Dear Friend and Reader:
Today is the opening day of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. The editorial reprinted below appears as part of a global news accord among 56 major newspapers across the world to advocate for intervention against the devastating effects of climate change on the planet. Of the international newspapers participating, only one, the Miami Herald, was from the United States — one of the largest polluters on the planet.
It is very rare a common global accord like this editorial happens. But its not enough. With the situation at hand, its time to begin speaking with one voice, and do more than deny it’s happening. We need to move the direction forward and deliberately towards making the change to protect the planet we all share. —fb
Seize the moment on climate change
OUR OPINION: There’s no time to waste for nations to combat climate change
Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.
The dangers of climate change have been apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc.
Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world. Climate change affects everyone.
The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to two degrees Centigrade (3.6 degrees Farenheit), an aim that will require global emissions to begin falling within the next five-10 years. A bigger rise of three or four degrees C (5.4-7.2 F) — the smallest increase we can expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over e-mails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.
Agree on fairness
Few believe that Copenhagen can produce a treaty; real progress toward one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of U.S. obstructionism. But the politicians in Copenhagen can agree on the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s U.N. meeting in Bonn should be their deadline.
At the deal’s heart must be a settlement covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tons of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.
Rich nations like to point out that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps. But the rich world is responsible for three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to reduce their emissions within a decade to substantially less than their 1990 level.
Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.
Help poorer countries
The industrialized world should dig deep into its pockets to help poorer countries adapt to climate change and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down — with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them.
The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing. Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.
But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring jobs and better quality lives. Last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.
Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.
Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.” It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.”
“What planet do we wish to live on?” I smile. Answer: Earth.
“What kind of planet do we wish to live on?” the question I intended to pose. But maybe there’s an irony in the original?
Unifying consciousness around emotionally loaded topics is a perilous business. We are drowning in such waters much of the time. The thing about emotion is that it makes people reactionary. The stronger the emotion, the more ‘stupid’ we become, with our dogmatisms. We also end up buying into myriad red herrings.
“The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas” – Lao Tzu. I cannot praise that wisdom highly enough.
People want to tell us what is important or imperative all the time. Global issues are well suited to ramping up the pressure and yet we live in a locality – responsibility starts there. Awareness is good, provided that it doesn’t distract you from other, broader requirements for awareness elsewhere. Obsessive tendencies need to be spotted.
Powerful people love impact. Wise folk love influence. Truth Seeker, it seems to me that the spiritual/material delineation is a less helpful assignation than influence/impact. Impact is always short-lived and soon forgotten but there is a longer term consolidation possible through influence. We live in a Hollywood, visual impact culture – and this is what makes people so suggestible.
It is so much harder to quantify influence and that is why impact often becomes the woefully inadequate substitute. Sadly, there are social facts we have to come to terms with. Until we get real questions we will not get real answers.
It doesn’t seem to occur to most people that the real question to address to everyone and get them to take on board is “what planet do we wish to live on?” coupled with the expectation that people should truly be free to think outside the box and get creative in answering it – most people have been regurgitating their conditioning for too long to even notice that the question is one that isn’t merely formulaic, but could actually be addressed to them with the expectation that a real discussion between real people could emanate from it.
We notice all assumptions other than our own – what a scary thought..
Truthseeker,
By what measure is a gathering of humans a ‘material’ solution? Yes they have got together supposedly to make an agreement; and an agreement is a concept. Many encounters and conversations lead there. Humanity has yet another chance to work out its destiny as a voluntary act. Ultimately, action in some form will need to be taken, but is that any more material than a fireguy going back into a burning house to get the cat?
Truthseeker:
This issue is physical and spiritual. The earth is a body, just like ours. I don’t think you can separate her body from ours or her spirit from ours. This is where you and I begin.
I also don’t think until, like the APostle Paul was thrown off his horse by a blinding light, that you won’t get people to take off their blinders. Some will rather stay blind. This is why we need a Copenhagen and a few more Copenhagens and Kyotos to bring up consciousness.
The earth is getting this way because of greed and fear, and these are sicknesses of spirit. They are also addictions. You need to remove the source of the addictions before you can go deep to examine the cause. Until then, we need to be present in body and spirit, so that others can begin their transformation of consciousness.
Because I care enough, I want to make sure I work in service to let in as many people through those gates of awareness. If they read this comment with their eyes to open their minds and hearts, then we are back to where you and I agree.
