Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet

  My Profile  Log In   Register Free Now   
Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet Planet Thoughts Advanced       Click to see one of our videos, chosen at random from the database, along with its PlanetThought
 Try a video
Home   About   Books&Media   Resources   Contact  
   News   Quote   Review   Story   Tip   All   Blogs   News   Quotes   Reviews   Stories   Tips
Get Email or Web Quotes
or use our RSS feeds:
New Feed:  Fossil Fuel
 Full  Blog  News
Read & Comment:
A Solar Community In Isr...
'Let's You And Him Fight...
Paul Krugman's Errors An...
Why Climate Change Is An...

Most recent comments:
From Farm To Fork
A Simple List: Things We...
Can the affluent rest at...

Bookmark the site
Contribute $
Easy link from your site
Visit Second Life
Visit SU Blog

Blog item: Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near on Global Warming

    Email a Friend     See Related

8 comments, last: Jun-28-2008   Add a comment   Author: GuestWriter (Jun-28-2008)    Play a Video
Categories: Global Warming, Renewable Energy Sources, Wildlife and Nature

Keep it cool! If you can

By Dr. James Hansen of NASA, from multiple sources, June 23, 2008:

Today I testified to Congress about global warming, 20 years after my June 23, 1988 testimony, which alerted the public that global warming was underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.

Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.

The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next president and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation.

Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control.

Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals.

I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year.

On June 23, 1988 I testified to a hearing, organized by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible. I noted that global warming enhanced both extremes of the water cycle, meaning stronger droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and floods.

My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism. But while skepticism is the lifeblood of science, it can confuse the public. As scientists examine a topic from all perspectives, it may appear that nothing is known with confidence. But from such broad open-minded study of all data, valid conclusions can be drawn.

My conclusions in 1988 were built on a wide range of inputs from basic physics, planetary studies, observations of on-going changes, and climate models. The evidence was strong enough that I could say it was time to "stop waffling." I was sure that time would bring the scientific community to a similar consensus, as it has.

While international recognition of global warming was swift, actions have faltered. The U.S. refused to place limits on its emissions, and developing countries such as China and India rapidly increased their emissions.

What is at stake? Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land areas, seems almost innocuous, being less than day-to-day weather fluctuations. But more warming is already "in the pipeline," delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean. And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a "perfect storm," a global cataclysm, are assembled.

Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.

More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well under way, it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely within a century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees, and no stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.

Animal and plant species are already being stressed by climate change. Species can migrate in response to movement of their climatic zone, but some species in polar and alpine regions will be pushed off the planet. As climate zones move farther and faster, climate change will become the primary cause of species extinction. The tipping point for life on the planet will occur when so many interdependent species are lost that ecosystems collapse.

The shocking conclusion, documented in a paper2 I have written with several of the world's leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million), and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. Shocking corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.

These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to today's carbon dioxide amount. The consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases extend far beyond extermination of species and future sea level rise.

Arid subtropical climate zones are expanding poleward. Already an average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, Australia and southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.

Mountain glaciers are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people. These glaciers are receding world-wide, in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains. They will disappear, leaving their rivers as trickles in late summer and fall, unless the growth of carbon dioxide is reversed.

Coral reefs, the rainforest of the ocean, are home to one-third of the species in the sea. Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean acidification, a direct effect of added carbon dioxide. Ocean life dependent on carbonate shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes more acid.

Such phenomena, including the instability of Arctic sea ice and the great ice sheets at today's carbon dioxide amount, show that we have already gone too far. We must draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide to preserve the planet we know. A level of no more than 350 ppm is still feasible, with the help of reforestation and improved agricultural practices, but just barely – time is running out.

The steps needed to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs. Coal towers over oil and gas. Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is captured and stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming.

Oil is used in vehicles, where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that the next mobile energy source is not obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason that prices are rising. We must move beyond fossil fuels eventually. Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly.

Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook discussions.

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. If their campaigns continue and "succeed" in confusing the public, I anticipate testifying against relevant CEOs in future public trials.

Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species would leave a more desolate planet.

If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We must demand a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. We must block fossil fuel interests who aim to squeeze every last drop of oil from public lands, off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no solution. They provide continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted self-serving industry, but no alleviation of our addiction or long-term energy solution.

Moving from fossil fuels to clean energy is challenging, yet transformative in ways that will be welcomed. Cheap, subsidized fossil fuels engendered bad habits. We import food from halfway around the world, for example, even with healthier products available from nearby fields. Local produce would be competitive if not for fossil fuel subsidies and the fact that climate change damages and costs, due to fossil fuels, are also borne by the public.

