87 Days - The Cognitive Dissonance that Leads to Confusion and Inaction

World Wildlife Fund put out a report this week (Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Global Implications), warning that the global impacts of warming in the Arctic will "outstrip predictions." That's a bit of an understatement if (a) you noticed that the 2007 IPCC report didn't include Arctic carbon feedbacks (nor any carbon feedbacks at all), and (b) you've got your eyes open.
But as is happening a lot these days, the seriousness of the report is not met with a serious enough response. That's when people get confused. "Hmmm," says the member of the public who doesn't have (or take) the time to find out what's really going on with global climate change, "I keep hearing that it's serious and urgent, but I don't see my government leaders and others who I respect addressing it seriously or urgently. All they do is talk and negotiate."
In this case, WWF has partnered with other concerned nongovernmental organizations to come up with A Copenhagen Climate Treaty [pdf], A Proposal for a Copenhagen Agreement by Members of the NGO Community.
In it, the NGO community sets out to "transform the world to a zero-carbon economy [hurray!] over the coming decades, including global emissions cuts of at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050." [Oh darn, hurrayed too soon.]
Now, I'm no mathematical genius, but I know that we can't get to a zero-carbon economy by reducing our emissions by only 80%, even if it's 80% below 1990 levels. We have to cut our emissions by 100%. And by far sooner than 2050.
My discomfort is that these well-meaning NGOs will probably defend this position by saying it's what they "realistically" think they can get. But killing the future more slowly than "business as usual" will kill it is still killing the future. And if we know we have to get to zero carbon emissions, why ask for 80% cuts? It's slow suicide.
Let's be bold and audacious — and courageous — on behalf of all future generations and ask for what we need to ensure their future: cuts of 100%, and a rapid transition to a renewable energy based, zero carbon economy that will be safer, cleaner, healthier, more equitable and more peaceful than what we've got right now!

109 Days - Where Will You Live?

My husband has been studying computer modelled projections of which parts of the world will be habitable the longest, under a global warming of several degrees.

Tonight at the dinner table, he was explaining to our niece that a big factor in her decision about where to go to university should be where she can safely put down roots, learn to grow food, and live out her days in an overheated world.

That's a lot for a 17-year-old to think about! What a thing to have to ask young people to do.

But if we don't ask them to think about their "adaptation" to global warming and climate change, then we'd better be mitigating like crazy to make sure they don't have to adapt.

And for what it's worth, if we allow the global average temperature to go too high (well, it's already too high — since we're seeing carbon feedbacks already — but you know what I mean), then most species on Earth will not be able to adapt. We simply won't survive.

My niece and I are having fun this evening, so I don't think she was traumatized by the discussion, but it's sure got me thinking about where I'd like to be when the climate you-know-what starts hitting the fan in my part of the world.

P.S. I don't want to suggest places that people could start heading (areas that will continue to get precious rainfall, for example), but I have heard (as I've mentioned here before) that people with money are starting to buy up land in those areas. If you're concerned, please do your own research.

155 Days to Copenhagen - A 2 Degree Threshold? Why 47 Signatories Have It All Wrong

Kate Sheppard reported on the 1st of July at Stop Global Warming.org and on The Grist that a coalition of 47 environmental, scientific and religious groups have written to President Obama asking him to "pursue a goal of keeping global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius in upcoming international meetings."

Here's what the letter actually says: "Failure to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius will have the greatest impact on the most vulnerable nations and communities and will dramatically increase the need for adaptation in the future."

And here's what these 47 groups fail to grasp. Reaching anywhere near a 2 degree C global average temperature increase will be a death sentence for Life on Earth. We do NOT want to get anywhere near +2 degrees.

And here's why. Right now, we have about 0.8 degrees C of warming and we already have serious carbon feedbacks (methane release from thawing permafrost and destabilizing methane hydrates in the oceans, plus meltdown of the Arctic Ocean summer ice).

Once you get positive carbon feedbacks, you risk runaway global heating. So at +0.8 degrees, we're already gambling with extinction. And that's without the at least 0.6 degrees of warming in the pipe.

350 is a boondoggle and 2 degrees is insanity. The only target we and President Obama should be focusing on, aiming at and working for — because our children's lives depend on it — is ZERO. Zero greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible.

Why water down that message with dangerous talk of 2 degree thresholds?

Six Months to Copenhagen - Sometimes Conventional Wisdom is Wrong: Fear IS a Good Thing ...

... when the situation is a frightening one.

Hasn't it seemed just a bit counterintuitive that so many environmental groups and activists have kept saying, "We can't scare the public"?

