tagged w/ Moral Imperative
-
I think many are reaching the point where all of these meetings and words and promises are bringing us to this question: Where's the action? This is a planetary emergency but you would never know it by the way governments are moving so slow. It is as if they wanted the Arctic to melt so they could rape it for its resources... silly notion, isn't it?
Excerpt:
'Gland, Switzerland: An environmental coalition made up of research organizations, private businesses, trade unions, and environmental organizations is calling on G20 nations to accelerate the transition to a green economy and to ensure a visionary global climate deal.
In open letter published today, The Green Economy Coalition, hosted by the International Institute for Environment and Development, warns that G20 nations are failing to match their rhetoric with action, are delaying the transition to sustainable development and are promoting climate change through their subsidies for fossil fuel production and consumption.
It calls on G20 nations to honour aid commitments and provide new funds to enable developing nations to shift to sustainable development pathways.
“We support the progress that has been made in stimulating a low carbon economy through investments in a range of initiatives such as improved rail transportation, water infrastructure, grid expansion and improved building efficiency,” the letter states. “However, in many cases there remain large gaps between government declarations and practice.”
“Many G20 members have not included sufficient green investments in their overall stimulus packages, and the effectiveness of the green stimulus risks being compromised by delays in the allocation of funds. At the end of the first half of 2009, only around 3% of committed green funds had been disbursed.”
Signatories include the heads of WWF International, UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Green Economy Initiative, Consumers International, International Trade Union Confederation, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Global Reporting Initiative, Ecologic Institute, Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD, Bellagio Forum for Sustainable Development, IISD-Europe, the Inspire Foundation for Business and Society, and the Centre for Human Ecology.
The Green Economy Coalition focuses on the policy changes needed to transform the global economy into one that is clean, green and equitable.'I think many are reaching the point where all of these meetings and words and promises... more
-
-
As world leaders gather in New York for the highest-level conference yet on climate change, European leaders are expressing growing unease about the United States’ stance in international talks aimed at reaching a global agreement in Copenhagen in December.
Officials of several European countries have cited what they see as a lack of political will on the part of the United States to adequately address climate change. The American reluctance to accept any agreement that would require legally binding and internationally enforceable targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could doom the Copenhagen session, they said.
Ahead of this week’s climate talks at the United Nations, the Europeans also expressed little hope that the United States Senate would act on a climate bill before the Copenhagen talks begin. They said the lack of domestic consensus sows doubt about whether the United States can keep any pledges it makes at Copenhagen, either on the level of reductions in global warming emissions or on financial commitments to help developing nations adapt to a changing climate.
Inaction in the Senate also limits the flexibility of America’s chief climate negotiator, Todd Stern.
The Obama administration is trying to satisfy European demands for firm targets and timetables, while reassuring a wary Senate that it is not signing on to a system that would impose steep economic costs on the United States that are not shared by developing countries like China and India.
Although the administration and its allies in Congress say they are deeply committed to meaningful action on climate change, they do not want to repeat the experience of Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, when the Clinton administration signed an international agreement that was repudiated by the Senate because it made few demands on the developing world. The United States never ratified the agreement, called the Kyoto Protocol.
John Ashton, the British foreign secretary’s special representative for climate change, said several large gaps need to be closed among the major industrialized countries before there could be any hope of success in Copenhagen.
Chief among them, he said, is the “ambition gap” between the United States and the nations of the European Union. While the United States discusses the broad outlines of climate policy, the Europeans have already pledged to cut their emissions by 20 percent by 2020, and more deeply if there is an international agreement.
The Europeans say a bill passed by the House in June showed American goodwill but still fell short of the European target and what scientists say is necessary to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius over the planet’s temperature early in the Industrial Revolution, which means limiting future changes to about 2 degrees Fahrenheit above current temperatures. This limit is the internationally accepted goal.
The Senate has yet to act, but its targets are likely to be less ambitious.
