Yes, the news on climate science, solutions, and politics is already coming faster than I can keep up with. And yes, 2010 is probably going to the the busiest year to date in terms of climate action — domestic and international.
But still, in the coming weeks and months I do want to be as responsive as possible to reader interest and not let key topics fall off the radar screen as the Senate debate ramps up. So give me one or more ideas “” and feel free to endorse other people’s ideas.
Edited by Joe Romm, we cover climate science, solutions and politics. Columnist Tom Friedman calls us "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named us one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." Newcomers, start here.
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.
Joe Romm has pulled together the secrets of the greatest communicators in history to show how you can apply these tools to your writing, speaking, blogging — even your Tweeting.
Powered by NewsWhip
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Donate
Previous in TP Climate Progress
It’s important that solutions not be lost to politics. Although the politics of climate change will certainly be the dominant news of 2010, solutions are being developed very rapidly, and need to be covered.
Among solutions, I hope you can address both the wedges to reduce carbon emissions, and the increasing importance of adaptation. Solutions to both mitigation and adaptation are critical, since we have already passed the point at which major impacts are occurring. If we focus all our attention on wedges to reduce GHG, we stand to miss important opportunities to prepare for a warmer world and its attendant shifts in agricultural zones, forests and population distribution.
While there are other blogs that address solutions, nobody does it as thoroughly as you, and nobody has such a large audience of rational people.
need to chart the interactions. how will climate-changed food pressures affect forest management deals? how will rising oil prices affect carbon abatement projects? how will fears of ‘falling behind’ in green tech markets affect willingness to cross-pollinate RD&D? how will waves of mitigation & adaptation spending cancel or reinforce each other? how will sharing rivers, pipelines, and HVDC supergrids work? is the NPT regime the right toolkit for post-carbon geopolitics? is anybody dumb enough to lean heavily on rich-world bankers to finance their transition/development effort?
we need to start putting big ‘opportunity’ and ‘vulnerability’ stickers on our plans, now, i think. do some network-aware process of elimination to find our most beneficial options.
Hi Joe-
I’d like to see a more complete analysis of BECCS (Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage), and I’d like to see you start to promote this idea.
I’d like to see a more complete analysis of CCS, including in situ mineral carbonation possibilities.
I’d like to see a more complete analysis of carbon negative ideas, including CCS and biochar.
Anyway, keep up the good work, keep doing what you are already doing, please Joe.
Like hapa, I’m most interested in the interactions of pieces of the system. That’s where emergent properties arise, and often very nasty ones, at that.
In particular, I’ve long been focused on the energy/water nexus. To me, the number one issues is: What will climate chaos do to human beings? When we’re talking about the water supply for the more than one billion people currently living downstream of the Himalayan glaciers, the Andes glaciers, etc., I think it’s clear that the e/w nexus gets far too little attention.
I’m very interested in PHEV vehicles for reducing CO2 emissions. One criticism is that the supply of raw materials for batteries will limit the deployment of PHEV and all-electric vehicles. Can you address these battery raw materials supply concerns and shed light on just how much of a constraint they are?
I’m also very interested in CO2 reduction through reforestation. One risk I foresee is that with a drying climate, efforts to accelerate reforestation can backfire if the newly-planted trees dry out and catch fire. Has this been considered? Is there enough data/analysis for us to target reforestation efforts where they are least likely to backfire (no pun intended)?
A lot of public discussion on CO2 reduction assumes that we will replace energy sources, but allow energy consumption to grow. For a long time, I’ve suspected that we need drastic reductions in energy demand, not just in increased efficiency, but in decreased use of energy consuming products and services. How much will we have to cut back on our USE of these things, in addition to simply increasing efficiency?
Finally, I would like to see more discussion about the realistic time frames and magnitudes of CO2 reductions needed to mitigate climate change. The public discussion centers around miniscule reductions by 2020, with the drastic cuts coming only by 2050. Isn’t this going to be too late? I know these small steps over large time frames are politically expedient, but if we set aside the politics and address just the science, what are the reasonable targets and timeframes?
One more thing, Joe: Keep everything you do here turned up to 11. I’m stunned by the number of people, including many longtime, self-proclaimed environmentalists, who don’t begin to comprehend the urgency of our situation.
We need more people with the brains and the heart to stand up and pound the table and yell about these issues. Right now, you’re one of the few with the right skills set to do that.
Don’t stop.
Oh boy, what to cover. I would like to see reports on businesses that “get it” and have shown that what is good for humanity in total can be good for business. I feel that until “BIG MONEY” “sees the light” humanity is toast. After all, it is hard to argue that politicians are in fact running anything of importance. For the most part politicians the world over are puppets of big money and dedicated to the status quo and not to the well being of humanity. Growth of the GDP above all else… It means nothing unless that value is spread evenly thru-out the masses and not concentrated in the top 5%. That means food, water, shelter, health care, rewarding productive life for one’s self and progeny.
In spite of almost universal evidence to the contrary, I feel that mankind is capable of rational self government. If not…. I guess we start anew from ding beetles, roaches and what not. The world has done it before, it cares not….
I’m interested in the issue of “climate justice” as endorsed by Naomi Klein. The notion of financial reparations from the largest emitters to third world countries that are already enduring severe impacts from climate change is very controversial. I do think wealthy polluting nations should help poor countries with low carbon footprints but even assuming the US and others will actually give money for this purpose, I have some questions.
1. How can the US do this when our bank is already broken?
2. How can anyone control how the money is spent, and doesn’t get lost in corruption?
3. How will the criteria for appropriate expenditures be determined? For instance, I think it’s crazy to develop infrastructure to prevent land loss to rising seas since it will be overwhelmed eventually. Also as Wonhyo mentioned, planting trees if we don’t account for drought is pointless.
Thanks, I would really like to see a discussion of this topic.
Compressed Air powered vehicles: fast charge, safe, light “battery,” simple, efficient, reliable, no toxic or limited chemicals, suitable for intermittent power generation, … The whole ball of wax.
Hi,
I am a student researcher who had the fortune to attend the Climate Conference and talk with many people about climate change policy issues. One of these topics is the giant MRV dilemma developed countries (USA) have with developing countries (BRIC/South Africa). Beyond just explaining the dimensions of the MRV issue, which would be awesome, could you help me understand the domestic politics of developing countries that makes MRV such a big threat to their sovereignty?
Thanks so much, I love your blog!
You know, I got another one. My research focuses on Emissions Trading Schemes, bringing me to talk with many bankers who were at Copenhagen to try to influence the process (also a focus of my research). One of the issues they cared about the most was ensuring that ETS schemes have the legal language to ‘link’ with each other.
Can you brief us over the different ETS, particularly their differences. Also, can you speak to their evolution relating to global linking and pitfalls that may inhibit the growth of ETS. Maybe a primer on ETS for everyone else?
Thanks again!
Joe – in addition to tracking progress on the Senate bill and how the domestic politics shape up around it, it would be good to keep highlighting developments on the nexus between CC and our national security interests. In addition to the economic case for low-carbon development, it seems to me that the nat sec issue is a big one that could move some of the CC doubters into the camp that might support a Kerry/Lierberman/Graham bill.
In addition, please keep naming names and outing those who’ve long been on the oil industry payroll to deliberately obfuscate the science on CC. One thing the media did a lousy job on was in pursuing the obvious questions about who may have been behind the artificial “SwiftHack” controversy. Nobody seemed to investigate who might have funded the hacking effort and whose interests were advanced in propagating yet another bogus “scandal.”
As a UK-based reader of your blog, I’d endorse everything said by Leif… and add the point that your blog matters worldwide. If you can keep it international, but with the focus on the US and provide some comments on ways that things are working, you can be a focus for drawing together the hundreds of thousands – millions – worldwide who care passionately, but who have no current focus.
in detail:
2010 should be less about proving the science in the face of denialist arguments – although that is still essential and your blogs on disproving the detail of the ‘climate email theft’ story was invaluable.
nevertheless
it would be useful to highlight technologies that work to reduce our carbon dependency, both those in production and those in R&D
in addition – and I think this is key
you can help bring together the various voices worldwide who are currently all pulling in the same direction, but not together – George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, the Sustainable Development Commission in the UK, led by Tim Jackson (author of ‘Prosperity without Growth’ can all be joined with the Plan B 4.0 group and others like it through the auspices of your blog.
The scientific arguments have been made and need still to be made, but we need political movement at all levels of society – particularly in those nations where politicians are followers of trends, not leaders – of which the US is a prime example (Norway and Brazil are the opposite)
Good luck, good year, and thank you
Joe, I realize that this is not one of your favorite topics, but the elephant in the room is population growth.
Population growth is a subset of the third world country issue. Not only must we insure that these countries develop on a track that minimizes their use of fossil fuels, we must avoid the population explosion that often comes with improving economic conditions.
This aid does not look like spending on GHG reduction. The most effective way to reduce population growth is improving quality of life. Health care, education, a growing economy; these reduce population growth.
Most forecasts show an increase in world population of three billion people over the next 40 years. I would argue that reducing this number should be among our top priorities.
I would like to see a focus on what people already experience in their own region, for instance how people can detect global warming by just watching what happens in their gardens: ‘new’ insects or spiders, plants, weeds (or vice versa, have migrated north and are now having troubles in their original habitats.)
