Our guest blogger is Bill Becker.
Like the BP disaster, the extreme weather events occurring worldwide offer a Sputnik moment to focus attention on the urgent need to address climate change. Here is the speech I’d love to see Obama give in a special session of Congress, perhaps on Earth Day.
The setting: In a major departure from protocol, several guests take seats behind the President, alongside Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker John Boehner. They are Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu; NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco; the President’s principal science advisor, Dr. John Holdren; NASA’s Dr. James Hansen; and two scientists from the private sector – Dr. Rosina Bierbaum, a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and coauthor of the World Bank’s 2010 World Development Report, and Dr. Robert Correll, head of the U.S. office of the Global Energy Assessment. Taking a seat next to them is Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in full uniform.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
In my State of the Union address 3 months ago, I called this America’s Sputnik moment. I proposed that by 2035, we obtain 80 percent of our energy from clean technologies. I talked about how our genius for innovation is the key to the future of our country. Our economic security depends on it.
Tonight I want to talk as Commander and Chief, and as the chief executive officer of some of the world’s most advanced scientific institutions. I will address another vital component of our security: our ability to ensure the health and welfare of the American people at home and to reduce conflicts abroad. I will address security in the context of a phenomenon that has become highly politicized, but should not be: the developing crisis of global climate change.
This issue is not new to science or to our national leaders. In 1964, the National Academy of Sciences issued a study that recognized the possibility of “inadvertent weather modification” caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee warned him that by the year 2000, there would be 25 percent more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the words of the Committee, the continued use of fossil fuels “will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur.”
Later that year, President Johnson issued a special message to Congress. “This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale,” he said, “through a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”
In the 1970s, the National Research Council issued two additional reports on global climate change. And in 1978, the director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dr. Robert White, wrote that “industrial wastes, such as carbon dioxide released during the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable threat to future societies.” Dr. White warned the economic and social impacts could be “ominous”.
By 1979, our most respected scientists had become even more certain about this threat. The National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences issued this conclusion: “The close linkage between man’s welfare and the climate regime within which his society has evolved suggests that such climatic changes would have a profound impact on human society.”
Findings like these led to the creation in 1988 of the largest scientific study ever undertaken by the international community: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. As its work progressed, the IPCC concluded with an uncommon degree of scientific certainty that global climate change is real. Recent challenges about the Panel’s work have led to several independent investigations that have not altered the IPCC’s core conclusions.
The growing body of climate science also led to congressional passage of the National Energy Policy Act of 1988, with the intention of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible. In 1992, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, President George H.W. Bush signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – a treaty that obligates developed nations like ours to “take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof”. Like other international treaties approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate and by the President, the Framework Convention has the force of law. It remains in effect today.
The federal government’s obligation to act against climate change is found not only in treaty, but also in domestic laws approved with bipartisan support by past congresses and signed by past Presidents. Current law is unequivocal in its recognition that climate change is real, that it is a threat to our security and that we must act not only for our own benefit, but for the benefit of future generations of Americans. Unless and until those laws are changed, it is my obligation — our obligation — to respect and comply with them.
For example, the National Climate Program Act of 1978 leaves no doubt about climate change. In that act, Congress said: “Weather and climate change affect food production, energy use, land use, water resources and other factors vital to national security and human welfare.”
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 leaves no doubt that it is the federal government’s responsibility to help the nation mitigate climate change. In that act, Congress declared the federal government should “use all practicable means to the end that the Nation may fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.”
Contrary to predictions from some quarters that a transition away from fossil energy will ruin our economy, Congress also has been unequivocal in recognizing the dynamic benefits of clean energy. In Title 42, Chapter 152 of the U.S. Code, Congress said: “”¦increased energy production from domestic renewable resources would attract substantial new investments in energy infrastructure, create economic growth, develop new jobs for the citizens of the United States and increase the income for farm, ranch, and forestry in the rural regions of the United States.”
In short, our national leaders over the last half-century not only have recognized our obligation to address global climate disruption; they have codified that obligation in the law of the land.
As we all know, this is a complicated issue. Climate change may seem too big a problem to solve. It may seem we have ample time to address it – that future generations can fix it. It may seem that the harsh weather we experienced last winter is proof the atmosphere is not warming. It may seem that a few degrees of atmospheric warming can’t possibly matter; after all, we experience bigger temperature changes than that all the time.
But the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists tell us differently. A few degrees of atmospheric temperature change is the difference between an ice age and a tropical planet. Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado have concluded not only that climate change is already underway around the world – including here in the United States – but also that some of its adverse effects are irreversible, locked in for centuries.
