This trumps all else (political quick hit #1)
Really too busy to be posting, but the following deserves whatever attention I can help bring:
I'm NOT a huge fan of David Atkins, He's far, far far too kind to the Democratic establishment and makes way too many excuses for them, but he's entirely spot-on when he say "The Great Moral Challenge of Our Time" is the already-in-progress ecotastrophe known as "Humans Destroy the World": (while he rightly focuses on climate change, I refuse to limit it to that, as we were/are wiping out species and individual ecosystems on a world-historic level even before and aside from our present kill-the-whole-planet endeavors. Anyway, quotes:
This, then, is the brutal logic of climate change: With immediate, concerted action at global scale, we have a slim chance to halt climate change at the extremely dangerous level of 2 degrees C. If we delay even a decade -- waiting for better technology or a more amenable political situation or whatever -- we will have no chance.
Right now, global emissions are rising, faster and faster. Between 2000 and 2007, they rose at around 3.5 percent a year; by 2009 it was up to 5.6 percent. In 2010, we hit 5.9 percent growth, a record. We aren't just going in the wrong direction -- we're accelerating in the wrong direction...
according to the latest science, says Anderson, "a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond 'adaptation', is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable."
I will add that over the past few years things have deteriorated faster and with greater effects than most climate scientiests' "worst case scenarios" over the affected time period. The actual long-term worst-case sceanrio is death-of-biosphere.
Atkins goes on,
It is a revolting commentary on the shortsightedness of human nature that this issue is not the #1 subject of debate around the world every single day among responsible policy makers.
But what is doubly depressing is that this issue could and should be a perfect rationale for the sort of stimulus spending that is exactly what would be needed to pull the world out of a global recession.
To read the entire, outstanding article, go here:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/great-moral-challenge-of-our-time-by.html
Here's some more from the David Roberts article Atkins was quoting:
http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change
there's a hitch: Climate science has not stood still for the last decade. According to the latest research, the level of damages once expected at 2 degrees C is now expected at considerably lower temperatures.
the 2 degrees C "guardrail" that separated acceptable from dangerous in 2001 is, in 2009, squarely inside several red zones. Today, the exact same social and political considerations that settled on 2 degrees C as the threshold of safety by all rights ought to settle on 1 degree C [1.8 degrees F]. After all, we now know 2 degrees C is extremely dangerous.
At this point, however, stopping at 1 degree C is physically impossible (we can thank our past inaction for that). Indeed, as we'll see, stopping at 2 degrees C is getting close to impossible as well.
But at what level? Will hitting 2 degrees C trigger runaway positive feedbacks? It's difficult to know; this is one of the most uncertain areas of climate science. James Hansen thinks 2 degrees C will do it. Others disagree.
But the situation becomes considerably clearer around 4 degrees C. At that level, there's good reason to believe that some positive feedbacks will become self-reinforcing. In other words, 4 degrees C would very likely be a way station on the road to much higher temperatures.
Oh, and by the way: According to the International Energy Agency, we're currently on course for 6 degrees C [10.8 degrees F]. That is, beyond any reasonable doubt, game over.
I'm NOT a huge fan of David Atkins, He's far, far far too kind to the Democratic establishment and makes way too many excuses for them, but he's entirely spot-on when he say "The Great Moral Challenge of Our Time" is the already-in-progress ecotastrophe known as "Humans Destroy the World": (while he rightly focuses on climate change, I refuse to limit it to that, as we were/are wiping out species and individual ecosystems on a world-historic level even before and aside from our present kill-the-whole-planet endeavors. Anyway, quotes:
This, then, is the brutal logic of climate change: With immediate, concerted action at global scale, we have a slim chance to halt climate change at the extremely dangerous level of 2 degrees C. If we delay even a decade -- waiting for better technology or a more amenable political situation or whatever -- we will have no chance.
Right now, global emissions are rising, faster and faster. Between 2000 and 2007, they rose at around 3.5 percent a year; by 2009 it was up to 5.6 percent. In 2010, we hit 5.9 percent growth, a record. We aren't just going in the wrong direction -- we're accelerating in the wrong direction...
according to the latest science, says Anderson, "a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond 'adaptation', is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable."
I will add that over the past few years things have deteriorated faster and with greater effects than most climate scientiests' "worst case scenarios" over the affected time period. The actual long-term worst-case sceanrio is death-of-biosphere.
Atkins goes on,
It is a revolting commentary on the shortsightedness of human nature that this issue is not the #1 subject of debate around the world every single day among responsible policy makers.
But what is doubly depressing is that this issue could and should be a perfect rationale for the sort of stimulus spending that is exactly what would be needed to pull the world out of a global recession.
To read the entire, outstanding article, go here:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/great-moral-challenge-of-our-time-by.html
Here's some more from the David Roberts article Atkins was quoting:
http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change
there's a hitch: Climate science has not stood still for the last decade. According to the latest research, the level of damages once expected at 2 degrees C is now expected at considerably lower temperatures.
the 2 degrees C "guardrail" that separated acceptable from dangerous in 2001 is, in 2009, squarely inside several red zones. Today, the exact same social and political considerations that settled on 2 degrees C as the threshold of safety by all rights ought to settle on 1 degree C [1.8 degrees F]. After all, we now know 2 degrees C is extremely dangerous.
At this point, however, stopping at 1 degree C is physically impossible (we can thank our past inaction for that). Indeed, as we'll see, stopping at 2 degrees C is getting close to impossible as well.
But at what level? Will hitting 2 degrees C trigger runaway positive feedbacks? It's difficult to know; this is one of the most uncertain areas of climate science. James Hansen thinks 2 degrees C will do it. Others disagree.
But the situation becomes considerably clearer around 4 degrees C. At that level, there's good reason to believe that some positive feedbacks will become self-reinforcing. In other words, 4 degrees C would very likely be a way station on the road to much higher temperatures.
Oh, and by the way: According to the International Energy Agency, we're currently on course for 6 degrees C [10.8 degrees F]. That is, beyond any reasonable doubt, game over.