It may be too late to save the ice caps.
An article from Guardian Unlimited reports that there is a 50 percent chance that a widespread loss in the world’s ice sheets “may no longer be avoided.” The consequences of such a loss would be devastating, a fact that is articulated well by the article:
A critical meltdown of ice sheets and severe sea level rise could be inevitable because of global warming, the world’s scientists are preparing to warn their governments. New studies of Greenland and Antarctica have forced a UN expert panel to conclude there is a 50% chance that widespread ice sheet loss “may no longer be avoided” because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Such melting would raise sea levels by four to six metres, the scientists say. It would cause “major changes in coastline and inundation of low-lying areas” and require “costly and challenging” efforts to move millions of people and infrastructure from vulnerable areas. The previous official line, issued in 2001, was that the chance of such an event was “not well known, but probably very low”.
It is becoming clearer everyday that the problems our planet is facing are more serious than previously thought. Prompt action is required by all industrialized nations in order to prevent this crisis from escalating even further. It must become widely accepted among nations, and the citizens of those nations, that an economic system based strictly on the burning of fossil fuels is environmentally unsustainable and exporting such an economic system is dangerous to the planet.
The future of the developing world, paired with the actions of the United States will perhaps play the largest role in determining the path of our species in the future. Development must be promoted in the most environmentally friendly way, thus phasing out the current economic system that emphasizes the exploitation of the planet and the burning of fossil fuels. It is my belief, that the United States must take the lead in order to make such a transition.
The chances of such a change are unknown at the moment, given the fact that the current American administration chooses to ignore the problem of climate change altogether. We will find out in the future whether or not the American people and their leaders are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to save the planet (or limit the destruction of the planet) for future generations. This will most likely take place in 2008, when this issue will most likely be at the forefront of the Presidential election.
Is this good government?
Today the Guardian had an article exposing the wrongdoings of the American Enterprise Institute (closely liked to the Bush administration). It turns out that this ‘thinktank’ has been bribing scientists, policy makers, and economists to stop a recent climate change report.
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasize the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
How is this ‘thinktank’ linked to our government here in America? It turns out that this ExxonMobil funded organization has provided 20 staff members to the Bush administration to work as consultants. This disturbing link was articulated well by Ben Stewart of Greenpeace:
The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration’s intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they’ve got left is a suitcase full of cash.
Stories such as this lead me to question the health of American democracy. A poll taken in March of 2006 revealed that 85% of Americans believe that climate change is occurring (this number has no doubt risen due to recent reports). In a healthy democracy the government, which in theory is representing the people, should act based on this popular concern. This has simply not occurred.
Our governments reaction has been to hide the truth (by bribing scientists and appointing AEI staff), and insist on providing the most environmentally dangerous corporations with tax cuts and subsidies so that they can continue their destructive anti-environmental agendas. This is not good government, nor do I find it an acceptable path for American democracy.
It may be time that we as Americans examine the current state of the political system. When two of the most important issues of the day (Iraq and climate change) are headed in a direction contrary to the way the electorate prefers, something disturbing is taking place in government.
Hopefully this foul smell in government is simply George Bush and his appointees. If this is the case, the federal government will perhaps actually resemble a democratic institution in the near future.
Diet, energy, and global warming.
During the President’s state of the union address, he expressed the need for America to reduce it’s appetite for gasoline. He proposed cutting our consumption by twenty percent, which in turn would provide security for the country by cutting back on the importation of energy resources. Such a change would also help combat global climate change, and help clean up our environment.
Much like last year’s speech, this statement will most likely be followed with little or no action concerning energy policy. This sobering fact led me to write this blog, and point out a change that we can make at an individual level to combat climate change. There is in fact a decision we can make about our own lifestyle that if adopted widely, will do more to combat global warming than say… purchasing a hybrid car and cutting gasoline consumption.