Many of our distinguished retired and active military officers, along with the National Intelligence Council, warn that global climate change and our dependence on fossil fuels are serious threats to America’s security – that climate change will cause more instability in the most volatile regions of the world. The result will be new strains on our military forces, new sacrifices by our young men and women in uniform, new pressures for defense spending and new recruiting opportunities for terrorists.
Some argue that as we struggle to get the economy back to full strength, we cannot afford to address these problems. The reality is, we can’t afford not to. The cost of climate impacts to food production, public health, defense spending and damage from natural disasters will overwhelm us if we allow climate disruption to continue unchecked. We must be concerned not only about the national debt, but also about the carbon debt – the deferred obligation we are putting on future generations to pay for the consequences of our inaction today.
Scientists advise us that a few aberrations in weather are not proof of climate change – that climate change is revealed only in sustained weather patterns. Those patterns now are becoming apparent. It is not significant that last year was one of the warmest since global record-keeping began. However, it is significant that the last decade was the warmest in history.
I will leave it to climatologists to make their judgments about what is due to natural weather variations and what is due to climate change. But extreme events consistent with climate change are evident. Last year was the second-worst on record for natural disasters around the world. We saw devastating floods that put a fifth of Pakistan under water, killing nearly 2,000 people and affecting 20 million more. The floods jeopardized the stability of a nuclear-armed nation.
We saw unprecedented flooding in Australia where waters climbed 30 feet above flood level and forced 200,000 people to evacuate their homes. Here in the United States, Tennessee experienced flooding so severe last May that it was called “Tennessee’s Katrina”. Last winter, the northeastern United States was battered by blizzard after blizzard. The 20 inches of snow that paralyzed New York City last December was entirely consistent with predictions that climate change will cause extreme precipitation events year-round. And we remember the record-breaking snow, rain and flooding that hit Los Angeles just before Christmas last year, causing mudslides that buried homes.
Last July in Greece, wildfires engulfed rural land around Athens, a sequel to the fires that killed more than 50 people in 2007 and reached “biblical proportions” in August 2009. Last August, more than 550 fires raged out of control across Russia’s steppes, bogs and forests, creating a 1,000-mile-wide smoke plume that could be seen from space. The fires killed more than 50 people and destroyed thousands of homes.
Heat records were set in 19 countries in 2010, the highest number on record for a single year. Record heat was blamed for killing 5,600 people in Russia. Carbon monoxide levels rose to 6.5 times the allowable level in Moscow and the city’s daily death rate doubled. Temperatures reached 105 degrees in Beijing, 126.7 degrees in Kuwait, 111 degrees in Riyadh, and 129 degrees in Mohenjo-daro, Pakistan.
Temperatures broke 100 degrees in New York and Philadelphia, while Los Angeles recorded an all-time record of 113 degrees in September. In Houston, August was the hottest month in the city’s history.
The world’s leading reinsurance company, Munich Re, reported that 950 natural catastrophes took place in 2010, the highest number since the record was set in 1980. Nearly 300,000 people died from natural disasters of all types during the year; economic losses reached $130 billion, nearly triple the losses in 2009. Munich Re concluded that last year’s extreme weather events “provide further indications of advancing climate change.”
In short, we stand at the crossroads of two futures here in the United States and worldwide. One road leads to increasing disruption and damage, and escalating economic and military insecurity. I would call this the “business as usual” road, except the emissions we’ve already put in the atmosphere guarantee that business as usual no longer is an option, whichever road we take.
The second road takes us to a clean energy economy, to greater economic security, to fewer international tensions and resource conflicts, and to new industries and jobs. It takes us to a new American century of leadership and prosperity, and to a future we will be proud to leave to our children.
We know that all countries, including ours, will have to adapt to the climate disruptions that are inevitable because of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. The issue today is whether we will trigger tipping points that cause climate change to accelerate beyond our control. The second road is still open, if we choose it quickly. And I emphasize again: The choice is not a partisan issue. As one observer has put it, there is no Right or Left at this crossroads. There is only backward or forward.
In a moment, I will invite our distinguished guests from science and the military to give their perspectives on this historic challenge. But before I do, I’d like to offer a more concrete example of what our transition to clean energy can mean.
Bill Ritter, the former governor of Colorado, is with us tonight. Last January, he left office after four years of work to build a “clean energy economy” in his state. His efforts are not as well known as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s in California, but they deserve attention because when it comes to energy and climate, Colorado is a microcosm of the nation. It is rich in sunlight and wind as well as oil and gas, and it has begun its transition to a low-carbon economy.