Mr. Ashton said that the path forward is clear, but that politics are hampering movement in the United States and several other large countries. “There is no technological obstacle. There is no macroeconomic obstacle,” said Mr. Ashton, in Washington late last week for a meeting of major industrial countries on climate change. “The barriers are political.”
end of excerptAs world leaders gather in New York for the highest-level conference yet on climate... more
-
-
So I write this as we sit on the threshold of possibly for the first time passing climate change legislation. A goal Mr. Gore and many have been hoping to see fulfilled for thirty years. On that note I can state that yes, it is momentous if it indeed happens. However, I cannot in good conscience be happy about the bill in its entirety because the most important aspects of it namely carbon caps and methods suggested for decreasing carbon emissions fall glaringly short of scientific recommendations to avert a tipping point in our climate. A tipping point that I believe has already been reached regarding glacier melt, and a tipping point we are coming dangerously close to regarding global water resources.
Therefore, while I can be grateful that the legislation exists at all I cannot support it in its entirety and stand up with all other groups to call for a much stronger bill to pass the Senate. Of course, in order for that to happen carbon caps would have to be tremendously increased in this bill and cap and trade would have to be dropped in lieu of a revenue neutral carbon tax.
And to be totally honest that is what I thought Mr. Gore would be vocally fighting for in this bill based on his previous speeches and his call for 100% renewable energy in ten years. However, while he has called for a stronger bill in theory I don't notice any really vocal opposition to the bill as is either from him or Repower America. Mr. Gore was very vocal about instituting a revenue neutral carbon tax which is actually the most effective and fastest way to bring down carbon emissions. With this being such a planetary emergency shouldn't groups like Repower America be more vocal in calling for Mr. Gore's vision instead of just accepting what politicians are only willing to give us?
Make no mistake however, I still respect Mr. Gore immensely for all of his work past and present, but to be honest I have been a bit disappointed of late for his lack of voice firmly taking on the Obama administration on this and other environmental policies as he rightfully did during the Bush administration. Just recently the State Department issued an OK for a pipeline (the Alberta Clipper) to be built from Canada to the U.S. in order to pump dirty bitumen laden tar sands crude from the tar sands of Alberta. This is the dirtiest most carbon intensive crude on the planet and is responsible for destroying the Boreal Forest and the biodiversity of one of the richest carbon stores on Earth. And yet, I have heard no condemnation from Mr. Gore on this matter as of this writing. Also, the Obama administration's EPA also issued a certificate to allow mountaintop removal mine ponds and has to date not kept its promise in calling for the end to mountaintop removal. Again, no condemnation of this move from Mr. Gore who previously as with the tar sands was very vocal against mountaintop removal.
So what gives? Is he waiting for what he feels is the right time? Is he too busy otherwise to even know this is happening? Or dare I ask, is the silence driven by party politics? I sure hope it isn't the latter, because it is the man who wore the black shirts and suit and who stood up to rail against the political partisanship of both sides that I respect and love. The conscience of the environmental movement. Not the political deal maker.
So yes, while a climate bill in our Senate is momentous for all including myself who have worked hard over these last thirty years, please do not sell us short by supporting this just for the sake of its existence. Support it because it is a bill with adequate measures to provide for a truly sustainable future and climate balance. I hope Mr. Gore understands just where those of us who care about this world for our children stand on this, and we hear his voice on it soon.So I write this as we sit on the threshold of possibly for the first time passing... more
-
-
A broad coalition of more than 300 faith, human-rights, social justice, and environmental groups sent a letter to U.S. senators today calling for energy and climate legislation that is much stronger than the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House of Representatives June 26. That bill contained massive giveaways to polluting special interests and would fail to ensure a rapid transition to clean energy.
The groups plan to hand deliver the letter to senators' state offices next week as part of a larger, grassroots mobilization demonstrating far-reaching support for bold leadership in the fight to solve the climate crisis.