I think in general there needs to be more focus on visible consequences of AGW which are already visible or tangible. Make it real.
Have to agree with #1 and #13.
Believing that we are past the point of no return, I would like to see more on adaptation – what are the policy options for dealing with desertification, extreme weather, refugees, etc.
Also, in terms of slowing things down, more on geoengineering possibilities. I don’t think Nathan Myrvold is completely crazy.
Also from the world standpoint – less on the US political situation – the current proposed legislation is dramatically inadequate so why waste breath on it.
Thanks,
EricG, # 13. Nature can and will be merciless with respect to population. To keep the last vestiges of humanity alive and functioning we must do what we can to eliminate suffering but consumption is a huge component. I am not proud to be from a society, that on average, one of me = 10 from the third world.
If I were to be around to collect I would bet that by 2050 the world population will be at least a billion or two less than now. Hopefully my society will have a carbon footprint that equals that of the third world and has shown the world that a rewarding life can still be achievable. If so that will in effect remove another billion folks from the planet. Perhaps this whole mess is a necessary trial to spirit us to the “Rapture”. (Rational Self Government for the good of humanity and all things living.) Creation care if you prefer. Being an atheist, I care not your label, just get it done. My age will isolate me from the worst but you young folks will have a tough row to hoe.
Joe, you have such a great balance here already, I wouldn’t veer too far from that. I echo Wim Prange’s comments and most of Manda Scott’s, although I think it’s important to keep debunking the latest climate lie du jour. It remains important to restate the facts and call out the misinformers. It’s also very important to keep presenting the latest data and findings – what’s going on with temperature, glaciers, etc., – keep the problem in focus. Thanks for all your hard work and no-nonsense analysis.
I question if the amount of CO2 generated and the amount of fuel burned is worth the paucity of results from the global climate meetings like Copenhagen and Kyoto. Should not an example be set and electronic conferencing be used?
Joe, post regular updates on INDIAN SUBCONTINENT.
It’s the MOST AFFECTED PLACE IN THE WORLD by Climate Change, outside the Polar Regions. That is:
-Drought and Floods (i.e. the MONSOON)
-The Karakoram-Himalayan Glaciers
-The Atmospheric Brown Cloud (ABC) that cover the entire area.
Joe,
I’d like to see more posts that take a grassroots approach to climate change solutions, addressing things that everyone could and should do, regardless of legislation and international agreements. It would be good exercise to find a tone that is not preachy but encourages people to stop flying in airplanes, eating meat, freezing their homes in summer and keeping them hot in winter, etc.
The real elephant in the room is that climate change will affect everyone, including us wealthy Americans, and so everyone will have to change how they live. We (you) will need to paint these changes as beneficial to people, leading to increased happiness and fulfillment, which they could plausibly be.
Keep up the good and important work!
Carlin
Joe, I’d like to hear your assessment of how climate legislation is likely to play out in the next Congress.
This could be a regular feature, of course, but of particular interest is the juxtaposition with financial reform (assuming that healthcare gets done someday soon). If climate bats third, I fear that it’ll get wrapped around the mid-term election axle, with the result that the U.S. will cede even more time and competitive advantage to nations that “get it” regarding the economic opportunity inherent in wedding ourselves to energy technologies of the future rather than technologies of the past.
I’ll ditto Sable’s comment.
You have good focus already. In addition to coherently explaining the science and the solutions, I think the most important work you do is exposing the the reckless negligence of mainstream media and popular press. You cannot cover it all, and it would be a mistake to try. I have no addition requests other than keep it up.
Well, maybe I do have a suggestion.
Get more resources, or expand your set of contributors. I need one or two go-to sources for insight on (i) international climate affairs including UNFCCC, regional and bilateral cooperation and (ii) international economic competition (comparative coverage of economic planning and export credit assistance) that aspire to match the same quality of coverage you provide for US political and policy news.
Thanks,
Jeff
I’d like to know more about any progress at the grass-roots level in coal-producing states to promote clean energy, to enforce environmental protections such as cleaning up the water supply, and progress at the local level towards making coal mining irrelevant economically.
I’d like to hear about blazingly obvious proof of global warming that can be offered to well-intentioned skeptics, and any clear-cut cases that show how regulation is needed and/or how regulation has been successful.
I’d like to hear about success stories of local actions that offer real hope of solving and coping with environmental problems.
Joe:
I wouldn’t think to make a suggestion, as I’m amazed by the breadth and depth of your coverage already. But since you asked…
I’d like to see you address the “we can’t get there from here” argument that is put forth by Nate Lewis of CALTECH (as summarized by Sharon Begley in Newsweek; http://www.newsweek.com/id/189293). Lewis assumes large increases in efficiency (500%), and solar cells on every roof, and still sees existing technology unable to meet global energy demand.
Keep up the great work in 2010!
1. Innovaton: The argument is often made that cap and trade will spur much innovation – notably such national figures as Jay Inslee. Has the SOx cap and trade program spured innovation since it has been in effect? Has the European cap and trade program spurred innovation?
2. A timeline analysis: if current climate bills are reconciled and signed into law, when can we expect to see meaningful GHG emission reductions? And if EPA takes the lead, what is the timeline for emission reductions. My back of the envelope says that only minor implementation measures by 2015 in either case. Hopefully, I am wrong.
I’d like to see more emphasis on the human impacts of climate change, rather than ecological. Most people aren’t going to be motivated by the loss of polar bears, just like they really don’t care about the loss of Amazonian beetles. However, if we can show how heat-created crop failures will result in skyrocketing beef prices, more people are likely to sit up and take notice. An ecologist knows immediately how loss of species diversity hurts the environment, but we need to draw the lines that connect that back to our food supply.
I think the combination of overpopulation and food supply reductions is the true risk to civilization, but people aren’t hearing that message clearly enough.
I’d like to echo #21. While I see as the primary strength of this blog its ability to inform, I think we would benefit from learning of opportunities to get involved. This could include not just pointing out how lifestyle modifications like eating less meat can make a difference and appeals to contact representatives, but also actions organized by other groups and suggestions of places to give money.
Lots of important things are listed here. Looks like a big job to cover it all. I’m looking forward to it.
I’d like to read about 2 things:
1. What effect looking at climate change as a national security issue has and will have. While it seems a good way to make people pay attention who wouldn’t otherwise, what actions are likely to happen as a result? If beefing up the military is the perceived solution, um, maybe another approach to waking people up is called for. What plans have countries with big armies made and what have military analysts said they should make? Also, let’s get in the ground floor of Climate Catastrophe/WWIII: the Video Game.
And 2. far more important: what effect has agriculture had on climate change and how much effect would changing it make? As one of the biggest contributors to climate catastophe, agriculture’s one of those danger/opportunity fulcrums. (fulcri? fulcra?) If increasing organic matter in soil 1.8% on all arable land would sequester all the carbon of the industrial age, (according to Alan Yeoman) how does that fit into wedges and other plans? If we increase it 10% on all arable US land, or 5% on all developed country land what would that mean? Of course, first we have to stop destroying it… How many wedges could local organic permaculture be if we got serious about it?
If pre-industrial level of CO2 was about 280, after 6000 years of regional abuse of the land, desertification, etc. what does that mean for a safe level–an actual safe level, instead of choosing one arbitrarily or because it seems politically feasible now. 250? How, and how soon, can we get there?
(and J.A., see http://www.crmw.net, the coal river mountain wind project etc.)
When are we going to hear about the title of your new book?
[JR: I'm waiting until I have a jacket design.]
I’ll also echo #1, #13, and everyone who said you cover an extraordinary range already.
Getting more voices in would be great too, including those who have specific suggestions for how your readers can help advance the ball (beyond just the personal, “drive less, eat less meat” variety that I suspect we all understand already). Where to invest? Whom to pressure? …etc.
Thanks for providing the invaluable information you provide. It would be interesting to know what topics you think should be discussed more – maybe others will take them up.
Dear Joe,
We need the truth – without reticence.
We need good “planning case” estimates for the full impacts of AGW in the near term, mid-term, and long term. We need to understand the full range of feedback effects and their time frame for such impacts. Not “IPCC climate numbers”, but what does climate change really mean for people?
We need plans that address the planning case scenarios in the various time frames. Just as wars are as often won by logistics as by weapons, we need to plan contingency water, housing, and food supplies. We need plans for alternative transportation and communication systems. (Communications satellites have long, but limited life-spans. What is the altitude of your launch pad? What is the altitude of your satellite control center? And, while optic fibers are waterproof, their relay centers are not. You are thinking about meters of sea level rise, right?)
Then, we need weapons. We need a plan for a good carbon tax, not cap and trade. We need to do to CO2 emissions around the world, what RCRA & CERCLA did to hazardous waste disposal/ releases in the US.
We need to know if the climate tip elements have already tipped and thus, all of the above is just pouring money down a rat hole.
Actually Joe, you do a pretty good job.
Don’t Shy Away From the Central and Big Paradigmatic Issues: Let’s Face, Explore, and Begin to Address Them Head-On!
The GIFT OF LIFE that we all receive FROM life (that is, from earlier generations and from our parents, and ultimately from the long and deep history of life on Earth) carries with it a Deep Responsibility TO Life – and not just to one’s own individual life, but also (and integrally) to the Community and Enterprise of Life more broadly speaking.