With the help of a willing legislature, Ritter signed four dozen clean energy bills into law over four years. One requires the state’s larger utilities to generate 30 percent of their electricity from wind and solar technologies by 2020, one of the highest standards of its kind in the nation. Another bill establishes the nation’s first statutory plan to convert old coal plants to natural gas.
Xcel Energy, which serves 3.4 million electric customers across eight states, is working with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to close two conventional coal-fired power plants and replace them with renewable energy generation. Xcel already is operating the nation’s first hybrid solar-coal power plant.
Due in part to the signals these policies send to industry and investors, Colorado has attracted 1,500 clean energy companies and has the fourth-highest concentration of clean energy workers in the United States. The state’s clean tech sector has grown 16 percent and Colorado has become one of the nation’s principal beneficiaries of venture capital for clean technology.
While much of the nation was concerned about the loss of manufacturing jobs to other countries, the Danish wind company Vestas established its North American manufacturing center in Colorado, building four factories that employ 2,500 workers. Six of the company’s suppliers are expanding their operations in Colorado. SMA Solar Technology announced that Colorado will be the location of its first manufacturing plant outside Germany. Other renewable energy companies have announced plans to create hundreds more green jobs in the state this year.
Governor Ritter says Colorado’s commitment to build an energy economy that “rewards imagination, innovation and ingenuity” is largely responsible for the fact that its unemployment rate has been two to three points below the national average during the recession.
The Colorado model must be our national model, including its demonstration of the progress that is possible when the legislative and executive branches work together. Tonight, I have submitted to Congress a National Energy Policy Plan designed to meet the goal of obtaining 80 percent of our energy from clean resources and technologies. I urge Congress again to phase out public subsidies of fossil energy to help pay for this transition. Oil, gas and coal are mature, well-financed industries. It is not necessary that they be wards of the state. It is time we invest in the emerging technologies we need for a low-carbon, high-opportunity society.
But let me be clear: While we must invest aggressively in research and innovation, we already have the know-how and technologies we need to begin the energy transition. What we have lacked for the last half-century is sufficient political will. The time to exert that political will is now. There is no more time to waste. This is not a position I have reached because of my political orientation or my philosophy of government; it is the conclusion of science, the result of physics and the advice of my national security team. Among our other responsibilities in public office, we have been elected to assess, anticipate and manage significant risks to the country’s future, particularly in cases where states and the private sector cannot do the job alone. It is the right thing to do, the responsible thing to do, and the smart thing to do.
As I thought about this Earth Day, I weighed whether I should address climate change frontally and risk further polarization between those of us deeply concerned about the issue and those who have not yet recognized its reality. It is easier to talk only about clean energy, whose many benefits happen to include a major reduction in America’s greenhouse gas emissions. But addressing climate change head-on is important for two reasons.
First, we must not try to avoid our moral responsibility as the nation most responsible for the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today, nor our responsibility to help the people of developing nations achieve peace and prosperity without adverse global impacts that hurt us all. We can call that enlightened self interest, but I believe great responsibility comes along with our nation’s extraordinary blessings.
Second, we must not avoid the central lesson of climate disruption: We can no longer behave as though our species is separate from the natural world. The wisest people in our history have told us we are part of the web of life. For the past 200 years, fossil fuels and virtually unbridled development have allowed us to build the most prosperous nation on Earth. Now, those fuels and practices are ripping at the web, and we’re getting a hard lesson in how connected to it we are. If we don’t accept that lesson, we will continue ripping at the web in other ways to our detriment, even if we learn to live without carbon fuels.
The fact is, a different planet would get along fine without us. But we will not get along well on a planet considerably less hospitable than the one that has nurtured our species for so long.
We also are part of, and responsible to, the ecology of time. What we do today, more than any other point in human history, will profoundly affect the future of this great nation for many generations to come. We have an obligation not only to the generations ahead, but to all the men and women, from the Great Generation back to the Founders, who dreamed, worked, struggled, sacrificed and died to prove that a free society can be an enduring, responsible and sustainable society.
Now, I would like to invite Admiral Mullen to address us from the national security perspective, followed by Dr. John Holdren, my chief science advisor, who will introduce his distinguished colleagues and offer their perspectives on global climate change.
Thank you. God bless each of you and God bless the United States of America.
– Bill Becker is executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project (PCAP) at Natural Capitalism Solutions in Boulder, Colorado. Before launching PCAP in 2007, he worked on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs for 15 years at the U.S. Department of Energy. Among his other roles, he serves on the international Climate Change Task Force created and chaired by former Soviet President and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mikhail Gorbachev. Parts of this post are excerpted from the conclusion of the report issued on Jan. 24 by the Presidential Climate Action Project.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I’m speechless. President Obama shouldn’t be.
