Hope on global warming? Not likely.

It has always been easy for Greens and others who consider themselves progressives to find reasons for the easy reception of the climate change denial message. We blame it all on the power of corporate advertising, on lobbyists, on the evil nature of a pair of ex-junkies (Beck and Limbaugh) on talk radio, on our own failures to adequately frame our own messages.

This morning I read a very different view that Dr. Genevieve Marcus forwarded to the Green California Forum. It was an LA times OpEd (now available only in archives for a fee) by Ted Kennedy biographer, Neal Gabler, in which Gabler asserted that conservatism had been transformed from a political movement into a religious one, where the certainty that one is right is much more powerful than rational discourse.

It's understandable that liberals prefer to think of their subordination as a matter of their own inadequacies or of conservative wiles. Theoretically, you can learn how to improve your message or how to match wits with adversaries, and a lot of liberal hand-wringing has been dedicated to doing just that. But it is becoming increasingly clear that liberals haven't just been succumbing to superior message control, or
even to a superior political narrative (conservatives' frontier individualism versus liberals' communitarianism). They are up against something far more intractable and far more difficult to defeat. They are up against religion.

It reminds me of book I had read long ago, The True Believer by Eric Hoffer or The Captive Mind by Cseslaw Milosz. The word of Milosz seems most to come to mind: "The voice of passion is better than the voice of reason. The passionless cannot change history."


Even highly respected figures like Joe Romm (Climate Progress) mix it up in the media ring in order to get the story told rationally. Today, he went after the NewsHour program on PBS for it's failure to admit that CO2 is a primary cause of our current climate change.

Greens want to arrive at a solution to our climate, energy and water problems that will provide a sustainable future for all. In order to do so, we have to provide sensible policy options in the current, highly charged political environment and then champion them with just as much passion as Gabler recognizes in the political fundamentalism that currently unites what is left of the Republican Party.

We seem not to be able to do both a the same time. Bill McKibben can raise our passions with 350.org, but he absolutely refuses to deal with policy. The writers at any number of sites can discuss policy until sunrise but often with a passion for action. Those who have both, Dr. James Hansen for example, have become the enemy of the climate deniers. But this weekend, Hansen, who has just recovered from surgery and treatment for cancer, joined students outside the Massachusetts Statehouse who refuse to sleep in dorms/apartments powered by coal-fired electricity.

I closely follow the machinations of the US Senate where our own Sen Boxer chairs the Committee on Environment and Public Works. There is where the search for votes has backed her into the corner of allowing Joe Liebermann and Lindsey Graham rewrite a bill that was only marginally successful.

Unless we offer alternatives we will never be the alternative. It is time that we push forward our policies with a passion, a passion for action rather than rhetoric, offering policies that point to a future of sustainable living instead of joining the Republicans to "just say no."

Civil Disobediance Pt. 2: People before Polar Bears

Yesterday, I received a mailer from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) that was trying to raise money to act on behalf of the polar bears. After all, climate change threatens their very existence. You can even buy polar bear shopping bags at an inflated, gotta raise money somehow, price.

I used to think that way myself. Those days are long gone. The situation is a lot more drastic and the specie being threatened is homo sapiens. Don't think that climate change is something that we have until 2050 to deal with. It is happening now and we had better recognize that fact.

If you click Read more! I will give more detail on three events that I don't hear Greens talking about, but they should be at the very top of the list: the dust storms that swept across eastern Australia, the Dutch experts who are advising California on methods to protect San Francisco Bay and California Delta, and my finally getting around to read The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis published by the Global Humanitarian Forum, headed by Kofi Anan. Each of these underscores the fact that Climate Change is real, it is here now, and people are being affected every day while the US twiddles its thumbs and the Senate can not yet pass a climate change bill.



Australian Dust Storms:
If you have not yet seen the effect of this, you have to watch this video. Otherwise, you might not believe it.

This is climate change in Australia. It is also what is forecast for the Southwest of the United States. We have already begun to see some effect in the mountains of Colorado as they are reporting red snow .

It is, sadly, probably too late to save much of Australia. But it is not too late to save the U.S. Southwest and other key regions in or near the subtropics. We can still prevent the worst. (Joe Robb at Climate Progress)

Dutch Engineers to save the Delta?
This is climate change mitigation right here in California. No, it did not make the local news. It was not on television, absorbed as it is with all things political unless it is a crime story. It did, however, make the San Mateo County Times and was carried in its sister paper, the Contra Costa Times.

