Cassandras of the World, Unite and Be Heard!

I was never much interested in Greek mythology and didn't study it in school. In fact, I knew nothing about Cassandra until people starting calling me by that name. Suddenly Cassandra became a theme in my writings about climate change.

Today I want to say that it feels like the Cassandras of the world are starting to be heard — and believed. Which means, of course, that the deniers and Big Money and Big Oil are becoming more and more desperate and underhanded. But it also means that the Cassandras of the world aren't as lonely.

My husband stumbled upon this prescient ABBA song yesterday (video below). It's from 1982 and was the B-side (only oldsters will understand that reference!) to their song The Day Before You Came. "Pity, Cassandra, that no one believed you ... Some of us wanted but none of us would listen to words of warning."

To be clear, I'm not saying that I have Cassandra's gift (or curse) of prescience or clairvoyance. I merely make and take the time to keep up to date on the climate change science and then look around the world to see what's already happening. And I understand that what's befalling others will soon enough befall us. Then I make and take the time to write and teach about what I've learned. That's when I get called Cassandra.

Alas, there are more and more of us, and our collective voice is getting louder and louder. (It also helps that people are witnessing economic signs that the market is moving to renewable energy, even if our governments aren't switching fossil fuel subsidies over yet, which is deplorable and unforgivable.)

Enjoy this blast from the past, even if the message is a sad one. And hey, invite a Cassandra out for a tea or coffee this week!

Cassandra

(written by Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus; sung by Anni-Frid (Frida) Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog)

Down in the street they're all singing and shouting
Staying alive though the city is dead
Hiding their shame behind hollow laughter
While you are crying alone on your bed

Pity, Cassandra, that no one believed you
But then again you were lost from the start
Now we must suffer and sell our secrets
Bargain, playing smart, aching in our hearts

Sorry, Cassandra, I misunderstood
Now the last day is dawning
Some of us wanted but none of us would
Listen to words of warning
But on the darkest of nights
Nobody knew how to fight
And we were caught in our sleep

Sorry, Cassandra, I didn't believe
You really had the power
I only saw it as dreams you would weave
Until the final hour

So in the morning your ship will be sailing
Now that your father and sister are gone
There is no reason for you to linger
You're grieving deeply but still moving on
You know the future is casting a shadow
No one else sees it, but you know your fate
Packing your bags, being slow and thorough
Knowing, though you're late, that ship is sure to wait

Sorry, Cassandra, I misunderstood 
Now the last day is dawning
Some of us wanted but none of us would
Listen to words of warning
But on the darkest of nights
Nobody knew how to fight
And we were caught in our sleep
Sorry, Cassandra, I didn't believe you really had the power
I only saw it as dreams you would weave
Until the final hour

I watched her ship leaving harbor at sunrise,
Sails almost slack in the cool morning rain
She stood on deck, just a tiny figure
Rigid and restrained, blue eyes filled with pain

Sorry, Cassandra, I misunderstood
Now the last day is dawning
Some of us wanted but none of us would
Listen to words of warning
But on the darkest of nights
Nobody knew how to fight
And we were caught in our sleep
Sorry, Cassandra, I didn't believe you really had the power
I only saw it as dreams you would weave
Until the final hour
(I'm sorry, Cassandra)

So, Do We Really Have Time to Avert Climate Catastrophe? Yes, If We Deploy the Military

Anyone who understands the climate change emergency deeply knows that our Climate EMERGENCY Countdown is a desperate, last-ditch effort to ensure that world leaders at the Climate Summit this September in New York City get us on a path that at least gives us a hope in hell of a future.

Someone responded to the Countdown on FB by saying "This is a realistic plan, but it is also too slow. 2ºC is already locked in at present CO2, methane and NO2 levels. We need to slash the defense budget and use it to convert everything to renewable energy ASAP." 

Yup, all true. But if we start our decline in carbon emissions by next year, then we'll already be on a different trajectory -- one that gives us that hope in hell. And next year is as close to now as we're going to get. (Though the financial crash in 2008-2009 showed us how quickly greenhouse gas emissions can be turned around.)

Several years ago, we and Anthony Marr were talking about a Global Green Fund -- paid for by a 10% donation from each country's military. That would have got the ball rolling, but it didn't happen. (Indeed, ha ha ha ha ha. What were we smokin'?)

Doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea, or that my FB friend's friend's idea isn't a good one. Imagine a world where the soldiers are all busy, not fighting each other (and invisible enemies), but retrofitting whole cities and countries and kickstarting the solar age. Imagine armies of people taking constructive rather than destructive action. (Imagine the increase in military self-esteem!)

So, do we have time? Yes, just. But first, to ensure our success, we have some important things we need to do ... fast. And since we all know who can mobilize fast, let's ask the calvary and the National Guard and the King's Army and the FBI and the CIA and maybe the Mafia and street gangs, too, to lend us a hand. After all, they're all human beings with beloved children in their lives. Why wouldn't they want to help?

Can We Just Get On With the Transformation? Please?

Okay, I'll admit that my nerves are somewhat frayed from a busy week at work and the radiating pain of a pinched nerve in my neck. I might be feeling a little less compassionate and a lot more cynical this week. (Is it just me or do dastardly events pop up in the Middle East region whenever the American president's ratings dip or there's a presidential election coming up? Grrr.)

So this week, I would like to simply ask this. Can we not just get on with the critical transformation we have to make to the Golden Age of Solar and other perpetual energy technologies? Just in the last couple of days, I've received listserve messages that I'm sure have contributed to the pain in my neck! Let me give you a few examples:

"Activists on all sides of the argument can, and do, try to influence the political process. Problems start to arise when scientists jump from saying 'this is how things stand' to 'therefore you should do this.' As soon as they make that jump, they have entered the political process and are expressing a political opinion NOT a scientific one."

WHAT? Scientists who see and can understand what we're doing to the atmosphere and the biosphere (not many of us can actually grasp the processes at work in global warming and climate change) aren't being scientific when they beg, "STOP PUMPING OUT SO MUCH GREENHOUSE GAS"? So it's scientific to understand life, but not scientific to want to safeguard it?

As it is, there aren't enough scientists with guts and holistic vision speaking out at all. To then accuse scientists of being unscientific if they make the logical leap, well, I think we'd better figure out what our priority is. 

This commenter continued:

"Using a national survey, [So and So] has found that, among low-income and low-education respondents, climate scientists suffered damage to their trustworthiness and credibility when they veered from describing science into calling viewers to ask the government to halt global warming. And not only did trust in the messenger fall – even the viewers' belief in the reality of human-caused warming dropped steeply."

I think we'd also find that a lot of "low-income and low-education respondents" are still smoking and don't like wearing their seat belts. Why can't people see that this doesn't matter? Governments should be going ahead and creating the necessary transformation no matter who's on board, no matter who trusts which scientists, and no matter who believes what. 

Every day that we spew another 90 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the long-suffering atmosphere is another day that we're heading in the wrong direction. We can't take those 90 billion tons back! And 20% of that carbon dioxide will still be in the atmosphere 1,000 years from now. So quibbling and squabbling over whether scientists should have an opinion on what to do, oh my gawd! Can we all grow up now please and get on with the transformation?

This line (same commenter) cracked me up:

"At this year's [Such and Such] meeting, the President's address lamented the falling trust in science. If true, that would indeed be a sad state of affairs that society can ill-afford. However, scientists need to reflect as to how much of their own behavior in conflating science with politics may drive that decreasing trust."

What? Falling trust in science is lamentable? No! Falling ability to survive on this planet is lamentable! A sad state of affairs? Can we get our priorities right, puhleeze? A sad state of affairs is the drought that gripped the bread basket agricultural areas of the world this summer! And blaming scientists? Listen, if science shares the blame, it's only because science combined with technology had a hand in getting us into this mess in the first place. The fact that some scientists are trying to make up for this is a good thing, not something to bemoan.

Another commenter (same listserve, different topic) explained that "psychodynamically rooted perspectives concerning the management of anxiety" are equally compelling when it comes to looking at why people do or don't change their behaviour. I'm thinking that governments switching more than $1,000,000,000 (that's $1 billion plus) per year in direct and indirect subsidies that they give to fossil fuel corporations over to new perpetual energy companies – that would be compelling! Talk about behaviour change. Investors like to back a winning horse – and guess who would then have a chance at winning! 

This person (a professor) continued: "What I find is that students consistently are powerfully moved, motivated and impacted by any writings that bring into the frame emotional dimensions – that includes unconscious management of acute anxieties."

