Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Deep Creek Hot Springs

The Moon is Waxing Crescent (26% of Full)


Advanced

Re: SC17

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

June 13, 2006 11:16AM
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?id=233b86e0-4b73-4ee7-b448-1f8c2d7465bf&k=64353&p=1

Welcome to the climate crisis

For those who have been working for decades to raise awareness about climate change, this is a moment charged with opportunity -- and with peril. A series of events -- beginning with Hurricane Katrina and continuing through the release of Al Gore's new movie -- has finally pushed the issue near the forefront of the public agenda. It doesn't yet rank quite up there with the war on terrorism or the high price of gasoline, but it's clear the next bad storm season or prolonged drought will seal the deal.

Here's the danger: 20 years of inaction have set the bar so low that any legislation at all may look like real progress. The utilities, the coal companies and Detroit may find themselves able to easily set the terms of any deal that will, in turn, set policy for the next 20 years -- and if it's a deal that's too modest in attempting to rein in carbon emissions, then it may be worse than no deal at all. Precisely because we've wasted the past two decades, we need real, not token, action now.

Here's how to tell if your politicians really get global warming:

1. Is it just one more issue on their list of topics, somewhere between trade policy and failing schools -- or do they understand it for what it really is: the first civilization-scale challenge that humans have yet faced? Newly emerging science (including some the Bush administration tried to force NASA climatologist James Hansen to suppress) shows we have underestimated the scale and urgency of the crisis.

Everything frozen on Earth is melting fast, for instance, threatening to produce an inhospitable planet in the decades ahead and an unbearable one in the lifetime of those being born. Political rhetoric needs to reflect the stark fact that this is an emergency.

2. Do their proposals come with big numbers -- 50-per-cent reductions in carbon emissions, say? They don't need to achieve those numbers overnight (the various European countries aim for them in the 2030-2050 range), but real reductions, as opposed to slower growth rates of emissions, need to begin within the next few years, according to the most recent science.

This implies Defence Department-scale budgets for technology development and for implementation of those technologies we already know how to use -- wind turbines, say.

3. Do they avoid a fixation with any one technology? The idea that nuclear or "clean coal" or, for that matter, wind, will by itself solve our energy gap is nonsense, and it usually masks an ideological argument from one side or the other.

There are no silver bullets, only silver buckshot. Given the scale of the problem, the cheapest solutions (beginning with reducing the massive energy waste in our system) make the most sense.

This implies a large role for markets -- but only once government policy has made the cost of fossil fuels truly reflect the damage they do.

4. Do they understand that technological change alone cannot achieve the 70-per-cent reductions in fossil fuel use needed to stabilize climate? We'll also need real shifts in attitude, behaviour and habit. These changes are possible (the average Western European uses half as much energy as the average American while leading a quality life), but they will take real political leadership on issues ranging from mass transit to sprawl to the size of cars.

5. Do they avoid the temptation to scapegoat China and the rest of the developing world? This has been the safety hatch for politicians who wanted to avoid even baby steps such as the Kyoto treaty: They piously insist the Chinese cut their carbon emissions alongside ours. But this makes no moral sense: The Chinese, who use an eighth as much energy per capita, are only beginning to burn fossil fuel in large quantities, and they're using it to pull people out of poverty, not indulge their taste for Lincoln Navigators.

And it's politically hopeless: The Chinese, and the rest of the world, simply will not accept the idea that the atmosphere belonged to us, we filled it with carbon, and now they need to find a new strategy for development.....

But have no fear, Bush and his Oil Comrades are gonna jump right on this big problem, just as soon as they get out of office!
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

SC17

Wizard 928May 22, 2006 08:16PM

Re: SC17

Wizard 550May 22, 2006 08:43PM

Re: SC17

Wizard 552May 22, 2006 09:31PM

Re: SC17

Wizard 569May 22, 2006 09:58PM

Re: SC17

Wizard 1206May 24, 2006 03:11PM

Re: SC17

Wizard 570June 03, 2006 12:05AM

Re: SC17

Wizard 639June 03, 2006 12:52AM

Wind Farm

Rick 543June 06, 2006 06:56PM

Re: SC17

Wizard 490June 07, 2006 10:24PM

Re: SC17

Wizard 504June 07, 2006 10:57PM

Re: SC17

Wizard 554June 07, 2006 11:11PM

Re: SC17

Wizard 516June 12, 2006 03:22PM

Re: SC17

Rick 565June 12, 2006 10:06PM

Re: SC17

Wizard 497June 13, 2006 10:26AM

Re: SC17

Wizard 565June 13, 2006 10:51AM

Re: SC17

Wizard 562June 13, 2006 11:16AM

Re: SC17

Wizard 611June 13, 2006 12:14PM

Re: SC17

Wizard 492June 13, 2006 12:38PM

Re: SC17

Wizard 1105June 13, 2006 01:11PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login