Time is running out.
By Thom Hartmann A...
This week, government officials and climate scientists from all over the world are meeting in Berlin, Germany, to finalize a U.N. study on climate change and its solutions. While the study hasn’t been released yet, a draft of it has, and it’s pretty stunning. The draft report from the International Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, says that time is quickly running out for world powers to slash their use of fossil fuels and stay below the 2 degree Celsius limit on global warming that 200 nations agreed upon in 2010.
More importantly, the draft suggests that we only have 15 years to take the proper actions needed to safely reach that global warming limit. Not 100 years, not 50 years, but just 15 years. This meeting in Berlin comes just a week after the IPCC released another report in Japan, which highlighted the sudden, catastrophic, and devastating effects that climate change is already having across the globe. Meanwhile, as the world’s top climate scientists are meeting in Berlin, the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, is worrying about the effects that climate change is having on world-wide access to food and water.
In an interview ahead of next week’s meeting of the World Bank, Kim argued that battles over food and water will erupt across the globe within the next five to 10 years because of climate change. Kim said that, “The water issue is critically related to climate change. People say that carbon is the currency of climate change. Water is the teeth. Fights over water and food are going to be the most significant direct impacts of climate change in the next five to 10 years. There's just no question about it.” And arguably, as we saw with the events of the Arab Spring, they’ve already started.
Kim said that he has urged climate change activists, government officials, and scientists across the globe to learn lessons from the way protestors and scientists came together and joined forces in the battle against HIV and AIDS. He also expressed concerns over the amount of research that’s being done on renewable energy and solutions to climate change, saying that, “Is there enough basic science research going into renewable energy? Not even close. Are there ways of taking discoveries made in universities and quickly moving them into industry? No. Are there ways of testing those innovations? Are there people thinking about scaling [up] those innovations?”
Unfortunately, here in America, things are stalled. Despite the mountains of proof and scientific evidence, Republicans in Washington, and across the country, are continuing to push climate change denial policies and legislation at the behest of their Big Oil, Coal, and Gas "donors." Just last week, Republicans in the House tried to pass a bill introduced by climate-change denying Congressman Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma, that would have forced NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to quit studying climate change and its effects so much, and instead just study and discuss "weather." This was, of course, to help "the economy" - Republican code for fossil fuel barons like ExxonMobil and the Koch Brothers.
Fortunately, much to the displeasure of climate-change deniers in Washington, Democrats amended the bill to clarify that it would only deal with NOAA’s weather prediction work, and not cut or stop its research into climate change. But, despite the NOAA victory, it looks like Republican climate-change denial efforts may still be working.
According to a new Gallup poll, a majority of Americans still have low levels of concern about the future impacts of climate change. Just a little over a third of those polled said that they worry “a great deal” about climate change and global warming. It’s time to put an end to all of the pseudoscience and climate-change denial talk.
Whether Republicans want to admit it or not, not only is climate change very real, but it’s also hitting us a lot harder, and a lot sooner, then we once thought. Just a few years ago, the world’s top climate scientists were saying that we had decades to address and solve the climate change crisis. But now, we have just a matter of years to convert our energy systems from fossils to sunlight.
We’ve waited long enough to address the climate change crisis, and in the process, we’re already creating havoc. From superstorms, droughts, and killer cold- and heat-waves to the crop failures in the Middle East that touched off the Arab Spring, climate change is here, now. The Affordable Care Act was a big deal, but having a doctor does you no good when the entire human race is faced with extinction.
We need to mobilize our nation the way we did for World War II and jump headlong into the 21st century, thus solving the problem of the world's largest polluter and providing an example for the rest of the world. And we need to start today. Time is running out.
Comments
#2
Also, is anyone tracking the negative correlation between the number BP, Exxon-mobil, Chevron etc ads on TV and news about climate change?
#3
It's really not complicated, we can build wind turbines, and install solar, instead of continued installation of an industrial war/spy complex looking for war to keep themselves economically viable. Fifty cents of every tax dollar is being invested in the possibility of war for profit. Why not spend 40 cents of this on the real enemy....climate change? Expensive conventional warfare is dead, time to move on, the most recent so called enemy fought us with $50 IED's......Why do we continue to spend more than the rest of the world combined on a warfare economy? Time to stop listening to Dick and his warhawk gang! He got filthy rich off the last mass killing, lets fffnn move on.
