(by 8 people)
Al Gore got it wrong. The big Arctic sea ice melt in 2007 has shown that we are approaching dangerous global warming much more rapidly than even Gore previously thought. And that's why you, me, but particularly the President need to cut our carbon dioxide emissions NOW.
By 2013 there is likely to be no summer sea ice in the Arctic.
Global Warming is a challenge You, Me but particularly the President, must face up to NOW.
This site presents a fresh update on global warming and seeks your opinion and vote as to the seriousness of the problem and what can be done to cut the carbon.
The Canary in the Coal Mine has Died
Over the last 50 years around 80% of the Arctic summer sea ice's volume has been lost.
Jay Zwally, NASA climate scientist, explains that coal miners used to carry canaries in cages underground with them to monitor air quality. If the canary died, they knew that it was time to get out of the mine. Based on the huge reduction in summer Arctic sea ice in 2007 Zwally states that "The canary in the coal mine... has now died."
What the big Arctic melt means
But their predictions - to which most governments refer to - of the Arctic not melting until 2100 - are proving spectacularly wrong.
In Climate Code Red (Feb 2008) David Spratt and Philip Sutton (see www.carbonequity.info)examine the latest climate change science. They describe how James Hansen, head of NASA's climate science division, says the Arctic has passed its tipping point, and has said that a sea level rise of up to five metres (16 feet) could be possible by the end of the century, driven by melting ice in Greenland and West Antarctica.
This far exceeds the IPCC's predictions of a 18 to 59 cm (7 inches to 2 feet) rise.
Much of current policy, is, however, based on the IPCC's predictions which seem to have spectacularly underestimated the rate of climate change.
Hansen is of the opinion that we have a rapidly disappearing window of opportunity to be able to avert dangerous climate change - that is to limit global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celcius (3.6 F) - after which, no matter what we do, we won't be able to avert enormous changes that will see dramatic weather shifts and very large sea level rises.
Carbon Targets
Economist Professor Ross Garnaut, commissioned in April 2007 to undertake the equivalent of a Stern Review for Australia, says in his interim report (20 Feb 2008, www.garnautreview.org.au) that:
- it appears that the "world is moving towards high risks of dangerous climate change more rapidly than has generally been understood."
- very high growth in greenhouse gas emissions since 2000 are the cause of this.
Garnaut says that the targets set in the global climate talks in Bali in December 2007 - only a short time ago - do not fully recognise the seriousness of the problem and do not go far enough in their 2020 targets (which were for reductions of 25% to 40%).
He calls for a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, well beyond the targets most governments have set. This would result in a 75% chance that global temperature rise could be kept to less than 2 degrees Celcius (3.6 F).
Based on the Garnaut Interim Report and Spratt and Sutton's Climate Code Red paper, I've prepared a flow chart below that shows the likely probabilities of dangerous climate change occuring
Our risk tolerance to global warming determines what You, Me but MOST importantly the President should do.
Vote on how much should we cut carbon emissions
Why You, Me but MOST IMPORTANTLY the President need to cut carbon emissions.
The risk of dying on a commercial airline flight is one in four million.
Yet what many would consider an extreme target - a 80% to 90% reduction - has at best a one in four chance of failing! In other words, even if we cut global greenhouse emissions by 90% by 2050, there is still a 25% chance that sea levels will rise by metres this century, with massive weather changes, resulting in loss of most species and dislocation and untold suffering for billions.
Now there are many ways that You and I can voluntarily cut our carbon emissions. But, to be frank, I doubt that this alone will solve the problem, because not everyone is going to voluntarily cut their carbon.
What we need is unprecented global collaboration by governments around the world to focus our collective resources on doing everything possible NOW to avert dangerous climate change.
And the only way that this is going to happen is with extraordinary leadership, by leaders around the world. The country that has the greatest responsiblity to exercise this leadership is the United States of America.
The USA is the world's largest greenhouse gas polluter. With only 3% of the world's population it produces around 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Yet not only has it refused to take any sort of lead in dealing with global warming, it has fought vigorously for its right to pollute as much as it likes - evidenced by its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (flawed as it may be) on Global Warming - signed by all other developed countries globally.
But if the United States, the most powerful country in the world, is willing to make averting dangerous global warming its most important priority, we might just have a chance.
This will require extraordinary leadership of the kind the world has rarely seen. Which is why, MOST IMPORANTLY, the President needs to cut the carbon.
What I'd really like you to do
Please vote on the two polls on this site and ask your friends to vote too!
Who is responsible
"Learn more using the links below and please leave a comment or two"
Links
- Carbon Equity
- Highly recommended site containing a series of papers on the latest climate change science and on recommended government policy responses. I'm indebted to Spratt and Sutton, whose writing has informed much of this page.
- Gaunaut Climate Change Review
- The Garnaut Climate Change Review is an independent study by Professor Ross Garnaut, commissioned by the Australian government. The Review will examine the impacts of climate change on the Australian economy, and recommend medium to long-term policies and policy frameworks to improve the prospects for sustainable prosperity.
- Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
- Report by Sir Nicholas Stern, Head of the (United Kingdom) Government Economic Service and Adviser to the Government on the economics of climate change and development
- How to cut carbon pollution
- Uses a football league analogy to describe how individuals, businesses, governments and the media need to work together to avert dangerous climate change.
- Join a million people asking governments to act on climate change
- On line petition by the Alliance for Climate Protection requesting governments, business, and the media to act on climate change. Sign it.
Is there a problem for You, Me and the President?
Is the loss of the Arctic sea ice a problem for You, Me and the President?
Fetching blurbs now... please stand byYes. Global warming is THE most important challenge facing the world and not trying to prevent it is crazy!
LeslieBrenner says:
One major obstacle to addressing this threat are corporations, such as the oil companies [eg. Exxon] who help fund and lobby politicians. They also fund organizations, such as conservative think tanks [eg. AEI and Heritage Fdn.], to spread disinformation about the threat. The disinformation campaign is further amplified out of proportion relative to the facts and scientific consensus, with the help of the politicians [eg. Inhofe, Bush] and organizations these companies support.
These companies need to see the reality of the threat and reconfigure themselves to help address it. And government subsidies to fund the oil and coal industries need to be put toward the construction of clean-energy plants and research and development of new technologies. Governments also need to regulate the process to aid the transition and foster an ethic of sustainability.
Posted March 20, 2008
Graceonline says:
Okay, so what if all the scientists are wrong and human beings have had no role in the most rapid rise in global warming in the history of the world?
So what if we act as if the scientists have it right and we build a world that consumes less, pollutes less, costs less, gives back more, and nurtures more? What if we do all that, and it turns out that we didn't cause global warming? What's the worst thing that can happen? The planet turns into a dry, inhospitable desert like Mars? Oops. We die anyway.
On the other hand, what if the scientists are right? What if we did cause global warming to rise faster than it ever has in the history of the world? What if we have a little window of time to slow it down and make a better world for ourselves where we, uh, consume less, pollute less, save money, nurture more, and enjoy a better quality of life? What if the scientists are right and we do that?
On the third hand, what if the scientists are right, and we do nothing?
Posted March 19, 2008
Peter Legrove says:
Yes. Global warming is THE most important challenge facing the world but that is because it is a smokescreen hiding real issues. At the moment most of the world is concerned about the future but global warming is a symptom of an overpopulated planet. If the planet wasn't over-crowded, global warming would not be an issue. Most global warming commentators seem to say that the activities of man are causing the planet to heat up but nobody seems to mention doing anything about the population. Al Gore in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" showed the population chart and it went straight up like the CO2 chart but no connection was made between the two
Posted March 15, 2008
Assaf says:
If the see level cuntinues to rise, many areas will be fluded and it means that some special cultures will disappear, not to mention the caos it will bring to the entire world.
P.S. You can promote this important subject in a place like http://www.alternativeenergybase.com/Category/Green-House-Gas-Emission/71
Posted March 15, 2008
Naomi-K says:
I just spent the evening on the Rainbow Warrior, one of the Greenpeace boats. After talking with them, I gathered their main focus right now is climate change.
While I think there are different ways to go about raising global awareness, Greenpeace has been in the environmental business for thirty years now.
They've see a lot of change, and are taking climate change pretty seriously.
So do I.
Posted March 06, 2008
No. The loss of the arctic sea ice will open up sea channels which will reduce shipping costs, therefore make stuff cheaper, which is good for the economy...
What do you think we should do?
What can we do, using collaborative tools, such as Squidoo, to get governments around the world to declare a Global Sustainability Emergency to cut the carbon and avert dangerous global warming?
Zion wrote...
Wow! This is a great info for all of us.
I really like your lens! so I gave you 5*.. how about that?!...
Please try to stop by my lens. I would really much appreciate if you could rate mine too!
Thank you so much!
Zion
http://www.squidoo.com/effective-best-acne-treatment-info
Posted October 26, 2008
LeslieBrenner wrote...
I agree with Michelle Bennett, that it's going to take a lot of public pressure to move world leaders to action. We need to start now. Because the scenarios scientists are talking about are very troubling.
Posted March 19, 2008
LeslieBrenner wrote...
Geez, Elementalist below cites Dr. Fred Singer!? Singer is notorious:
During the 1990s, he worked on behalf of the tobacco industry to attack EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke, which the EPA had shown to be a harmful carcinogen. Dr. Singer alleged that global warming and exposure to radon gas were "myths" in his attack on the EPA, in order to minimize his collaboration with big tobacco.
Singer was also a consultant to the oil industry for about 20 years.
Per Sourcewatch: In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]
However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.
Posted March 19, 2008
elementalist wrote...
You've done a great job of propagating the myth that global warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
These cooling and warming trends have gone on for millenia.
The "Medieval Climate Optimum" records temperatures a couple of degrees warmer than they are now. Do you suppose that industry back then was the cause?
Global warming is due primarily to solar cycles that alternately cause decreases or increases in solar wind.
Stronger solar winds drive off streams off cosmic rays that, when they get through, slam into the ocean's surface, releasing vast quantities of water vapour (the most important of the greenhouse gases) and CO2.
Dr. S. Fred Singer (Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia states, "There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050."
Is it worth the trillions they want?
Posted March 14, 2008