Just wait. They are definitely going to be moved, motivated and impacted by the climate change emergency! Think you're seeing "acute anxieties" now? Just wait till the Arctic summer sea ice – the Northern Hemisphere's air conditioner during our growing season – collapses completely if you want to deal with acute anxieties.

I don't know. Is it just me, or is there a lot of talking about bullshit stuff that just DOES NOT MATTER in the face of the climate change emergency? Why are we still sitting around talking about fire safety regulations while the Earth is burning?

Okay, okay, I'll go take a painkiller and a hot bath and see if I can shake my grumpiness. And maybe I should unsubscribe from that listserve for the sake of my blood pressure. But truly, folks, we need to make the swift transformation to the perpetual energy (renewable minus burning) economy yesterday! What is the hold up?

What Juices People? Money! What's Going to Save the World? Money!

Today's post is courtesy of a fascinating conversation I had this past week with a special young person in my life — a carpenter, an artist and a thinker all in one.

This is someone who understands that if you're not outraged by what's going on in the world, you're not awake. But, and I suspect this is due to his equally young wife's influence, instead of bitching about it, he reflects thoughtfully and comes up with solutions, both conceptual and material solutions.

Imagine my surprise and curiosity when he quite assuredly told us that environmental activism isn't going to save the world, money is. Making a lot of money. By creating huge economic opportunities that just happen to also be kind to the Earth. Here's my recollection of what he shared with us.

Saving the world has to make money. What binds people and ideas together? Money. Money is the glue in our society. Nobody's on your side otherwise.

Distributing an idea to save the planet? You have to sell it. And who's going to sell it? Only someone who is going to make a lot of money off it. Otherwise, you're spinning your wheels!

Forget every idea that isn't a revenue-generator. It has to be economically viable. If it can't compete in the marketplace, it's dead before you start. It's like you're knockin' on a big steel door with a dime. It's just not going to open.

Where is the money to fight the oil corporations? You don't have the money to fight them. Dress like them. Go to their meetings. Don't fight them, because you're going to lose. Do it the same way the corporations do it, but with different intentions. Use ethical underhanded conniving!

Get in the race, he entreated us. (But enviros "don't do money," I responded. We're not in the race because we don't see life as a race, but a walk in the forest.) Just as you cringe at the word "money," he told me, corporations cringe at "environment."

Go from fighting corporations — and being ostracized by corporations — to being in synch with them, inside them. Remember that just because you're a corporation doesn't mean you have to be exploitative. There are social enterprises, B-corps, etc.

Fixing these problems is not going to be free, it's going to cost a lot of money, in jobs and research especially. Take, for example, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The question isn't how to clean it up, but how to make money off cleaning it up (for example, recouping the oil in efficient, environmentally friendly ways). That way, the clean up doesn't have to depend on volunteers with lousy equipment.

For example, what's the only thing that's stopping shark finning? Tourism. Shark tourism. So boost that sector of the economy. Help people make more money by showing off sharks to tourists than by killing them for their fins.

Another example. Design a mid-sized gasifier, somewhere between a $20,000 bells-and-whistles Swedish unit and a backyard oil drum unit. Couple it with a compatible generator, sell it to farms. Waste biomass generates energy and then becomes charcoal, a fertilizer. Farms can become energy independent. Get Honda to run with this, but keep your finger in it so you can make money for the next environmentally friendly idea.

This change has to have its own legs and run by itself. People have to want this.

As someone with not one ounce of entrepreneurial spirit in her (note the complete lack of ads on my blog and website), this all came as quite a shock to my (belief) system. But I suppose what my young friend was trying to say was simply, "You have not been successful in beating them. Now join them."

One Month Until This Year's Climate Change Circus Begins!

From Bali in 2007 (when we still thought we had a chance to get it right) to Poznan (where nothing whatsoever seemed to happen), then from Copenhagen in 2009 (where Obama and his henchmen, including the prime minister of my country, threw every climate change activist in the world into a depression of some duration) to Cancun in 2010 (where the very courageous Pablo Solón representing Bolivia was the lone voice for a rapid and scientifically rationale response to the emergency), the UN's climate change negotiations have become more and more circus-like.

As in circus: |ˈsərkəs| A traveling company of acrobats, trained animals, and clowns that gives performances, typically in a large tent, in a series of different places.