First, nice job! It might just be what it takes for these deniers to crawl back under their rocks…I don’t know. The least little hole and they will try to exploit it and obfuscate the facts. History will not be kind to the deniers, and if there was a way to assemble people, hunt them down and tar and feather them, that’s what they deserve!
What didn’t you talk about was the obvious fact that our current way of life will have to transition to a much “smaller” way of life. We cannot expect to manufacture our way out of this mess. It’s unclear if solar panels every pay back the energy it takes to manufacture them, for example. Climate physics are what they are, we cannot pretend anymore. It’s simple living time, bicycles, walking, some mass transit, mostly local. The speech did not talk about this reality. Perhaps a subsequent speech??
Again, nice job!
Good speech but:
1) two-thirds of the American people would be asleep before he got done. and
2) cutting the subsidies to the fossil fuel companies is not near enough. The President should call for the immediate phase in of a fossilized carbon tax. After three years that tax would collect $.10 for every pound of fossilized carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere. That would raise the price of a gallon of gas or other liquid fossil fuel about $2.00 and a kilowatt-hour of coal generated electricity about $.20. The monies collected would be used to set up a $2 Trillion dollar trust to deal solely with climate change related infrastructure needs and following that be returned to the American people as a carbon dividend. At full implementation (3 years) the tax could be expanded to include all imported goods not subject to a carbon tax in the country of manufacture. The market would then take care of the movement to renewable energy.
The Stern Report called fossil fuels “the greatest market failure”. Let’s endeavor to rectify that.
See also “The Speech Obama Needs to Give” at http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/5874.
It could still happen …
Weather is becoming increasingly destructive here in Connecticut.
Roofs caving, gutters clogged, water damage to structures,(homes , commercial) transportation problems.
What happens after all this begins to melt and we have torrential rains, and warmth?
Someone in Washington has to begin to see the light. Its already too late.
Can we do this? Go from a consumer culture to a nurture culture?
For the sake of the kids?
Every advantage of renewable energy comes with its own disadvantages. One of these is because the current methods and technology that are available nowadays are still so costly and is not readily available to most of the world’s population. This is the only major disadvantage that can be encountered by those who wants to avail of renewable energy resources. Still, once it’s installed and are working properly, it can contribute to big savings in the long run.
Mike (No. 3): In regard to two thirds of the audience falling asleep:
Yes, I wrote this in the finest tradition of State of the Union addresses. Prolific, hopefully prophetic, and definitely soporific.
Second, the remaining one-third of the audience would be pretty good. Might be enough for the critical mass we need.
Last point: I used to write editorials for a newspaper. I came to the conclusion over time that we changed very few minds. People tended to read the editorials that reaffirmed rather than changed what they already thought. The power of editorials was that politicians were AFRAID we were changing minds.
Likewise with an effective climate speech. Its influence might be to show Congress that climate change can be framed in a way that 1) shows them how out of step they are with their predecessors, and 2) makes sense to the voters.
Bravo Bill!
Thanks for this, Bill. Great job.
Clearly, the President should address the public regarding climate change, covering the great substance you’ve covered here as well as some very important additional points. It’s probably too much to cover in a single address, but that’s OK, because the President should make a SERIES of addresses to the public — necessary to make the key points, and also necessary to indicate the genuine importance of the matter. The problem (climate change) and related problems (the economy and jobs, energy security, and etc.) are important and large enough to warrant an ongoing series of addresses.
Also, although your writing is great, I’d hope that — for speaking purposes — the President could write and deliver it in a more “punctuated” and “punchy” way, in a lively and emphatic way.
And, thinking in terms of a SERIES of vital addresses, the President should also be creative in calling on, and utilizing, credible voices to help make the case as compelling as it is. For example, the leaders of all of the world’s top bona fide scientific organizations should be in attendance at one of the main addresses, perhaps the first or the second: scientific leaders from all over the world, including the key U.S. folks as well as Sir Paul Nurse (the new head of the Royal Society) and etc. etc. etc. The President should provide a platform for presenting the leading voices of the scientific community, and interact closely with that community, and utilize that community, as part of his obligation to convey the reality of the situation to the American people. It is deeply disappointing to me how little the President has been doing so, and indeed how little creativity and verve he has shown, so far. There are SO MANY WAYS — all of which fall within his authority and ability and resources — to utilize the scientific community, the bully pulpit, public addresses, and so forth in order to present the reality of the situation to the American people. The lack of creativity (so far) has been astonishing.