In the letter, the groups express "profound concern" about the House bill and ask senators to usher in "the transformational change and greenhouse emissions reductions required to avert catastrophic climate impacts." The letter calls for legislation that:
•Reduces atmospheric CO2 concentrations to a safe level of below 350 parts per million;
•Maintains existing Clean Air Act protections against global warming pollution;
•Minimizes the use of offsets and other loopholes;
•Protects vulnerable populations and communities;
•Promotes abundant clean energy;
•Eliminates polluter giveaways; and
•Adheres to preexisting U.S. commitments to the rest of the world.
Comments from a few groups that signed the letter follow:
"We haven't yet seen the bold leadership from Congress that's required to solve the climate crisis," said Church World Service Director of Education and Advocacy Rajyashri Waghray. "We're sending this letter to demonstrate broad grassroots support for such leadership."
"We have to have a stronger climate bill than the watered-down version that passed the House," said San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society Conservation Chair Drew Feldmann.
"We're organizing on the ground, in communities around/throughout the country, to mobilize the everyday people who will feel climate impacts, and to defeat the entrenched, polluting special interests in Washington and pass a truly strong bill in the Senate," said Appalachian Voices Legislative Associate J.W. Randolph.
"The everyday people of America have been left out of the climate debate. We are building a grassroots movement that reflects the diversity of America, to mobilize everyday people who are experiencing the affects of climate change. We aim to defeat entrenched fossil fuel polluting special interests in Washington and pass a truly strong climate bill," said Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network.
"There's an impressive breadth of groups on this letter, and it demonstrates that the status quo isn't acceptable. Congress must pass a bill that actually gives us a fighting chance of avoiding runaway global warming. There's no other option," said Tyson Slocum, who directs Public Citizen's energy program.
Other organizations signing the letter include the Center for Biological Diversity, Center on Race Poverty and the Environment, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Corporate Ethics International, CREDO, Communities for a Better Environment, Franciscan Sisters of Mary, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Friends of the Earth, Global Exchange, Greenpeace, International Rivers, Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility United Church of Christ, Rainforest Action Network, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, and many others.
For a copy of the letter, go to
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/action/toolbox/ACESA/sign-on_letter.html.A broad coalition of more than 300 faith, human-rights, social justice, and... more
-
-
When Al Gore wrote his best-selling book Earth in the Balance, he proposed putting a tax on energy based on its carbon content (which would raise the price of energy) and then cutting the payroll taxes of average Americans so they would not suffer economically while having new incentives to conserve. But over the years, Gore's 'tax shift proposal lost favor. The energy tax proposed by the Clinton administration in 1993 died a quick and brutal death (it raised taxes on energy but did not cut other taxes), while the cap-and- permit trading scheme for sulfur dioxide (which causes acid rain) turned out to be very successful.
So by the time the Democrats were back in control of Congress and the White House, cap-and-trade had become the preferred way to deal with climate change, and even Gore had moved away from the tax shift idea... [However,] the more voters hear about cap-and-trade [central to the bill passed by the House and now making it's way through the Senate], the more they are likely to flinch and the more politicians are likely to back off. Consequently, we all need an alternative, a 'Plan B.' Washington would be well-suited to go back to Al Gore's original idea -- tax carbon and cut payroll taxes. This is the preferred policy for most economists and for many environmentalists too. Once Congress looks past the word 'tax' in the title, it's easy to see the important political advantages this policy has over a cap-and-trade system.
"For starters, a carbon tax is predictable and easy to understand. It could be phased in over a period of five to 10 years. Businesses and consumers would know exactly how much the carbon in their energy and gas would cost, enabling them to plan accordingly. The second major advantage of a tax is that its costs to households could be directly offset. Citizens can see exactly how much more they will have to spend on energy and exactly how much more of their paychecks they'll get to keep from the corresponding payroll or income tax cuts. This carbon tax-shift is a much better way to go about putting a price on carbon than a cap-and-trade system. And fortunately, there's still an opportunity for the Senate to acknowledge this and to improve its version of the climate bill.
