Hey, Look! We've Done This Before! Our Greatest Human Venture Ever ... Innovating to Zero Carbon

Today, all I want to do is share this movie with you. It was just created by someone I love and respect deeply for his passionate commitment to safeguarding the future. And it says Look! We've done this before! 

We (and especially the United States of America) have spent billions to tackle huge issues, employed thousands, and succeeded. So why do we think that retrofitting the world's energy systems can't be done? Look! We've done this before. Sure, sometimes out of conceit and hubris. Sometimes for what seemed in hindsight like evil purposes. And sometimes for the good of humanity. But we have taken on mammoth challenges in the past and triumphed.

Way back during Selfish &%$#@! Week, I wrote: "People who are working to slow global warming and to mitigate the climate change emergency are people who know that any 'costs' involved in doing this will be miniscule compared to what it will cost if we don't stave off climate catastrophe."

But it's more than that. Making the leap to the Golden Era of Perpetual Energy is going to be a colossal benefit to the global economy -- the biggest ever! We have to stop seeing and describing this transformation as a cost. Every time a coal-fired power generation plant is built, it's seen as an economic benefit because it provides employment. Every time a new gas or oil well is dug, it's considered an economic benefit because jobs are created. When an oil tanker spills its oily guts all over a coastline, it's seen as an economic benefit because it creates employment.

So as you're watching this short movie, try to get a sense of how many people were employed in the Apollo Program, the Manhattan Project and the Marshall Plan. And then think to yourself, "Hey, look! We've done this before!"

Our Greatest Venture from Dr. Peter Carter on Vimeo.

Learning from – and Standing Beside – Our First Nations Sisters and Brothers

Thanks to Nina for writing last week with the title of a book to check out. Reading about it reminded me of something I was told long ago.

Indigenous (Native or aboriginal) North Americans (First Nations and Inuit peoples in Canada) have withstood assault after assault after assault by the marauding European explorers, settlers and resource exploiters. Assaults on their territories, their livelihoods, their health, their sovereignty, their pride and their identities. 

And yet, they're still here. Try as my European ancestors might, they could not eradicate, annihilate, obliterate or even assimilate the people who were here first. The First Nations "won" (if we ignore the attempted genocide, disintegration of families and communities, continued discrimination, rampant poverty and associated widespread health problems) because of their resilience.

Aboriginal peoples around the world showed themselves to be resilient. And now, climate change is testing that resilience once again. Many Native communities are among the most vulnerable to the ravages of climate disruption.

*****

I'd never considered resilience as something that could be asserted. Yet, there it is, in a title: Asserting Native Resilience: Pacific Rim Indigenous Nations Face the Climate Crisis. This 2012 book edited by Zoltán Grossman and Alan Parker is a collection of Native and non-Native voices and perspectives on the climate change crisis. From the description:

"Indigenous nations are on the frontline of the current climate crisis. With cultures and economies among the most vulnerable to climate-related catastrophes, Native peoples are developing responses to climate change that serve as a model for Native and non-Native communities alike. 

"Native American nations in the Pacific Northwest, First Nations in Canada, and Indigenous peoples around the Pacific Rim have already been deeply affected by droughts, flooding, reduced glaciers and snowmelts, seasonal shifts in winds and storms, and changes in species on the land and in the ocean. 

"Having survived the historical and ecological wounds inflicted by colonization, industrialization, and urbanization, Indigenous peoples are using tools of resilience that have enabled them to respond to sudden environmental changes and protect the habitat of salmon and other culturally vital species. They are creating defenses to strengthen their communities, mitigate losses, and adapt where possible."

Winona La Duke, executive director of Honor the Earth and White Earth Land Recovery Project, said:

"In the times of the unraveling of our world, it is essential to stand against the combustion, mining and disregard for life. Life is in water, air, and relatives who have wings, fins, roots, and paws, and all of them are threatened by climate change — as are people themselves. 