This has me wondering: Although many scientists are HIGHLY creative in their own ways, and I suppose that many lawyers (like the President) are sometimes creative in their own ways (are they??), the lack of creativity in carrying and conveying the reality of climate change (to the public) has been astonishing. SO MUCH MORE could be done — and more creatively and effectively — than what the President has done so far. Although Secretary Chu is a superb scientist, and I applaud him and respect him, I’m coming to the conclusion that creativity in conveying the climate change message is NOT one of his strong points.
So, as it seems, in the Administration there are (apparently) a number of key folks who advise the President not to even utter the phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’. Then there are those — perhaps the same ones — who advise the President only to cover the matter, briefly, from the standpoint of “competition” and “economic growth”, entirely ignoring the central human, moral, and common-sense parts of the case for addressing climate change. (Apparently, beating China is held to be more important than showing responsibility towards children, future generations, and humankind at large??!) BUT ON TOP OF ALL THAT, all of those folks seem to utterly lack any sense of creativity and verve in coming up with events and addresses, a series of them, involving all sorts of people, conveyed in all sorts of ways, and so forth. One thing is for sure: Our political leaders, bureaucrats, scientists in the government, political advisors, and so forth seem to be endowed with almost nil creativity. And that’s a big problem. They need help, and a lot of it, from people who know how to convey messages and (genuine) stories, be engaging, utilize resources creatively, engage the public, and “move”. If there’s one thing missing from present strategies and approaches, especially in the Obama Administration, it’s creativity. (Granted: The other things are sufficient motivation and verve.)
In any case, thanks for this post, Bill, and you are onto something necessary. How is it that we are over thirty years down the road, in terms of awareness of climate change, and what do we get? A dry talk on Tuesday that didn’t even mention ‘climate change’ and that was so boring, if we’re honest about it, that I would have rather been watching old episodes of I Dream of Jeannie (Genie?).
Cheers,
Jeff
Bill,
Thanks for your response #9.
Agree with your “changing minds” sentiment. I’ve written many local Letters to Editors and pushed the fossilized carbon tax in several. Nothing yet but I keep hoping.
Best,
Mike
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1351217/Climate-change-sceptics-double-4-years-Britain-goes-cold-global-warming.html
This is why it is important for leaders to communicate the message clearly. It really is a sad state of affairs.
I’ve tried to post similar thoughts a couple of times recently and my comments aren’t making it through. Perhaps it’s a change in computers, but I’m back to the one I usually post from with my usual email address.
In any event, the great divide in response to President Obama’s role and the SOTU is this: can/should President Obama lead by attempting to change opinion on the need to act agressively to address climate change and the other problems caused by unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions or, given the politics of the moment, is it more effective for President Obama essentially to play politics to the best of his ability given the reality of the political landscape at the moment? Clearly, President Obama has opted, so far, to play politics.
I tend to agree with those who have concluded that it would be futile to try to change hearts and minds directly right now. Sadly, it would have been much easier to do this two years ago and perhaps the best opportunity for President Obama to truly lead on these issues has passed him by. Eventually, and whether this must occur in connection with the 2012 campaign or soon thereafter (assuming re-election), President Obama will have to take a major political risk by attempting to change opinion. The political space for necessary action is simply too small right now. That reality has created major angst for all Climate Progress readers as the almost unthinkable outcome we all fear stares us in the face: have we literally fiddled while Rome burns?
Can anyone confirm if Obama even believes in climate change !? I`ve been googling it all morning & he has no clear stance I can tell. He just talks about alternate energy & green jobs. This is AMAZING to me that NO one seems to have directly asked him about Global Warming … If someone can point me to a link where talks about I`d greatly appreciate it.
Brilliant insights in a post today at Grist.org by Terry Tamminen:
“Close the public schools- that’s the answer to our deficit problems”
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-27-close-the-schools
#12 Hansen doesn’t think he “gets it” and who would know better?
Sorry can’t provide a link right now.
It is clear President is one of those who believe the climate is changing but we have plenty of time before we need to take action. It might be nice to have a modest bill in place to begin to limit GHG but now is not the right time; so let’s wait.
He has a lot of good advisors so I am inclined to go along with him until those advisors have been discredited. I don’t see a lot of discontent in the progressive media regarding ‘No Action’ Obama. Many other issues seem to be much more important to criticize the President about.
Politicians, including the President, will be unable to pass anything that addresses global climate change. First off, the use of the term Global turns off too many Americans and all politicians from the GOP. They somehow, in their minds, twist such terminology into world-government nonsense.
Actual events in the ever-changing world we live in will have a much larger effect upon the average joe. As the situation becomes worse and worse, which it certainly will, the effect upon real lives will become more obvious and then and only then will the public demand action from their government. It takes selfish concerns to motivate the masses into action. As long as most are fat, dumb and happy I’m not convinced action will be forthcoming.