#4
When we wake up in this country about climate change at the top.
If we spent all the money on wars and declared war on burning and emitting deadly fumes,
WE will just throw money at it and drive smaller cars and it will go awayyyyyyy! What is that the plan?
Indians lived in balance with nature and they were the savages.
#5
Every time since the 1970s that there have been pushes to address pollution (therefore climate change), the response was simply another round of government hiking taxes on tobacco. It has worked beautifully to distract the public from the real problem; focusing on that problem would, after all, reduce the profits of oil companies. We would need a campaign to convince Americans to consider what they are doing every time they use their cars. Few smoke, most drive. The most carcinogenic (cancer-cvausing) type of smoke is the kind that contains oil particles, and in the US, the main cause today is moter vehicles. This is also the pollution that is killing off Earth's forests, melting polar ice, driving climate change. For decades, the middle class has fought every effort to build a modern mass transportation system, needed to dramatically reduce the use of privately-owned moter vehicles. The last time there were serious efforts to help educate the people about the impact of our addiction to oil was back in the 1970s, during the Carter administration.
#6
I am a total global warming denier. But I truly admire the persistants of those who are. Besides if the problem is food and water if you look at a global map the world might be better off if it warmed up. Most of the land if far above the equator. Canada, Russia and China mainly. The warm places in the world dont and have not produced food anyway. I am no farmer but I know it's had to grow anything in dry sand. Yet the areas I just mentioned are lush and full of moisture. maybe we are looking at this problem as a problem instead of a solution.
Thom are you trying to blame the fighting in the Middle East on global warming. They have been killing each other for 2000 years. A bit of a stretch I think. Good one though I think that's why my Edmonton Oilers didn't make the playoffs again. Freakin global warming.
I will admit many in the far north world wide many have flipped on global warming as the last four years we have been hammered with snow and cold. I am guilty of loving global warming,,sorry. It was iawesome. Ahhh the good old days.
I know Kend you greedy self centred beep beep beep. don't judge me until you lived it.
#7
I don't need to be a climate scientist or any kind of scientist to recognize the same old problem: capitalism. Break open that pea pod and therein lies the heart of it: greed. Plain old simple greed. if not for these damn oligarchs smack in the way, we could have nipped problems like this in the bud a long time ago, before things got so out of control. Long as those calling the shots have a vested interest in the status quo, (like Kend! tsk) nothing is going to change… which brings us back to the same old topic that keeps surfacing again and again: campaign finance reform. I know it ain't a sexy topic, or particularly fascinating, but without it we're doomed. We might as well resign ourselves to being the "last of the Mohicans". - Aliceinwonderland
#8
P.S. Kend, go soak your head.
#9
Kend sadly represents the mentality of the climate change denialist crowd. I recently visited Glacier Lake park. As one might assume, the park WAS known for its magnificent glaciers, but in just 10 more years there will be no more glaciers. Unfortunately, the only way these people will become convinced is when they suffer personally, which they will in due course; however, by then it will be too late to affect the trajectory of the warming, and we will all pay the price for their selfish and greedy behavior. Too bad we could not divide into two worlds.
#10
What I've never understood, is that energy and oil companies could switch to producing and providing environmentally clean energy and still make their overpriced profits.
Why continue to pollute at this devastating level? I suppose the answer is, as always, greed. But they have the means of delivery and basically monopolies on providing energy sources, so why not provide clean energy?
I'd sure like Thom to address the psychology of the humans who are destroying the planet. What the F is wrong with these people?
#11
Kend and his ilk are able to look at the evidence and say it's not happening or it's not due to us. I know lots of people like Kend. Then there is this much larger group that says it's a crisis and we're the cause. If you have a fire in your kitchen, you have a crisis and you will act on it until it is out. If you have a leaky tap, you'll fix it one day. The actions of this very large crisis acknowledging group are, in effect, saying that there is a fire in my kitchen but I am acting like it's a leaky tap. Where's the massive behaviour change that says I recognize the crisis? Not happening. Why? Because of the way we think. That's the problem. The rest just symptoms.