The Durban Climate Change Conference starts one month from tomorrow, and will run from November 29 to December 9, 2011. Durban is a (mostly) lovely seaside city in South Africa; too bad it, too, will be turned into a circus. (The name "Copenhagen" is now associated with farce and failure.)

We've had a Bali Road Map, a Copenhagen Accord (see? nothing happened in Poznan, Poland), a set of Cancun Agreements — and still, absolutely NO national or international declaration that we've reached "dangerous interference with the climate system" (a UN Framework Convention on Climate Change trick: if we don't declare it, we don't have to do anything about it). NO declaration that we're in a global climate change emergency. NO emergency response. NO result from any of these conferences that has actually led to any nation, anywhere, moving toward a zero-carbon economy. (Even the disappearing Maldive Islands are only heading for carbon neutrality, not zero carbon.)

Where's our global imagination? Why aren't we excited about working together to envision the zero-carbon economy? (After all, it'll be safer, cleaner, healthier, more equitable and more peaceful than what we've got now!) Why do our leaders and negotiators feel such disdain for our (and their own) children and grandchildren? For our whole species? For life itself? Why do they act the role of such ecologically illiterate, callous clowns when they get together at these climate change conferences?

May this year's negotiators keep the world's most vulnerable, the children of all species, and future generations in their hearts and minds as they do their negotiating. Who else could they possibly think they're negotiating for???

*******

Hey, great cartoon, eh? I commissioned it from Stephanie McMillan, award-winning editorial cartoonist. If you want to use it, let me know and I'll send you a high quality version. Visit her Code Green website to see more ("Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down..."), or to commission your own cartoon.

Compassionate Climate Messaging

Something a bit different this week. I invite you to visit Joseph Romm's Climate Progress blog, and particularly his 5 January 2011 post, Why science-based (dire) warnings are an essential part of good climate messaging.

I found it fascinating not just to read that my instincts have been right all along (or at least vindicated by the small sampling in question), but to see the breadth of responses in the comments section. (Most are from people who understand the science of climate change, and a few actually speak to doing the right thing for our children and future generations.)

Here's the gist of a Berkeley study, as summarized by Joe Romm:

This study, if it proves anything, finds that the strongest possible s

cience-based messaging is effective. There is a vast sea of thorough scientific literature that makes the case that we risk multiple catastrophes if we don’t get off our current emissions path. Climate hawks should feel confident explaining to the public as clearly as possible the dire consequences if we fail to take action to reduce emissions together with the myriad cost-effective solutions available today that make averting catastrophe so damn cheap compared to the alternative.

[...] If people want to draw conclusions from the small sample of this study, then it would seem to be telling us:

1. The message that does work is we face Hell and High Water if we don’t act but fortunately much of the technology we need to solve this problem already exists.
2. The message that doesn’t work is that the problem is so hopeless science doesn’t even know where to start.

Anyway, if you're not a reader of climate change blogs, Romm's is a good one to start with. He chronicles both the catastrophic impacts we'll get (and that some parts of the world are already experiencing) and the solutions that already exist, just waiting for political will to change.

As I've been trying to get across to friends, family, colleagues, older students, neighbours and strangers for quite a while, making a (now urgent) transition from our fossil fuelled economy to a perpetual energy economy will create a world that is safer, cleaner, healthier, more equitable and more peaceful.

How's that for compassionate messaging? So far, I've never had anyone argue with me!

Now, go enjoy the straight up, unapologetic, wonderfully assertive writings of Joe Romm at Climate Progress.

Tell 'Em What to Do, Part 2 - Help "Seed" the Renewable Energy Revolution

Given that only a massive and complete transition to an economic system based on renewable energy (so, Capitalism, if you want to stay on top let alone stay alive, get with the program!), some would argue that my entreaty (see my post yesterday) to "decide to be uncomfortable and save the energy" if we can "save some energy by sacrificing some comfort for the sake of future generations" is useless.

Using less bad energy (fossil fuel-derived) is not the same as using good energy (from renewable sources). Less bad ≠ good.

My gut responds by saying that the transition — the revolution — to renewable energy isn't going to happen overnight, nor indeed any time soon, it would appear. (Oops, where's my positive thinking?) Wouldn't lowering our greenhouse gas emissions be better than doing nothing in the meantime?

