“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”.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Amrhein makes the following point:

“That the MORE oil consumed by the U.S., instead of by GHG juggernauts India, China, the former Soviet Union, and developing nations in low-tech Africa (all Kyoto Protocol exempt, by the way), the LESS greenhouse gases will be expelled into the atmosphere…”

He backs this up with two metrics, Green House Gas (GHG) emissions per unit of oil consumed, and GDP per unit of GHGs emitted. His argument is that because the US performs better in these metrics then other countries that we should be the ones burning the oil and not them. In his mind, this will provide a reduction in overall emissions. But these figures only seek to mislead the reader and obscure the real issue.

This is not a contest to see who can burn oil the cleanest, but that we burn it at all. Even the cleanest burning fossil fuels will contribute extensively to global warming there just isn’t any way around that problem. Clean technologies and efficiency are part of the solution don’t get me wrong, but it’s critical that all countries act now to bring online more renewable forms of energy.

Looking at GHGs on a per unit of oil basis is misleading. The U.S. contributes 30.3% of the emissions that lead to global warming. The so called “GHG juggernauts” mentioned in the article collectively contribute 28.4%, and that’s when you also include South East Asia in the mix as well. Clearly the U.S. is the largest single contributor to the problem, but we are all in the same boat now.

The science tells us that one side effect of global warming is an increase in intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. We got a taste of this last year when Katrina hit the Gulf States, the estimated costs of which range anywhere from $150-200 billion. The kicker here is that these cleanup costs all contribute in a positive way to our countries GDP. So what the author is asking us to believe when he compares our GDP to the amount of GHG we emit is that spending dollars to clean-up the natural disasters caused by global warming is a good thing for the country. Come on!

Regardless of the metric, comparing one country to the next isn’t useful and creates artificial lines that don’t solve the problem. This is a world-wide issue, one that requires a world wide solution. The United States needs to take the lead in developing new technologies and putting them into broad scale use – this will drive down costs by creating economies of scale, and making these new technologies more cost effective then fossil fuels even if all negative externalities like pollution are not taken into account. This will create new industries in the U.S. which translates to more jobs, more exports, and a healthier economy.

One sign of progress I take solace in is that the author is not trying to argue the science anymore – he must realize, along with many others, that it’s a tactic that is no longer defensible given a more educated public. We probably have Al Gore to thank for that, and nearly 100% of the scientific community of course.

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?

This is a key challenge in communicating the climate change problem. Al Gore states the problem simply, clearly and with surprising humor, but the information can be so overwhelming that it freezes people in fear and despair. We must communicate the challenges in ways that motivate us to action, rather than frightening us into inaction.

If people can cross this chasm, they will begin to think about what they can do. Installing energy efficient lightbulbs, purchasing emission offset certificates for driving and flying, or taking public transportation rather than driving. These are all simple actions that everyone can do today that don’t take much time. But again we run into a major obstacle. It’s difficult to see how our individual actions will improve the whole, so many of us never bother. Only through hundreds of millions of individual changes, will we begin to make and see a difference.

While films like this one have the ability to lift us above our daily existence and inspire us to make changes, the result is often only a temporary state of being. Leaving the theater, the gravity of our daily lives brings us back into existing orbits and habits, and the inspiration we felt earlier fades from existence, leaving little lasting change.

People do not change often, and when they do it takes time. Barrett Brown of the Integral Sustainability Center says that “transformative communications face a major obstacle: people change their worldview rarely.” And Harvard developmental psychologist, Robert Kegan, points out that “it takes approximately five years to change a worldview if the right conditions are present.”

I think only a series of conscious-shifting events or a life-altering shock will put people on the road to permanent change. But even in this case, people must find time in their lives for reflection, considering what to change and how to change it. We also need an encouraging like-minded community to support the shift, or gravity will once again begin to do its work. So while I praise Gore’s efforts, the film on its own is unlikely to create lasting change. But if we look at it in the larger context of evolutionary change, we can see how the movie plays an important supporting role.

I raise these points not to dissuade people from seeing the movie, but to paint a fair picture of the challenges we face in moving society towards a more sustainable future. We must not despair at the difficulties facing us, but instead choose to act. Ask everyone you know to go see this film and to make one new change in their lives that will make a difference. It’s urgent that we begin the dialog on a broader scale now, but be patient and understand that this is just one of countless conversations that need to occur before evolutionary change can begin to unfold.

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.

I’ve written an Op-Ed piece on this topic which I’ve submitted to the NY Times, SF Chronicle, and SJ Mercury News—if it gets published I’ll post a link to this site. This was my first Op-Ed piece I submitted to a print publication, so you can see that the movie has motivated me to take additional action. This is good.

I want to ask encourage everyone to see this film, take your friends, and to commit to doing at least one new thing in your life to make a difference. Post comments to this site when you make a change. Here are some ideas excerped from www.climatecrisis.org:

Here’s how:

Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (cfl)
CFLs use 60% less energy than a regular bulb. This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. If every family in the U.S. made the switch, we’d reduce carbon dioxide by more than 90 billion pounds! You can purchase CFLs online from the Energy Federation.

Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer
Almost half of the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling. You could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has more tips for saving energy on heating and cooling.

Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner
Cleaning a dirty air filter can save 350 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.