A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax. Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is needed to wean us off fossil fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.

Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the first point of sale or port of entry. The entire tax must be returned to the public, an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual's bank account.

Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is non-regressive. On the contrary, you can bet that low and middle income people will find ways to limit their carbon tax and come out ahead. Profligate energy users will have to pay for their excesses.

Demand for low-carbon high-efficiency products will spur innovation, making our products more competitive on international markets. Carbon emissions will plummet as energy efficiency and renewable energies grow rapidly. Black soot, mercury and other fossil fuel emissions will decline. A brighter, cleaner future, with energy independence, is possible.

Washington likes to spend our tax money line-by-line. Swarms of high-priced lobbyists in alligator shoes help Congress decide where to spend, and in turn the lobbyists' clients provide "campaign" money.

The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our planet, creation, for our children and grandchildren, but do not use that as an excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be our motto: "One hundred percent dividend or fight! No more alligator shoes!"

The next president must make a national low-loss electric grid an imperative. It will allow dispersed renewable energies to supplant fossil fuels for power generation. Technology exists for direct-current high-voltage buried transmission lines. Trunk lines can be completed in less than a decade and expanded analogous to interstate highways.

Government must also change utility regulations so that profits do not depend on selling ever more energy, but instead increase with efficiency. Building code and vehicle efficiency requirements must be improved and put on a path toward carbon neutrality.

The fossil-industry maintains its stranglehold on Washington via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to rationalize inaction. In fact, we produced most of the excess carbon in the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly in developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing countries can be allowed limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose from climate change and much to gain from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

We must establish fair agreements with other countries. However, our own tax and dividend should start immediately. We have much to gain from it as a nation, and other countries will copy our success. If necessary, import duties on products from uncooperative countries can level the playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool.

Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, if Washington adapts to address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great expectations.

Related reading:
  Happy 35th Birthday, Global Warming! (Aug-27-2010)
  Surface Temperature Analysis By Goddard Institut... (Aug-15-2010)
  Participate in International Day of Climate Action (Oct-23-2009)
  At last a glimmer of leadership on climate [UK] (Apr-25-2009)
  'We Have Only Four Years Left to Act on Climate ... (Jan-20-2009)
  George Bush Tried to Kill Bambi in Mac-Attack (Dec-16-2008)
  Carbon Dioxide Levels Already In Danger Zone, Re... (Nov-9-2008)
  Obama's Environmental Challenge and the Waiting ... (Nov-7-2008)
  Ending Coal: Climate Science That Matters (Sep-14-2008)
  Earth threatened, problems proliferate: what are... (Jul-17-2008)

Click one tag to see readings related specifically to that tag; click "Tags" to see all related readings
^ top
Add a comment    
  Follow the comments made here? 
  (Please log in or register free to follow comments)
Comment by:  PT (David Alexander) (Jun-28-2008)   Web site
I appreciate your comments, AG, and I do not consider you to be a denier. I would say a "climate change denier" is someone who opposes the idea of human-caused climate change for reasons of which he or she is not actually aware, and who appears to engage in debate but does not truly understand or pay attention to the points made by the other person. However, there are differences in interpretation. For one, I believe that humanity is ultimately good, and far more than a sex-and-hormone controlled animal-like being. We may still screw up the planet and go through horrible conditions due to our shortcomings, but one day in the future, far away, I see the higher aspect of humanity triumphing, and a re-building of whatever forms of society can exist under those future conditions, whether that society will be "advanced" or not.
Comment by: auntiegrav (auntiegrav) (Jun-28-2008)   

p.s. Agreed on principle: REASONABLE expectations using money as a tool to achieve reasonable goals. However, "reasonable human" is an oxymoron. Humans are just walking bags of hormones who THINK they make decisions and take actions based upon logic and reason, but even recent studies show that our decisions are made through emotional programming up to 10 seconds before we thought we made them. Knowing about it doesn't help, either. As is readily demonstrated by my presence on this computer when I should be outside working.
The only real choice we ever make is when we choose not to act on something..unless we are frozen in fear. Pretty much everything else that humans do is simply glorified sexual motivation, less sophisticated than the interspecies communications between plants and insects.
Comment by: auntiegrav (auntiegrav) (Jun-28-2008)   

