We're running out of time...
We're running out of time to save our species.
That's the warning issued last Friday by a group of nearly 2,000 leading international scientists. Their recent call for action was the outcome statement from a four-day meeting called “Our Common Future under Climate Change,” which was a gathering of academics ahead of the UN climate talks in Paris later this year.
Their warning states, “The window for economically feasible solutions with a reasonable prospect of holding warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less is rapidly closing.”
In other words, if we want to ensure the survival of our species, we better act fast and we better be bold. And by bold, these experts say that we need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent by 2050 – and a 70 percent reduction is recommended. Anything less will likely mean disaster.
In order to achieve such an ambitious goal, we must pursue bold solutions – and those solutions all start with standing up to the fossil fuel industry. In their call for action, these scientists say that it's time to end fossil fuel subsidies and time to put a price on carbon.
They say that a carbon tax, “helps level the playing field among energy technologies by charging for the damage caused by climate change and rewarding other benefits of mitigation activities.” That means that green energy technology like wind, solar, and geothermal would suddenly be the more-affordable energy option for the planet.
In addition to these suggestions, the experts call for large, national investments in climate change adaptation, mitigation, and clean energy to help increase “inclusive and sustainable” growth.
We only have one planet to call home, and the actual scientists are telling us to get busy if we want to survive here much longer.
Agreed. We need to bill those who have profited the most from all this polllution for the restoration. If we don't, we will fail. This is as much an ethical fight as a fight for a viable biosphere.
Internal Documents Expose Fossil Fuel Industry’s Decades of Deception on Climate Change.
The 1%'s Responsibility to Shoulder 80% of the COST of a 100% Renewable Energy World with a Viable Biosphere for ALL Earthlings.
"We do not need a 'new' business model for energy because we never had one. What we need, if we wish to avoid extinction, is to plug the environmental and equity costs of energy production and use into our planning and thinking. " -- A.G. Gelbert
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley
"We can’t have a healthy business on a sick planet."-- Ashley Orgain, manager of mission advocacy and outreach for Seventh Generation, Burlington, Vermont
"Technical knowledge of Carrying Capacity will not save us; only a massive increase in Caring Capacity will." -- A. G. Gelbert
While we all applaud Tom and his effort to build a mass green
movement, my guess is the actual solution will come from a few researchers in a lab
who develop a clean cheap energy source.
Focusfusion.org is one such possible group.
Another is the Z-pinch fusion group at the U of Washington in Seattle.
Good place to keep track of the energy horse race is
We need to go MUCH further. Municipalities would do well to require solar photovoltaic on all new construction. There is no argument against it that does not fall flat when analyzed for economic, social, and environmental needs. And, as Amory Lovins has pointed out for decades, a dollar spent on improving efficiency of existing energy-using systems is better-spent than a dollar on new carbon-based generation.
Thom, you forgot to mention what the experts at Fox News say about the problem.....
When a species has run its course the Earth Avatar lets it go.
It seems the human species is about to run its course.
The human specie will not see 2050.
It’s very easy for people to misunderstand what climate scientists and activists are telling them. In 1992, another meeting of 2000 leading scientists also issued a SIMILAR warning: http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html People also know about a string of scientists’ warnings back to Rachel Carson in the 50’s. The problem is, scientists and activists are doing a horrible job telling this story.
For people who don’t understand the details or won’t take the time to learn them, which is MOST people, this seems exactly like “crying wolf”. So, reporters like you can help out a lot with this. But you also have to change the message.
The key problem with the message is its format of broad generalizations! For example, the report you refer to states, “Mitigation over the next few decades will be pivotal in determining the amount of long-term warming and associated risks.” GARBAGE! Complete GARBAGE! This is exactly what they have always said. It was just as true in 1952 as it was in 1992 and 2012. And from such a statement, what does the average person need to be afraid of: “warming and associated risks.” Why would anyone be afraid of that? What people need to hear is SPECIFICS.