We are facing the most terrifying possibility ever, and yet they insist we shouldn't spread "doom and gloom." Hey, dooming the future is a gloomy prospect!

But here is a voice of reason - from a respected author and commentator no less (mine would never be called a "voice of reason" as I am all for heart, soul, spirit, intuition, emotions, feelings, gut reactions, and mother's instincts - just to balance out all the reason in the world!).

Although Thomas Homer-Dixon, in an article entitled "Fear is Good" (pdf) (published 4 April 2009 in Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper), is talking mainly about the economic crisis, he could just as easily be talking about the climate change emergency:

"Fear is bad, according to conventional wisdom.... The truth is that fear is good.... Today, if we were more afraid for our futures and those of our children, we would be doing much more to address potential problems - such as climate change ... that could derail our societies tomorrow.

"Fear serves a vital purpose. Our ancestors evolved the biological capacity for fear because it helped them survive, which allowed them to pass their genes to future generations. Fear signals that something might be wrong in our surroundings and that we could be in danger.... We should embrace fear, not scorn it. And we should listen to those whose fears might help them see dangers earlier and more clearly than the rest of us.

"In today's tightly connected world - under staggering demographic, political and environmental as well as economic stress - the burden of proof is now on the optimists. World-shaking crises are likely to appear with increasing frequency, and we'd be foolhardy to ignore people who warn of the dangers around us."

Me again: I say it's time for the "hope mongers" to get real and learn the devastating new findings on global warming, climate change, and carbon feedbacks. As I keep explaining, hope is not an action verb - and hoping, like praying, is not going to safeguard the future.

Take hopeful action, be an optimistic activist, but take action and be an activist! Make sure that action (not the denial that lurks in optimism and hope) comes first.

181 Days Left - Fossil Fuels Are Like Drugs: Just Say No!

Our friend and fellow climate change activist (and animal rights activist extraordinaire) Anthony Marr wrote today about the futility of the Bonn climate talks.

"First of all, the targets set will be grossly inadequate (guaranteed), and even so, countries can still violate them left, right and center — without penalty." He notes that there seems to be no mention of methane at the talks. Yet methane (from the thawing permafrost and the destabilizing methane hydrates at the bottom of the oceans and in continental shelves) is the scariest thing happening because of global warming. (Can you say "carbon feedbacks"?)

In a 6 June 2009 article by William Marsden for Canwest News Service entitled "Crunch Time for Climate Talks," United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, says that in the six months left, negotiators will try "to reach an agreement on what might well be one of the most complicated international treaties ever negotiated."

Well, Mr. de Boer, I know how to make it uncomplicated. Extremely uncomplicated. Just say no. Just say zero. Zero carbon emissions. Zero fossil fuel use. That's our goal. Our target should not be 350 parts per million, nor (a catastrophic) 1.5 degrees of temperature increase, nor 80% greenhouse gas cuts by 2050. Our target needs to be ZERO. As quickly as possible.

Zero is a good, clear number that creates a level playing field. Every nation in the world, every corporation, every human being can start striving now to reach zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.

Sheesh, considering that survival of the human species (and millions of other species) is at risk, you'd think governments everywhere would be tripping over themselves to be the fastest to cut their emissions.

Sadly, as Anthony points out ("It is about time we realize that we can no longer rely on our 'leaders' to lead us to any promised land. If we do, we WILL be led into a hell on Earth.... It is up to us folks, who have any true love for our children, life on Earth and the planet itself"), these talks are simply a stalling tactic.

Instead of racing each other to ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS, negotiators are looking for ways to put off making any cuts for as long as possible — thereby condemning us all.

Please, when you have some time (49 minutes and 8 seconds of it), watch Anthony Marr's video, M-Bomb: Doomsday Machine. It will explain why there is no time for procrastination. There is barely enough time left to just say no.

185 Days to Copenhagen - Damn the Cowardly Scientists and Environmentalists, Too: ABC's Earth 2100

Why did it take ABC (the American Broadcasting Corporation) to show the public what our future is going to look like if we don't make radical cuts to our CO2 emissions? Why have so many of the scientists and too many of the environmentalists been too afraid to tell the truth about the global climate change emergency — especially heaped on top of so many other environmental disasters around the world?

Don't want to rant on tonight ... just wanted to make one point. The present with which 300 million people are already afflicted will soon enough become our present. A little understanding of climate science (especially positive carbon feedbacks) and a whole whack of empathy and compassion could get us on track in negotiating for the right things (a renewable energized climate-stable future) instead of trying to protect the wrong things (our deadly fossil-fuelled present) at the Copenhagen climate talks.

Check out ABC's courageous, timely and prophetic Earth 2100.