Global Warming


Between all the demands of life and my stilted attempts to keep up with the news, the climate talks at Copenhagen seemed to slip by with only minimal attention. I knew that the parties had failed to achieve any real progress, but my life kept on rolling by with only a little disappointment that once again the status quo had prevailed.  But when I read this email by Ben Stewart from Greenpeace, I felt angry. And I wondered why more of us are not angry, are not demanding that our leaders go back to the table and actually get something done.  With the hopes of driving a bit more anger, I’ve provided the text of the email here. Take a read…

“The most progressive U.S. President in a generation comes to the most important international meeting since the Second World War and delivers a speech so devoid of substance that he might as well have made it on speakerphone from a beach in Hawaii. His aides argue in private that he had no choice, such is the opposition on Capitol Hill to any action that might challenge the dominance of fossil fuels in American life. And so the nation which put a man on the moon can’t summon the collective will to protect men and women back here on Earth from the consequences of an economic model and lifestyle choice that has taken on the mantel of a religion.

Then a Chinese Premier who is in the process of converting his Communist nation to that new faith (high-carbon consumer capitalism) takes such umbrage at Obama’s speech that he refuses to meet – refuses, in fact, to do much of anything beyond sulking in his hotel room, as if this were a teenager’s house party instead of a final effort to stave off the breakdown of our biosphere.

Late in the evening the two men meet and cobble together a collection of paragraphs which they call a ‘deal’, although in reality it has all the meaning and authority of a bus ticket, not that it stops them affixing their signatures to it with great solemnity. Obama’s team then briefs the travelling White House press pack – most of whom, it seems, understand about as much about global climate politics as our own lobby hacks know about baseball – and before we know it the New York Times and CNN are declaring the birth of a ‘meaningful’ accord.

Meanwhile a friend on an African delegation emails to say that he and many fellow members of the G77 block of developing countries are streaming into the corridors after a long discussion about the perilous state of the talks, only to see Obama on the television announcing that the world has a deal. It’s the first they’ve heard about it, and a few minutes later, as they examine the text, they realise very quickly that it effectively condemns their continent to a century of devastating temperature rises.

By now the European leaders – who know this thing is a farce but have to present it to their publics as progress – have their aides phoning the directors of civil society organisations spinning that the talks have been a success. A success? This deal crosses so many of the red lines laid out by Europe before this summit started that there are scarlet skid marks across the floor of the Bella Centre, and one honest European diplomat tells us this is a ‘shitty shitty deal.’
Quite.

This deal is beyond bad. It contains no legally binding targets and no indication of when or how they’ll come about. There isn’t even a declaration that the world will aim to keep global temperature rises below 2 degrees C – instead leaders merely ‘recognise the science’ behind that vital threshold, as if that were enough to prevent us crossing it. The only part of this deal anyone sane came close to welcoming was the $100bn global climate fund, but it’s now becoming apparent that even that’s largely made up of existing budgets, with no indication of how new money will be raised and distributed so poorer countries can go green and adapt to climate change.

Not all of our politicians deserve the opprobrium of a dismayed world. Our own Ed Miliband fought hard on no sleep for a better outcome, while President Lula of Brazil offered to financially assist other developing countries to cope with climate change and put a relatively bold carbon target on the table. But the EU didn’t move on its own commitment (one so weak we’d actually have to work hard not to meet it) while the United States offered nothing and China stood firm.

Before the talks began I was of the opinion that we would only know Copenhagen was a success when plans for new coal-fired power stations across the developed world were dropped. If the giant utilities saw in the outcome of Copenhagen an unmistakable sign that governments were now determined to act, and that coal plants this century would be too expensive to run under the regime agreed at this meeting, then this summit would have succeeded. Instead, as the details of the agreement emerged last night we received reports of Japanese opposition MPs popping champagne corks as they savoured the possible collapse of their new government’s carbon targets. It’s not just that we haven’t got to where we needed to be, we’ve actually ceded huge ground. There is nothing in this deal – nothing – that would persuade an energy utility that the era of dirty coal is over. And the implications for humanity of that simple fact are profound.

I know we greens are partial to hyperbole. We use language as a bludgeon to direct attention to the crisis we’re facing, and you’ll hear much more of it in the coming days and weeks. But really, it’s no exaggeration to describe the outcome of Copenhagen as an historic failure that will live in infamy. In a single day, in a single space, a spectacle was played out in front of a disbelieving audience of people who have read and understood the stark warnings of humanity’s greatest scientific minds – and what they witnessed was nothing less than the very worst instincts of our species articulated by the most powerful men who ever lived.

I will leave the last word to the late Kurt Vonnegut Jr., who would have given voice to the insanity of Copenhagen better than I ever could, and whose poem Requiem is perhaps appropriate at this moment: ‘When the last living thing, has died on account of us, how poetical it would be if Earth could say, in a voice floating up, perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon, “It is done. People did not like it here”.

This is going to be an interesting story to follow. On Monday the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will determine if the government must regulate green house gas emissions under the clean air act.

The case was brought by Friends of the Earth US, numerous state (including my home state of California) and city authorities and NGOs. It’s just one of the latest tactics by those who care to chip away at all of the environmental protections that have been undone by the current administration.

The fact that the court is hearing the case at all is good news, because the lower appeals court sided with the current administration saying that the EPA should not regulate green house gasses. So there is something about the decision that they are not happy with.