Though Congress has included a lot of good environmental policies in the 1,400 pages of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, its proposed carbon market isn't one of them. We don't have time to get this wrong. We don't have time to wait another five years -- the time it has taken Europe to discover that its cap-and-trade system has failed to effectively reduce emissions... Our leaders in Washington need to take pause and consider all the options available to make sure we enact the right policy."
Elaine Kamarck -- a lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and co-chair of the U.S. Climate Task Force -- is the author of the newly released reportWhen Al Gore wrote his best-selling book Earth in the Balance, he proposed putting a... more
-
-
I appreciate the ability to spread information and express my opinions on Current, but this is not the end. There is a big world out here with many other ways we need to use to reach people. Especially people in America who are bombarded with slick PR campaigns and political mouthpieces paid to deceive them. Our newspapers were once the tool people used to gather information and discuss it. With the advent of the Internet however, newspapers have been suffering, but do people in the majority actually read news on the Internet?
While I enjoy blogging and think it is an important part of the activism we need to see to get out truth about climate change and other issues, I also write letters to the editor of my local paper. Just today I had a letter regarding climate change printed in my local paper, and my next one will be on GMOS. That one small community paper reaches over sixty thousand people a week. Now while the chance of 60,000 people reading it today is not guaranteed, there may well be those who will read it who did not know that scientists predict that we cannot go over a two degree rise in global temperature and are already at one degree. They may not know that glaciers are melting at a rate three times faster than predicted by scientists. They may not know that islands such as the Carteret Islands, the Maldives, Vanuatu, Bangladesh, etc. are already feeling the effects of sea level rise. They may not know that the Northeast where I live is predicted to also be feeling the effects of sea level rise within the next 25 years. They may not know that water scarcity is having an effect on 40% of our planet which is also effecting agriculture. But they do today if the read my letter, because I wrote all that and a bit more about priorities and demanding government as well take responsibility for it.
Some simply choose to be defeatist and state that this kind of activism doesn't matter (like standing up against Monsanto and GMOS that are also destroying our environment) rather than doing anything. I do not believe in that course regardless of how hopeless it may look. There is strength in numbers and knowledge is indeed power. We as a species have proved it before and we can do it again.
The saying, the pen is mightier than the sword is true. And in all honesty, I cannot look at the young face of my son and do anything less. So I am asking, when was the last time you wrote a letter to the editor of your newspaper about climate change? Do you think depending on where you live that it would make a difference if you did?I appreciate the ability to spread information and express my opinions on Current, but... more
-
-
Our forests and our agriculture will save us.
Excerpt:
South Asian countries must be rewarded for afforestation, reforestation and carbon stock growth, say N. H. Ravindranath and Shamama Afreen.
In December 2007, at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Bali, Indonesia, governments from developed and developing countries alike adopted a 'roadmap' for stepping up efforts to combat climate change.
The roadmap included,among other measures,a commitment to establish policy approaches and incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). These are due to be agreed at the UNFCCC climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year.
Strategies for REDD have been much debated and some developing countries clearly stand to benefit from the proposals. But others, particularly those with low forest cover and low deforestation rates, have little to gain unless negotiators also consider the role of conservation and sustainable forest management.
REDD winners
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the forestry sector contributes about 17 per cent of global greenhouse emissions, making it the second largest source next to energy supply. Estimates put emissions from deforestation in the 1990s at 5.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide a year. Deforestation is certainly the largest source of emissions for many developing countries. Research estimates that 12.9 million hectares of tropical forest were lost each year from 2000–2005, mainly through conversion to agricultural land, but also due to expanding settlements and infrastructure.
Brazil, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia occupied the top five positions from 1990–2005, annually deforesting anything from nearly half a million hectares in Zambia to nearly three million hectares in Brazil. And unless action is taken, deforestation is likely to remain high in the tropics over the coming years and decades.
So reducing tropical deforestation is seen as a high-priority way of mitigating potential climate change. And in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that it would not cost much to do.
The UNFCCC's vision for REDD is to give developing countries financial incentives to reduce national deforestation rates and associated carbon emissions below a baseline (based either on a historical reference case or future projection). By doing so, REDD should contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.Our forests and our agriculture will save us.