"Grossman and Parker have done an excellent job in telling the stories of climate change, and the people who are standing to make a difference for all of us. Change is indeed made by people, and climate change must be addressed by a movement, strong, strident, and courageous."

Reviewer Chris Arnett suggests that "in promoting an indigenous worldview, there is a slight tendency throughout the text to essentialize Indigenous people for their unique resilience or capacity to weather change, when resilience is a characteristic of all people." He then admits, "All contributors acknowledge that Indigenous people, or any people in a close relationship with place over time, have unique firsthand knowledge of place and, as this book shows, science supports such a view."

*****

That reminds me of a suggestion that came up at the Council of Canadians AGM a year or two ago. Well, it came up in conversation out in the hallway, with someone who could maybe be considered a little "fringe." He thought that all Canadians should ask to be adopted by a First Nations band (tribe) and then renounce their Canadian citizenship. That way, he said, we could really join together to fight the federal government and their "Tar sands and pipelines of the people, for the people, by the people" philosophy. 

*****

You know how much I like synchronicity. At dinner with a friend last night, she mentioned a 2011 documentary called People of a Feather (see the trailer here), which tells the story of the Sanikiluaq Inuit community in Hudson Bay, whose traditional dependence on the eider duck has been threatened by giant hydro-electric projects. "Inspired by Inuit ingenuity and the technology of a simple feather, the film is a call to action to implement energy solutions that work with nature."

*****

Our friend at dinner also mentioned a segment of CBC Radio's Quirks and Quarks science show called The Mental Health Toll of Climate Change. It seems the resilience we spoke of earlier is starting to meet its match among Labrado Inuit as the changing climate impacts their traditional lifestyle so negatively. That's got to feel like a real kick in the teeth, after surviving so much.

Compassion Tune-Up: How Hot Will It Get in Their Lifetime?

How how will it get for a child born today?

Every time I turn around, I read or hear "two degrees." Two degrees this, two degrees that. Two degrees has wormed its way into our climate-changed brains as though it's a goal or a target we're aiming for, instead of a temperature rise we don't want to go near.

The Independent: "A rise of two degrees centigrade in global temperatures [is] the point considered to be the threshold for catastrophic climate change ...." 

The Conversation: "Two degrees [is] the temperature rise we need to stay under to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change ...." 

European Union: "Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 Degrees Celsius" 

The Guardian: "... the agreed 'safety' limit of 2ºC."

I've talked before (here and here) about the ill wisdom of setting 2ºC as some sort of guardrail, especially when we've got a bunch of yahoos driving the global go-karts. "Guardrail? Yeehaw, let's go for it!" Considering what's happening already with only an additional 0.8ºC of warming, how could anyone wish 2ºC on their progeny and descendants? 

Having said all that, if one recognizes the catastrophic danger that continued global warming poses, then one might find The Guardian's interactive How Hot Will It Get in My Lifetime? of use as a compassion tune-up. For example, here are screenshots for my birthdate versus the birthdate of my beloved niece. This helps me see that it's all inexorable without a huge push for zero carbon emissions.

Warming in my lifetime (click on image to see the whole graph)

Warming in my niece's lifetime (click to see the whole graph)

On current emissions trends (which show no sign of slowing, let alone stopping), when my niece reaches my current age in 2048 (and I'm in the ground or in deep decline), we'll have blown past the 2ºC "guardrail" and will be heading to over 6ºC of warming. 

By the way, here's how I look at that best-case lower limit of the range of warming. If emissions keep rising and the global temperature keeps going up, then there is no "best case." It's just a matter of the speed at which we're committing this greatest of crimes against humanity: progenycide.

Why Feeling Bad Could Save the Future

Today, we're giving compassion a holiday.

As I am insulted in my local community paper (for asking people to think about our children's right to a climate-safe future), and as the few friends that we have left admit that they feel uncomfortable when my husband and I (mainly I) talk with emotion about what we're doing to the future, I'm realizing that feeling bad could be what saves the future.