Put more briefly, with the gift of life comes a responsibility TO life and to FUTURE life.
Put another way: A presently-living person does NOT merely have responsibilities to himself, but ALSO (and IMPORTANTLY) has important responsibilities to other living humans, to the broader life community, and to the ongoing human life-enterprise.
Most of us understand this, intuitively, I hope; BUT we often find it hard to remember or act upon. And, many modern cultural messages and pressures provide a contradictory message, i.e., that life is about “ME, ME, ME, and only ME”. Some fairly strong messages in the culture seem to imply (if not directly indicate!) the idea that a person should desire and “take” whatever he can manage to get, regardless of the consequences to the planet, to neighbors, to other species, to future generations, or to human sustainability.
We need to squarely recognize, face, and address this (what might be called a) “problematic, incorrect, unhealthy, and ultimately unsustainable paradigm”. We need to acquire and develop a more balanced and healthy paradigm that considers and respects matters at all levels – the individual, the group, the species, other species, the planet, and sustainability itself.
Einstein once observed:
“Perfection of means and confusion of goals seem, in my opinion, to characterize our age.”
Of course, Einstein would have added an exclamation point to his comment if he were alive today. So, here, let’s not let that same problem pass unnoticed or unaddressed.
The Dalai Lama wrote:
“It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific advancement.”
In “1984”, George Orwell wrote:
“ … but all the relevant facts were outside the range of their vision. They were like the ant, which can see small objects but not large ones.”
And, Einstein (again) observed something that we mustn’t forget:
“The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.”
Let’s recognize, acknowledge, face, explore, and begin to address the BIG Paradigmatic Issues. The clock is ticking. Technical/technology tools alone won’t do the trick. Nor will partial political push-me-pull-you promises, persistent pregnant pauses, political posturing, or impotent platitude-inizing (although I sometimes am guilty of that, to be sure).
Think Big. Let’s add more “bite” to the “bark”. And let’s also make sure we are barking about the most problematic causal factors and paradigms that must be addressed.
Cheers,
Jeff
Joe, if you get all of the above done next year you are a “shoe in” for some kind of Nobel Prize!
Echoing Green Mom above. How about short one page print outs for folks to pass around their neighborhood? Discussion points. Links… Something to counter the constant barrage of the Anti-Science Sink Hole, (A-SS Hole) faction. If memory serves me correct that name was coined by Cynthia on CP a few weeks ago. I love it, thank you.
Robert Stavins, in his recent assessment of the Copenhagen Accord, makes the point that it is highly desirable to bring in private funding as well as drawing on the public treasury.
As you know, the Ansari X Prize was instrumental in bringing about the 2004 demonstration of a privately funded suborbital space ship (although its development was funded by Paul Allen, and would have happened anyway.)
That success has spawned a surge in prizes, including some relating to climate change. I’d like to see more coverage of such prizes, for example the Saltire Prize of $20 million annually offered by the government of Scotland for green energy development.
Otherwise, just keep up the good work.
Is it worth re-visiting “the wedges” specifically to look at possibly adding “non-co2 reduction” actions? In this regard, I do not include activities generally known as geo-engineering. Rather, as an example, should a wedge be added based upon dramatically reducing (virtually eliminating) emission of carbon black, particularly in light of recent studies? Could this be a better payback and quicker implementation than some of the proposed alternatives?
I think a lot of people who support global warming take the science of global warming for granted. I would like to see some articles that “get back to the basics” of it all. It just seems to me that at times the global warming debate can feel like a my team vs your team argument where facts/fictions become so blurred that it can be difficult to decipher what/who to believe.
Really what I’m looking for is a global warming for dummies article. You can reference IPCC reports and peer reviewed published journal articles all you want, but by and large they are so far beyond the publics basic knowledge of science that what good do they really do to middle of the road people who want to understand the science a bit better? As a result, I think people often turn to common talking points of many politicians which in my mind may blur the debate. The science behind all of this is key, and unfortunately it seems as though you practically need a PhD to decipher what is true and what is not
My last post on INDIA.
It is the cover of the banned Indian magazine “People’s March: Voice of the Indian Revolution” addressing the 2009 Drought:
“MAN-mohan-MADE MONSOON SEASON(June-September)”
http://indianvanguard.wordpress.com/people%e2%80%99s-truth/
(go to the site and download it: it is a heavy PDF)
The description at the “Indian Vanguard” website reads:
“People’s Truth — The successor to People’s March
In December 2007 the editor of People’s March, P. Govindan Kutty, was arrested and the magazine was suppressed and banned. After some time Govindan Kutty was released, and though still facing charges, in mid 2008 he began issuing a bulletin with the name People’s Truth, marked with the notation to be circulated privately.
(…)
In August 2009 we heard from Govindan Kutty that after a long appeal process the order suppressing People’s March had been lifted(…) The first issue of the post-suppression magazine, labeled vol. 10, #10, and dated October 2009, is now available below. While the magazine will no longer be officially banned, it will very likely still be quite difficult for many in India and elsewhere to obtain. For that reason the magazine will continue to be made available here on this web site.”
The cover show a MAP and TIME-SERIES of the PRECIPITATIONS during the monsoon season.
There is a lot of Maoist propaganda there, but the Cover + the Article about the Drought is a must-read. A must-read that the Indian Establishment wanted to censor, but apparently the Court that banned the magazine changed its wiew, and lifted the ban.
After that, as it was not enough, a RECORD FLASH FLOOD FOLLOWED.
See the note at NASA OBSERVATORY, “Floods in Southern India (29-09-2009)”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40610
HELL AND HIGH WATER.
And maybe the beginning of the FIRST CLIMATE WAR.
Pray for the lifes of millions of starving Indians.
Happy New Year to All.
How about more discussions on the viability of alternative energy technology as a viable career path in the USA. Sure it looks like there will be plenty of alternative energy technology jobs in Europe and Asia, but what about in the USA? For example, how is a Climate Change bill a ‘Jobs Bill’ if it only creates jobs for engineers and technicians making solar cells or wind turbines in China? Many – if not all of the climate change stories – don’t seem to face up to the cold hard reality of the rapid decline of high tech manufacturing in the USA and the simple fact that most of the high tech manufactured goods now come from Asia.
Solutions. Ditto to Manda#13′s “2010 should be less about proving the science in the face of denialist arguments – although that is still essential”; we need to move forward.
Maybe try to reserve just one day a week for garbage day, for debunking the cranks? say Friday, since that’s what they’d have us do. And just link to others’ debunkings where possible, to save yourself time, or invite guest debunkers.
Ditto to Manda’s “you can help bring together the various voices worldwide who are currently all pulling in the same direction, but not together” – that would be very cool.
And to Lauren #28′s “I think we would benefit from learning of opportunities to get involved”, and Green Mom’s “…specific suggestions for how your readers can help advance the ball (beyond just the personal…) e.g. Where to invest?” (How might those of us with 401(k)s most effectively use them for enhancing our future?)
and address priorities of diff. actions; acknowledging (& not being thwarted by) our single-action bias.
#1 most important: don’t burn out. We need you.
Spread the load; take time off.
Localization? (non-polar bear)
Stuff I wonder about – in my locale (Sierra foothills), our de-carbonizing economy might engender new natural resources: manzanita for biochar, and serpentine soils for CO2 sequestration via rock weathering. How could/would these become economic goods? How good? How might it work in practice? Should we be speculating in serpentine? (which until now has been a bad, not a good) What will emerge as the new economic goods?
Update, INDIA:
The NASA OBSERVATORY shows that during the first half of December the entire Ganges Plain is choked inside a thick layer of smog ,also called “Atmospheric Brown Cloud” or ABC.
“Haze along the Himalaya”(image taken on December 14 )
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=41874
This is not my idea of a New Year sky.
Now with the Winter cold and the impeding Drought-Flood triggered FAMINE, I really hope that the A/H1N1 doesn’t unleash a Lethal Wave of pneumonia.
In 1918, India was hit by a severe famine triggered by an El Niño-realted drought. Result: The 1918A/H1N1 or “Spanish Influenza” killed over 15 MILLION INDIANS, making the country the worst hit by the worst epidemic in Human History
(doesn’t that remeber you something? Hint: A/H1N1, Drought, El Niño …)
Worlwide the 1918A/H1N1 Influenza Pandemic killed between 50 and 100 MILLION people in 1918, 1919 and 1920, making it the WORST MEDICAL HOLOCAUST IN HUMAN HISTORY.
Pray for the Indian People, and hope that this damned pandemic will be mitigated by massive vaccination.
Simba (Post #37) hits the nail on the head with his/her assessment and recommendation. We need a cadre of people across the country that are willing to refute and counter the anti-AGW crowd with quality and timely information about climate change and its consequences. We should not let the poppycock being posted by the anti-AGW crowd on the comment threads of the websites of local media go unchallenged.
Is the title of Ralph Nader’s new book right on target — Only the Super-rich can Save Us Now? I think it is.
Nader maintains that a popular mass movement is not going to happen because ordinary people don’t have the money or the power and influence to make it happen. McKibben, Hansen, Chu, UCS, Public Citizen and others have tried and failed to move a Congress with a Democratic majority.