Install a programmable thermostat

Programmable thermostats will automatically lower the heat or air conditioning at night and raise them again in the morning. They can save you $100 a year on your energy bill.

Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchases
Look for the Energy Star label on new appliances to choose the most efficient models. If each household in the U.S. replaced its existing appliances with the most efficient models available, we’d eliminate 175 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year!

Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket
You’ll save 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple action. You can save another 550 pounds per year by setting the thermostat no higher than 120 degrees Fahrenheit.

Use less hot water
It takes a lot of energy to heat water. You can use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of carbon dioxide saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year) instead of hot.

Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible
You can save 700 pounds of carbon dioxide when you air dry your clothes for 6 months out of the year.

Turn off electronic devices you’re not using
Simply turning off your television, DVD player, stereo, and computer when you’re not using them will save you thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide a year.

Unplug electronics from the wall when you’re not using them
Even when turned off, things like hairdryers, cell phone chargers and televisions use energy. In fact, the energy used to keep display clocks lit and memory chips working accounts for 5 percent of total domestic energy consumption and spews 18 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year!

Only run your dishwasher when there’s a full load and use the energy-saving setting
You can save 100 pounds of carbon dioxide per year.

Insulate and weatherize your home
Properly insulating your walls and ceilings can save 25% of your home heating bill and 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Caulking and weather-stripping can save another 1,700 pounds per year. The Consumer Federation of America has more information on how to better insulate your home.

Be sure you’re recycling at home
You can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide a year by recycling half of the waste your household generates. Earth 911 can help you find recycling resources in your area.

Buy recycled paper products
It takes less 70 to 90% less energy to make recycled paper and it prevents the loss of forests worldwide.

Plant a tree
A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Shade provided by trees can also reduce your air conditioning bill by 10 to 15%. The Arbor Day Foundation has information on planting and provides trees you can plant with membership.

Get a home energy audit
Many utilities offer free home energy audits to find where your home is poorly insulated or energy inefficient. You can save up to 30% off your energy bill and 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Energy Star can help you find an energy specialist.

Switch to green power
In many areas, you can switch to energy generated by clean, renewable sources such as wind and solar. The Green Power Network is a good place to start to figure out what’s available in your area.

Buy locally grown and produced foods
The average meal in the United States travels 1,200 miles from the farm to your plate. Buying locally will save fuel and keep money in your community.

Buy fresh foods instead of frozen
Frozen food uses 10 times more energy to produce.

Seek out and support local farmers markets
They reduce the amount of energy required to grow and transport the food to you by one fifth. You can find a farmer’s market in your area at the USDA website.

Buy organic foods as much as possible
Organic soils capture and store carbon dioxide at much higher levels than soils from conventional farms. If we grew all of our corn and soybeans organically, we’d remove 580 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere!

Avoid heavily packaged products
You can save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide if you cut down your garbage by 10%.

Eat less meat
Methane is the second most significant greenhouse gas and cows are one of the greatest methane emitters. Their grassy diet and multiple stomachs cause them to produce methane, which they exhale with every breath.

Almost one third of the carbon dioxide produced in the United States comes from our cars, trucks and airplanes. Here are some simple, practical things you can do to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide you produce while on the move.

Reduce the number of miles you drive by walking, biking, carpooling or taking mass transit wherever possible
Avoiding just 10 miles of driving every week would eliminate about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year! Click here to find transit options in your area. You can also offset the emissions from the miles you do drive at DriveNeutral.

Start a carpool with your coworkers or classmates
Sharing a ride with someone just 2 days a week will reduce your carbon dioxide emissions by 1,590 pounds a year. eRideShare.com runs a free national service connecting commuters and travelers.

Keep your car tuned up
Regular maintenance helps improve fuel efficiency and reduces emissions. When just 1% of car owners properly maintain their cars, nearly a billion pounds of carbon dioxide are kept out of the atmosphere.

Check your tires weekly to make sure they’re properly inflated
Proper inflation can improve gas mileage by more than 3%. Since every gallon of gasoline saved keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, every increase in fuel efficiency makes a difference!

When it is time for a new car, choose a more fuel efficient vehicle
You can save 3,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year if your new car gets only 3 miles per gallon more than your current one. You can get up to 60 miles per gallon with a hybrid! You can find information on fuel efficiency here and here.

Try car sharing
Need a car but don’t want to buy one? Community car sharing organizations provide access to a car and your membership fee covers gas, maintenance and insurance. Many companies – such as Flexcar — offer low emission or hybrid cars too!

Try telecommuting from home
Telecommuting can help you drastically reduce the number of miles you drive every week. For more information, check out the Telework Coalition.

Fly less
Air travel produces large amounts of emissions so reducing how much you fly by even one or two trips a year can reduce your emissions significantly. You can also offset your air travel by investing in renewable energy projects.

]]> http://www.shockstone.com/2006/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sneak-peak/feed/ 0 http://www.shockstone.com/2006/05/fox-news-attacks-an-inconvenient-truth/ http://www.shockstone.com/2006/05/fox-news-attacks-an-inconvenient-truth/#comments Tue, 23 May 2006 21:50:54 +0000 Matt Smith http://www.shockstone.com/2006/05/fox-news-attacks-an-inconvenient-truth/ 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.

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 24^th -28^th) 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.