People know (don't they?) that the climate change denial machine was literally born out of and modelled on the tobacco industry's conspiracy to deny the dangers of smoking their cigarettes, including using some of the same bought-and-paid-for scientists.

But I sense that it's the internet that has allowed a real nastiness to creep into public affairs and public comment on them. When I feel bad, I want it to be for the children, not because of personal attacks against me. (When I am outraged by those who don't care about the kids, I don't use their names in my writings ... though I'm starting to wonder if that's more from cowardice on my part.)

I find myself longing for the anonymity of a large city where I could do my activist work with like-minded and like-hearted people and not be the target of ad hominen attacks. (They really know how to hurt a gal: "Julie Johnson" — see that? They didn't put the "t" in my name when they were slagging me! Grrr. But truly, what does it say about their credibility when they can't even spell my name correctly?)

In that particular letter to the editor, the writer said that my concern is "shrill hysteria" and that my departure will be welcomed by many. The letter didn't make much sense to me (he was responding to a terribly edited version of a carefully constructed letter of mine, so who knows what he actually read), but the writer raised two valid points:

1. It's not about me, and my departure (whatever he meant) doesn't matter. I don't give a damn about my life or my future anymore ... what I am working for, calling for, is acknowledgement from governments and others in power that we are threatening the lives and futures of all the world's children.

It seems that comfortable people in my society can't imagine the world without themselves in it, so they're not willing to picture the carbon-constrained and climate-changed future of food shortages and famines, floods and droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events. I wish they could take themselves out of that picture and focus on the kids. Or even just look around the world to see what's happening elsewhere already.

2. I AM hysterical! I am feeling absolutely, completely 100% hysterical (without the exaggerated aspect), and I am becoming shriller and shriller because nobody is bloody well listening! It's become quite obvious that I cannot get people out of a burning movie theatre if they're too comfortable to leave, but I won't stop yelling "Fire!" and I sure as hell am going to keep trying to pull the children out.

Well meaning friends keep giving me advice: don't get so emotional (we're talking about the future of all the children, of all species ... the potential end of life on Earth, and you don't want me to get emotional?), don't be so negative (you can check out my opinion of positive thinking in the face of global climate calamity here), be sure to offer solutions (let's get the kids out of the burning theatre before we sit down to discuss fire safety rules, shall we?).

It's not like, as one friend used to say, I'm a Cassandra (who, in Greek mythology, was gifted with the ability to hear the future but cursed so that no one would ever believe her predictions; "her combination of deep understanding and powerlessness exemplify the ironic condition of mankind," according to Wikipedia). I'm not so much predicting the future as seeing what's already happening and understanding the nature of climate feedbacks and knowing that we're heading towards a point of no return.

What really hit home recently (I've written about this before, but only just really "got it" yesterday) is why no one wants to hear and heed the warnings. Post World War II generations (my mother's, mine, my niece's) in EuroAmerican countries are soooooo comfortable that they live in a cocoon of entitlement, ease and luxury (compared with past generations of human beings). Added to that is the New Age "surround yourself with positive people" mantra. What we've ended up with is a big chunk of the globe who (literally, physically) recoil at hearing the sad and scary news about the climate change mess we've cooked up.

Now here's what makes it even worse. These people (and it's most of us) choose to avoid FEELING BAD today rather than choosing to avoid a climate hell for their children or grandchildren in the (nearer than we think) future. Am I articulating that well? People are refusing to FEEL BAD. They would rather condemn their children to future food shortages and famines than have to FEEL BAD today hearing and thinking about it.

To me, that is inexcusable. So, for 2012, here's to a year where people allow their hearts to feel the pain and their eyes to cry the tears and their minds to think about what we're doing to the children ... and then may they have the courage to speak up and do something about it. Even if it's just writing a letter to their elected representatives, because that's how we change political will.

Happy new year, folks. May we all feel this year, even if it's bad. Cuz feeling bad is better than not feeling.