So my question is — Who will provide the leadership? Where will the push for significant emission cuts by 2020 come from?
If this is a repeat of the other posts, which I haven’r read, I apologize.
Joe,
First, thanks for all you do. Future generations are in your debt.
I’d like to see something simpler. I suggest something like a ‘Global Vital Signs’ chart. (You know how they plug you in at the hospital and things beep and lines run across screens…)
Maybe four or five things: CO2 levels, sea level rise, polar ice volume, methane levels and glacial ice gain/loss (in gigatons just cause I like the word.)
Chart it all over time and update it regularly. Kinda like the old doomsday clock. Give it a fixed URL too so folks can bookmark it.
Don’t overload it, but you could add deaths from global famine, crop land loss from droughts/floods, extinction rates, … (even let the user pick what they want to see??) You get the idea.
What’s important is to show the data and the scope of what’s happening so the less informed can see and understand.
I’d love you to look at and possible get inspired by something still “new” and definitely promising :
** BIOMIMICRY **
Innovation inspired by nature’s 3,8 billion years of “R&D” can replace good tech (including green tech) with solution that are absolutely new, near-perfect, 100% sustainable for eternity, and often cheap and simple!!
The more we look in nature, the more we find that all problems have already been solved there.
The only permanent solution to our presence on earth is a perfect symbiosis, nothing less. This is what biomimicry can open to.
See http://www.biomimicry.eu in Europe and http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/ in the US.
Also one vote for #36, non CO2 wedges : Methane, soot, etc
(Aircraft Vapor Trails?? I found your last post on this amazing. If 15-20% or arctic warming is clearly produced by Aircrafts, then we got one hell of an “arctic wedge”. Forbid any transit over the arctic, that is all the planes flying there just as a shortcut, and you get a 15% wedge for the arctic, tomorrow! Russia, Canada and US could implement this alone, considering what part of the arctic coasts they hold.)
And finally I add one voice to those saying “keep up the amazing work that you already do”
Joe, thanks for your public service and commitment. I love your blog and am a devoted reader who sincerely appreciates how you distill and convey the most recent science and provide graphic excerpts. The daily news summary has been a great addition.
I think Jeff’s idea about expanding your capacity/resources or set of contributors is great. We need more cost-benefit information to convince local, regional, state, and federal government of the seriousness of the issue and cost-effectiveness of solutions, or a whole directory of this type of information. I agree with #32 that we need plans that address scenarios in the various time frames, to try to understand the full range of feedback effects and costs – to impel action.
Concur with #1/Tom, #13, and #40, that it’s important that solutions not be lost to politics and less time and space on debunking. I’ve sent letters to editors, colleagues, NAS, and Congress based on your revelations of injustice and incompetence. Still, it would be great to have less on the political horse race here in the U.S. and the denier rebuttals (or have that in its own place), so we can have even more on the seriousness of the issue, recent progress around the world (shift to sustainable development, less polluting solutions), climate/GHG reduction news, technologies, relationships to national economic strategy and national security, and the latest data and scientific findings, information on tipping points.
Ditto on the need for (continued) coverage on interacting issues, big opportunities and vulnerabilities. I appreciate how much you’ve covered energy and water issues, and would be interested to find out how much attention that is generating in the locales where that is/will be hitting hardest. Also interested in all the issues mentioned in #5/Wonhyo. Ditto Jeff on #33. Curious about #36, Alexy’s points too. Ditto #44.
Video games, movies, charts/calculators/trackers any other media people think would be effective, are all needed to get the word out and make it real to others. Your rhetoric posts have been great! Communication points/print-outs would be great too, as Leif suggests. Does anyone have or know where to find resources to use in presentations or activities with school kids at all levels? It seems it will have to come from us as next to nothing is shared in those environs, even in the county that is home to NREL and many federal environmental agencies!
Whow!!! what a great bunch of posts.
So much to do, so little time. I hope I can get back to comment. Fresh bread in oven, get a bike ride in while it is still light…. All that domestic stuff. I took notes:
Joe,
I hear in these posts a call for re-organizing your already excellent material into a new format, and via that re-organizing, creating more links to others on the same page.
Let me suggest a few overall ways to re-organize:
1) By Themes: Such as “Opportunities,” “The Human Factor,” “Connecting the Dots, “Innovations,” and “Mental Garbage” (i.e., the lies).
2) By Scenarios: Among the best scenario-makers are the Futurists at ITFT (Institute For The Future San Fransisco) Check our their five scenarios in their annual report. Connecting your science with their story-making would help integrate the science about the environment with the human story.
3) By Readers’ Needs: “Talking Points,” “Fact Debunking Sheets, “Opportunities,” [again] “Regional Responses,” etc.
Or whatever other organizing categories appeal to you.
One caution: Organizing by different scientific issues, though it adds to scientific knowledge, is not an effective political or communication strategy.
Oh — and would you please consider a sidebar on your page explaining all the acronyms?
Thank you for your good work.
Mimi Katzenbach
No 3 #44, Something like the Union of Concerned Scientist?
Bread is out, got to go.
Bullwinkle #44, awesome idea!
BadgerSouth #42, Ive argued for the same thing on a previous thread. All too often the lies and misinformation go unchallenged. This seems distasteful or a waste of time to some, but public perception IS important. We like to think that facts and the truth (as best we know it) sell themselves, but any good ad/propaganda campaign relies on repetition as much as anything. Seeing denier statements contested by someone knowledgeable on comment threads was/is an important part of my education on AGW. It’s like dealing with a toddler in a way, you have to repeat yourself, endlessly.
Joe,
keep up the good work.
Would suggest monitoring of trends, especially of tipping points and positive feedbacks.
-emissions of ch4 and co2 from melting permafrost
-melting of glaciers, polar ice, ice sheets and resulting sea level rise, how much from melting and how much from thermal expansion, and fresh water scarcity, both from less river flow and overpumping of groundwater. Water is important
-drying of forests and increases in fires
-changes in percipitation, local and regional weather
-environmental refugees, failing states
-extinction rates
-el nino, acidification of the oceans, warmer seas, sea level rise and effects on life in the oceans
-agriculture in a warmer world, amount of fish caught, human population increases, food per capita
Fight the good fight!
I would like to see some coverage of the issue of “other greenhouse gases” besides CO2, partly because they contribute potentially even more to climate change but primarily because they are directly and immediately contributing to things people care about – cancer and other diseases, and crop failure.
It turns out for instance that the disruption of the nitrogen system is being described as a largely ignored but urgent problem:
“There is an urgent need to assess the possibilities of nitrogen management for climate abatement and at the same time increase food security, while minimising environmental and human health impacts.” Dr Cheryl Palm, the chair of the International Nitrogen Initiative
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091206183705.htm
Another example is the disastrous effects of ozone and acid rain which are not confined to exotic species like polar bears in remote locations, but to apple and peach and pecan and avocado trees, to grape vines and melons. There is a website with an astounding number of links to international research but I’ll post it in another comment in the hopes of avoiding perpetual moderation or worse, banishment!
Also some day, it would be great to see some coverage of investigative reporting, if there ever is any, on the efforts by government agencies and fossil and biofuel industries to quash discussion and research on these topics, as well as their well-known activities trying to cast climate change from increasing levels of CO2 as a debatable issue.
But any little piece of the above would be terrific!
Here’s the website with links about ozone and acid rain damage to trees and crops: http://www.eco-systems.org/air_pollution_notes_from_other_places.htm
Something *very* helpful that you could do for us: threaded comments!
(that way, I could make a response to BadgerSouth#42 without derailing the on-topic discussion)
Thanks, Leif!
… sea level rise, how to survive the coming crises (on a personal level), detailed descriptions of the problems at the poles and any possible forcastes… these are things which interest me most.
Tom #1: For instance… There is all this flat land that floods in the logged off area of Amazon, all ready cleared, (trashed). There is a tradition of those people of living on raised beds. Get big equipment and dredge waterways, islands with sustainable energy and water purification, etc. dams for flood control and ebb control. water ways are the most efficient transportation out there; power or hand. Think about it Brazil, where do you want the gene pool of your future maturing? In the slums or out there struggling in the fresh air for a better life with the best help government and sustainable technology can muster. What about you industry? Don’t you think you can survive building quality goods sustain-ably? -To all the people of the world? With a world wide common currency, A unit of energy. Fossil high$, green low$. Both adjusted to a fund that produces at least $200 billion a year to be dolled out by nice guys. I would go further and price defense, universal health care, teachers, schools, the whole shebang into the price of energy. All over the world.
In exchange, I want to sell power to the grid at market value, No problem tracking diamond price daily, what is the difference? I can just see the Right having the Heebie-jeebies over that one. Tough it out, Russ does the same to me… It goes on. There is no tax, no national debt, ( by definition, defense is funded by energy costs). Debt is erased internationally as a hit for messing with the hu-MAN-ity. International limits in earnings spread. Hell big guys, in past revolutions the rich lost their heads. When there is a world wide threat the solution needs to be world wide. Get some stones folks it might get bumpy.