#12
Bob Hearns -- There is an essential detail about the way we think that you left out. There a $600 billion / year industry that knows the way think depends on what we see on the tube. There is BP, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, RDS etc. that are contributing to this $600 billion to tell us how to think. Actually, in the case of the carbon corps I think they just make sure we are denied the information we need to know with respect to global warming. As an example, how many times have you heard about the cause of polar vortex? The only place I have heard it is on Thom. The cause is due to the measurable phenomenon of the artic warming 20 times faster than the equator. This temperature gradient causes the jet stream to become erratic.
#13
Yes, chuckle8, we ARE conditioned to do as we are told, to listen uncritically, to accept without question. That's the problem!! Until we start questioning thought itself, thought will just produce more symptoms. Instead of following person X, we will follow person Y or person Z all the while thinking that it is just the wrong person we are following and maybe this new one is the right one. It's been going on for thousands of years. I've often seen where people express the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Those same people ARE doing the same thing over and over. They don't seem to know it though. We do not question thought itself. I'm not talking about some people or most people, I'm talking about ALMOST ALL people.
#14
Thom - You are a smart man, a man with tons of life experiences, and a man with a good heart. But by feeding the DIVISION in this country you are GUARANTEEING THAT THE PROBLEM WILL GET WORSE.
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." A. Einstein
I know you've actively aspired to that higher level. If there has every been, in all of history, a time to rise to that level ... this is it!
#15
Anthony2 -- Which division are you talking about? The division created by a marketplace? The division between the 1% and 99%?
#16
Quote Aliceinwonderland:P.S. Kend, go soak your head.
Aliceinwonderland ~ What a wonderful suggestion. When one soaks something in a liquid that thing tends to absorb some of that which it is immersed into. Perhaps Kend could soak his head in a bucket full of the generous secretions of the ripe Lotus blossom. I'm told this plant has Supernatural magical healing powers. It would take nothing less than Supernatural magic to heal that head.
#17
Did you see the photo of the Mars rover that showed what looks like a light beam coming out of the ground going straight up? Some people seem to think it is a reflection off a rock...but I think that is totally not the case. What rocks in the wild are shiny enough to cause such a reflection. And going straight up. Not only that but this looked like a very substantial light beam...not a wisp of light. I'm sure there is a valid answer. One, I've read, but this was not reported in most of the articles I've read , was that there was a left and a right camera and the phenomenon only showed up on the right camera and not the left. This could indicate a malfunction of the right camera...or maybe the left one.
I think that the subterranean Martians were caught with their hatch opened, letting the light out, when the rover snapped that picture. ;-} wink, wink!
#18
Quote Palindromedary:Did you see the photo of the Mars rover that showed what looks like a light beam coming out of the ground going straight up?
Palindromedary ~ Photo link, please!
#19
Martian light photo
http://www.chron.com/news/strange-weird/article/NASA-photo-captures-stra...
In the next photo, it is clear that the sun is coming from the direction behind the mountain (ie: from strait ahead..a little to the right). I wouldn't believe that it was a reflection off of a rock but I could believe that it is a reflection off of something very reflective...like maybe a piece of NASA junk? or how about a flying saucer? ;-}
http://www.chron.com/news/strange-weird/article/NASA-photo-captures-stra...
And how about this lizard on mars? Looks more like rocks to me.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Blogger-claims-c...
And is this a growing organism that grows out of those holes in the rock? It sure looks like some kind of fungus to me. Two photos of same area spaced just days apart. That doesn't look like just another rock to me.
http://www.chron.com/about/article/Scientist-sues-NASA-over-mysterious-M...
#20
The IPCC report summary was based on BELIEF in the MODELS created and their projected results.
If you listen to this interview, you can clearly hear that BELIEF in the COMPUTER MODELS is the basis of the conclusions about the predicted results of "Climate Change". http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/101654 Since when is Science based on BELIEF alone?