Our Children Deserve Compassion, Not a Cavalier Wait-and-See Attitude

As some of you know, I try hard to not read comments on climate change and climate science blogs and websites, but sometimes succumb. I'm glad I did this time, because something has finally become quite clear to me — and that is the uncompassionate "reasoning" that underlies the deniers' demand that they be allowed to not believe in the impacts of climate change.

Here's how one such person put it recently in response to an article on Grist called Tea Party supporters far less informed about climate change than general public:

The point you are missing is climate science is NOT a hard science when it comes to predicting the consequences of any warming. All of these predictions are extremely dependent on the economic assumptions made and there is no reason to believe that any of the scenarios used have any connection to what will actually happen.

My reference to the economic studies simply illustrates that it is wrong to claim that AGW will be catastrophe. It could be. We could have a pandemic or an asteroid strike too. But we cannot know and reasonable people can disagree and it is wrong to claim that people who reject the catastrophe meme are 'uninformed.'

Do you see why I keep calling for compassion? I haven't often said (or even implied) it, but I am saying that our culture relies too much on the head, on reason — and not enough on the heart. Indeed, people like this aren't even willing to use their eyes!

This fellow is right that some climate "science" isn't hard science. That's the modelling mainly (more math and statistics and mucking about with computers, it seems to me ;-) — which is constantly being shown to be underestimating what is going to happen, especially since much of what was predicted is already happening! For example, some of the climate change models don't include feedbacks or synergistic effects or even biological/ecological considerations. But the other science — the laws of physics that tell us the atmosphere will continue to warm as long as we're pumping greenhouse gases into it — that is hard science. We cannot escape the laws of the universe.

The precautionary principle therefore tells us to approach this uncertain certainty (it is NOT certain uncertainty), not with the cavalier "and an asteroid could strike us, too," but with "if there's any risk at all to our children and their future, we should be doing all we can to avoid this catastrophe."

Please, folks, let's keep the children in our hearts, and our hearts at the centre of all our deliberations on global climate change.

Disclaimer: I am not American, so I don't really understand the terms Tea Party and Tea Baggers. I used to have tea parties with my dolls when I was a girl, and my British husband could probably be called a tea bagger, he likes his tea so much. But I haven't followed US events well enough to explain these terms to those not familiar with them.

Lovely photo by Darren Minke.

Presenting the Most Climate Compassionate Fellow in the World — My Husband!

My husband, Peter, has been working for decades on peace and environmental issues, and for 20 years or more on climate change. In the last few months, he has been focusing on getting the basic science out there (it is still poorly understood, if at all, by most people). Most recently, he has been preparing materials to help people attending the World People's Conference on Climate Change to understand that our food security is at grave risk due to the climate change emergency. His dedication is unceasing and a true inspiration — when it's not driving me crazy because I can't pull him away from the computer to come eat dinner!

Imagine, then, my delight at seeing the message below, posted on her blog and sent round by a fellow Canadian, Cory Morningstar of Canadians for Action on Climate Change, who will also be attending the conference here in Cochabamba, Bolivia. I was practically in tears, viewing my husband's commitment to this work through someone else's eyes like this.

Peter won't win awards for his cinematography, but please check out his videos on YouTube, especially those on food security and agriculture, so you can be among those who fight for the rights of all future generations. (Dare I call it progenyphilia, to counter the progenycide, a term I coined to explain that we are killing our descendants by our actions today?)

************

STRAIGHTFORWARD, NO FRILLS VIDEOS ON CLIMATE SCIENCE, AGRICULTURE, FOOD SECURITY, BOLIVIA and MORE.

A series by Peter Carter. Peter D. Carter, M.D. is a recently retired family physician and one of the founding directors of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). Through the 1980s for Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), Peter was a director of the Central Vancouver Island Nuclear Disarmament Association and made numerous presentations on the health effects of nuclear weapons on behalf of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. He was a children's environmental health consultant for the Canadian film, Toxic Trespass – one of many, many, accomplishments. See Peter’s full bio below. Peter is the climate policy advisor for Canadians for Action on Climate Change. Peter and his partner will be in attendance at the upcoming Bolivian conference.