Until political speech fully respects requirements of physical sciences – then this is all a trifling exercise of voice and electrons.
The argument is over selecting either fast self-destruction or slow self-destruction.
You can negotiate with global warming, but warming will not stop or reverse until real physics intervention happens.
Carbon combustion kills. And we should allow it ONLY for the purpose of manufacture and deployment of clean energy.
#12 I don’t know what the President himself believes, but I know that in the past, Rahm and Axelrod haven’t let him say “global warming” or “climate change” because of their concern for the President’s re-election. It’s about the words you put into his mouth. Here’s a Climate Progress post from last year that explains it:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/13/the-unbearable-lameness-of-being-rahm-and-axelrod/
Here’s another area neglected in the State of the Union. Food.
Global Food Shortages Forecast By 2020
According to the non-profit Universal Ecological Fund, the world will be faced with food shortages by 2020 if, as a UN-backed panel has predicted, global temperatures rise to a level 2.4 degrees Celsius above those in pre-industrial times.
http://www.newslook.com/videos/286813-global-food-shortages-forecast-by-2020?autoplay=true
Bravo! Now how to get it to the President. Any chance of doing a mass emailing with the speech included in each? A regular reader but not to commenting but, cuss words, it is time to do something.
Harry
Ban Ki Moon was clear in Davos today: “We are running out of time. Time to tackle climate change. Time to ensure sustainable, climate-resilient green growth. Time to generate a clean energy revolution.” and:
“We mined our way to growth, we burned our way to prosperity. We believed in consumption without consequences. Those days are gone. In the 21st century, supplies are running short and the global thermostat is running high.” http://bit.ly/BKMTim
Obama has made speeches on climate change before:
From his U.N. speech in Sept ’09:
“…the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it boldly, swiftly and together, we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.
No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change.
Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.
The security and stability of each nation and all peoples, our prosperity, our health and our safety are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out. ”
Full speech here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092201283.html
The problem is that his actions have not sufficiently matched his rhetoric…
There are two kinds of ignorance,
Blind and Blissful!
Blind ignorance must be forgiven as it hinges on exposure! I will define ‘Blissful’ ignorance as ignorance of choice! It is often associated with a built in bias not unlike that we often attribute to the ‘Red Neck’ people. Those who choose sides based on their social comfort zone. They chose the side that their friends choose! They willingly will not question the bogus diatribes of their piers!
We often see politicians march to the tune of their party leaders. The shocker is seen when they give up any form of common sense to parrot the most absurd and groundless talking points. When one question their logic they rebut with even more mindless and often complex answers they hope the average Joe will not be able to grasp. Their talking points are orchestrated from the poisoned think tanks owned by the fossil fuel corporations. They will conger up the latest spin with absolutely no regard for fact or logic. They willingly dig out the oldest claims of pseudoscience as the latest discoveries of truth. Oh what shame these sham artists amass! The day of reckoning is coming but alas it won’t be soon enough as our leaders will never grasp the compounding forces of the Tipping Points. Mankind will suffer as never before. When our leaders blissfully ignore the consensus of science to appease their marionettes, we loose. We will rue the day when we did not become more agitated and outspoken. An alert and responsive electorate must become proactive or the price will become unaffordable and the pain will overwhelm everyone! It is time to gather together and confront the candidates and ask the questions that they don’t want to talk about! Thank you Bill for pointing to the historical record showing how government has spoken on this issue and done nothing since the nineteen fifties. Oh what has mankind wrought?
Mr. Becker I think you have written a great speech for President Obama.
The challenge that we are facing in Canada and Canada is the alternate reality that so many people are living in. Newsweek had a great article on the dumb things Americans believe in which can be found below.
http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html
Some of the more striking things are that only 39% of Americans accept the theory of evolution, 20% believe the sun revolves around the earth and on and on it goes.
It seems pointless to even try to reach out to this segment given their scientific illiteracy. Yes, these views could be changed, but only over decades and we don’t have that time to deal with AGW. We could hope that these people won’t vote but those denying AGW know that it is these voters which can keep them in control of the political agenda.
Your speech is pitched to be delivered to an educated audience. Unfortunately increasingly that is the minority. At the same time I do believe this speech needs to be delivered if for no other reason it is the only real path forward that I can see.
PLEASE send this to Obama!!