You assume too much.
Sensitivity and Sophistication are the hallmarks of Civilization, correct?
Civilization is technically 'city-based' society. Cities are inherently unsustainable, and thus, sophistication and money-based living are unsustainable. If you cannot imagine how this works, you are not as sophisticated as you think you are. Money represents the value of a human being's time and real needs. If a system is used that detaches the value of a human being from the human being (usury), then it will always lead to the money itself being considered more valuable than the human beings that create the money by sacrificing their time and being coerced to live in such a way that their needs are always not quite met.
We tell ourselves that we are reaching for the sky, but we are simply piling death upon the land which gave us life and a few manage to climb to the top of the pile and say, "See! I have all of this money, so God/Destiny/Fate favors me over you! Sacrifice your lives to maintain my position above you!"
It's all in the marketing. Marketing is just the modern term for Religion.
Comment by:  PT (David Alexander) (Jun-28-2008)   Web site

Hello, AuntieGrav. I doubt you are in a position to tell me that I am "getting there". My own background is rather sophisticated. However, I try to keep an open mind and listen to most people a lot before pushing back. There seems to be a dogma about purchasing being bad, and money being bad. It seems to me they are fine - the minds of our civilization, the lack of sensitivity and sophistication, those are the problem! To mistake a great number of possessions (including money, objects, power, or fame) as being the best chance to achieve happiness, that is the problem. The trouble is not caused by the availability or use of money guided by reasonable expectations. Agreed?
Comment by: auntiegrav (auntiegrav) (Jun-28-2008)   

You're getting there, David. The key words you use are "reduced purchasing activity". The economy is not the country, it is an aftereffect of purchasing activity. The stock market is only a tool of the rich to increase purchasing activity. ALL purchasing activity increases demands for resources, so why target a narrow factor when the problem is a broad-based, Net Consumptive societal structure? "How much do people NEED?" is the question that must be asked, and "How many people do we need?". If we want the free market to determine the answers, then all of the overhead expenses of government and environment programs should be reflected in the daily purchasing decisions of everyone, not buried under miles of bureaucratic tax loopholes and corporate evasions. Put the choice to consume up front, and make sure that people understand ALL of the costs of consumption, not just the visible ones.
90% of purchasing or more is unnecessary to good standards of living.
Comment by:  PT (David Alexander) (Jun-28-2008)   Web site

A tax on carbon use would be a direct way to control carbon usage. Other aspects of the economy that use carbon would also pay the fee, and would therefore need to raise their prices. The net result would be less carbon, and reduced purchasing activity. What do YOU think?
Comment by: auntiegrav (auntiegrav) (Jun-28-2008)   

Yes, the "carbon tax" makes for a nice buzz phrase, but it is yet another overcomplexification of the problem. The real problem is consumption of ALL resources, of which, oil is only an enabler and the demand for oil comes from the general demand for 'more' all the time. There is already a bill proposed in congress that would essentially do the same thing as a carbon tax, only better, and that is the FairTax bill. Unfortunately, it is sponsored by Republicans, so Democrats have a fit about accepting it, when all they need to do to accomplish more than they have ever dreamed is to negotiate the rate upward. Make it a 50% or more tax on everything people purchase, with a rebate for subsistence level consumption. Pretty simple. A consumption tax is much less regressive than a dead planet.
Comment by: City Worker (Jun-28-2008)   

Which presidential candidate will tell save our planet? Will either? Will neither? How do we know? And can one of them? Is it enough, considering the direction in which China is moving?

^ top 
About author/contributor GuestWriter welcomes occasional articles and opinion pieces from writers who are not regular contributors. Their contributions will be listed under the "GuestWriter" name, and additional attribution will be shown in accordance with the agreement with the original writer and source of the PlanetThought.

Visit Green Wave Email Marketing
Email Marketing for You and Your Planet

We won a Gotham Green Award for 2010, on Earth Day! Thank you Gotham Networking for this award.

See the attractive event brochure.

Recommended Sites

  Member of:
GOtham Green networking
Green Collar Economy
New York Academy of Sciences
Shades of Green Network

     Members/Affiliates *

Approaching the Limits
    to Growth
Environmental News Network
Heroin and Cornflakes

* Members of PlanetThoughts      
  communities on SU or MBL,      
  and blog article affiliates      

  Other Favorite Blogs
21st Century Citizen
Center for Bio. Diversity
Easy Ways to Go Green
Good Bags
Opposing Views

Valid my RSS feeds

We Do Follow

  Volunteer      Terms of Use      Privacy Policy  

Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved.
Except for blog items by David Alexander: Some Rights Reserved.