Two degrees fatal to world food security

The two degrees C climate change target is disastrous for world agriculture, according to the science.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/4/hWVeEJ9_uxU

Climate change on food security

Climate change is disastrous to world food security because of multiple impacts on agriculture, which is being virtually ignored.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/2/UevF2I3t57Y

2ºC climate change world food supply suicide

Explains why the climate change food production models are gross under-estimates of the total impact. Why the 2ºC target is certain world food collapse. Why already the worst ever crime against humanity has been perpetrated.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/0/kFNMFwvU6nI

Climate change's terrible truth: Copenhagen Conference's evil outcome

The outcome imposed on the UN climate convention negotiations for the past two years at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in the worst crime against humanity and the greatest evil ever — or ever imaginable.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/14/T0CDVIMjvyY

Climate change's terrible truth: Copenhagen Conference's terrible evil

Series. All humanity and life on Earth are being condemned to virtual extinction by the leaders of the largest industrial nations. The world economy has the world fixed on a true Doomsday scenario on track for a 4.0ºC global temperature increase around mid century. What this means to us and our children is explained.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/13/lWG7g0jI7CI

Catastrophic Copenhagen Climate Accord

The Copenhagen climate 'accord' being forced on the world by the fossil fuel industrialized nations is a plan for the greatest evil ever.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/12/6mb1hxM8F7s

Climate Change Governance 2010

The 2009 US government climate impact assessment shows that in North America climate change is now impacting in all regions. We urgently need to establish climate policy and disaster emergency preparedness at the local and regional government levels.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/11/hujwVNFwLQw

Catastrophic climate change science series 1. Greenhouse gases are heat radiators

The basic greenhouse gas science proves that emitting them (constantly) is catastrophically dangerous.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/10/m6WyQe2QtB4

Science of catastrophic climate change 2

The many intrinsic aspects of the science that make emitting greenhouse gases more catastrophically dangerous.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/9/PM7U3e-CTpA

Science of catastrophic climate change (3)

Three intrinsic dangers - lag times, feedbacks and tipping points.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/3/-0cYiuqxr0A

'Climate change index' Intro

This new integrated climate science tool shows conclusively that global warming (heating) and climate change are progressing rapidly and extremely dangerously.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/8/alYDt4RKZ6s

'Climate change index' science of climate catastrophe

2nd of 2 parts on IGBPs climate change index making clear the catastrophic danger of GHG emissions.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/7/r5B6ucSYwV4

April 19 People's climate conference Bolivia - unofficial video

'Unofficial' in support of the Bolivian climate position and people's climate conference.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/6/zoGgSYpOFN8

Climate Justice April 19 People's climate conference Bolivia ('unofficial' video)

Supportive ('unofficial') video on climate justice through the Bolivian People's climate conference.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/5/EuwSQBVEaNA

Global warming: how hot can it get?

The climate change damage to human population health and survival will depend on the extreme of the heating (not the average), but this is virtually ignored.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=petercarter46#p/u/1/wNvG68-3HMg

BIO

Peter D. Carter, M.D. is a recently retired family physician. He is one of the founding directors of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). When his sons were born, Peter became actively involved in peace and environment issues, especially as they relate to children's health.

Realizing general medical training provided MDs with a special ability for holistic health assessment, integrated risk assessment and precautionary management, he saw he could bring this ability to the developing field of environmental health policy. His special interest ever since has been environmental health policy. He was especially involved in the development of children’s environmental policy.

Peter has been following the global warming and climate change research since 1988. His mission now is to spread the full truth about the risk and the magnitude of the global climate change emergency.

Through the 1980s, for Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), Peter was a director of the Central Vancouver Island Nuclear Disarmament Association and made numerous presentations on the health effects of nuclear weapons on behalf of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985.

