7 years left to avoid global climate catastrophe

by phoenixesrose | August 29, 2008 at 02:18 pm
721 views | 19 Recommendations | 10 comments

Photos

Polar Bear walking in the wild along Hudson Bay Manitoba Canada

Polar Bear walking in the wild along Hudson Bay Manitoba Canada

see larger image

uploaded by travel_photography

Videos

To the candidates - further proof that being all Talk and No action is going to result in remarkable climactic changes.  To those in the McCain Camp, please read the article about what Palin is supporting - namely drilling in the alaska wilderness and claiming that Polar Bears aren't endangered.

I read the below and realize how much the Bush/McCain politicians (including the VP pick) just "don't get it".

The world may have only seven years to start reducing the annual buildup in greenhouse gas emissions that otherwise threatens global catastrophe within several decades.
    That means that between Inauguration Day in January 2009 and 2015, either John McCain or Barack Obama will face the most momentous political challenge of all time.
    Reflecting a consensus of hundreds of scientists around the world, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has affirmed that greenhouse gas emissions are raising the Earth's temperature. The Earth is on a trajectory to warm more than 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit by around mid-century.
    Exceeding that threshold could trigger a series of phenomena: Arable land will turn into desert, higher sea levels will flood coastal areas, and changes in the convection of the oceans will alter currents, such as the Gulf Stream, that determine regional weather patterns.
    Manhattan and Florida would be under water, while Nevada would have no water at all. Some Russians quip that they would welcome a more temperate climate, but they would probably be sorry to lose St. Petersburg. Countries such as Bangladesh and Mali do not have the resources to mitigate or even to adapt to the impact of climate change; millions would flee coastal flooding and the desertification of farmlands, creating instant ''climate refugees.''

The head of the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC,  R.K. Pachauri, recently told us: ''The cities, power plants and factories we build in the next seven years will shape our climate in mid-century. We have to act now to price carbon and create incentives to change the way we use energy and spread technology - and thereby avert nothing less than an existential threat to civilization.''
    Urgent and drastic action by the international community is required, and the United States must take the lead.
    Americans produce more than four times as much carbon per capita as the Chinese; 12 times as much as Indians; and more than twice as much as citizens of Germany, France, Britain and Japan. Unless the United States acts first, it will have no credibility in persuading other countries to do their share.
    To their credit, McCain and Obama support the creation of a cap-and-trade system that would limit national emissions. Trading among firms would put a price on carbon. That is an essential step toward changing industry behavior, encouraging energy conservation and providing an incentive for new technologies.
    As the most powerful national economy, the United States can set an example for the world in harnessing wind and solar power; ''sequestering'' (or capturing) carbon from coal plants; and developing cellulosic ethanol and safe civilian nuclear power as alternatives to fossil fuels.
    But the domestic obstacles to these and other measures are daunting. While some industries will prosper, other sectors of the economy, especially those that produce or rely on coal, steel and cement, will contract. Electricity prices will increase in the near and middle terms. Many workers and households will need help with the costs of transition.
    Coping with the resulting economic and political hardships would be onerous even if the next president inherited forward-looking climate-change policies. But George W. Bush has pursued an ''anti-policy,'' based on a combination of denial, procrastination and backsliding. His successor will have to make up for lost time while also dealing with a half-trillion-dollar federal deficit, a recession and a national housing crunch, a looming health-care crisis, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and diplomatic showdowns with North Korea and Iran.
    The winner in November will need all the help he can get - including from his opponent, who will go back to the Senate as a major voice on this and other issues. The next president will also need support from the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, academia and - crucially - citizens who recognize the consequences if they do not consent to sacrifices and changes in lifestyle.
    Many Americans will accept that logic, and make real changes, only if they believe greenhouse gas emissions will affect them personally. Today's adults, even if they will not be around at mid-century, must think about the fate of their children and grandchildren.
    Obama can look to his two daughters, and McCain to his four grandchildren. They are among nearly 75 million Americans - and 2.2 billion people worldwide - younger than 18. That generation will be in its 40s or 50s when one of two things happens: Either the temperature of the planet warms more than 4.5 degrees and vast regions slide toward being uninhabitable, or the wisdom of the next president and his fellow leaders around the world pays off in the ultimate reward - survival.
    ---
    * CARLOS PASCUAL and STROBE TALBOTT are, respectively, vice president for foreign policy studies and president of the Brookings Institution. They are involved in a joint project with Stanford University and New York University on global governance, including on the issue of climate change.

recommend This comment thread is now closed
amyjudd
amyjudd
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 14:31 on August 29th, 2008

phoenixesrose, I like this story. It's good stuff.