How do I know if this is a novel idea or well engineered but lacking funds? Or something for the round file. A way of elevating or lowering thoughts or topics by viewer rating? #46 MimiK
Keep up the great work! I think your core mission is vital, but I would be curious to hear a little more about the connections with international trade. Fro example, there have been some rumblings from Senators from industrial states that they might demand new trade rules for countries that do not control emissions if the US passes a cap-and-trade bill. This position may not bring any immediate change, but at what point could action to curb global warming and climate change lead to increased trade frictions?
Austin: # 11: Sweet Jesus – “legal language”- EEEKs… I guess that I am from the “open access” school of thought in this kind of issue. I must admit that I tend not to think about legal issues as they stifle creativity.
I am open to learning however. It is however, this day in age, an important consideration in the early stages of any big endeavor. We do tend to ware our hearts on our sleeve from time to time.
I’m particularly interested in news of new wind farms, solar farms, progress in general on renewable energy installations. maybe you could do a monthly post of, for example “january’s renewable energy installations (in MW by country).” Or something along those lines to convey how much progress is being made from month to month.
Thanks
4zinionou, # 29: “national security issues”. If indeed global climatic disruption is a national security issue and you will get no argument from me, then the question arises, “Is it proper to be funding climatic mitigation with part or all of the military budget. After all, the current nation building in Far-off-is-stan has earmarks of social security. In fact, IMO we would be on a far better horse about now had we put an honest effort into social well being from the “get go.” Perhaps even specialized forces. Our current world wide military budget is ~$1,250 billion a year. US~=$650 billion, China ~$85 billion a year. Lester Brown, Plan B 4.0 estimates about $190 billion/ year to do a a whole bunch of good things. Almost a drop in the bucket! Once done for a year or two I am quite sure that mitigation in hostilities would save that much or more per year there after. Thus making the expenditure self paying.
There’s so many “easy” things to do now. I’d like some articles that emphasize them.
Example: relatives had an “energy audit” of their house. They followed through with improvements to reduce air leaks; they have the only house in the neighborhood where snow remained on the roof when their neighbors have bare roofs. (It is really neat to see the reindeer hoof prints on the snow!)
So now I’m kicking myself for having put up with an atrociously drafty house for 10 years. A bit of caulking of skylights and added insulation would make for more comfort, as well as reduce heating costs.
There are public sector and business things which can be done cheaply and cost effectively as well.
The second or third layer of reducing carbon output may not be totally comfortable. But getting started is a win-win game. Let’s hear some articles on easy energy efficiency.
Remember, we wiped out the international debt. Hell, maybe all debt. No interest is sucked from societies to make the already rich richer by multibillions of dollars a year. That alone would give a serious kick in the ass of CO2 mitigation.. health care, education, shall I go on?
Reading and talking to folks about climate change over the last year, I have two things;
1) Most people don’t believe or want to believe it. It would nice to have a set of simple proofs to show it is happening and will get worse.
2) Also as an individual it is not clear how to best focus my own time/energy on doing my bit. It would be helpful to me to hear inspiring stories on how people got their community, their city or their employer to be more efficient with energy and saving $$$ and C02.
I guess what I am trying to say is all systems have crashed, lets reboot the world. What good will money be when life support systems red line?
For the person interested in research on compressed air vehicles, here are links to papers at the NAS Transportation Research Board meeting in DC in 2 weeks:
http://pressamp.trb.org/compendium/508/68F61E677AB0.pdf – analyzed the thermodynamic efficiency of a compressed-air car powered by a pneumatic engine and consider the merits of compressed air versus chemical storage of potential energy. Even under highly optimistic assumptions the ompressed-air car is significantly less efficient than a battery electric vehicle and would produce more greenhouse gas emissions than a conventional gas-powered car. However, a pneumatic-combustion hybrid
is technologically feasible, inexpensive and might compete with hybrid electric vehicles.
Similar results in Compressed Air Vehicles: Drive-Cycle Analysis of Vehicle Performance, Environmental Impacts, and Economic Costs (paper 10-3282)
Joe, you and your team are doing a magnificent job! If you can find sources, it would be nice to see periodic metrics on cities’ adopting building ordinances (e.g., LEED and Builditgreen.org GreenPoint), energy ordinances, parking garage electrification and other “demonstration” projects, residential and commercial rooftop solar financing (e.g., BerkeleyFIRST and California AB 811) and climate action plans (CAP) that align with various levels of GHG reduction targets. Working with my city implement our CAP, it would be helpful to be able to put our efforts into perspective and encourage other cities with quantifiable indicators of local trends in solutions policy adoption and implementation. Appreciate all your good work!
#3:
Marie, #66: While I agree that compressed air is not as efficient as electricity, and cannot compete with the family car I feel that it’s simplicity, safety, lightness, speed of charging, low cost and more offer many advantages for short haul people mover. Assist on Bicycle. Single or double occupancy urban short haul people movers. The heat lose from compressing air can be reclaimed for home or water heat assist. We cannot afford to let energy slip thru our fingers in the future.
I would like to know what can be done to help the pine beetles stay warm in this frigid winter? Will Obama create a beetle bailout so they can all buy an electric blankey? What about a forest soup kitchen?
Ocean Acidification.
Polar cites, might we need them, yes or no? At least, discuss the issues.
Where are the courts in all this? Something about the contract law provision of ‘force majeure’ will be a very big deal…ie will courts decide whether AGW is something that was foreseeable? Preventable? There are lots of legal squabbles brewing. Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, and Kivalina v Exxon will be appealed…
Also, what do the climate models mean for near term projections?
Why don’t politicians accept the science? Can you or somebody do a long, deep interview with Inhofe? He must have some deeply disturbed thinking somewhere.
IFR. What do you think of IFR, Joe? You are clever, are you as clever as Barry Brook?
What you’re already doing is fantastic, Joe.
And I have tremendous respect for many of the above suggestions.
But, as a scientist/MBA who’s spent a career analyzing and projecting trend lines, I hate to say it, but IMHO our current action trajectory isn’t going to hit the window of opportunity we need to hit in order to preserve a reasonably livable climate for our kids and grandkids.
Hence my concern is that the world’s best blog coverage and disussion of the above issues in 2010 is tantamount to ‘rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic’–distracting us, but doing nothing to save our souls.
So, here’s the question I’d like to see discussed very soon: What can all of us concerned cognoscenti do in early 2010 to turn spaceship Earth enough so that we suffer only a glancing blow, yet survive?
More to the point, since we repeatedly hear that our elected officials lack the political latitude needed to exercise climate-preserving leadership, what do folks think of someone orchestrating a million-citizen march to Joe’s house (or Barack’s) in WDC on Earth Day, April 22, 2010? (Once there, we would ask for aggressive U.S. leadership, etc.)
Thanks to Bill McKibben and others, we tried the wired, ‘distributed’ approach, with 5,000+ events in 180+ countries on October 24th, but it didn’t quite seem to get our leaders focused.
I remember an old ‘Mr. Wizard” experiment where one finds that a small, inexpensive magnifying glass can focus the sun’s warm rays to a single point that is hot enough to cause a piece of paper to burst into flame.
As climate hero Ross Gelbspan, points out in “Boiling Point,” environmentalists have so far been either unwilling or unable to “mobilize a united campaign on the climate.” So, isn’t it time?
Do we have a viable economic policy for achieving even 450 ppm, let alone 350?
38 From Peru: Please continue posting from India.
Few seem to be taking into account the potential of regulatory action proposed by the US Environment Protection Agency. The President is intelligent enough to use these existing powers rather than allowing himself to be held hostage to Congress. These powers do not need President Obama to direct the EPA; it has strong powers allowing it to act without instruction. EPA head Lisa Jackson clearly supports strong action.
The EPA’s Proposed Rule: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (see ) could be used to reduce US emissions by the
level required for less than 350 ppm atmospheric CO2, if other nations follow and also act effectively.
Looking forward, the US EPA’s proposed rules regulating CO2 emissions offers hope that the Obama Administration can use existing powers to act decisively, regardless of Congressional action or inaction. The EPA should be encouraged in its proposals due to their great potential to force changes in US emissions behaviour, with flow-on benefits to the global atmospheric commons (e.g. see Mary Wood’s comments on the Atmospheric Commons ).
Comment on the proposed EPA rules closed a few days ago, but it is not too late to show support for the EPA. The more encouragement and support there is for the US EPA to act decisively the better.
I like the monthly articles on global temperature. This fills a void in reporting. The tropical sea surface temperature and Arctic ice extent reporting is a good thing as well.
One of the things that you have been pushing pretty hard is attribution and a way to speak about how extreme weather is related to warming. This needs more rigor but there is a base to build on that I think is helpful now and could be made more so.
Someone mentioned reticence. This is a related issue and it deserves more attention. Sea level rise is an area Hansen has addressed but what about long term drought or other phenomena? Where else in science has reticence had a policy impact? DDT? Giving more thought to this subject would be a good goal for 2010 as well.
Like I’ve said in the Michael Lynas-thread, I’d love for you to give more attention to alternatives to the economic mantra of infinite growth (IMO the root cause of all global problems), such as steady-state or biophysical economics.
No solutions will work if this concept of unending economic growth in a finite system remains so dominant that (almost) nobody even questions it. Our whole culture has been infiltrated by it. It has become as natural as breathing, but every problem can be traced back to it.