On behalf of CAPE through the 1990s, Peter made many submissions as an environmental health policy expert to the federal government of Canada and the provincial governments of British Columbia and Ontario on:

• environmental health
• sustainable development and environmental health
• economic globalization and environmental health
• species at risk legislation
• revisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act
• children's environmental health, and
• global climate change policy.

As a founding director and driving force of the Nechako Environmental Coalition in Prince George, British Columbia, Peter worked during the 1990s on several successful environmental health legislation campaigns. These included the development of the National Pollutants Release Inventory, achieving federal legislation for dioxins and furans, preventing diversion the Nechako River (the largest tributary of the Fraser River) from industrial diversion, and regulation of formaldehyde emissions in the medium density fibreboard (MDF) industry. He has appeared once on Discovery Channel as an expert on toxins in the home. He has served as an environmental health consultant on air pollution issues.

More recently, Peter served as a director of Georgia Strait Alliance for several years, working to protect the marine environment along Canada's west coast from toxic pollution. In 2002, he was named in British Columbia’s Common Ground magazine as a Health and Toxics Reduction hero in British Columbia's environmental movement. He was a children's environmental health consultant for the Canadian film, Toxic Trespass.

Peter is presently working with the State of the World Forum Climate Leadership Campaign. He is a partner in GreenHeart Education (http://www.greenhearted.org), and climate policy advisor for Canadians for Action on Climate Change.

Peter is the co-author of Homo Sapiens! Save Your Earth from Mass Extinction Due to Global Warming (with Anthony Marr, 2008).

Present work

Peter has always seen as his responsibility to educate the public and governments on environmental health. Now he and his partner Julie Johnston spend their time on environmental educating for the health of the biosphere and the health of all future generations.

Never has a global environmental issue been more badly and poorly communicated than global warming and climate change. Badly because of the relentlessly ruthless campaign of disinformation by the fossil fuel funded skeptic campaign which, in the US, is more aggressive today than ever. Poorly communicated because the science is still not understood even by new science graduates.

Peter is extremely concerned that global climate disruption management policy practically ignores the principles of pollution prevention, precaution, polluter pays, internalization of environmental health costs, and full cost accounting, which were successfully agreed to under the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit Conference.

He is extremely concerned that the excellent 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity have been practically ignored in subsequent global climate change policy.

In particular he finds that global climate change has not been subject to integrated risk assessment or to catastrophic risk aversion.

He finds that environmental health is not at the centre of global climate change assessments and policy making. While children are the most vulnerable population in all regions to all adverse impacts of global climate change, they are not protected in global climate policy making.

He finds that the economic assessments of global climate change are perverse in ignoring full costs and benefits analysis except in part for the Stern Commission Economics of Climate Change 2006 report. He finds that global climate change policy proposals are not based on the published science.

In short, he finds the greatest ever threat to global environmental health has been and remains the worst ever managed. Now Peter finds that the survival of civilization, humanity and life on Earth are at extreme and rapid risk resulting from 15 years of unmitigated global greenhouse gas emissions with no plans to change from global suicidal fossil fueled environmentally perverse economic exponential growth.

70 Days - Another Reminder: Be Green, Go Veg, Save the Planet

Today, my husband and favourite climate hero will speak at a seminar called Creating a Healthy Planet with a Plant-Based Diet, which is sponsored by the Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association of Victoria, British Columbia.

If there's one leader on this planet who understands the urgency of the climate change emergency, it's Supreme Master Ching Hai. However she's done it, she knows — deeply, intuitively, scientifically — what's happening, and how we can — each us, by choosing what we put on our plates and in our mouths — influence the mitigation of climate catastrophe.

Supreme Master Television is focusing many of its programs on stopping the methane menace that comes with the animal breeding and slaughter industry. Here's just one of numerous videos on this crisis:

STOP METHANE-A Main Contributor To Global Warming @ Yahoo! Video

For more information on climate change and vegetarianism, visit Supreme Master Television. And remember, this is something you can do. You can control what food you buy and what food you eat. Moving to a plant-based diet will radically reduce your carbon footprint and the CO2 and especially methane emissions for which you are responsible.