The inevitable effects of climate change in California, and how cities can adapt to them, are starting to get more attention from Bay Area planners. While no one knows exactly how sea level rise will play out 100 or 200 years from now, analysts agree that more severe and frequent floods are going to be a part of it.

Avoiding sea level rise is by now impossible. The Bay has risen 8 inches since the start of the 20th century, and scientists worldwide agree that the Bay Area in particular can expect to experience sea level rise of as much as 16 inches by midcentury and as much as 55 inches by 2100.

Here is a link to a map of the Bay / Delta with a sea level rise of just 1 meter... 39 inches rather than the 55 mentioned in the quote above.

This should begin to give you a feel for the fact that mitigation of the effects of climate change is going to be very, very expensive. You know that the Conservatives in Congress, both Republican and Democrat, will sing the song that after bailout and a big impact Health Care bill, we just can't afford to tackle climate change now. It would do too much damage to the economy.

Don't let them sell you that line. It just is not true. If the money for levee repairs in New Orleans had not been spent on a new freeway exchange to allow access casino boats, perhaps the 9th Ward would not have flooded. It would have been so little.

Paul Krugman is already labeling this a big lie.

So the main argument against climate action probably won’t be the claim that global warming is a myth. It will, instead, be the argument that doing anything to limit global warming would destroy the economy. As the blog Climate Progress puts it, opponents of climate change legislation “keep raising their estimated cost of the clean energy and global warming pollution reduction programs like some out of control auctioneer.”

It’s important, then, to understand that claims of immense economic damage from climate legislation are as bogus, in their own way, as climate-change denial. Saving the planet won’t come free (although the early stages of conservation actually might). But it won’t cost all that much either.

The costs are right in front of our faces and California's politicians do not have the cojones (a Madeline Albright term) to take action now. They can't even pass a rational budget.

The Human Cost of Climate Change
It is not about polar bears, it is about people. Those who are fortunate to live in California can probably withstand whatever comes if we were on our own... and we just might be. However, there are hundreds of millions of people who don't have that ability. There people are the subject of Global Humanitarian Forum's Anatomy of a Silent Crisis.

We testify here to the human face of this dangerous problem. The first hit and worst affected by
climate change are the world’s poorest groups. Ninety-nine percent of all casualties occur in developing countries. A stark contrast to the one percent of global emissions attributable to some 50 of the least developed nations. If all countries were to pollute so little, there would be no climate change.

So, how bad is it. Here are some statistics from that report.

The findings of the report indicate that every year climate change leaves over 300,000 people dead, 325 million people seriously affected, and economic losses of US$125 billion. Four billion people are vulnerable, and 500 million people are at extreme risk.

Even Anan admits that there is an element of error in these numbers. But how big do they have to be to get our attention? This is no longer an economic or technological question. It is now a more imperative. The time for talking in pleasant drawing room tones has long passed.

What to do?
I was somewhat surprised when Dr. James Hansen of N. A. S. A. not only called for civil disobedience, but actually went to the Appalachians to try and block yet another mountain top removal coal mining effort. Recently I read a paper by Dr. John Lemons. He also considers this a question of ethical behavior and, like Hansen, suggests that it is time for civil disobedience. If not, he is very pessimistic.

As a natural scientist I have been engaged in global climate change issues since the early 1980s, particularly with respect to the integration of science with public policy and ethics. However, at this point in time there is little that I see that is a cause for optimism in the battle to solve global climate change on an ethical basis, to reduce immediately and significantly the emissions of greenhouse gases based on the best available scientific information.

We have heard it all. especially here in California where our Senator Boxer Chairs the Senate Committee that has to write and approve any legislation. So far, she has delivered speeches and little else. Likewise, Governor Schwarzenegger has gotten a reputation as a Green Governor, but many of his actions have been ecologically destructive and none of them, even his expensive plans for dams and a peripheral canal, have begun to address the problems of rising sea levels for the Bay and Delta regions. Even here, he is solving the wrong problem and still screwing it up.

When I was a very little boy, stocking were filled with candy and fruit if you were good and with coal if you were bad. Maybe it is time for Schwarzenegger and Boxer to receive their stockings full of coal.

