Comments on: Emissions trading: baby steps not big enough

By: gareth

gareth — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:03:56 +0000

And I was just about to post that link…

(Off into the deepest Abel Tasman for a few days. Moderation queue won’t be cleared before Wednesday evening. Apologies.)

By: BryanW

BryanW — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:56:34 +0000

I have just read a transcript of a recent Australian radio interview with James Hansen on his call for a 350 ppm level of CO2. Guest at the interview is Philip Sutton from the Greenleap Strategic Institute, one of the authors of the Climate Code Red publication referred to above. It is sensible and reasonable stuff but unequivocal on what is required. http://www.climateimc.org/ (First item in newswire column)

Unfortunately, Steven, the radio station is probably not of the mass media variety, but we must continue to hope that this kind of discussion will increasingly find its way into the media. Scientists like Hansen would certainly commend themselves to a wide audience if they were given the opportunity.

Good to hear of your enthusiasm for Lester Brown, Gareth. He certainly enables optimism. He was pressed on his optimism in a recent Reuters interview, compared with Lovelock. I liked his reply: “He might be right, and he’s not the only one who thinks that. I have to hope there’s a chance we can turn it around. Otherwise there’s no point. Even if we lose it’s better to go down fighting than just standing there.”

By: Steven Earl Salmony

Steven Earl Salmony — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:29:00 +0000

Please consider a few open questions related to the ominous potential for mass devastation that could result from human-induced climate change between now and 2025.

Is it somehow harmful to ask direct questions regarding good scientific evidence of the potential for either apocalyptic climate change or pernicious impacts from the rapidly growing, colossal presence of the human species on Earth?

Are willful blindness, hysterical deafness or elective mutism ever acceptable “defenses” for scientists who choose to deny evidence derived from good science?

Is there some reasonable, sensible or moral foundation upon which faithful scientists can stand upright and say, “I refuse to acknowledge carefully and skillfully gained scientfic evidence if I cannot refute it?”

Are scientists who present good evidence of climate change and human population dynamics, even though their research is plainly unforeseen and surely unwelcome, entitled to have their evidence openly discussed by professional colleagues with established expertise?

If the global challenges looming before humanity are as formidable as the best available scientific evidence indicates, then is the family of humanity not well-advised to begin widely sharing in open discussions in the mass media, not just in blogs like this one, what is to be done in order to avoid whatsoever is unmanageable, while managing and mitigating everything else?

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001

By: gareth

gareth — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:06:13 +0000

Good points, Bryan. I’ve read B2.0, and look forward to 3.0 – in fact Brown’s work is one of the reasons I remain optimistic about our ability to do something about the climate problem.

You are also correct about the emissions targets. Hansen is now talking about a “safe” level of 350 ppm, which – as we are at 385 ppm – means going carbon negative.

By: BryanW

BryanW — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:12:38 +0000

Lester Brown’s latest book Plan B 3.0 sees it as necessary to cut net CO2 emissions 80% by 2020 to have any hope of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 below 400 ppm. An interesting recent on-line Australian publication, Climate Code Red, from Carbon Equity and Greenleap Strategic Institute, published by Friends of the Earth, http://www.carbonequity.info/index.html sets out the case that the often accepted level of a 2 degree Celsius rise in global temperature is far too dangerous to settle for and argues for a reduction in atmospheric CO2 well below the current estimated level of 383 ppm. They follow James Hansen in this, seeking a removal of some of the carbon collected in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Both Plan B 3 and Climate Code Red offer cost estimates which put the process well within economic capacity compared, say, with military expenditure. Both also offer what they see as realistic steps to achieve the lowered levels, albeit acknowledging that we will need accept that we face an emergency.

The plain scientific facts must be kept in front of policy makers. The IPCC reports go only a certain distance towards doing this because of the constraints they are under. Policy makers may well not measure up to what is required, but they should not be left in any doubt as to what it is. It is certainly not 30% by 2050.