One answer is that what we need to be doing is demanding that our elected leaders lead us in the direction of renewable energy — by writing, phoning, emailing, faxing and visiting them. By writing letters to the editors of newspapers and leaving comments on blogs and websites. By "seeding" and supporting the radical notion that we can make the world a safer, cleaner, healthier, more equitable, more peaceful and downright kinder place by switching to universally accessible sources of energy.

Another answer is that in the meantime, we ourselves can be creating a safer, cleaner, healthier and kinder world by doing all we can in our own lives to lower our GHG emissions. I believe it's a kind of gateway behaviour (just like recycling leads to other green efforts at home, or marijuana smoking precedes forays into heavier drugs). (Oops, not a great example! ;-)

If you can picture yourself as someone who is willing to make small sacrifices for the sake of the health and survival of your grand/children in the future, then you'll more likely be someone who encourages and adopts the transition to renewable energy when it starts picking up speed.

But honestly, I don't know the answer. I only pray that it's not too late to do the right thing — at all levels of society, from personal to global.

NOTE TO SELF: Bug my prime minister with ANOTHER letter! Copy that letter to all my friends, acquaintances and civil society organizations that I know. And maybe copy it to all the business supporters of the status quo that I know of. Start planting the seed there, too.

32 Days - Is This a First Step to Revamping Our Economic System?

Some good news from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) — a change that might make it easier to safeguard the future. The SEC made a decision recently that will make it easier for shareholders to request climate change risk disclosure from public companies.

This might not sound like much, but in the capitalist game, it could make a huge difference to the future. Everything bad that corporations do, they will tell you it's because they have to make money for their shareholders. At any cost, it sure seems.

More and more investors are filing resolutions requesting information about the financial risks companies face from environmental and social issues, such as climate change. In the past, the SEC allowed companies to reject these resolutions and keep them from going to shareholder vote.

Apparently, a favourable outcome for a resolution "would involve a negotiation between the company and shareholder, with the company agreeing to the demands and the resolution withdrawn. The company would then report on its progress of its commitment."

In this online article at ClimateBiz, we learn that in 2009, "U.S. and Canadian investors filed nearly 70 shareholder resolutions with an environmental focus, such as making companies measure and manage their greenhouse gas emissions or develop and share climate change strategies. This was an 11 percent increase over 2008."

"Some big-name companies that have bowed to shareholder pressure on changing their environmental policies include Home Depot, Chevron and McDonald's."

As You Sow focuses on corporate social responsibility, and they offer Unlocking the Power of the Proxy. If you own stocks, flex your shareholder muscles and put forward a resolution next year to have that company report their risk due to global climate change. You can ask them to report on greenhouse gas emission reductions, as well.

36 Days - Creating that Compelling Vision of a Renewable Energy Future

If you're following this blog, you'll know that I struggle with the 350 campaign. They're running a damn fine campaign, they know how to use the new media, and I'm sure their hearts are in the right place. Part of me has thought all along that we should be trying to get back to below 300 ppm, not just to 350. But I've finally figured out exactly why I struggle with it.

One of Canada's best known and best loved environmentalists, Guy Dauncey, talks of offering people a compelling vision of the future, a sustainable future, a future that will be safe and equitable for our children and grandchildren. I read something yesterday that helped me "see" the importance of creating this compelling "vision."

As an educator, I know that about 80% of us (at least in North America) are visual learners. We take things in and make sense of the world mainly through our sense of sight. For example, when I hear something spoken, I have to take it in, visualize it in my head, and only then can I respond to it.

I was looking through a week-old paper that described the October 24 - International Day of Climate Action events that were to take place in a nearby community. "Do Whatever It Takes to Get Us Below 350 ppm!" was the headline.

Raise your hand (yes, I'm speaking figuratively, unless you need the exercise) if you can picture what 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere looks like? Can you see in your memory that day in October 1989 when we surpassed 350 ppm? What did the sky look like before it became dangerously high in CO2?

Now try this. Raise your hand if you can picture a zero-carbon world. A world where we no longer burn fuel to create energy. A world of wind turbines and solar panels, tidal energy and geothermal installations to heat or cool our homes, to run our appliances, to move the public through transit infrastructure.

I did this at our local October 24 event, and I could see people's eyes going up, doing that NLP (neurolinguistic programming) thing that happens when we're trying to construct a picture of something in our mind's eye. Participants started nodding and smiling. Yes, they could picture a carbon-free world!

