“Start Building The Ark Honey, These People Just Can’t Agree…”

The majority of the world’s credible scientists,  people with advanced degrees who actually know what they’re talking about, have warned that global warming is a real and present danger.  So why are they still bickering in Copenhagen?  Because that’s what people do.  Being proactive is not prominent among homo sapiens.

Conversely, it appears to be our nature to ignore impending danger until it’s crashing down upon our heads.   Well this time it’s not impending danger, it’s impending doom.  You know, doom?  That’s bad.   Real bad.  Like the Congress of the United States failing to pass healthcare reform legislation that includes a public option.  That’s bad too, because their failure is going to kill people.

Writing about the greed and ego-driven failures of the men and women on Capitol Hill seems to be all but pointless, because the members of the Senate don’t seem to care.   They don’t seem  to be listening to anyone, other than their corporate masters who keep forking over millions in bribe money to ensure that healthcare reform will either fall victim to death in the womb or be born as a sickly and pale child giving the country reform in name only.

Unlike our national legislators who have been bought off, most of the world’s scientists remain genuinely concerned about facts and accountability.  With that in mind, it’s probably worthwhile to include the following editorial from the British newspaper, the Guardian.  It was originally published in 56 newspapers and 20 languages.

“Copenhagen climate change conference: Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation”

“Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”

At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.”  -The Guardian 12/07/09

One thought on ““Start Building The Ark Honey, These People Just Can’t Agree…””

  1. The figure of 30 bioilln tonnes of CO2 is the total global output not the total human output. The entire carbon footprint of the whole of the human race is a mere 8 (some say 6) bioilln tonnes which equates to 4.1 ppm per year.Plants need sunlight in order to consume CO2 and as more than approximately 60% of the Earths surface is in perpetual darkness, this causes CO2 to fluctuate up and down like a giant sine wave. From peak to trough the difference in natural CO2 usage and production by plants, organisms, oceans and land masses, can vary by more than 100 ppm in any 24 hour period. Yet the daily maximum of human CO2 emissions is less than 0.0112328767123288 of a single part per million. In order for a substance such as CO2 to absorb heat or IR energy it must also re-emit that energy equally. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Or simply consider this:If there was a substance in our atmosphere that could trap in heat, it would produce a net energy increase in the climate system. As this would have to be a fundamental law of thermodynamics (which it is not) then this situation would have always occurred and therefore the Earth would have experienced a net energy increase from the year dot and so would have over heated bioillns of years ago. Or at any time through out history when CO2 levels have been much higher than todays historically low levels.In other words CO2 does not trap but rather simply absorbs and then re-emits heat. Having absorbed heat, any and all atmospheric gasses rapidly expand and due to the process of convection quickly rise up towards the freezing depths of space. But before they get too high, at approximately 5,000 meters (cloud level) they re-emit the IR energy and then once again become heavy and dense, falling back toward the ground. Due to the second law of thermodynamics the IR energy emitted continues on out into space never to return. This effect can only be described as temperature regulation. The following is a quote from the NASA Earth Observatory program, CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System). “Averaged over the entire globe, the Earth system neither stores nor emits more energy than it receives from the Sun.” A substance that does not emit much energy will be a substance that does not absorb much energy such as certain plastics and rubbers. These types of substance are useful for insulating such things as wiring carrying electrical energy. The ability of a substance to insulate is not the same as trapping energy. In order to trap energy a substance must first absorb energy. But since all substances that absorb energy, always without exception re-emit equally there is no naturally occurring substance we know of which can trap heat energy.The fact is that there is no substance known to man that possesses the ability to trap in heat. If there was we would not need to use thermos flasks and we certainly would not need to buy our energy from large corporations but instead we could take this heat trapping substance and paint our roofs with it. AGW is a scam and the proof is bioillns of years of life on Earth. Without this temperature stability we could never have had the time to evolve from single celled organisms into human beings. We are living proof that the Earth enjoys relative temperature stability, the climate is extremely robust and our annual 4.1 ppm in CO2 emissions is not only insignificant but totally irrelevant.[snip – please no more use of WUWT as self promotion ]

Leave a Reply to Emilita Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.