The US gives $4 billion in subsidies to oil producers every year. The US consumes 21 million barrels per day. That’s 882 million gallons per day. Times 365 days per year, that’s 321930 million gallons per year. The US produces 42% of its domestic consumption so only 42% get subsidies. So 0.42 x 322 billion gallons per year = 135 billion gallons recieving $4 billion in subsidies. So each gallon is in essence recieving 3 cents in subsidies. That may not sound like much, but removal of the subsidies will have bigger effects for big companies that benefit hugely from these subsidies. Removal of these subsidies will reduce emissions by 18% by 2050.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/28/climate-change-renewableenergy
No, clean energy is not a substitute for climate change
…the looming threat of climate change.
The bitter irony is, Republicans — unlike the Innovationeers — understand this perfectly well. They know that if climate change is real and widely understood, the case for substantial government action will be undeniable. That’s why they politicized it in the first place. (If you think this dispute is really about science, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.) Now that they’ve succeeded in making it “divisive,” the Obama administration is running from it, hoping to back their way into ambitious policy with happy talk about innovation.
It’s not going to work. We won’t act with the scope, scale, and speed necessary unless the threat of climate change is widely understood to be real and urgent. Admittedly, nobody yet knows how to make that happen — climate change is a devil of an issue for creatures with our cognitive machinery. It’s going to be a long struggle. But giving up is not the way to win that struggle.
#24 Robert of NH – very wise description of 2 kinds of ignorance.
We might further describe blissful ignorance as delusion supported by addiction. Addiction to power and energy and affluence. I know I like all those, but none should poison our future, harm others or hasten extinctions.
No re-admission permitted into the Garden of Eden
That’s great, but I really doubt that it will change anybody’s mind. The deniers have their minds firmly made up already. Adding James Hansen into the mix would certainly not help; the people who need to be convinced think that Sarah Palin is a genius…
Most people do not know who James Hansen is #30- Crank. Let alone what he is saying. The denialists have thousands of clever network operatives. They are everywhere and spread confusion and misinformation.
The snow emergency here in my state of Connecticut is reaching disastrous proportions- and there is no end in site. The atmosphere is saturated with moisture- and is squeezing out every drop.
I feel at this point- with Obama running away- we will not be able to curb greenhouse gases for years. Hansen the other day said we have entered into A zone of ‘Dangerous climate Change’ Where was the American MSM when he said this? The Chief NASA Climate Scientists makes a profound warning- and I read it in the Australian Press.
Our problems are just beginning- and I feel will become horribly worse.
About Climate Disruption
The most intriguing thing about the australian floods are the situation most affected flood survivors are faced with.
“I lost everything!” the grim reality for thousands and more subtile for those who still have a standing house and were just partial affected. Videos show community affords, but how many struggle with health issues.
And then there are the acute dangers of deadly snake bites and other sorts of dangers related to this aftermath, like blocking rubble broken electricity lines and such. Many in the outskirts are alone and it it seems almost impossible to assess the flood damage, which raged across an area like california and texas combined. Somehow all the households will struggle to clean up as best as they can. That’s for the short term impacts of this human fueled climate catastrophe. The mid and long term impacts are in itself of huge concerns. The complete area got shaked like inside a washing machine and huge amounts of potential hazardous substances floated around Australia’s land. Contaminating ground and drinking water, affecting human and animal organism for decades it seems and settled somewhere totally uncontrollable now.
Then there is the mold which follows every flood, which often stays inside the structures. Just imagine many houses got flooded twice or even three times. Many residents of these houses will be affected of the mold.
A Deadly Allergy – Mold And Mold Spores
Think disasters like fire or flood are the only things that can destroy your home? Think again. There may be an enemy growing in the dark, damp places in your house. This enemy may not only be harmful to your family, but may also threaten the life of your home. http://ezinearticles.com/?A-Deadly-Allergy—Mold-And-Mold-Spores&id=579770
To get a better understanding of the negatively impacts look at New Orleans. Crime, suicide rate and overall mortality or Alcohol addiction, heath concerns, family breakdowns etc.
Report issued summer 2006
Excess Mortality in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: A Preliminary Report http://www.dmphp.org/cgi/content/short/1/1/15
2010
Post-Katrina Mortality Rate Still High
Many Suffer From Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
“We have more cases to autopsy now because of all the natural deaths, because other people are still suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder from the hurricane and because of lack of medical care,” Minyard said.
WDSU medical editor Dr. Corey Hebert weighed in.
“The link between stress and severe illness is inextricable,” he said. “Those two things run parallel. I guarantee you there have been many deaths in this city just due to the fact that people were having so much stress right after the storm.”
http://www.wdsu.com/r/22837230/detail.html
The bottom line, climate change kills humans in huge numbers already.It’s a slow creepy kill which also contributes to social unrest, anarchy and ultimately civilization breakdown.
