Comments on: Energy and Global Warming News for May 29: Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year. Global warming must stay below 2C or world faces ruin, scientists declare.

By: Gail

Gail — Sat, 30 May 2009 22:10:25 +0000

Alex J, I agree. There is no precedent for the number of people on the planet simultaneously facing widespread food, water, and energy shortages.

I see it going one of two ways, no middle ground. Either the global culture will be transformed into international cooperation and support, with people realizing there are no life boats for this Titanic; or it’s a Mad Max, every man for himself slugfest.

So there is hope that we will see a magically higher level of human understanding (albeit in a world impoverished by the massive loss of species – that’s inevitable and in fact, already occurring) and then there is the fear that we will have a total breakdown of social norms into pandemonium punctuated by police states.

When you start thinking about it, it gets kinda scary.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sat, 30 May 2009 21:52:43 +0000

Dorothy — Way to go, but in the long run need to bring it down to below 300 ppm CO2e.

By: Alex J

Alex J — Sat, 30 May 2009 18:39:33 +0000

It’s true that our ancestors learned to adapt and survive in the face of climate change. Well, either that or failed as a society, depending on where you look. But lest we think adaptation will occur with little cost and disruption to life as we know it, consider that the example given in that article was of REGIONAL climate change affecting a relatively small population. Today, we’re poised to accelerate changes beyond anything experienced by civilization, and on a global-scale involving an interconnected world of billions of people. So while this research may offer some insight into adaptation techniques, I’m not sure we can make a direct comparison to how nations today will rebuild infrastructure, secure reliable perennial water supplies, modify agriculture etc., on a massive scale. Actually starting to address the root of the issue rather than risking future economic health and quality of life still looks like a more responsible approach.

By: Gail

Gail — Sat, 30 May 2009 12:50:25 +0000

“The memorandum called for an emergency package of financial support for tropical forest nations, as the loss of forests is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions.” – from the timesonline report, headline above “Global Warming must stay below 2C”.

There aren’t going to be any tropical forests because the tropical rain patterns are radically different and going to become more erratic. I’m all for conservation but these scientists are suffering from some sort of delusion if they actually think the tropical rain forests – or any forests anywhere – can survive climate change, let alone absorb excess CO2.

Canada already figured out that they can’t claim their boreal forest offsets their carbon output and withdrew the figure from calculations. The boreal forest is now a net emitter of carbon, not a sink.

It’s time to reframe the question and try to figure out how humans can survive climate change.

By: Leland Palmer

Leland Palmer — Sat, 30 May 2009 07:13:47 +0000

Hi Rick-

Just read the Yale360 article – you’re right, I think. Lots of glaring lies by omission and hidden conceptual frames.

My biggest gripe is the conceptual frame that seems to lay responsibility for global warming on individuals, and assumes that global warming is a lifestyle choice, rather than a technological problem.

The whole article seems to subtly suggest that global warming is a problem of mass perception, not a technological problem caused by the greed and dogged resistance to change of financial elites.

Individual lifestyle changes will not be successful to fight global warming, IMO. Only massive collective action can save us.

We need electricity delivered to our homes that was not generated in such a way that it kills the planet, IMO. Consumers have had very little choice where their electricity came from in the past. Hopefully, in the future that will change, and is changing right now.

Another thing the article does not seem to consider is the effect of advertising, which consistently appeals not to logic but to our basic fears and urges – and does so deliberately.

By: Gail

Gail — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:34:05 +0000

Just us chickens?

http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/–2153459

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:27:55 +0000

The Yale360 article, “Beyond Abstraction: Moving The Public on Climate Action” — and apparently the research program it describes — is fatally flawed.

The “Beyond Abstraction” article is one long Lie-By-Omission. Everything it says is true; and everything it says was known years ago (with the exception of some months-old polling data).

So what is its glaring Lie-By-Omission? It completely fails to address Disinformation Campaigns (a la Exxon and numerous “think tanks”), and the vulnerability of politicians to demagogic Information Warfare tactics (e.g, “Look out — Senator BlueDog wants to raise your gas taxes!”).

Despite such Disinfo and Info-War tactics that exploit humanity’s long-known cognitive-emotive vulnerabilities, global climate disaster could have been prevented … if only our social scientists in academia had the courage to investigate the POLITICAL ECONOMY OF PROPAGANDA.

Unfortunately, that courage appears nowhere in the Yale360 article.

[JR: You are right! I just read the full piece. It is dreadful.]

By: paulm

paulm — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:13:33 +0000

The only meaningful discussion should be about how fast we can decrease GHG emissions to zero, and how fast we can bring atmospheric CO2 down to 325 ppm.

Hullo! Anyone listening ?!

By: Gail

Gail — Sat, 30 May 2009 00:36:54 +0000

*APPLAUSE*

Dorothy!

By: Dorothy

Dorothy — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:15:57 +0000

Gail and Paul, I feel the same heartbreak, but it helps to keep moving and doing. As for feelings of outrage though, they are with me constantly these days.

How utterly dishonest of pundits, politicians and even some scientists to tell us that keeping global temperature below 2C (not that they can) will keep us all safe. It’s as if public health officials were to annouced that 98.6 degrees is no longer the normal temperature for the human body; the acceptable standard has been changed to 104 degrees. So you don’t take your baby to the doctor in time, and he dies, but it’s nobody’s fault, right, certainly not yours. Certainly not the public servants you have chosen to protect you.

Planet is already too hot right now. Ask anyone who lives in Bangladesh. The only meaningful discussion should be about how fast we can decrease GHG emissions to zero, and how fast we can bring atmospheric CO2 down to 325 ppm.