An example would be to “interpret” a graph from the Club of Rome study, which has been confirmed to be accurate repeatedly for 40 years. One such interpretation might go, ‘by 2060, if we don’t make major changes now, ONE BILLION people EVERY DECADE will DIE from resource limitations and climate change until the world population gets back to 1.5 B people. And EVERYONE on earth, except “the privileged” few, will suffer greatly from starvation, collapse of lifestyle and the process of dealing with all the dead and refugees swarming the planet. This is the kind of message people can relate to.
The other important message to drive home is the answer to, the question ”Is it too late?” The answer should now be,”YES!” Our failure to act has ALREADY LOCKED IN the death of ONE HALF of the population alive today. The only question left now is, “what happens to the other half?”
Just to keep it real. What does any of this matter. Poor children attend what is left of a gutted and nullified public school systen gaining the advantage of genuine concern and action on their behalf......even to the extent that they are attempting to feed them better, even trying to add in breakfast. Now totally ignoring the obsolete nutritional guidelines defining this supplemental educational support program for the moment.........Why bother?.........the program ends when school is out.........then what, the kids go back to semi starvation, substandard biological development, basically nullifying any benefit acrued druing the previous school sessions efforts, add infinitum........tell me what the point of this is. Why not just shoot them at the outset and start over, wouldn't be more merciful to put them out of their misery with a clean kill........rather than half kill them developmentally with a screwed up nutritional effort, and no hope of acquiring the intellectual skills dependent upon a, for lack of a better term, normal physical development. Or is it no longer the belief that animals must have proper nutrition to achieve the potential inherrent in the genetic heritage.......is that to far left for the Christians to accept as at least a minimum standard.........just asking........so you decide, do I mail my donation to Bernie, or do I mail my donation to the fund and petition to try and help feed these children during the "off" season......."off" season.......I begin to wonder was there ever an "on" season.............have Bernie include this recommendation in one of his speeches, so I will know what to do next..........I can't decide, let the children continue to starve psycologically, emotionally, intellecturally and supplement their biology a little so they might survive to become good gun toting red neck cannon fodder, or send it to Bernie and let him take care of it...........you pick...........good luck Craig
The person you need to bring on as a guest is the British economic journalist and author Fred Harrison. He has been sounding the warnings for several decades and forecasted every crash, every serious problem that we have experienced. Part of his unique insight comes from his understanding of history. I just received from him an advance copy of his new book, titled "As Evil Does." I recommend to all thoughtful people concerned about the state of the world, listen to this 2012 talk he gave in Argentina: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcI3jBbi6Y.
In addition to his books, he has written and narrated a number of hard-hitting documentary films that are all available on Youtube.
There is a viable solution but we need to get started. Electrify and grade separate(over passes) the freight railroads with solar and wind energy. Large Concentrated Solar Power(CSP) like Ivanpah with molten salt storage can provide enough continuous power in the identified solar zones in the south west. Permantly removing the demand for 800 million gallons of diesel fuel would reduce the cost per barrel to make tar sands and fracking too expensive. Electric train are cheaper to operate and maintain. This would provide a cost and performance advantage over trucks. Which would reduce diesel demand even further. Diesel is the main profit of a barrel of oil. At the same time most Amtrak and commuter railroads share track with freight. Both passenger and freight rail service would be cheaper and faster thus providing better alternatives to driving. At the same time mainstream use of solar and wind would be growing. Demand for oil, coal and natural gas would(is) decline.
Use cap and trade to get it started then increase gas taxes as the price of gas declines.
Very true, as well as the root of all life emergent issues. Unfortunately our reality has primarily become a media moment where it isn't a knee jerk, it is'nt even a teaspoon of caster oil.
Looks like the 1% need to get involved here
Otherwise they are knowingly a part of our "extinction"
Whilst being a part of it at the same time
Does money make you blind???