There has been numerous studies that conclude that becoming a vegetarian is one of the most effective ways to combat global climate change. In fact, a recent report from the United Nations concluded that “the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”
So what effect does the consumption of meat have in the United States? Kathy Freston writing on the subject, highlights the significance of the meat based diet in relation to global warming:
…the real kicker comes when looking at gases besides carbon dioxide–gases like methane and nitrous oxide, enormously effective greenhouse gases with 23 and 296 times the warming power of carbon dioxide, respectively. If carbon dioxide is responsible for about one-half of human-related greenhouse gas warming since the industrial revolution, methane and nitrous oxide are responsible for another one-third. These super-strong gases come primarily from farmed animals’ digestive processes, and from their manure. In fact, while animal agriculture accounts for 9% of our carbon dioxide emissions, it emits 37% of our methane, and a whopping 65% of our nitrous oxide.
It’s a little hard to take in when thinking of a small chick hatching from her fragile egg. How can an animal, so seemingly insignificant against the vastness of the earth, give off so much greenhouse gas as to change the global climate? The answer is in their sheer numbers. The United States alone slaughters more than 10 billion land animals every year, all to sustain a meat-ravenous culture that can barely conceive of a time not long ago when “a chicken in every pot” was considered a luxury. Land animals raised for food make up a staggering 20% of the entire land animal biomass of the earth. We are eating our planet to death.
What we’re seeing is just the beginning, too. Meat consumption has increased five-fold in the past fifty years, and is expected to double again in the next fifty.
Also worth noting, is the overall benefits for the community when vegetarianism becomes more common. Kathy Freston also highlights this in her blog when she points out that a cleaner planet will also result from a societal (starts with the individual) change:
Not just a cooler planet, also a cleaner one. Animal agriculture accounts for most of the water consumed in this country, emits two-thirds of the world’s acid-rain-causing ammonia, and it the world’s largest source of water pollution–killing entire river and marine ecosystems, destroying coral reefs, and of course, making people sick. Try to imagine the prodigious volumes of manure churned out by modern American farms: 5 million tons a day, more than a hundred times that of the human population, and far more than our land can possibly absorb. The acres and acres of cesspools stretching over much of our countryside, polluting the air and contaminating our water, make the Exxon Valdez oil spill look minor in comparison. All of which we can fix surprisingly easily, just by putting down our chicken wings and reaching for a veggie burger.
If you need even more convincing evidence, the University of Chicago has also done a study on the topic. This study takes a scientific approach, comparing and contrasting the environmental costs of animal production and slaughter with the use of fossil fuels. The results of this study support what the recent United Nations report concluded.
I am not implying that those who decide to eat meat are immoral or unethical, it’s simply important to know all of the facts when making lifestyle decisions. I have been a vegetarian (due to what I learned in an environmental ethics class) for a while now, and see it as purely a personal decision.
It is however something for everyone to consider, given the fact that meat lacks nutritional value (must eat meat to get protein is a myth) and its consumption has been proven to damage our environment… and there is also the fact that meat consumption is now centered on a questionable ethical foundation. Is it ethically acceptable to eat the flesh of another living thing simply because it tastes good?
Again, this is a choice that needs to be made at a personal level. I simply wanted to provide some facts about the meat industry and its effect on our environment. If you want to personally help combat global climate change, changing to a vegetarian lifestyle is a great way to start (even more effective than reducing your use of fossil fuels).
Corporations urge Bush to take action.
It’s a sad day when corporate America begins to ask our government to take action to protect the planet and it’s citizens… and our government says no. Today CNN has an article that highlights CEO’s of 10 major corporations, all of which are pleading with the government to take action to combat climate change. These corporate entities are asking for mandatory carbon reductions.
The chief executives of 10 major corporations, on the eve of the State of the Union address, urged President Bush on Monday to support mandatory reductions in climate-changing pollution and establish reductions targets.
“We can and must take prompt action to establish a coordinated, economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection,” the executives from a broad range of industries said in a letter to the president.
Bush, who in the past has rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases, was expected to address climate change in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, but has repeatedly argued that voluntary efforts are the best approach.
Major industry groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers continue to oppose so-called “cap and trade” proposals to cut climate changing pollution, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.