My concern over Copenhagen is that it is a material answer to a spiritual problem. The problem being consciousness or lack of it. If ‘successful’ the summit will likely bring about new mandates to cut global warming.
What about the lack of consciousness both individual and universal that have allowed this and other maladies to not only exist but continue?
In the end; the mandates will create laws and thus lawbreakers. The likely majority will follow the mandates out of fear; rather than following them due to a rise in consciousness; respect for the Earth or respect for all terrestrial life.
re: ‘climategate’
please see this website which has multiple posts that clear the air about the hacked emails: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/
it is a site focused on refuting the attempts of climate change deniers to cast doubt on what is becoming established fact, that climate change is happening and human action is causing it
these hacked emails are one more in a long line of attempts to try and bring this into question … it is informative to note that the tobacco industry attempted to do this too, trying to bring into doubt the scientific conclusions about the harms of smoking by targetting individual researchers
Six Women Speak for the Climate!
I value everybody’s input — and I love the picture of Gaia!
But I want to focus on the positive future that we can be making for ourselves.
This hasn’t gotten a lot of press, but did you know that six women winners of the Nobel Peace Prize have banded together to form an intiative for speaking up for the climate?
Did you even know there were six women winners of the Nobel Peace Prize?
Well there are! And they are committed to working for climate stabilization.
This video is introduced by one of them — she is one of my favorite people on planet earth, if you ever have a chance to hear her speak in person you must run, don’t walk, to get there. She is Wangari Maathai, a magnificent Kenyan woman who has been planting millions of trees in her ravaged homeland.
She is in Copenhagen right now, blogging it about for her website, the Greenbelt Movement, and you can listen to her and to the other women in the Nobel Women’s Intiative on this video.
http://greenbeltmovement.org/a.php?id=450
Women are going to make the crucial difference on the climate.
democracy now is covering the event for the full 2 weeks – http://www.democracynow.org/
beginning with today’s show –
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/7/climate_countdown_largest_climate_summit_in
Here’s an article on Climategate:
UN body to investigate ‘Climategate’
Dec 6, 2009 12:00 AM | By Anton Ferreira
Hacked e-mails cause academic temperatures to rise before climate summit commences
Hacked e-mails, conspiracy theories, sabotage accusations – tempers are boiling as world leaders gather in Copenhagen today for crucial climate change talks.
A “Climategate” row over whether human-generated carbon emissions really are tipping the world into catastrophe erupted on the eve of the UN-sponsored talks after hacked e-mails from British climate researchers were posted on the Internet last month.
The e-mails appeared to show that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had tried to suppress evidence that did not support their view that global warming is real.
Climate change “denialists” gloated that the e-mails proved global warming theories were so much hot air. This week the head of the UN scientific panel that tracks climate change promised an investigation.
“We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet,” said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
South African scientists weighed in this week to dismiss the sceptics as plain wrong.
“(Climate change) is staring you in the face,” said Professor Bruce Hewitson at the University of Cape Town. “It’s scary. It’s not based on models, it’s not based on theories, it’s based on observations – what’s actually out there.”
Hewitson is among the scientists who have contributed to the panel, which provides the data on which decision-makers base carbon reduction policies.
Hewitson said his message to sceptics was: “You’re hiding your head in the sand, or your head is just not there.”
He called the row raging in the blogosphere over the e-mails “not even a storm in a tea cup, it’s like a mild breeze in a tea cup”.
“Climate change science does not depend on the University of East Anglia, it was one of many groups tracking one of many issues. So it’s a small component of the science. It essentially makes no difference whatsoever to the science.”
Richard Worthington, climate change spokesman for the WWF, called the hacking of the e-mails a “pathetic” attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen talks, where the developing world is pushing for industrialised nations to make deep, binding cuts in their carbon emissions.
“This e-mail thing is just a hook on which to hang (the denialists’) message that climate action is an unnecessary expense. They don’t want to sacrifice any of the profits they’re making out of business as usual,” said Worthington.
Among those who have distributed the hacked e-mails in South Africa, saying they prove the concept of human-caused climate change is a conspiracy, is energy consultant Andrew Kenny.
“We always have to worry about the climate,” he said. “Look at the Bible, you can see floods and disasters, so it’s always changing. But is man influencing it? The answer is no. There’s just no evidence for it whatsoever.”
However, Guy Midgley, head of the climate change unit at the SA National Biodiversity Institute, said “the vast majority of informed opinion” was that human-induced changes were under way and that the changes carried a substantial risk.