I just tried to send this whole text to WhiteHouse.gov but the message text is only limited to 2500 characters. Any other ideas?
Peter M. “Our problems are just beginning- and I feel will become horribly worse.”
That is correct and it seems humanity will go down with a whimper instead of a fight! Throw the despots in jail, get rid of them! Denial on climate change – about science is a Threat to the National Security and must be deal with adequately. We kill our future if we do not act today!
Prospace Environmentalist said “I just tried to send this whole text to WhiteHouse.gov but the message text is only limited to 2500 characters. Any other ideas?”
While at it, a good start would be to list climate change as it’s own bulletin here, http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues
This is what I do to get by the Filters:
www stuff… climateprogress.org/2011/01/28/at-the-crossroads-floods-fires-and-the-speech-obama-should-give-on-climate-change/
It appears to go thru. I like to add a story.
@19 Richard Pauli – I respectfully do not believe we can manufacture our way our of this mess. There is no techno-fix…the hydrocarbon party is over. Earth’s climate physics has spoken. The CO2 we emit and the CH4 we cause to be emitted via positive feedback, will practically sterilize the planet. Stop trying to save industrial civilization. We manufacture so-called renewal energy devices, for what? To power our TV sets and coffee makers? Eventually we have to also manufacture the “things” that the power will run, TVs and coffee makers.
It all has to come down, at least half the people need to die out, and the survivors then need to live small…about like they currently live in Afghanistan, mud huts, donkeys for transportation, etc. Then, and only then, there’s a chance of avoiding frank badness and only having just climate badness…IMO.
We all have front row seats and the foresight to know what is unfolding before our eyes. Perhaps we should take an anthropologist’s viewpoint, pull up a lawn chair and just enjoy the undoing of the latest little experiment in civilization? The sooner industrial civilization goes down, the better our chances of surviving as a species. But go down it must, or humans and most living things will not survive.
TGriz
Mike – Soo much wrong with your reply it`s to frustrating to give much an answer to. His advisors suck & I wish people would stop making excuses for him, it`s getting almost as irritating as listening to deniers. Theres no brilliant plot here to save the environment,it`s a plot to get re-elected. Delay for any reason is a failure. We find ourselves in this situation in the first place because he`s bought into all this propaganda & gave credence to it. Him & his advisors horseshit job of articulating issues is not acceptable.
I`ll be waiting if anyone finds a link where Obama says more then a rhetorical sentence about Global Warming/Climate Change to avoid controversy.
more food issues looming on the near term…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41323072/ns/weather/
State media say if it doesn’t snow in Beijing on Saturday this will be the longest the capital has had to wait in the six decades since the weather bureau started keeping such records. No snow is forecast in the coming days.
Months of dry weather have given China’s key wheat-growing province of Shandong its worst drought in at least 40 years. That threatens to put further pressure on surging food prices.
In words and deeds, President Obama clearly understands the implications and importance of climate science. He mistakenly thought that the 111th congress could reform both health care and energy policy. That’s history.
Though many would prefer a more full throated explicit speech about climate risks, the President is setting the stage for an inevitable showdown. The fact that his opponents adopted climate science denialism as a core principle exposes stark policy contrasts that will be impossible to ignore. 2011 SOTU excerpts are appended.
More than political advice, he needs better informed Americans to be truly concerned about climate/energy risks. He needs more momentum on the ground. He is limited by, and can be empowered by, the will of the people. Use what we learn about communicating science from this and other sources to debate the skeptical and energize the unconcerned. Donate to organizations which are devoted to advancing the policy and the debate.
CZ
“In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.
That’s what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.
At the California Institute of Technology, they’re developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they’re using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.
We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.
Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.”
Bill, there are several fallacies in supposing that speeches and editorials do not change minds. First, you don’t have to: moving people from “undecided” is almost as valuable as moving them from the denial camp…and there are many on the fence. Second, there is the Fallacy of No Control: writers imagine they have no effect because their wonderful prose fails to move the poll numbers. But the public is being assailed from all directions, especially from the right regarding climate change. So what would the poll numbers be without any opposing articles? Without a control, which is of course not possible, we don’t know. But we do know there are fence sitters.
But why write a stem-winder of an article? Remember, there are no great writers…only great rewriters. You owe it to your audience to condense, condense, condense.
@ClimateProgress Please retweet: At the crossroads: Floods, fires & the speech Obama should give on climate change http://bit.ly/frHCoN
This post would serve as a great starting point for a powerful speech to move against climate change with wartime speed!
White House official cites ‘education problem’ on climate http://bit.ly/g4pfyY@E2Wire
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/141143-white-house-official-cites-capitol-hill-education-problem-on-climate-