But the 10 executives, representing major utilities, aluminum and chemical companies and financial institutions, said mandatory reductions are needed and that “the cornerstone of this approach” should be a cap-and-trade system.
The officials, expected to elaborate on their plan at a news conference later Monday, include the chief executives Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., and Duke Energy Corp.
It will be interesting to see what these corporations have to say when they meet with the media to elaborate on their plan. I never thought I would see the day when corporate America would be serving the interests of the people, while our government (by the people, for the people?) would continue to fight for policies that are dangerous to the country and the world as a whole.
Worthwhile spam… it’s my lucky day
Someone calling themselves Charles left a comment on my most recent post related to climate change. Although this comment could be described as “spam,” it’s useful spam so therefore I am going to highlight it.
Here is the comment:
Next week Bush is going to deliver his State of the Union address. We want him to get serious about global warming this year.
We have heard his plan for Iraq. Let’s try to influence his plan on the environment by gathering 500,000 signatures stating that we want America to invest in renewable energy and address climate change - NOW.
Please sign the petition and send it to your friends.
We have one week to be heard! Thanks!
It’s definitely a worthy cause. Use the link below to sign the petition and join the thousands who already have.
Let us unite and tackle global warming.
It seems that evangelical leaders and scientists have joined forces in an attempt to tackle global warming, as well as force our current President to put his ignorance and love for business interests aside for the sake of humanity. While the article indicates there is little hope for the latter, at least the evangelical community is beginning to act… they are a powerful voice in modern day America.
Here is the transcript of an interview with Richard Cizak (national association of evangelicals), Eric Chivian (director of the center for health and global environment at harvard), and David Sandalow (from the brookings institution).
EMMA ALBERICI: In the United States, scientists and evangelical Christian leaders are joining forces to help battle global warming.
The unlikely alliance was struck after they agreed to put aside their differences about the origin of life to work together to protect the environment, and it seems their timing couldn’t be better.
The US President’s annual State of the Union address next week is likely to offer some minor changes in climate change policy.
Washington Correspondent, Kim Landers, prepared this report.
(sound of organ music)
RICHARD CIZIK: We will not allow the creation to be degraded, destroyed by human folly.
KIM LANDERS: Richard Cizik is from the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents millions of Christians in the United States. What sounds like a church sermon is in fact a political message.
RICHARD CIZIK: God will judge us for destroying the creation. We as evangelicals are saying that science can be an ally in helping us to understand what creation is telling us about itself and about its maker.
KIM LANDERS: Scientists and evangelicals have put aside their distrust to form a new coalition, because both sides agree that human activity is putting in danger the earth. Eric Chivian is the director of the Centre for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.
ERIC CHIVIAN: We agreed that there was no such thing as a Republican or Democratic, a liberal or a conservative, a religious or secular environment. That we all breathed the same air and drank the same water and relied on the same organisms for our survival.
KIM LANDERS: President George W Bush is expected to offer some slight policy change on global warming in next week’s State of the Union address.
But the White House insists he won’t be dropping his opposition to mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
In last year’s speech the President said the US was addicted to foreign oil. This year, he’s likely to again call for an increase in the use of ethanol.
American evangelicals have been credited with helping George W Bush win and hold onto the Presidency.
David Sandalow from The Brookings Institution says their decision to join forces with scientists is significant.
DAVID SANDALOW: Churchgoing Americans are a powerful political force in this country and when they get mobilized to take on the issue of global warming it’s going to make a big difference.
KIM LANDERS: The leaders of this new alliance have already written to the President calling for action.
DAVID SANDALOW: President Bush’s global warming policy is almost as unpopular as his Iraq policy. Members of the evangelical community are raising concerns as well.
KIM LANDERS: The group is also having meetings on Capitol Hill and it plans to craft a “pastor’s toolkit” which will include biblical references to the need for humans to protect the environment.
This is Kim Landers in Washington for PM.
Source: PM - Christians and scientists unite to tackle global warming
Supreme Court begins debate on CO2 emissions.