He condemned “Climategate” as an effort to muddy the waters: “By all means let’s question the information, but let’s not get involved in regurgitation of old and disproven information. It’s counterproductive, it just needs to stop, it’s silly.”
Delegates to the Copenhagen negotiations were “way too canny” to be swayed by the e-mail row, Midgley said.
“They know full well the strength of the overall evidence base.”
However, the hacked e-mails have caused red faces for the scientists concerned. The head of the CRU, Phil Jones, has “stepped aside” while the university probes the allegations that members of the unit tried to manipulate or hide climate data.
Hewitson said the risk was that the row would skew public perceptions. “The downside is that whatever is achieved in Copenhagen, it makes it that much harder for the US to get their climate bill through the Senate, because the detractors of the bill are going to throw this out as a confusion factor.”
The US has so far refused to accept binding carbon emission cuts, saying the jury was still out on climate change.
Meanwhile, scientists have predicted that the melting of Antarctic ice could contribute to a sea level rise of 1.4m over the next 100 years, posing grave threats to coastal cities and island nations like the Maldives. The report issued this week by the Scientific Council on Antarctic Research drew on research by 100 scientists in 13 countries.
Climate experts predict that apart from the threat of rising sea levels to cities like Durban, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, climate change impacts on South Africa will include severe water shortages.
Re those emails, we don’t know who really wrote them, or who hacked them. I assure you the story is interesting and damning. Did anyone see the front page article in the New York Times today about how the cellular business, including the inventor, knew the risks of distracted driving decades ago but did not say anything? It’s deja vu encore.
Here is how the story looked with “pcbs” substituting for “carbon”
http://dioxindorms.com/content/chronology.html
Here are the papers that carried the editorial. The US is a very sight presence versus the countries and continents which bear the brunt of climatic costs:
Asia: 16 papers from 13 countries and regions
Economic Observer, China Chinese
Southern Metropolitan, China Chinese
CommonWealth Magazine, Taiwan English
Joongang Ilbo, South Korea Korean
Tuoitre, Vietnam Vietnamese
Brunei Times, Brunei English
Jakarta Globe, Indonesia English
Cambodia Daily, Cambodia English
The Hindu, India English
The Daily Star, Bangladesh English
The News, Pakistan English
Daily Times, Pakistan English
Gulf News, Dubai English
An Nahar, Lebanon Arabic
Gulf Times, Qatar English
Maariv, Israel Hebrew
Europe – 20 papers from 17 countries
Süddeutsche Zeitung, Germany German
Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland Polish
Der Standard, Austria German
Delo, Slovenia Slovene
Vecer, Slovenia Slovene
Dagbladet Information, Denmark Danish
Politiken, Denmark Danish
Dagbladet, Norway Norwegian
The Guardian, UK English
Le Monde, France French
Libération, France French
La Repubblica, Italy Italian
El Pais, Spain Spanish
De Volkskrant, Netherlands Dutch
Kathimerini, Greece Greek
Publico, Portugal Portuguese
Hurriyet, Turkey Turkish
Novaya Gazeta, Russia Russian
Irish Times, Ireland English
Le Temps, Switzerland French
Africa – 11 papers from eight countries
The Star, Kenya English
Daily Monitor, Uganda English
The New Vision, Uganda English
Zimbabwe Independent, Zimbabwe English
The New Times, Rwanda English
The Citizen, Tanzania English
Al Shorouk, Egypt Arabic
Botswana Guardian, Botswana English
Mail & Guardian, South Africa English
Business Day, South Africa English
Cape Argus, South Africa English
North and Central America – six papers from five countries
Toronto Star, Canada English
Miami Herald, USA English
El Nuevo Herald, USA Spanish
Jamaica Observer, Jamaica English
La Brujula Semanal, Nicaragua Spanish
El Universal, Mexico Spanish
South America – three papers from two countries
Zero Hora, Brazil Portuguese
Diario Catarinense, Brazil Portuguese
Diaro Clarin, Argentina Spanish
Any thoughts on “climategate”? I am wondering why when info like that comes out, it’s big news; but when a statement like this comes out of Monsanto’s files, nobody cares:
“the problem involves the entire United States, Canada and sections of Europe, especially the United Kingdom and Sweden…. [O]ther areas of Europe, Asia and Latin America will surely become involved. Evidence of contamination [has] been shown in some of the very remote parts of the world.”
— Monsanto company, in-house “Pollution Abatement Plan,” 1969
Thank you, Fe for bringing a whole new meaning to coming down to earth (and published just as the Moon is moving into Virgo).