Growth is good up to a certain point, after that it becomes a cancer.
wow – so many great suggestions!
i’ll simply second Lou to keep it at 11. maybe even a whole new universe of 12 is in order….a grandiose claim to be sure – i make with humility… but this late time may require such drastic action.
This isn’t nearly as big picture as some of the above, but the Houston Chronical had an article “By the way, there will still be glaciers in the Himalayas in 2035″ Posted by ng at 12/22/2009 12:05 AM CST Short URL for this blog entry: http://tinyurl.com/yc5hzwl Now I hardley believe that one error, if it happened, brings down the remaining mountin of evidence, and even the blog makes the astonishing jump from talking abuot Himalayan glaciers to asserting that “it has long since become effectively common knowledge that the glaciers were going to vanish by 2035.” But, if you know anytihg more about the referenced text in the IPPC and where it came from, that would be helpful to add to my list of responses to common denier assertations.
If it helps, the article was relating to the following quote: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate
continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035
and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at
the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present
500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).” (IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch10, p. 493)
OK, I’ll try again: Information about deforestation climate effects and solutions is extremely weak in both MSM and blogs. For every piece about deforestation, there are 100 about cars, even though deforestation accounts for more CO2 emissions.
Expertise about the intricacies of carbon accounting in forestry is rare, and what is known is rarely communicated to the public, since the media companies use newsprint and are compromised. The timber industry pollutes the discussion to a greater degree than fossil fuel companies, since the science is more complex and easily distorted. Timber people go to IPCC land use conferences and make absurd claims about logging impacts, partly because this area of climate science is not well understood by either the public or even geochemists.
Offsets and things like thinning and various intensive management schemes are not going to do any good. The best solutions is to figure out ways to reduce wood products consumption and allow forests to regenerate naturally. Diverse forests sequester more carbon and are more resistant to climate change. There are several ways to accomplish this through policy, and paying tropical countries to set aside forests is only one of them. We have just as big a problem here in North America.
Joe, first of – thanks for this great blog & best wishes for 2010!
I would love to see more R&D news and articles about companies developing green technologies.
As well as info about how to actually take action (organizations, events, you name it).
Being based in Europe, I really appreciate the international aspects of your blog.
I find it really hard to get the whole picture and really easy to get lost trying to do the right thing. A few examples:
- If you take a closer look at green energies, what about the environmental impact of extracting terbium & dysprosium in China for our clean wind turbines?
- LEDs help us reduce our energy consumption, but as electronic devices, they are not really clean to put together, even less to dismantle compared to the old light bulb. Yes, technology will evolve making it clean hopefully sooner rather than later, but how soon and what will the impact be? Is the technology mature enough to be used today on a large scale?
- I live in Paris, France: is it better for me to buy tomatoes from Southern France coming by truck 600 miles away, or shall I favor the ones coming by boat from Cameroon? Ever used a CO2 emission calculator? Based on who develops it (the airline or the railway company), it’s interesting to see how different the results are! Assumptions on how figures are computed are hardly ever described…
It is overwhelming at times and it feels like there is a ton of wrong info flying around or facts claimed to be scientific with no assumptions. I realize it’s a tough challenge, but if you could help us gain some clarity from this POV, I believe it would be a massive contribution.
Thanks again!
Joe:
I wanted you to see this information and I did not know another way to get it to you.
The government of Taiwan has just taken an important step to stimulate the supply of renewable energy. It has therefore taken an important step to stimulate the growth of the renewable energy industry in Taiwan.
The story is from http://www.digitimes.com. I am not a subscriber and therefore only have brief access to this story (24 or 48 hours). In respect of the Taiwanese version of the copyright law, I am only showing the link and the title:
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20091231PD201.html
“Taiwan government decides to adopt 20-year fixed renewable energy feed-in tariffs”
I think it is time for a revolution of terrified citizens like me. Could you please lead one?
As a few have already mentioned, adaptation is going to be a very important topic in the next year. The effects of climate change are already being felt by the world’s most vulnerable populations, and it’s important that in addition to slowing the progress of the changing climate, that we also address adaptation efforts. It’s an international issue that effects those in the US just as much as Sub-Saharan Africa. As was already mentioned in #1 and #14, population growth and population redistribution will be important factors to pay attention to as we address adaptation. Slowing population growth through development efforts – education for girls, access to family planning – in parts of the world experiencing high fertility rates, along with shortages of food and water, will make adapting to these changes more manageable. The population issue is one that the mainstream media won’t touch, but it’s one that is critical to address when discussing climate change.
The Anti-Science Sink Hole faction must have a serious case of heebie-jeebies with all of the above. I, on the other hand, love it. It reminds me of the Si-Fi movies where the computer is presented a circular problem and melts down. The A-S folks are running in “frantic mode” and have been for some time. Perhaps one day soon they will just stroke out in mass.
Moving right along…
Even thou a compressed air vehicle is not a piratical “family car” it’s simplicity makes it inexpensive and compressed air is ubiquitous. Compressed air is also ideally suited to intermittent power supplies. An empty tank is a lot cheaper to build than a rare earth battery. Charging is almost instantaneous. Being inexpensive means that it is not a stretch to own a second vehicle. If a person can run errands emissions free for 1/2 their milage the SUV now in effect gets twice the milage. For 3/4 of their busy work,? that SUV is now getting the equivalent of about 45 to 60 mpg when in service.
#2
Terry, #85″ Revolutions start with the people.
I also like the quote from I know not where but is appropriate for our times:
“Revolution is societies method of dealing with compound interest.”
Roger, you said on paper exactly what I’ve been feeling in my heart. There’s a video people can watch– type in “videos– climate change” and go down to Youtube. Then click on “an inconvenient truth”. After watching that last night, I cried for the longest time!
Millions of people will die unless we stop climate change! “Most of Earth’s inhabitants will be losers.”– Scientists’ conclusion. When we start seeing so many people die, and see thousands of species become extinct, and witness millions more acres of trees become brown skeletons as they all secuumb to insects and the oceans become almost void of life, how will we be able to live with ourselves, knowing we could have taken steps to try to stop it but didn’t?
Mahatma Gandhi said, “You must BE the change you want to see in the world.” What do we want to see? Jim Higgins, who often posts here, has expressed feelings similar to yours. He has a website. Perhaps we could start there.
We don’t have much time! The arctic is melting bad! Politics is too slow. We have to band together if we want change!
Lots of wonderful ideas, here, but I’ll just use this additional post to echo Bullwinkle (#44) — such a chart would be incredibly helpful, and presumably easy to produce.
Also thanks Ken Coghill (#77) from my seat within the federal beast — please support EPA’s efforts — with popular support we could do a lot more.
Joe,
You are doing a super job at getting the news out. Most Global Warming stories are located at the intersections between politics, technology, capitalism, environment, and science. You have the vast background knowledge necessary to get the facts right, and the political awareness that no one else seems to have.
Perhaps there could be even more information on the projected costs of “Hell and High Water”. BAU, or even 2 deg C, will be hellishly expensive by 2100, and then it gets worse. I hope people would make better decisions (votes) if they could see the consequences more clearly. If 2010 is the hottest yet, many people’s curiousity will waken. They might ask, “what will happen?”.
Also, as some others have already suggested, please consider setting up an area off to the side for the drive-by denier/disinformer troll comments. It is valuable to know what is growing in that ecology, but it may also be diverting readers’ attention away from your excellent posts.
Joe, I would love more posts that talk about how to communicate the essentials of climate issues to people who may be curious or interested, but are otherwise uninformed.
How do we express the urgency to our friends and family without being preachy or doomsayers? What key bits of science and policy can we give them so they realize that climate change issues are related to their day-to-day lives, hopes, and dreams, without telling them how to live their lives?
I depend on this site for detailed info, but would love to see more on how to share the basic problems and solutions with “regular people” who don’t think about this stuff all day (yet).
#3:
#91, Solar Mom: Check out William who commented on another post and he has great graphs and pictures on his site. Just what you are looking for. http://WilliamCalvin.com/
We need to be careful about duplicating efforts and continue to be creative in getting information to the masses.
More content focused on the Midwest where the majority of fence-sitting Senators on climate legislation hail from. The Midwest requires a unique approach and has a unique set of concerns and opportunities with regards to climate legislation. These include a large industrial and manufacturing sector, big ag sector, larger percentage of reliance on coal than other regions as well as huge wind production, biomass and clean energy manufacturing potential. The Midwest Governors Association’s Greenhouse Gas Accord provides a roadmap for addressing concerns in this region and groups such as the Great Plains Institute, National Wildlife Federation, and Pew Environment Group, among others, are working effectively throughout the region. The road to passing a climate bill inevitably goes through the Midwest.
#95, Jason: Important points. A number of years ago I saw a report about an enterprising mid westerner that bought a used RR Tank car and used it as a compressed air reserve that he charged with a wind mill. Air tools are ubiquitous and cheap. He even ran a generator off the tank for 24 hr. home power. He ran a good portion of his farm!
The 3 most important issues in my opinion are:
1) the failure of the press to report the science well and accurately, coupled with the tendency for them to give deniers and sophists ink an air time; and
2) the tendency to ignore non-linearities in warming, and the likelihood that these could cause sudden and irreversible warming. We can’t fool ourselves into thinking ambitious out year goals like 80% reductions by 2050 can be a substitute for pathetic short-term goals such as 4% below 1990 levels by 2020.