I am totally discomfitted by
o The dropping of the word 'POLLUTION' [something CREATED by a POLLUTER, please note!] and the adoption of this P.R. term "Climate Change" which requires so-called fixes oddly separate from the Industrial Polluter and his Pollution -- those so-called fixes being
o TAXES on consumers,
o higher rates on consumers (who, by the way, have no control over their utility providers -- as the situation in even fairly progressive California proves!), and
o diversion of monies to (unregulate-able?) shell games like CAP AND TRADE and the EXCHANGE which has made some Rich People even richer!
o Not to mention the explosion of GEO-ENGINEERING profiteering -- the edges of which are now being revealed in all their experimental insaneness. Even though the Geo-Engineers' Persistent Contrails stripes in conjunction with HAARP technology have been OBVIOUS for years -- and the resulting metallic sky haze has replaced the wide blue yonder in many places, which creates that stuffy greenhouse effect, drought conditions in the new-fangled persistent stationery high and extreme and unstable weather in adjacent areas, an effect that many claim IS Climate Change. Man-made 'global warming' indeed -- made by the profiteering enterprise of GEO-ENGINEERING WEATHER MODIFICATION, imo.
If BELIEF in Computer Models alone determines whether or not the conditions being termed 'Climate Change' are permanent phenomena, then GET READY to be told that BELIEF in GEO-ENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS is going to bring back normalcy!
Regarding Thom's point above about NOAA: Discussing the 'weather' isn't the compromise here. It is the discussion of POLLUTION itself which has become forbidden, and this taboo is observed by Reps and Dems alike! Because if one speaks to the POLLUTION problem, then one must address who the POLLUTERS are directly and bear down on them. And the POLLUTERS don't want that!
I think the POLLUTERS would prefer we accept without question the Computer Models and buy into the shift away from Pollution and relate instead to the bizarre single indicator carbon dioxide (like the thermometer billboard put up to indicate if the high school sports fund is meeting its fund drive goal!). How easy now for the Polluters to shift to the consumers the P.R.-tested Simplistic Idea about an individual 'carbon footprint' being at fault and wellll, here are the carbon dioxide levels prove it, folks! No matter the TONS of POLLUTANTS the Industrial Polluters refuse to control! No matter the freedom to pollute continued as fossil fuel mining and transport EXPLODES all over our country and the world! Profit from Pollution cannot be abated. Only the end consumer is responsible. And if you happen to live in California, you'll see how your utility company plans to deal with that: The smaller consumer who conserves will be charged a HIGHER rate than the bigger consumer of energy because, wellll, the bigger consumer still gets a discount for using more product and, so, will pay a LOWER rate for their proflagate consumption!
The Profit from Pollution Crowd must like the fact that the term "Climate Change" has replaced reference to the reality of POLLUTION.
#21
The WORLD BANK doesn't take into account Climate Change when it backs projects?
The World Resources Institute did a report on the WORLD BANK's bad track record:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/world-bank-climate-change_n_510...
#22
I hear ya Nora. No end to the word games. - AIW
#23
I have had so many discussions with my boyfriend about global warming. Yes, he believes in it, but that's not the problem. When I talk about the need to switch to non-polluting, renewable energy, he says that oil, coal, and gas will remain too important and that it will take too long to develop those technologies enough to really make a difference. I don't think so. If we HAD to switch, I think this sector could make amazing progress in this field, faster than most people think.
We would probably not have made the moon landing possible had the challenge to be first not been made. Europe has developed cars that get amazing mileage due to the high price of gasoline; but of course, such autos are not available on the American market even though Ford and other American auto makers are making them! The sad thing is that the oil giants could put some of their profits into alternate energy and build themselves a huge new market - they can afford it. But I guess they would rather plow that money into propaganda trying to convince us (and Kend) that climate change does not exist. What a sad state of affairs.
#24
My first question is where was the word pollution removed from? I kind of like the differentiation of pollution and climate change. That allows me to think of pollution as the substances (e.g. ozone, carbon monoxide etc) the kill you directly. Climate change implies a substance like carbon dioxide that kills you indirectly over a longer period of time.
#25
r luck -- A few more words, please.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
With His Holiness The Dalai Lama, at His home in Dharamsala, India (Synthesis Dialogues - made into a movie narrated by Harrison Ford)
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Beneath the success and rise of American enterprise is an untold history that is antithetical to every value Americans hold dear. This is a seminal work, a godsend really, a clear message to every citizen about the need to reform our country, laws, and companies."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann channels the best of the American Founders with voice and pen. His deep attachment to a democratic civil society is just the medicine America needs."
I checked out a claim in a recent local letter to the editor. The datum appears to come from a climate denial blog which didn't cite a source. Neither could I establish a funding background although the blog puts out massive amounts of disinformation. The blog's name is "c3headlines." Can anyone track its funding source?