Californians do not have coal mines to block. The few we did have (e. g. near Parkfield) have long played out or are too dangerous to enter. But, we can do some things. For starters, buy no foods that were not produced in California... better yet... grow your own. It might put Trader Joe's out of business but they need a new business model anyway. It does not make sense in a warming world.

The place for Greens to follow the news is with EcoAction Committee's Facebook Pages. If you know of opportunities for action of any kind, post a comment on this post.

My take on James Hansen

I may have a different view of James Hansen than most. I have looked at a number of his statements / projections over time. Two things impress me.

While others call him an alarmist and worse, his projections have generally been about the most accurate description of what is happening and when they miss the mark, they are always too low. Climate Change is happening faster and with more effects than anyone anticipated. Obviously there are more positive feedback loops than known that are accelerating the process. So, when he says we need to get emissions back down to 350, I believe the number.

Secondly, I read Hansen as being very, very scared. His use of the term "Venus Syndrome" indicates the level of his apprehension and his view that we lack the political will to do what is necessary. Given that level of concern, I do not blame him for saying that we have to keep all options open, including CCS and nuclear. But, we had better do all of the other things to make sure that we don't really need those two.

Turning 350 into policy

In my previous post today, I allowed Lorna Salzman to articulate the criticism (one with which I fully agree) that the Left has failed to take seriously the implications of ecology. However, there is some hope that a new seriousness about science will help turn the tide of public opinion on this.

I first need to call attention to a letter that Dr. James Hansen has sent to PEBO through the man he named as his Science Adviser, John Holdren. This makes very clear the fact that much of what the Democratic Party seems to be planning for 2009, an environmental policy based on bowing to the Gods of the Free Market Economy and a cap and trade mechansim, is a recipe for failure. You can read it here.

You should also read Hansen's revision to an earlier open letter he had written entitled "Tell Barack Obama the Truth."

If Greens can only do one thing in 2009, it should be to hasten the change to a policy based on ecology, one that is designed to save the earth, not destroy it.

The Venus Syndrome:

Dr. James Hansen (N.A.S.A.) gave a major speech at the annual convention of the American Geophysical Union. He changed the title of his talk after the program was complete, and so had to explain that fact. It is now entitled:
Climate Threat to the Planet: Implications for Energy Policy and Intergenerational Justice.

Those who are so inclined may download both the PowerPoint presentation
or as a PDF file. I have much more to say, and will call attention to those sections that really brought me up short. Click Read more! to understand just how dangerous these times are.



I want to talk about a single term from Dr. Hansen's title. Intergenerational Justice is not a phrase that I have heard before, but the implications are self evident to anyone who has read / heard Winona talk about our obligations to the 7th Generation.

For those who have talked about Ecological Wisdom on this list recently: Les, Howard, Linda, this is not new what is new is the following from Dr. Hansen's notes:

I will argue that we have a much sharper knowledge of global climate sensitivity than is usually stated.
Also the Faustian bargain that we have cut for ourselves is nastier than has been recognized.
And I will emphasize some important missing observations.
The scientific method and perspective have relevance that reaches beyond pure science. The urgency of implications for energy policy is not yet adequately recognized by governments, but it must be. The implications for intergenerational equity deserve greater attention.

There is a sense of urgency in what he says now, a tone that was not there before. In fact, the email that he sent out tonight with the links to his material was given the subject: The Venus Syndrome. Venus, the planet where a run-away greenhouse gas effect keep the surface temperature far higher than would allow human life to continue.

As I plowed through Hansen's presentation, I came to this point (Chart 43) where Hansen tells us what he really thinks about our "Faustian bargain."

In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.

From that event, there would be no return, no human life.