3) We can’t allow the politically possible to trump the scientifically necessary. No matter how extraordinary the efforts of Obama at Copenhagen, we must keep pressure on for greater cuts sooner. To quote Churchill, ‘If not us, who? If not now, When?” Climate progress should lead in the educating people of the gap between what the politics allows and what the planet demands.
How much has the global ice mass changed in the last decade? (Is the quantity known?)
How much energy (E) was required to melt that much ice?
How does E compare with total anthropogenic climate forcing over the same period?
Do climate models account for the energy required to melt ice?
You are already doing a great job. This site is my first stopping point every day for keeping up with climate change & energy issues. You cover a very wide range of climate and energy topics, in considerable depth in many cases, and you are able to show the connections between them. I am very grateful for all your hard work.
A few suggestions:
1. Consider stating temperatures — particularly actual or projected temperature increases — in degrees Fahrenheit rather than Celsius. Yes, I know that Celsius is the scientific standard. But Americans (who comprise most of your target audience, I think) have been raised on Fahrenheit, and I think have a much stronger, more visceral reaction to seeing temperature increases in F rather than C.
2. Emphasize the FINANCIAL MOTIVES of the deniers and obstructors. They WANT to be seen as “ideologues” because that sounds like they are dedicated to some sort of principle. In reality, their pseudo-ideology of so-called “conservatism” is just as big a load of fake, phony, trumped-up rubbish as the pseudo-science that claims “warming stopped in 1998″ and other nonsense. There is simply no such thing as a “conservative” or “libertarian” ideological reason to deny the reality of global warming or to delay or obstruct action to deal with it. There is only greed, and the willingness to sacrifice the lives and well-being of billions of people, for centuries to come, for greed.
3. Give more attention to other drivers of AGW in addition to fossil fuels. A previous commenter mentioned deforestation, which I know you have written about. I would add animal agriculture, particularly in the context of the rapid growth in US-style fossil-fuel-intensive industrial-scale “factory farming” of animals for meat. In 2006 a UN study attributed 18 percent of global GHG emissions to livestock production; a 2009 report from WorldWatch puts it at more than 50 percent. Either way, livestock production is a major contributor to GHG emissions. I know this is a touchy subject — “liberals” don’t like being told that they should give up their burgers any more than “conservatives” do. But it is nonetheless worthy of reporting and analysis, particularly since it is an aspect of mitigation where individual action is relatively easy and effective. One US university study found that switching from a standard American diet to a vegan diet reduced an individual’s carbon footprint as much as switching from a gas-guzzling SUV to a Prius.
Thanks again for all you have done and are doing, and best wishes to you — and to the rest of us sentient beings on this planet — in Twenty-Ten.
#74 – Roger wrote:
“So, here’s the question I’d like to see discussed very soon: What can all of us concerned cognoscenti do in early 2010 to turn spaceship Earth enough so that we suffer only a glancing blow, yet survive?
“More to the point, since we repeatedly hear that our elected officials lack the political latitude needed to exercise climate-preserving leadership, what do folks think of someone orchestrating a million-citizen march to Joe’s house (or Barack’s) in WDC on Earth Day, April 22, 2010? (Once there, we would ask for aggressive U.S. leadership, etc.)”
This sentiment has been echoed by #85, #88 and #90 (and perhaps others).
I think April 22 – Earth Day 40 – is TOO LATE, and we should march on Washington Valentine’s Day, Sunday, February 14. Better yet, both days! Thanks, Roger!
Let’s pull out all the stops and make it happen. Let’s make the phone calls and make it happen. We are too connected to fail! Admittedly, there are overlaps, but we are connected to millions through 1Sky, 350, Actforclimatejustice, Avaaz, EnergyActionCoalition, GreenForAll, Greenpeace, MoveOn, RepowerAmerica, TckTckTck and countless others. (Please excuse any obvious omissions.)
This is the moment. This is it! Make that change.
Joe, pose it in a blog. Get the chatter going. Let’s just do it.
Thank you, Roger and have a Happy New Year!
I am very interested in seeing what local communities are doing to address climate change. Local based efforts won’t solve the problem but the same goes with international treaties. We need national, international and local efforts to really address climate change.
Also, as the temperatures increase more and more communities will be needing to adapt to the changes. Even with the goals set by the 350 movement a large amount of communities would need to adapt to the changes of a 1.5 C world.
My request is that you please cover local solutions. Perhaps a weekly highlight of a small scale community based response to climate change?
Daron
In reference to Roger’s comment (#74)….”As climate hero Ross Gelbspan, points out in “Boiling Point,” environmentalists have so far been either unwilling or unable to “mobilize a united campaign on the climate.” So, isn’t it time?”…. I believe that we have not had the kind of leadership that makes clear to the public the sheer agony and loss that we will all experience due to the immense threat of climate change.
G. W. Bush was able to scare the pants off most of us with the “weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION” scare tactic.
He spoke to the people …. the media repeated it over and over… and everyone was on board.
Roosevelt was able to speak to all citizens and enlist their dedicated participation in the war effort of WW11 – with the danger ever clear and present.
It is imperative that citizens fully understand the vast enormity of the threat which we currently face. Only then will we be moved to take the necessary action…. collectively and individually.
I endorse what Manda Scott said above about “bringing together voices worldwide”. The voices that urgently need to be heard are those articulating the critique of the “economic growth” imperative: Peter Victor, Tim Jackson, Juliet Schor, Robert Costanza, Bill McKibben, Gus Speth, Bill Rees and — going back 50 and 80 years, respectively — John Kenneth Galbraith and Kenneth Burke.
Stated simply the growth imperative says, “we need growth to create jobs and we need waste (including war) to sustain growth.” Sustainable waste is an oxymoron but move along, folks, nothing to see here… Look over there! A windmill! A solar panel! Tiger Woods! A hybrid car! Exploding underwear!
There is another way to create jobs: reduce the hours of labor and share the work. “Sharing the work and sparing the planet” is how Anders Hayden phrased it a decade ago. But economists say, “NO! That’s a fallacy! There isn’t a fixed amount of work to be done because the economy is always growing.” But the economy doesn’t grow by itself, it grows because governments stimulate it to grow to create jobs and make more waste.
How many times do we have to go around this merry-go-round? Let’s have a movement for shorter working time. NOW! Fight unemployment AND climate change with the workers’ traditional tool, not the economists’, columnists’, engineers’, union bureaucrats’ and pr hacks’ diversions and distractions.
I would like a blog on How Drew T Shindell at NASA is doing with his work on the affects of stratasphereic winds and the cooling effects on the stratasphere and the ozone from the build up of CO2 and its affects on the low level Jet Streams. Thank you
Wow, I didn’t expect this response.
Well, I’ll keep the same balance as best I can — but definitely do more reporting on clean energy.
I’ll work to get Bill McKibben and Ross Gelbspan and others to continue sharing their voices here too.
#2:
EricG, #14: “Population Explosion” verses consumption explosion… I pointed out that on average one American person has the same carbon footprint as 10 from the third world. (The following gets a bit tricky and I mean no wrath, purely an intellectual exercise.) So off we go! One of me = 10 of them on average. In reality I am way below average, (passive solar house, minimum to no commute, simple tastes, etc) MY carbon foot print is perhaps as low as the average Japanese. Perhaps 1/2, or one of me = five of them. That implies that at least one other person has a carbon footprint of one to 15. ( In a room full of 50 people the average income is $50K. If Bill Gates walks in the average income is multi millionaires.) See what happens? We have 250 million using less than average? 8:1 and another, 50 million using average, that leaves ~30 million to balance or ~18 : 1. In fact it is not unrealistic to assume a segment of society is close to 100:1 or more. How big a segment?. One million? That is equivalent to 100 million third world folks. Pick any dozen large U.S. cities and you could round up a million of these 1:100 folks. In the good old days, if you had a starving population and maybe a dozen were eating as much as 1,200 of you…? I think a common term was “Off with their head!” Well being a pacifist and not long on the blood trip I think we should focus on those people to “see the light.” Admittedly many have an interest in the status quo, but most are intelligent to a degree. I feel that a separate strategy might be warranted for different demographics. However targeting the high fliers has rewards.
Well that wasn’t as bad as I anticipated at first.
Yikes… If there is 10,000,000 of those 100:1 folks world wide that is equal to a billion third world folks if we off them. Purely intellectually of course.
No wonder they are running scared… Screaming “no problem…”
(1) AGRICULTURE & DIET
The food system should be the primary thing we should be looking at when we talk about global warming. (Your post: “Eight reasons for farmers to support global warming action” is fantastic, by the way!)
The Economist reports that …”For rich countries this means an 80% cut in their emissions by [2050], a reduction to two tonnes of CO2 equivalent per head per year. At present, emissions in America are around 24 tonnes per head; in Europe they are ten.” This redux impossible to achieve without our society becoming vegetarian or vegan. It symbolizes moral and intellectual leadership, and an understanding of our interconnectedness. Ideally, people should always be allowed to choose the diet they want, but under the current pressures imposed by overpopulation, resource scarcity, and over-consumption, absolute dietary freedom could soon, lamentably, become a luxury. Let’s make the connections and recognize the need to make sacrifices.