Excerpt:
South Asian countries... more
-
-
Sequestering soil carbon could save 10-15% of all carbon emissions and that does not even include what can be added to that with a major reforestation effort. Agriculture makes up a third of all carbon emissions and yet it is being left out of the climate bill due to pressure by big ag. For any climate bill to be effective, soil management and reforestation must be part of it and farmers should be rewarded for working to preserve the climate balance of our planet because that in turn will bring us a more sustainable planet that benefits us all. We will need these sustainable and organic measures in order to conserve water as well as providing food to feed the world. Big ag simply cannot do it with the destructive industrial methods laden with the overabundance of fertilizers, poisons, GMOs, deforestation and monocrops they have employed.Sequestering soil carbon could save 10-15% of all carbon emissions and that does not... more
-
-
Will they be seen as 'terrorists' too? I stand with them and their message 100%. Especially since they did not hurt the mountain and stated they took proper precautions. Their message is true. True Leaders Lead. It's time we saw that on climate change.
Satyagraha.
Excerpt:
Greenpeace activists were arrested Wednesday for scaling Mount Rushmore and hanging a banner next to the carved face of Abraham Lincoln urging President Barack Obama to get tough on climate change.
A video posted on the environmental group's website showed the massive banner hanging on the South Dakota mountain face.
Its message -- "America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming" and an unfinished portrait of Obama -- was barely visible as it was whipped by wind.
"Doing what it takes to solve global warming demands real political courage," Greenpeace USA deputy campaigns director Carroll Muffett said in a statement.
"If President Obama intends to earn a place among this country's true leaders, he needs to show that courage, and base his actions on the scientific reality rather than political convenience."
The protest comes as Obama meets with other G8 leaders in Italy.
G8 leaders agreed to bear the brunt of steep global cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, saying developed countries should reduce their pollution by 80 percent by 2050, a summit declaration said.
Greenpeace said the 11 climbers "took special care not to damage the monument, using existing anchors placed by the National Park Service for periodic cleaning."Will they be seen as 'terrorists' too? I stand with them and their message 100%.... more
-
-
Coal Kills. We must quit coal. We have energy alternatives now that can be used to help clean this planet and maintain a stable climate balance. This also isn't only about climate change, it is about the health and safety of us and our children. Cutting emissions cuts asthma. It cuts cancer. It cuts toxic water pollution. It cuts mountaintop removal. It cuts the complete and utter environmental devastation of our only home. And, it holds governments and industries accountable to the people, as it should be. This is also just as much about environmental democracy, human rights, and national security as it is about CO2. Time to stop bowing to the very industries toxifiying this planet, and look upward.Coal Kills. We must quit coal. We have energy alternatives now that can be used to... more
-
-
Thousands of demonstrators have rallied across Australia to demand greater government action to protect the environment from climate change.
The National Climate Emergency Rallies called on Australia to take the lead at the UN environment summit in December in Copenhagen.
Activists also want an end to Australia's dependence on cheap and plentiful supplies of coal.
It is one of the world's worst per capita emitters of greenhouse gases.
'Strong grip'
Protesters were urged to wear red to highlight the risks of global warming.
In Sydney, rally organiser Moira Williams said that a coalition of trade unions and religious groups, as well as students and environmental campaigners, was pushing for immediate action.
"We need to be making these alliances and be stronger than the fossil fuel industry that currently has such a strong grip on climate policy in Australia.
"That is the positive in this rally and in this year - that we need to build that movement and it does need to come from the ground up, because at the moment we are not seeing any action from the top down."
end of excerptThousands of demonstrators have rallied across Australia to demand greater government... more
-
-
As a citizen of the world tired of watching governments especially the US government procrastinate in providing the adequate leadership necessary to avoid a climate tipping point that would forever change the world our children live in by putting politics over principle, I then suggest a Global Climate Impact Council be established to supersede the governments of the world that are not putting the best interests of our global citizens and our planet first.