I stop at this point, not because I want to scare you, but rather because I want to call attention to an interview that Georges Monbiot conducted with Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency. I suggest that you watch the video that the Guardian put together. In this interview, Birol admits that for many years, his agency has been forecasting peak oil based on a rate at which existing oil fields are being depleted. In 2008, for the first time, they actually measured it and the difference was almost double. In other words, we will hit peak oil between 2020 and 2030 no matter what we do. According to Monbiot:

So burn this into your mind: between 2007 and 2008 the IEA radically changed its assessment. Until this year's report, the agency mocked people who said that oil supplies might peak. In the foreword to a book it published in 2005, its executive director, Claude Mandil, dismissed those who warned of this event as "doomsayers". "The IEA has long maintained that none of this is a cause for concern," he wrote. "Hydrocarbon resources around the world are abundant and will easily fuel the world through its transition to a sustainable energy future." In its 2007 World Energy Outlook, the IEA predicted a rate of decline in output from the world's existing oilfields of 3.7% a year. This, it said, presented a short-term challenge, with the possibility of a temporary supply crunch in 2015, but with sufficient investment any shortfall could be covered. But the new report, published last month,
carried a very different message: a projected rate of decline of 6.7%,which means a much greater gap to fill.

The alternatives that Birol was willing to discuss were to tap the Canadian tar sands.

Birol says we need a "global energy revolution" to avoid an oil crunch, including (disastrously for the environment) a massive global drive to exploit unconventional oils, such as the Canadian tar sands.

In other words, he is willing to strike the Faustian bargain that Hansen fears so much. If there were ever a time when we need to change our consciousness, when we need to call out again for a 7th Generation Amendment to our Constitution, that time is now. If not now, there may never be a 7th Generation.

Who is paying attention?

I noted that Green Change gave front page space to a September story about Greenpeace activists who won a court case in England by using Global Warming as their defense. It is nice to have an organization like Greenpeace behind you, hiring lawyers, etc.

However, the real guru of global warming is NASA's Dr. James Hansen and he has another take on this same story.


In his most recent newsletter, Hansen find it great that the British Press picked up the story and wonders why the US press ignored a similar situation here.

Why is it that the Kingsnorth case is on the front page and the 6 o’clock news in the UK, but the Wise County case is ignored by U.S. media? The damage in the U.S. case, both climate and mountaintop removal, exceeds that in the UK. A case with 20-year-olds standing up for their and future generations, against powerful interests, without support of Greenpeace-level organizations, would seem to warrant coverage. Is this a case of media, in a company-town, company-state, company-country situation, intentionally looking the other way? Or is it simply that these young people are not as media savvy as Greenpeace?

For a full understanding of the Wise County situation, it is necessary to read Hansen's previous newsletter that detailed that manner in which Dominion Coal runs a company state. I won't copy it here.. it is too long, too detailed.

At the of the commentary, Hansen asks and answers a very simple question.

When does it become appropriate for young people to become fed up with the lack of appropriate government action?

My recommendation has been that young people spend maximum effort now on the democratic
process, affecting upcoming elections on all levels, and then, after the election, demanding that those elected deliver on their promises. I have cooperated with the (nominally non-partisan) PowerVote, Virginia Powershift, ReEnergize Iowa, 350.org, 1sky.org, for example.

I have also drawn attention of youth to the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC).
Applications for training and participation in their programs can be found at (www.seac.org).

Have we reached the time when civil disobedience and organized protest against coal are the only options that we have left? It would seem that even Al Gore has begun to think that way or so says the NY Times's Nicholas Kristoff.

When we go vote down Propositions 7 and 10 on Tuesday, we need to be thinking of the alternatives. It is going to take a lot more work to make something positive happen. It may eventually mean taking to the streets... on bikes or on foot, of course.

G8 must get down to our business

I need to tie a few apparently disconnected things together and hope that they make sense to someone besides myself. Please bear with me.

After my recent post on Tipping Points, Lisa commented:

"As a GP activist I try to focus on local issues where I can see some success: Ballona Wetlands, South Central Farm, getting IRV on the LA ballot, etc. too many issues, too little time!

What would you have city GP activists do about gas prices for rural folks, and everyone?"

That is a good question. I have to agree with Lisa that there are different actions for different situations and that one sized solutions will in this case fail us all.

We still have to pay a lot of attention to the fact that we just may be at a tipping point and that we here in California are going to be in need of triage before it is over. The warning could not be more clear than in this recent report from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Human activities are already changing the climate of the American West. This report by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization (RMCO) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), drawn from 50 scientific studies, 125 other government and scientific sources, and our own new analyses, documents that the West is being affected more by a changed climate than any other part of the United States outside of Alaska. When compared to the 20th century average, the West has experienced an increase in average temperature during the last five years that is 70 percent greater than the world as a whole. Responding quickly at all levels of government by embracing the solutions that are available is critical to minimizing further disruption of this region's climate and economy. (emphasis mine).

