly than the rest of the planet) could trigger
a massive bacterial response in the soils there. As the permafrost
melts, bacteria are able to start breaking down organic material that
was previously locked up in ice, producing billions of tonnes of carbon
dioxide and methane. This could catalyse one of the world's most
powerful positive feedback loops: warming causing more warming. - Four degrees of warming could almost eliminate
the Amazon rainforests, with appalling implications for biodiversity
and regional weather patterns, and with the result that a massive new
pulse of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Trees are
basically sticks of wet carbon. As they rot or burn, the carbon
oxidises. This is another way in which climate feedbacks appear to have
been underestimated in the last IPCC report.
Apart from the
sheer animal panic I felt on reading these reports, two things jumped
out at me. The first is that governments are relying on IPCC
assessments that are years out of date even before they are published,
as a result of the IPCC's extremely careful and laborious review and
consensus process. This lends its reports great scientific weight, but
it also means that the politicians using them as a guide to the cuts in
greenhouse gases required are always well behind the curve. There is
surely a strong case for the IPCC to publish interim reports every
year, consisting of a summary of the latest science and its
implications for global policy.
The second is that we have to
stop calling it climate change. Using "climate change" to describe
events like this, with their devastating implications for global food
security, water supplies and human settlements, is like describing a
foreign invasion as an unexpected visit, or bombs as unwanted
deliveries. It's a ridiculously neutral term for the biggest potential
catastrophe humankind has ever encountered.
I think we should call it "climate breakdown". Does anyone out there have a better idea?
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The more we know, the grimmer it gets.
Presentations by climate scientists at this week's conference in Copenhagen show that we might have underplayed the impacts of global warming in three important respects:
- Partly because the estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) took no account of meltwater from Greenland's glaciers, the rise in sea levels this century could be twice or three times as great as it forecast, with grave implications for coastal cities, farmland and freshwater reserves.
- Two degrees of warming in the Arctic (which is heating up much more quickly than the rest of the planet) could trigger
a massive bacterial response in the soils there. As the permafrost
melts, bacteria are able to start breaking down organic material that
was previously locked up in ice, producing billions of tonnes of carbon
dioxide and methane. This could catalyse one of the world's most
powerful positive feedback loops: warming causing more warming. - Four degrees of warming could almost eliminate
the Amazon rainforests, with appalling implications for biodiversity
and regional weather patterns, and with the result that a massive new
pulse of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Trees are
basically sticks of wet carbon. As they rot or burn, the carbon
oxidises. This is another way in which climate feedbacks appear to have
been underestimated in the last IPCC report.
Apart from the
sheer animal panic I felt on reading these reports, two things jumped
out at me. The first is that governments are relying on IPCC
assessments that are years out of date even before they are published,
as a result of the IPCC's extremely careful and laborious review and
consensus process. This lends its reports great scientific weight, but
it also means that the politicians using them as a guide to the cuts in
greenhouse gases required are always well behind the curve. There is
surely a strong case for the IPCC to publish interim reports every
year, consisting of a summary of the latest science and its
implications for global policy.
The second is that we have to
stop calling it climate change. Using "climate change" to describe
events like this, with their devastating implications for global food
security, water supplies and human settlements, is like describing a
foreign invasion as an unexpected visit, or bombs as unwanted
deliveries. It's a ridiculously neutral term for the biggest potential
catastrophe humankind has ever encountered.
I think we should call it "climate breakdown". Does anyone out there have a better idea?
The more we know, the grimmer it gets.
Presentations by climate scientists at this week's conference in Copenhagen show that we might have underplayed the impacts of global warming in three important respects:
- Partly because the estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) took no account of meltwater from Greenland's glaciers, the rise in sea levels this century could be twice or three times as great as it forecast, with grave implications for coastal cities, farmland and freshwater reserves.
- Two degrees of warming in the Arctic (which is heating up much more quickly than the rest of the planet) could trigger
a massive bacterial response in the soils there. As the permafrost
melts, bacteria are able to start breaking down organic material that
was previously locked up in ice, producing billions of tonnes of carbon
dioxide and methane. This could catalyse one of the world's most
powerful positive feedback loops: warming causing more warming. - Four degrees of warming could almost eliminate
the Amazon rainforests, with appalling implications for biodiversity
and regional weather patterns, and with the result that a massive new
pulse of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Trees are
basically sticks of wet carbon. As they rot or burn, the carbon
oxidises. This is another way in which climate feedbacks appear to have
been underestimated in the last IPCC report.
Apart from the
sheer animal panic I felt on reading these reports, two things jumped
out at me. The first is that governments are relying on IPCC
assessments that are years out of date even before they are published,
as a result of the IPCC's extremely careful and laborious review and
consensus process. This lends its reports great scientific weight, but
it also means that the politicians using them as a guide to the cuts in
greenhouse gases required are always well behind the curve. There is
surely a strong case for the IPCC to publish interim reports every
year, consisting of a summary of the latest science and its
implications for global policy.
The second is that we have to
stop calling it climate change. Using "climate change" to describe
events like this, with their devastating implications for global food
security, water supplies and human settlements, is like describing a
foreign invasion as an unexpected visit, or bombs as unwanted
deliveries. It's a ridiculously neutral term for the biggest potential
catastrophe humankind has ever encountered.
I think we should call it "climate breakdown". Does anyone out there have a better idea?