This Global Climate Impact Council would be comprised of noted climate scientists, non governmental organizations, indigenous peoples of the world and those experiencing the firsthand effects of climate change currently, and farmers of the world who will be hurt the most by the climate changes now taking place, primarily drought. As those who provide the sustenance for our planet farmers have a distinct insight into the Earth and how best to deal with crises such as these.
This Global Climate Impact Council would meet to set emissions limits and the timeframe they must be met in. The following categorizations of countries would be considered in these emissions reductions in the order that follows:
Industrial nations
Developing nations
Indigenous/island nations
Limits and timeframes would be set based on industrial emissions and deforestation statistics over the last decade in tandem with per capita emissions. The top five countries would then not exactly be just industrial nations if emissions from deforestation, agriculture, etc. exceeded the emissions of other countries. Therefore, the first five nations based on this criteria would more than likely be:
U.S.
China
Australia
Canada (tar sands)
Indonesia (deforestation)
Emissions reductions according to scientists require at least a 40% decrease in emissions by 2020, with a 90% decrease in emissions by 2050. These are then the standards that would be applied to the first five nations, which could then combine fossil fuel emissions, industrial emissions, deforestation rates, and carbon lost through non sustainable agricultural practices as part of that 40- 90% thus not placing too much of a burden on any one categorization, but holding accountable industry as well.
{For example, the US, could then easily make this target of 40% by 2020 by allotting a 20% cut to industry, 10% cut in deforestation, and a 10% cut in carbon lost through non sustainable agricultural methods and other means. This could be accomplished through a massive reforestation effort, putting in place sustainable agricultural and irrigation methods that also limit slash and burn and clearing land for GM corn ethanol as we turn to solar energy, and a carbon tax applied to industry that would be placed in a Peoples Carbon Fund to fund alternate energy sources and other efforts to meet this emissions target.}
This is the end of part one. Part two will follow.
And in ending this part I will quote a great woman, Eleanor Roosevelt:
“Brilliant minds discuss ideas
Average minds discuss events
Small minds discuss people.”
This is now the time for ideas, regardless of where they come from. I am just an average working mother typing from a small house, but my mind is not small. It is full of hope for the future even in the face of these odds because my child is always at the end of my thoughts, and for him and his children all of this is definitely worth it. If I could go to Copenhagen in December and plead with these ‘leaders’ to look beyond their petty political differences and trying to grandstand to be ‘the one’ that ‘solved’ climate change to gain accolades or make money from it instead of doing the moral thing to save the sustainability of this planet, I would. But in lieu of that I offer this. So if you wish to add to it please do so.This planet will not be made sustainable for human habitation unless WE do it and unless those in these meetings HEAR US.As a citizen of the world tired of watching governments especially the US government... more
-
-
The End of the Line, directed by Rupert Murray, on release from 8 June
"BEAUTIFUL" and "vast" are words that come to mind when thinking of the world's oceans. "Inexhaustible" is another, which might explain why we think it is fine to plunder them for our dinner plates.
The End of the Line is a powerful wake-up call for anyone who heads straight to the menu's fish section. It documents how overfishing is decimating the oceans, and makes alarming predictions about how fish stocks might look in 30 years' time.
Adapted from the book by Charles Clover, the film opens with stunning footage of our reefs and oceans. Unusual camera angles explore fishing nets from the inside out. The film follows Clover as he asks top restaurants why they still serve critically endangered species like bluefin tuna, and speaks to industry whistleblowers about how our love of fish is driving some species to the brink of extinction.
This is investigative journalism at its best. More importantly, it is an engaging film that provokes anger and sadness in equal measure. Anger at the greed of multinational companies who seem intent on catching as many tuna as they can before stocks run out, and at the politicians who do little to stop them by setting their fishing quotas well above what scientists recommend. Sadness, too, at the loss of species, and the wasted by-catch casually tossed back into the sea.
end of excerpt
more at this link:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227112.600-the-end-of-the-line-plenty-of-fish-in-the-sea.htmlThe End of the Line, directed by Rupert Murray, on release from 8 June
"BEAUTIFUL"... more
-
-
To strengthen the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill, we need to be 16 times louder because we are outspent 16:1 by industries trying to weaken the bill’s potential to deliver a clean energy economy.
