skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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!
The 9th day of the 9th month of 2009. A good day to suggest that we all find out who our national climate negotiators are and what they're planning to take to the negotiating table in Copenhagen, and then start applying a little ... what? "Heat," as they say? Logic? Basic physics? Love and compassion?
I suspect we have some weird — and disingenuous — planning going on behind closed doors. It's time to swing those doors open wide.
A recent newspaper article here in Canada quotes our Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, who has been meeting with provincial leaders across this vast country to work out a "Canadian plan" before the Copenhagen climate talks in December. His words do not bode well for a Kyoto Protocol follow-up agreement that will safeguard the future of this planet: "I think there is a common position to be found. Before we get to Copenhagen, we want to have all our domestic policies on the table," Prentice said.
There is not yet any decision on how to deal with the Alberta oilsands.
"There is no plan to curtail growth," Prentice said. "Part of the question is how you develop a cap-and-trade regime that can accommodate that growth."
OUCH! Did I read that correctly? No plan to curtail growth? Accommodating tar sands growth in our climate change plan? It would seem our environment minister (in a minority government elected by a minority of Canadians in a so-called democracy that does not allow proportional representation) is wearing too many hats. It sure doesn't sound to me like the hat closest to his heart is the environmental hat.
People like this appear to (a) have no regard for their children's future (b) be completely scientifically and environmentally illiterate, and (c) think that people will be able to eat and drink money — and bitumen — when the climate $#@! hits the fan.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that we all do our best NOW to find out what our respective countries are taking to Copenhagen to put on the negotiating table. And I'm betting it won't be a lovely table cloth and a flowered centrepiece — at least not if you're from a country that can't conceive of a future beyond carbon!
As summer is now unofficially over here (most Canadian children head back to school today), it's a great pleasure to share this education-related compassionate climate action with teachers and non-teachers alike.
Lauren McClanahan is a professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington, USA — quite close to where I live. In her quest to help her student teachers understand the climate change emergency, she called on the voices of students in a small village in Alaska. In
Educating Heather,
McClanahan explains how she found a way to connect the hearts of her students to the climate change crisis:
No doubt my preservice secondary education student, Heather, is familiar with the topic of climate change. Everywhere we look, we see media coverage. But there still seems to be something missing. There still appears to be a disconnect, for my preservice teachers, anyway, between what they read about online and what they see in their day-to-day lives. And this has huge implications for their futures as public school teachers. One way to address this disconnect has been to put a face to the topic of climate change. By connecting all of my "Heathers" to students who live in places where climate change is having actual, observable effects, a topic that was once only theoretical to many of my students becomes real.
She explains that her students probably believe themselves to be "green," but when it comes to the catastrophic changes happening in the Arctic, for example, her students just don't see them. The "First Person Singular" project she undertook gave voice to thawing permafrost, disappearing fish stocks, changing migratory routes, and an unravelling subsistence culture that has lasted for thousands of years.
I won't say too much more. The article is beautifully written and evocative. Please read it!
And let's start looking for ways to help people really see and hear what's happening to those already impacted by climate chaos in the most climate-change-vulnerable regions of the world.
September 7 is Labo(u)r Day in Canada and the United States. (Anywhere else?) It's a reminder of the importance - and rights and responsibilities of working people. So here is my Labour Day post, dedicated to everyone who works for their money! May you (we) all find a powerful way to make our work and our workplaces part of the solution to global climate change. *****
Doesn't it feel strange to be sounding the alarm on an emergency that seems so far away (for some of us) and so, well, not urgent - yet? Where I work, people's eyes sometimes glaze over when I talk about global climate change, the way mine would if someone started talking about, say, rocket science, or stock market statistics. But we're not "crying wolf," as they say. We're talking about a vast, growing, picking-up-speed planetary emergency that will impact all life on Earth. Which is why I was glad - and inspired - to read about a new workplace based climate initiative in Australia: The Australian Conservation Foundation is working with 3000 workplace activists to encourage climate friendly behaviour in workplaces and homes by setting weekly tasks and targets. According to the press release, activists will also lobby politicians for strong policies to create up to one million new clean energy jobs, and urge Australian leadership at the Copenhagen talks in December. "Union members want to be part of the solution to climate change. We can make a big difference in our workplaces - from universities through to hospitality and manufacturing - and we will also be at the forefront in urging our political leaders to adopt a strong and decisive set of policies to cut Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and create clean energy jobs," said Australian Council of Trade Unions president Sharan Burrow. "If we do not take a lead on climate change action we will miss out on a global market in low carbon technology that is already worth $6 trillion."
Check out Union Climate Connectors for more information, and to get inspired about organizing the same sort of campaign where you live and work.
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.