Once we can picture that zero-carbon world, it's easy to discuss and picture how to get there: a zero-carbon economy that subsidizes renewable energy and taxes carbon and other forms of pollution; moving towards self-sufficiency in our food and energy production; giving up meat as a gift to our grandchildren; staying closer to home and taking 100-mile vacations; doing all this out of compassion for the people already horribly impacted by climate disruption in Africa, the Arctic, the small island nations, and, increasingly, all those depending on water sources that are drying up, even if just seasonally.

Even if we're able to picture 350 ppm (other than on a graph), then what? The concept doesn't hold within it the compelling picture of how to get there.

So, the most important number in the world is still that zero at the end of 350.

San Francisco's new LEED Platinum California Academy of Sciences Museum

43 Days - The mOst impOrtant number is zerO

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Three-fifty is a red herring. The most important number is ZERO. We have to get our carbon emissions to virtually zero. We have to stop burning fuels and make the transition to energy that isn't created by burning.

So, as we all go about "celebrating" (??) International Day of Climate Action — on the day after world leaders decided that the Copenhagen climate talks are going to be a big huge flop — let's remember that the most important number in 350 is that zero at the end.

Let's ensure that this crisis of imagination ends. Let's make sure that we push (whether gently or kicking and screaming) our civilization into a new era — the era of safe, clean, healthy, equitable and peaceful renewable/perpetual energy.

Let's help people see the possibilities that making this switch will bring ... a giant boost to the economy, tons of new jobs, lots of opportunities for retraining, massive public spending on things that are good for the health of citizens.

Raise your hand if you don't want this kind of future for your children. Keep your hand up if you prefer your grand/children to go through their life with food shortages, dangerous weather events, scarcity of drinking water, conflict over natural resources. Raise both hands if you don't give a flying $#&! about the hundreds of thousands of people killed each year by global climate disruption (coming soon to a theatre near you), or the millions already impacted by droughts and floods and disastrous climate-change-related weather events.

Glad to see both your hands are in your lap. Thank you for caring.

Remember zero. Talk it up. Zero carbon emissions as quickly as possible, by making the world a way better place.

51 Days - Denier-Free Days Declared!

As I was "googling" for something recently, I came across an old blog headline: "Sun Going Down on the Climate Skeptics." And my first reaction was an insolent "Why do we have to fight climate change AND climate change deniers? The job is big enough without people denying that the fight is even necessary."

I would like to run with that headline and declare the rest of 2009 Denier-Free Days! Let's just ignore them and maybe they'll go away (though that never worked when my mom suggested it as a way to get rid of my pesky brothers). Let's not allow any of their stupid-ass comments on our blogs anymore. (What's a little denier/skeptic censorship compared with safeguarding the biosphere?) They have had their day — and stolen the future.

Let's quit being nice to them. One should not be nice to bullies — one should be pleasant yet assertive. But wait ... why should we even be pleasant? These people (especially the mad, egotistical scientists among them) are responsible for the greatest crime against humanity ever: PROGENYCIDE! Because of them and their deadly obfuscating and procrastinating, we are now knowingly killing off future generations, of all species (except maybe jellyfish and bacteria).

Why are the people who are defending the rights of children to a future worth living for NOT willing to adopt the tactics of "the other side"? Why ARE we so polite, even in the face of climate catastrophe? Let's look at it from the perspective of Pascal's wager: if they're right and we're wrong, no one has been hurt (though a few wealthy dudes have had to share a bit of their money with the people they exploited in the making of it) and the world becomes a safer, cleaner, healthier, more equitable and more peaceful place; if they're wrong and we're right, life on Earth is doomed without our full and immediate attention to reaching zero carbon.

I know where I'm putting my money! So, with this declaration of Denier-Free Days (October 16 to December 31, 2009, and then, hmmm, yes, January 1 to the end of time), I am giving deniers and skeptics no more of my time, no more of my space, no more of my attention, and no more never-mind (whatever that expression means).

Poof! They're gone. They no longer exist. I'm fighting climate chaos for the sake of the children, and I am heretofore assuming every other human being wants to do the same.

79 Days - Why Does It Seem So Simple from Here?

There are lots of rumblings these days that the December climate talks in Copenhagen are not going to yield the needed agreement. Indeed, Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in an interview with Environment & Energy Publishing, seems to have lowered his expectations considerably, outlining what he sees as the four "essentials" for an international agreement in Copenhagen (Yvo de Boer is one of my climate change super-heroes, but I fear his super powers are fading):

1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases? [Me: With all due respect, putting "industrialized" and "willing" in the same question is begging for climate catastrophe.]