The key questions being considered by the top court are as follows: First, does the EPA have the authority under the law to limit greenhouse gases? And if it has the authority to regulate, is it obligated to do so in light of growing evidence of the effect of greenhouse gases on climate?

The case is not expected to be argued to sometime this fall with a decision arriving in the spring. Stay tuned! For more check out the SF Chronicle Top court gets case on global warming California’s key law on auto emissions at stake in ruling.

You would think I’ve had enough of this global warming debate that is raging right now, but I just can’t get enough. On Tuesday the AP put out a story entitled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” that describes the results of a poll they took of over a hundred climate scientist including skeptics. Only 19 scientists polled actually saw the movie, but those gave it good marks.

Then today we see the Senate Committee on Environment & Public works issuing a press release entitled “AP Incorrectly Claims Scientists Praise Gore’s Movie” in which they blast the AP and go on to quote the usual skeptics who are on the payroll of large corporations trying to cast doubt on the science behind global warming.

This is getting out of hand. Why is the Senate wasting my tax dollars doing movie reviews? It’s important to note that is was a majority (republicans) press release by the committee – the minority (democrats) were busy introducing green building legislation while this was going on. I’m beginning to think this back and forth ping pong match has little to do with Global Warming and everything to do with politics.

Although with Exxon-Mobile footing the bill to the tune of $8 Million and other big-oil companies chipping in – I guess it’s possible to buy off a senator or two. James Inhofe is the majority leader of the committee that issued the press release, and it’s no surprise that the Oil and Gas industry is his top contributor.

It’s crazy to see them still bringing up this “hockey stick” argument again because this has long been laid to rest scientifically. (not necessarily politically) Even a National Academies Synthesis Report reafirms that the current warming trend is caused by human activity. The Real Climate web site summarizes it nicely.

“Despite the attempts of some commentators to attempt conflate the evidence for the existence of human influences on climate with the validity of a single reconstruction (e.g. that of Mann et al) it is quite clear that the evidence for anthropogenic impacts on climate is quite strong irrespective of whether or not the original “hockey stick” is correct.”

Even so, Inhofe has tried to co-opt this report and twist it to his own means and ends. But you can separate the Myth from Fact on the Real Climate web site. Inhofe is really starting to irk me.

A friend sent me a link to the article “The Least Convenient Truth” posted on Whiskey and Gunpowder by Jim Amrhein. It’s interesting to read his take on global warming and his misguided proposal about what to do about it. If it’s not already clear, let me state for the record that I definitely disagree with him.

Mr. Amrhein is one of many people drawing political lines around the issue of global warming – lining the left up on one side of the field and the right on the other. I guess it’s inevitable that this happen with Al Gore as the messenger, and the country so deeply divided across political lines. In any case it’s important to remember that whatever the long term effects of global warming end up being, they will affect all of us, our children, and our children’s children with little respect for political affiliation.

(more…)

The documentary An Inconvenient Truth offers the most articulate and disconcerting depiction of climate change I’ve ever seen, but I doubt it will make a difference.

Americans are busy with work, families, television, shopping and hobbies. Our culture encourages us to have a full life, yet we long for more free time. In contrast, consider the negative connotations associated with the idea of an empty life. If we have nothing, we are nothing. Thoughts and contemplation are not valued equally with activities and possessions. As a result we consume, schedule, and plan filling every minute of every day until there is no time left for anything else.

Making the issue of climate change relevant and raising it above other competing messages is a difficult task. It’s good to see that 100,000 people have pledged to see An Inconvenient Truth on opening weekend. But compare that to the 30 million people who watched the finale of American Idol airing the same day and we begin to see a different picture. It’s understandable in a way. Which story would you rather see? One person’s dream fulfilled today, or a hundred million dreams destroyed in the future?

(more…)

I caught the sneak preview of An Inconvenient Truth in Berkeley on Tuesday night a day before it opened. Given my true anal nature, I arrived over an hour early and was first in line. Maybe I’m a freak, but many people were turned away when they ran out of seats.

Al Gore did a great job in the film articulating the problem of climate change in a clear and articulate manner. Being enrolled in the Presidio School of Managements environmental MBA program, this was not new information for me, but the manner in which it was delivered was.

The charts, graphs, photos, and cartoons along with Al Gore’s surprising comfort and humor all served his purpose of educating people on the problem. I don’t think the film by itself will make people change their habits, as it takes more than a film to get people to change. But it will play a supporting role in helping people move one step further along the path.

(more…)

I was just reading on Treehugger how Fox News is gearing up the machine to debunk the new Al Gore documentary on Climate Change. On one side, it’s good the film is getting attention, but it’s interesting and predictable that they are shifting the discussion away from climate change to whether the film will put Al Gore in the White House – nice slight of hand to shift attention away from the more critical issue. I’m heading over to Berkeley tonight to catch a sneak preview of the film, more later.

I went to the movies last night and saw the trailer for the upcoming film, An Inconvenient Truth that’s coming out on May 24th. The film is documentary featuring Al Gore, and has been adapted from his lectures on global warming.

The film promises to be a clear, comprehensive, and thoughtful articulation of the problem humanity is now facing in global warming. Bringing a clear understanding of this issue to everyone is something that I’m passionate about.

I want to ask all of you to see the film on opening weekend (May 24th -28th) to help create a buzz around the issue. Bring your friends and family – put the word out – this is a film everyone must see.

I’ve made a pledge to see the film on opening weekend, and want to ask you to do the same by going to www.climatecrisis.net. There you can also watch the trailer and get more background on global warming.