We could have as little as two weeks before a vote on the House floor, where we have one more chance to strengthen this bill. Congress needs to hear from you right now.
Fax your representative now and urge them to make the Markey-Waxman bill (H.R. 2454) stronger so we can get our economy back on track and start to tackle global warming.
_____________
The Earth will not wait for us to get it right.To strengthen the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill, we need to be 16 times louder... more
-
-
Rivers like the Thames and the Severn are predicted to drop between 50-80% in summer months by mid century as climate change takes hold. Conservation now is key to preserving water for the future. According to the Environment Agency's plans however, desalination would have to be implemented down the road along with mandatory water restrictions to meet demand.
Amazingly, this article did not mention that if people didn't demand so much the supply would increase. So again, this goes back to the GHG emissions spewed that contribute to the greenhouse effect that contributes to climate change that contributes to water evaporation in concert with water waste by humans that starts from home consumption and mainly agriculture.
It seems unfortunate to me that people would not be willing to cut their usage voluntarily in order to not see their landscapes dotted with more desalination monstrosities that will only contribute to the very CO2 emissions causing the problem in the first place while bringing the cost of their water above what many could afford and not guaranteeing quality. As with the climate crisis, there is still a bit of time for people to understand that it is their actions or lack thereof that determine the ending to this story for us and those species affected by our actions.Rivers like the Thames and the Severn are predicted to drop between 50-80% in summer... more
-
-
According to this scientific report, CO2 has been increasing by 2.3 % yearly doubling every 30 years since its first recording in 1958 (it actually increased 3% between 2006/2007.) Pre-industrial levels were at 280 PPM. Now, we are at 385 PPM inching ever closer to 450 PPM. At the current rate of CO2 emissions should they continue unabated (which I don't even know if that includes rates of deforestation) by 2050 the planet will likely surpass 500 PPM. And this is according to actual scientists who know what they are talking about and take these readings.
There are those scientists (James Hanson for example) who claim that to surpass 450 PPM will lead us into territory we do not want to visit. And while some scientists are hesitant to now use the term "tipping point" as they fear it will generate a lack of apathy towards action (which I can understand on one level,) should we not be trying to make people understand what is truly at stake here and that we still have time to head this off if we do what is necessary?
This is why when I read articles stating that governments including our own are still touting the 80% emissions cut by 2050 line I now have to shake my head. This is the same goal that was mentioned five years or more ago... and still we are waiting for action. With such an exponential rise in CO2 emissions as has been recorded and predicted taking into account deforestation, ocean CO2 saturation, and yes, natural cycle forcings, I do not see how continuing to tout that same goal is going to get us anywhere.
This is a moral crisis that now challenges the human species to answer this question: Just how much do you really care for this planet and your future on it? What are you prepared to do to not see these tipping points be reached? Reaching a higher level of consciousness about this is indeed necessary. I think about Carl Sagan and his wisdom in understanding the pale blue dot we live on and that it is the only home we have to sustain us. Does that really not matter? Have we become so blinded by politics, apathy, distractions, and lets face it, hatred for others that it blinds us to the issue at hand?According to this scientific report, CO2 has been increasing by 2.3 % yearly doubling... more
-
-
We are currently at 385PPM. At 450PPM, we enter a world where the tipping points begin to come one by one. It won't take long to get there now, and scientists are relatively sure we will reach even 600PPM by mid century. My child and his children will still be here. Heck, I may even be here still if I somehow live into my nineties. So why aren't more people truly concerned about this even with all we know and with all scientists are saying?
Well, I think the reason is obvious. It is because it is the human species that is entrusted with doing the right thing. Right there I believe there could be evidence to dispute the presence of a higher power. How could any such higher power think to place humans as stewards of anything? We seem to only destroy all we touch. I have stated many times that I have faith in humans and that we will do the right thing to save ourselves. I don't feel that way today.