2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions? [Me: There can be no more growth in GHG emissions! Those days are gone. We must aim for zero. For the sake of all the children in China and India, too.]

3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed? [Me: I've got that one figured out below.]

4. How is that money going to be managed? [Me: Ditto. It's called a Global Green Fund. See below.]

“If Copenhagen can deliver on those four points, I’d be happy,” says Yvo de Boer. [Me: Happiness is not a destination, but a way of travel. Please, Sir, don't give up now.]

*********

Well, Mr. de Boer has been trying heartily to make something of the new international agreement, but he's not asking for enough. Here's how simple it could be:

1. Every nation on Earth must — and is going to — get to zero carbon emissions as rapidly as possible, and certainly within a timeframe of years, not decades (which we don't have). That's it. No questions asked. Abiding by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (which almost 192 nations signed onto, including the USA, and ratified) demands it. Our collective duty is to avoid "dangerous interference with the climate system." We've already failed the millions of human beings already impacted, but that in no way lessens our ethical responsibility.

2. This is not a competition (unless friendly competition will serve to make you work harder and move faster). This is an international — call it universal — cooperative venture on behalf of all future generations, of all species, but especially our own.

3. Oil, coal and natural gas are dead. Grieve their demise if necessary (don't be too sad, those fossil fuels aren't going anywhere — well, unless Kuwait pulls that nasty slant drilling stunt again) and get on with the rapid and radical global transformation to a renewable-energy-based economy.... an economy that is safer, cleaner, healthier, more equitable and more peaceful. Go, go, go!

4. Several developing nations are amongst the largest populations on Earth. Think China, India, Indonesia, Brazil. Now picture how many geniuses, innovators, entrepreneurs and whiz kids live in each of those countries. THAT'S where our funding should go (not to nations, who will squander it pandering to the fossil fuel corporations who haven't read #3 above).

5. With fossil fuels out of the picture (the appropriate carbon tax — one that truly pays for the environmental and social devastation of carbon emissions — should do the trick), the new economy should naturally put its money where it's needed (isn't that what economists are always trying to tell us?). But if that doesn't happen, then all the carbon tax money could go directly into a Global Green Fund to finance the transformation.

Please, Mr. de Boer, don't stop posing the right questions or asking for what we need if, as I know is your goal, we're to leave our grandchildren a future.

84 Days Left and Our Economic Paradigm Still Doesn't Get It

Headline on the front of the Report on Business in the Globe and Mail (Canada's national newspaper), 11 September 2009:

"Either you grow or you die"

No, wrong, false. When are economists and businesspeople going to get it? We can't keep growing. Continuous growth = obesity or, worse, cancer. Children grow, trees grow, young businesses grow. The rest of us have to turn to development that is sustainable. (Gee, that sounds familiar. 1987? Brundtland Report? 1992? Rio Summit? Hmmm.)

The Western (and increasingly globalized) economic paradigm must change.

Green design guru, Bill McDonough, puts it another way. The question, he suggests, isn't growth-no growth. The question is, What do we want to grow? Sickness, or health? Poverty, or prosperity? We wouldn't tell a tree not to grow, he points out. But trees don't suck up natural resources, destroying them forever in the process. When trees suck up natural resources, they transform them into beauty, oxygen, food (seeds/fruit/nuts), biomass, erosion control ... and then everything gets recycled again.

The other part of the Globe and Mail story that hurts is that it's about growing an auto parts company into an automaking company. Why, in the midst of a global climate change emergency created mainly because of fossil fuel burning in internal combustion engines, do we still live in a society that allows businesses to do suicidal things like this? Where is Roosevelt when we need him? Someone to tell the automakers that they ain't makin' autos anymore. Nope, they're all going to turn their attention — and their facilities — to the manufacture of renewable energy technologies and infrastructure. Now.

Lester Brown, of the Earth Policy Institute and Plan B 3.0 (now 4.0) fame, is an agricultural economist who understands ecology. In the two videos below, he explains that we need a restructuring of the economy and a war-time mobilization to stabilize climate, stabilize population, eradicate poverty and restore damaged ecosystems. In this first video, watch especially from 4:45.

In the second video, listen especially for the story starting at 4:20. It's sheer inspiration!