The problem we have is that the general public can only solve one problem at a time and so they have decided that they one they want to solve is that of high gasoline prices. According to a Pew Research Study, even young people, women and so called liberals view the energy shortages that are driving up gasoline prices are more important than environmental considerations.

The public's changing energy priorities are most evident in the growing percentage that views increased energy exploration - including mining and drilling, as well as the construction of new power plants - as a more important priority for energy policy than increased conservation and regulation. Nearly half (47%) now rates energy exploration as the more important priority, up from 35% in February. The proportion saying it is more important to increase energy conservation and regulation has declined by 10 points (from 55% to 45%).

So, Lisa, I am not sure what you might do other than to keep spreading the word. But, if we don't fix this problem and do it quickly, there will be no more Ballona Wetlands. After all the hard work by many dedicated people, to lose it all must not be allowed.

I would ask that every political leader take the little exercise suggested by Dr. Jim Hansen (N.A.S.A.) to Prime Minister Fukuda as yet another G8 opens in Tokyo.

Finally, Prime Minister Fukuda, I would like to thank you for helping make clear to the other leaders of the eight nations the great urgency of the actions needed to address climate change. Might I make one suggestion for an approach you could use in drawing their attention? If the leaders find that the concept of phasing out all emissions from coal, and taking measures to ensure that unconventional fossil fuels are left in the ground or used only with zero-carbon emissions, is too inconvenient, then, in that case, they could instead spend a small amount of time composing a letter to be left for future generations.

This letter should explain that the leaders realized their failure to take these actions would cause our descendants to inherit a planet with a warming ocean, disintegrating ice sheets, rising sea level, increasing climate extremes, and vanishing species, but it would have been too much trouble to make changes to our energy systems and to oppose the business interests who insisted on burning every last bit of fossil fuels. By composing this letter the leaders will at least achieve an accurate view of their place in history.

There is a lot more in Dr. Hansen's letter. It summarizes just how important this is to us all. Lisa, if I have not convinced you that there is not other single issue more important than this, I have been a total failure.

California Connections

I thought it appropriate to insert a summary of recent actions that involve our California Congressional Delegation. These will probably not have made a dent in any of our major newspapers and I know were not covered on television.

Los Angeles Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman has been holding a series of hearings on "scientific integrity" in government. In yesterday's session, Waxman was looking at the Bush Administration's political interference in the science of climate research. The key witness was Dr. James Hansen (NASA). The session was covered by Seed Magazine journalist, Chris Mooney and you will probably find Mooney's commentary at Huffington Post worth some time to read.

Mooney concluded:

In short, [this hearing] adds one more drop in the overflowing bucket of evidence suggesting that the Bush administration was quite consciously using PR tactics to control the "message" on global warming--rather than allowing taxpayer funded scientists, like Hansen, full access to the media.

While the facts of climate change have become part of the accepted progressive background, the time scale on which it is playing out takes away the urgency for action now, and then we have global warming as background noise rather than the informed background driving meaningful action within the Green Party.

And here is another item that is far from the public spotlight, focused as it is on Alberto Gonzales or the War in Iraq.

While all of this is going in public, major decisions are being made about the way the government spreads our taxes throughout the budget. The Center for Rural Affairs is making a major effort to get people to take action now. I received the following in an alert this morning.

This is critical. Your Senators, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, are key swing votes on the Grassley-Dorgan amendment to the federal budget. It calls for trimming over $1 billion by capping payments to mega farms and shifting the funds to critical conservation, rural development and food programs.

If there is one aspect of rural economics that the Green Party is against, it is the mega farm, industrialized agriculture infrastructure we have in place. This seems to be a sensible act to take, whether or not you live in a rural district. California has a larger agricultural economy than any other state. You can believe that the representatives of Big Ag are camped in the hallways of the Senate Office Building. But, where is our voice.

Here are the contacts for Boxer and Feinstein.

To reach Senator Boxer's office, please contact Brian McKoen at (202) 224-3553 or email Brian at brian_mckoen@boxer.senate.gov

Updated: thanks to the feedback in the comments on this post.

Contact Chris Thompson at Sen Feinstein's office:
(202) 224-3841 or email Chris at chris_thompson@feinstein.senate.gov

Voting on this issue will probably be tomorrow (March 21).