How can anyone claim polar bears aren't endangered!??

Emilio Lizardo
Emilio Lizardo
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 15:47 on August 29th, 2008

phoenixesrose, I like this story. It's good stuff.

0
sharron reed

great site.  would you be ok with me putting a link to it on my (amateur) site?  also, i'm trying to find something from obama that accurately reflects his oppositon to palin's position on drilling in AK and the polar bears not needing to be protected.  thanks  srr

 

Paschen
Paschen
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 20:34 on August 29th, 2008

phoenixesrose, I like this story. It's good stuff.

Not seven, you are being generous, we have less then 5 years left according to the latest Data. Get those people away fro there TV and Video Games inflicted Zombi like state and wake them up. We have to divert all resource and energy into preventing a global climate catastrophe or we will have do deal with a real genocide.

0
phoenixesrose

I doubt it's seven as well - and I totally agree that it feels like it would be less.  This was the data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change out yesterday in the Salt Lake Paper - and that's what shocked me. 

7 years - if you think in reverse - that would put us in 2001 - just before September 11.  It's really not that long of a time to get our ducks in a row and quit contributing so much.

Do I think that we'll change in the next 7?  I hope so.  Do I think we'll change significantly to matter?  Germany has - (which is where I live) - so it is possible.  Whether it's possible with the world governments on a global scale, however, is another matter.


0
Paschen

Interesting analogy. Well, we have a very long way to go and very little time left. We better start now and make some very radical changes like outlawing Private Cars on a Global level. Reducing personal energy Consumption by at least 80% and No more waste, all has to be reduced, reused and Recycled. No more Animal Meat, no more fish, eat plants and insects. Seven year...

0
roninxl5

Unfortunately, Al Gore's doomsday model is now under attack by those with experience in creating computer models, as I have.  The problems are many with these models but essentially focused on one crucial flaw, ignoring outright fraud.  With any computer model, I can use the same database of facts and measurements to produce a variety of results.  The difference is the assumptions used in each model.

There is generally no argument that climate change is real and an ongoing natural phenomenon.  The earth is a living ecosystem, thus change is assured.  The real questions are is man causing climate change and can man reverse some sort of perceived climate change.  As a physics major in college and a mathematician by trade I recommend your read junkscience.com for a rather lengthy but cogent response to the first question.  On the second question I must admit that baring nuclear bombs etc I am more ambivalent and much more un-scientific.  Having lived in the US and now living in Mexico I must say that the "old" catch phrase of polution is bad still hangs with me.

Based on the science I see, most of the global warming debate is focused on an extremely dubious if not fraudulent scheme called carbon footprints or credits.  You really have to wonder about anything that advertisers latch onto so quickly. You also have to wonder about a Kyoto agreement that essentially amounts to a wealth transfer agreement between GOVERNMENTS of poor and wealthy nations.  You also have to wonder why much of the most cited climate change studies came out after the agreement.

Before you begin to think that I oppose all of the things coming out of the global warming circus, I have to admit that I am attracted to some of the proven outcomes.  I do want to see a reduction in the much less sexy (of so 60's and 70's) global polution scale.  The problem with Kyoto is that it is OK to polute in China because the have a much bigger country but not in the US.  I would prefer to see the effort focused on the much more documented and proven areas for all countries regardless of size or economic stature.

I also think that the skeptisism exprssed in some of the comments here reflects the fact that,regardless of what we do, the climate process for the earth changes continuously over MILENIA and always has; regardless of man's intervention.  The real crime in the Al Gore message is that we can make all of these changes as mankind and avert some sort of natural change.  The arrogance of man is never exceeded


LotusFlower
LotusFlower
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 21:44 on August 29th, 2008

phoenixesrose, I like this story. It's good stuff. I don't see anyone much yet picking up fully on the Palin environmental angle as a real achiles heel for the M&P ticket. The drilling for oil in Alaska factor could prove a fruitful area for attack by opponents - but only if they aren't eyeing up the cold north themselves. Remember that David Bowie song '5 Years'?

0
phoenixesrose

I agree completely.  I think that she's too new - and potentially everyone is still too shocked by her choice as VP.

For those of us who have done their homework previously (ex. I was familar with her stanse on abortion and environment long before she was put into this race and concerned for Alaska's wilderness) we saw this as not necessarily a good thing.  I think that eventually the democrats will pick up on this "hole" and run with it.  You can see a bit more about her feelings at:

Palin's stanse on the environment so far

which is the article I posted not long before this one.

0
Neanderthal


This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

amyjudd
First Flagged at 2:31 PM, Aug 29, 2008 by amyjudd
These members have powered this story:

Most Recommended Stories in Environment

 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from