This week the United States Supreme Court begins debating a very important case concerning the environment, the future of the planet, and overall human health. The court is considering whether carbon dioxide (CO2) should be defined as a pollutant and therefore regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act. Twelve states and thirteen different campaign groups have brought the case against the EPA claiming that they have failed to perform their duties under the act. The EPA claims that it has no authority to regulate CO2 because it does not believe that it is a pollutant.
This argument (which is supported by the auto industry, the oil companies, and sadly… our government) is based on the belief that since CO2 helps sustain life it can not be considered a pollutant. This argument implies that those things which help sustain life are inherently good, and therefore we as a society can never have enough of them. As you ponder the logic at work here, I encourage you to go drink all the water your body can physically handle. As your vision blurs and you begin to vomit because hyponatremia is beginning to set in, scramble into the kitchen and open the fridge and shovel all you can into your bloated face. Now crawl outside into the sun… and stay there for the next forty-eight hours.
I know I am being facetious, but this is how truly bizarre the logic behind the corporate (and I guess government) argument is. But what is even more bizarre is that they are going to end up winning this case; which will move us further down this dangrous path that our country has chosen to build and maintain. The key clause in the Clean Air Act states that:
“The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe… standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
The key phrase in this clause is the phrase “which in his judgement.” Due to our governments position on this issue the “his” refered to in this passage is the auto industry and the oil companies. I predict that the decision will be a 5-4 decision stating that the EPA has the right to determine what to regulate and therefore CO2 does not have to be regulated if it is not designated a pollutant by the EPA.
I hope my prediction is wrong… but given the makeup of the court its hard to see this ruling going any other way.
Global warming begins its killing spree.
Earlier this week the United Nations warned of a “frightening lack of leadership” when it comes to combating climate change. This remark by Kofi Annan was without a doubt aimed at the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases: the United States; along with Australia (both of which failed to sign to 1997 Kyoto Protocol). This attempt by the UN chief to convince the United States that it needs to play a role in the solution, rather than simply contribute to the problem failed; given the US reaction to the discussion at the Climate Change Summit in Kenya this month.
The decision to ignore this crisis is not morally justifiable, nor can you defend this move by the Bush administration using basic logic. The economic argument used by the Bush administration can easily be countered using the recent economic report from the British government; but that is not something I want to address here. I want to focus on a recent review of research studies, that seems to prove that global warming has begun claiming its first victims.
According to this review, animal and plant species have begun dying off or are being forced to change due to changes in the environment. The author of the study, Camille Parmesan had this to say about the study:
“We are finally starting to see species going extinct. Now we’ve got the evidence. It’s here. It’s real. This is not just biologist ‘intuition’. It’s what’s happening.”
The species that are being forced to change are also going to eventually become extinct, given the fact that it takes thousands of years to evolve. The pace at which the planet is changing will not allow for this evolution to occur, leaving many species doomed. It is also important to remember that as changes become more common, a larger amount of species will become endangered.
Given this scientific evidence, I feel it is our duty as citizens in a democratic society to ask ourselves and our leaders: “Why is the Bush administration ignoring facts such as these even though the scientific community, along with most of the world agrees that something needs to be done?”
This question is difficult to answer, but we can eliminate a few reasons given recent studies. We know its not to ensure the saefty of all species in the ecosystem, and we also know its not because it will damage the American economy. Both of these justifications have been proven flawed via the British economic study of global warming and the species study written about in this blog. So then… what is the answer?
Is it because both our President and Vice President made their fortunes from oil? Do they have some scientific information that they are refusing to share? Do they believe that sacrificing the future of the Earth, along with the quality of life for future generations is worth the few extra bucks they may make in their lifetimes? Are they simply not concerned with the future of the planet given their religious conviction that Jesus must return at one point, so therefore it is pointless to nuture the Earth and its countless creations? Do they not believe in science?
I know that many of the possible answers I list are rather cynical in nature, I intended to portray them that way. But the fact remains that no one but those who lead our government can truly answer this question. Don’t you think it’s about time we ask them what their justification is?