I think about the future a lot. I think about the world our children will live in... and then I cry. I sign petitions, I speak out, I blog, I post, I scream, I support environmental organizations, I speak out to politicians, and I live my life in a way that I walk as lightly on this planet as I possibly can. Is it to be all for naught because of the selfish, apathetic, ignorant ones who think this is just some political game?
We must cap CO 2 emissions NOW. Not in five years, or ten years, or by 2050. NOW. So considering that scenario along with the fact that we are dealing with a system built on greed that blinds man to all that is important, I think it is safe to say we are screwed. Our procrastination for the last thirty years has brought us to this point, and STILL politicians play footsy with the sustainability of this planet as if we have time to sit and waste another thirty years. And people are still arguing over whether humans even cause it. All over the voices of the scientists speaking the truth to us and saying, you are failing morally in your duty to preserve this planet for your existence.
Shame on us all for still not paying attention.We are currently at 385PPM. At 450PPM, we enter a world where the tipping points begin... more
-
-
It is inevitable. Clean energy is coming more into demand not only because of the effects of climate change, but because of the economy and because clean energy will keep us from the Middle East sand. A change is coming because people are tired of the old ways that produce the same results with pollution, disease, war, and economic upheaval.
Reports state that because of the financial downturn climate change is not important? Well, I think they are wrong. I think the financial downturn will make more people see that to move towards clean alternate energy sources will improve our economy by providing more jobs as we move towards a sustainable future. It really is a no-brainer.
To have 100% renewable energy in a decade is a definite goal that can be accomplished. I believe it will be through a mass grassroots movement pushing political will that has already begun. I believe it will do much to bring America back into the world and bring the world back from the brink of catastrophic climate change because it is simply a moral imperative and failure is not an option.
Our planet is already nearing a 2.5 degree increase. Three degrees or above will see this world drastically changed and our relationship to it much harsher and more dangerous than we ever imagined. Now is not the time to delay and use a financial downturn as an excuse to push climate change onto the backburner. It is time to bail out our Earth!
It is the right time to embrace a clean energy future to infuse our economy and to come full circle to our moral purpose on this planet and to bring health to our people. You want a healthcare plan that works? This is part of it too. It will be the greatest gift we could give our children. It is something I look forward to with great anticipation because it has been a long time coming.It is inevitable. Clean energy is coming more into demand not only because of the... more
-
-
They say music is the universal language. If so, perhaps music is the one way to get across the urgency of what this planet and the species that inhabit it face if we do not pull together to take urgent action on climate change and pollution now.
Just a side comment: i really wish Current would work out the kinks here that keep pictures from showing on posts.They say music is the universal language. If so, perhaps music is the one way to get... more
-
-
We need a USDA head who will move us in a more sustainable direction, not in the direction we are going in now. You can sign a petition to Obama at the link here to voice your opposition to Tom Vilsack being appointed USDA head. Monsanto has had a hold on the food industry for far too long, and agribusiness companies on the whole have had a chokehold on farmers that has seen a decline in food quality and an increase in pollution, poverty, famine, and climate change worldwide with only an increase in their own profits. It is time for a real change. We can bring that change if we take action now.
From the link:
It has been widely reported that former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is being considered for the Secretary of Agriculture position in the Obama Administration. Vilsack is no friend of organic food and farming and his appointment would represent a major disappointment for the Organic Consumers Association and its members. But there is still time to make your voice heard.
1) Contact the office of the President-Elect and urge him to appoint a Secretary of Agriculture that reflects your organic values.
2) Call the office of President-Elect Obama at 202-540-3000 and make sure your concerns about Vilsack are heard.
3) Sign the OCA's petition below to the President-Elect and urge him to appoint a Secretary of Agriculture that is supportive of organic food and farming.We need a USDA head who will move us in a more sustainable direction, not in the... more
-