(2) GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION
As The Economist reported, “The energy companies’ voices are heard loud and clear in DC. In the first ten months of [2009], it lavished $300m on 2,225 lobbyists in DC. (Compared to $15 million that 30,000 corporate lobbyists spend weekly when Congress is in session.) Energy corp’s handed out twice as much in campaign contributions to the bill’s opponents in Congress than to its supporters… Can climate progress be made w/o campaign finance reform? Accountability? Checks and balances? It comes down to fundamental questions of justice and representation. This topic is perfect for an “insider.” THANK YOU JOE & CAP FOR YOUR GREAT WORK!!!
There needs to a competely transparent investigation of the growing danger represented by the increase in methane hydrates at all current and old oil well sites offshore and on-shore, under the tundra and deep sea. We see what’s happening around Lake Biakal, in the Gulf of Mexico, and offshore in California.
We know that in Colorado methane hydrates have ddissociated and produced formaldahyde which can cause severe eviseration and death in cattle.
Since methane is 20-25 times more dangerous as a GHG than CO2, and its rapid accumulation poses a threat far beyond that of CO2 it is imperaqtive that fossil fuel researchers begin to tell the truth about the dangers of CH4.
OUR PROBLEM: Finding (frequently and quickly) the new postings at those climate websites that post less regularly than ClimateProgress.
SOLUTION: http://MoreGrumbineScience.blogspot.com/
has a blogroll presented in the order of the latest posting. And, gives the hours or days since that last posting.
ClimateProgress could present its links in the same way.
Also, add: http://www.SkepticalScience.com/
And the Glossary, or a link to one…
Questions and Issues for 2010
1. Smithsonian\National Geographic class 24-hour cable news and web-based climate change network to accelerate scale-appropriate action
2. Minimal eco-footprint small-vehicle transit as the transportation-equivalent paradigm shift of cell phones and personal computers
3. Urban ecological amplification concept of building and retrofitting entire cities to provide net gains to the environment rather than net sinks
4. Potential for greatly accelerated molecular strength carbon nano tube and graphene commercialization with signification mitigation and adaptation benefits
The Vostock ice cores – A clear concise & in plain speak as possible explanation of why temperatures of now seem the same or less as past temperatures according to the Vostock ice cores.
Deniers use graphs like this often:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
To make the argument that looking at the temp graph, there is little difference between now & times past & regarding the CO2 levels, deniers say they have also been much higher, so we are “CO2 starved” now.
Ive seen discussions on the argument over CO2 Vs temp lags regarding the Vostock Ice cores, but not why temps seem the same now & why they were not bad then, but are now. Deniers say there was no humans around then, so that validates their excuse in their eyes, that if temps were ok back then, then they are ok now,as there were no humans around then to cause similar temps, yet they are similar to now.
I have not been able to find any links regarding this, so if someone knows where they are that would be good. Otherwise can this topic be covered?
Yes, more on projections for the Midwest, employment prospects for the Midwest, …
Thank you, espiritwater (#89, 90), Doug (#100) and Gail (#102) for your comments on my earlier suggestion (#74) that we all cooperate on a million-climate-concerned-citizen march on WDC on Earth Day, April 22, 2010.
After years of trying more-indirect actions, I do think it’s now time for us climate-concerned citizens to augment fingers on keyboards with feet on turf in WDC. This is what appears to be needed in order for our elected officials to have the necessary political ‘courage’ to support the type of climate legislation that will allow us, our children and our grandchildren to avoid climate hell and high water.
Doug mentioned (#100 above) some of the key climate organizations that should be involved in orchestrating this action. If any one would like to help, please contact your favorite climate group and encourage them to cooperate. As they say, “united we stand, divided we fall.” Who’s in?
A useful model for a website rebutting phoney think tank publications has been identified by Julia Thornton (my wife). It is the
Think Tank Review Project which provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think-tank publications. The project is a collaborative effort of the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado.
Find it at http://epicpolicy.org/think-tank-review-project
ClimateCare: Julia Thornton & I propose that ClimateCare groups be established by local communities to tackle climate change.
Community-based climate action groups already exist in many communities. They bring together enthusiastic, committed members of their communities, who wish to help each other, share ideas and experiences, improve public awareness, promote more sustainable living and encourage public policy orientated to sustainability. These groups provide fertile ground for building a network of community-based climate actions groups.
ClimateCare would promote local take-up of initiatives to reduce carbon emissions through actions based on analysis of and reduction in consumption of energy, goods and services. Its strength would be the motivation and drive of local community groups. It would be facilitated by a light hand at government level, and could be supported by local government.
Building on lessons learned from the strengths of community-based initiatives in a many parts of the world, we propose government support for ClimateCare groups, but not control. Government support would be largely through the provision of information, access to scientific expertise and support for seminars and workshops. This way, the government could review the work of the groups and any need for refinement of the model.
Local groups (established or newly formed) would be attracted to join ClimateCare for the access it provided to information, training and the advice of scientific experts, rather than to grants or equipment. Individuals and families would be encouraged to join established groups or form new groups.
A more detailed case for ClimateCare is available at
.
ClimateCare
A more detailed case for “ClimateCare: a Future Direction for Partnerships for Socio-ecological Sustainability” is available at the Monash University Department of Management 2008 Working Papers series website
.
Dear Joe Romm and Friends at Climate Progress,
I hope you and your families as well as everyone else in the Climate Progress community enjoy the happiest of new years in 2010. Perhaps it will be all right if I make a personal appeal here to you now.
Very few experts have commented on the research of Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel concerning human population ecology http://www.panearth.org/ What does matter is that peer-reviewed research regarding a colossal, human-driven global challenge is openly discussed. Getting this “right” and acting accordingly by responding ably to this “mother” of global challenges does count for something, I believe, because the implications of the evidence appear absolutely vital to the maintenance of future human wellbeing and environmental health.
Please note that many experts from a great variety of disciplines have commented directly as members of the CP community in these blogs. At this late date, perhaps there is still some point in asking the question, “Is there anyone who fundamentally agrees with and will publicly support the evidence from Hopfenberg and Pimentel with regard to human population dynamics?” That is to say, is one expert wiling to speak out loudly and clearly before the new decade we have just entered closes and it could indeed be too late for human action to save the planet as a fit place for the children to inhabit? It seems to me that one decade when silence was triumphant over the science of human population ecology is enough because time is running out. No substitute exists for the best available scientific evidence.
Joe Bish of the Population Media Center is the leader in 2010 of Global Population Speak Out. http://gpso.wordpress.com/ A colleague of mine in psychology, John C. Feeney, began this remarkably successful campaign last year. Look at a partial list of pre-eminent endorsers of the GPSO efforts:
Jack Alpert, Ph.D.,
Albert A. Bartlett, Ph.D.,
Joe Bish, GPSO 2010 Coordinator;
William R. Catton, Jr., Ph.D.,
Gretchen Daily Ph.D.,
Anne Ehrlich,
Paul Ehrlich, Ph.D.,
John Feeney, Ph.D., GPSO Founder,
Dennis Meadows, Ph.D.,
Frederick Meyerson, Ph.D., J.D.,
Jeffrey K. McKee, Ph.D.,
Eric Rimmer,
William Ryerson,
Carl Safina, Ph.D.,
Peter Salonius, Ph.D.,
Lorna Salzman,
Rick Shea,
J. Kenneth Smail, Ph.D.,
Emily Spence,
Marian Starkey,
Robert J. Walker.
If someone associated with GPSO or the Population Media Center or the Society of Conservation Biology or the community of ecologists worldwide or any other expert with appropriate expertise or any of you would respond to the following request, I would be most appreciative,
If you agree with the research of Hopfenberg and Pimentel, please, please, someone report your findings regarding this evidence that appears to indicate rather simply that the population dynamics of the human species is essentially common to, not different from, the population dynamics of other living things. If that hypothesis is somehow correct, then no global challenge looming before the family of humanity can be more vital to acknowledge, address and overcome than the challenge posed to the human community by the unbridled, skyrocketing growth of absolute global human population numbers in our time, I suppose.
Sincerely,
Steve
Tell us when and how we need to ramp up our political and media outreach at opportune times. “Phone your Senator today, and email all your friends to do so… We can make a difference today.” Specific and precise ACTION STEPS
Subsidies: What are the specific and pervasive direct, indirect and external fiscal and tax system subsidies for an “economy” based on fossil and fissile materials (coal, petroleum fluids and uranium). List the descriptions and estimated valuations for the US and for all world governments. Address the direct and indirect linkages between military power and “domestic energy,” and military related agendas such as the interstate highway system and the subsequent dismantlement of rail.
In addition, you might address the substantial problems with “unconventional gas” addressed in publications such as National Geographic and The New York Times (mud disaster and poisoned water).
This is a general request beyond your intrepid efforts, Joe. Thank you.
I would also like to see more on issues to do with trade measures. Everything from border tax adjustments to trade sanctions to taxing coal exports. Can trade measures facilitate global cooperation? What role would ‘fairness’ play when linking cooperation on trade to cooperation on global warming? Are there circumstances in which some developing countries would support trade measures? Some analysis of the trade provisions in domestic legislation would be interesting, as would discussions on trade in the UNFCCC fora, or the role of trade in the Montreal Protocol.