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!

124 Days to Copenhagen - Life Without Agriculture

I've discovered that some people who at least are thinking about the climate change emergency are perhaps thinking the wrong things.

Apparently there's a belief out there that we're going to end up back in a feudal system, whereby today's rich people become tomorrow's rich people, and the rest of us become peasants, serfs or slaves. Our toil (rather than oil) then becomes the engine of that feudal society.

The big problem with that prediction is that the feudal system was based on agriculture, but climate change is going to do away with agriculture. If we don't make the transformation to a renewable energy / zero carbon economy fast, then that climate stability that allowed civilizations to flourish (because of agricultural surpluses) will disappear, leaving us basically back in the stone age, if not gone.

The grim irony is that the deniers like to tell their audiences that we environmentalists would have us all living back in the stone age, when it's their foot dragging over at least two decades now that will lead to a climate holocaust and then a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for any that might remain.

It's the physics, folks, pure physics. We're still pumping more and more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. They warm the atmosphere, heating up the surface of the planet, which includes the oceans. If we don't stop very soon and start going in reverse, this will mean disaster for agriculture, disaster for our food security, and disaster for our children's future.

135 Days Left - The Kids, Always the Kids (A Guest Blog)

Today's post is from Lou Grinzo, a new online friend from The Cost of Energy, in response to my suggestion that some compassion towards all the children could go a long way.

*******

I had a chance to present to 10 classes at a local middle school on the topic of electricity generation. I talked about conservation steps they can take, which fuels we use here in the United States, and how much CO2 each emitted.

I was shocked by the determination of these kids. Their teacher had already covered a lot of ground with them on climate chaos, so they had at least a rough idea of how bad CO2 emissions are. And they were NOT going to listen to some old guy like me telling them it was a tough problem. They wanted me and all the other clueless, can't-work-an-iPod-and-don't-know-Facebook-from-a- hole-in-the-ground adults to get the heck out of the way so they could fix it. NOW!

And this all happened even before I apologized to them. I told them that my generation had really screwed up the planet, and that we were leaving them with a gigantic mess to clean up. The look on their faces was amazing. I guess they're not used to adults apologizing to them.

The one thing they couldn't get their heads around was why things had gotten this bad, and why we (meaning the people running the planet) hadn't started doing a lot more about it 20 or 30 or more years ago. I tried my best to explain that a lot of the emissions, starting with the Industrial Revolution, happened before we realized what we were doing. And by the time we figured it out we had built so much of our economy around burning fossil fuels, and there was so much money involved (as in buying politicians), that it became impossible to make large scale changes until things got really bad - like now.

I came out of those days exhausted and invigorated, saddened and hopeful. I think I learned a lot more from them about our future than they learned from me.

Fix this for the kids. And they are all our kids, whether they carry our DNA or not.

Thanks, Lou. I know what you mean.

187 Days More Days to Copenhagen - Spreading a Compelling Vision of the Renewable Energy Future

Had a great lunchtime conversation with a friend and colleague in environmental education. It's so good to sit under a tree and chat with a like-hearted soul. (Thanks, Cate! What's below is not a reflection on you, but an indication of the courage you helped me muster today.)

The global warming deniers and skeptics have done such an excellent (= terrible) job of obfuscating the truth about climate change, and are, in my opinion, criminally negligent for the potentially fatal procrastination they have caused.

Alas, despite these liars, nasty twits and ecologically illiterate ignoramuses (yes, there are times when blame and name calling are in order, especially when the children of all species are the ones who will suffer — who are already suffering — from the evil deeds of these people, who must hate their own children and grandchildren) ... despite them, Joe and Joan Q. Public can't possibly, given the choice, choose a

• dangerous
• dirty
• unhealthy
• inequitable
• war-mongering

fossil fuel economy over a

• safe
• clean
• healthy
• equitable
• peaceful

renewable energy economy.

Can they? Why aren't we all clamouring after this? Writing to all our elected officials about this? Letting them know that we want this?

Let's spread this compelling vision of a renewable energy future. Let's use this mantra:

• safe
• clean
• healthy
• equitable
• peaceful

to explain to people why they're going to love this giant transformation to a renewable energy economy!

SAFE ... CLEAN ... HEALTHY ... EQUITABLE ... PEACEFUL ... RENEWABLE ENERGY ECONOMY

Say it with me....