Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Why the World Needs the U.S. to Act Now on Climate Change

By Sophie Ragsdale, The Nation. Posted March 17, 2009.


If the United States takes swift and aggressive action on climate change, at home and abroad, we might make it in time.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

There are two clocks ticking for the god-fearing climate-conscious among us. The first counts down to Copenhagen, where on December 7 representatives from 192 countries will hammer out a successor to the Kyoto Protocol: a post-2012 global climate deal aimed at curbing greenhouse gases. The second hurtles us toward disaster, a "mankind-threatening juggernaut," the point at which atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeds a concentration of 450 parts per million. To the extent that global warming is contingent on carbon emissions, the tipping point will be determined at the UN Framework Conference for Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen, the last stop on the Bali Roadmap toward what UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer has called "the most complex international agreement that history has ever seen.

In less than ten months, the Danish capital will host as many as 15,000 ministers and officials whose challenge is to collaborate a shared vision for long-term cooperative climate action. Specifically, they will determine burden-sharing agreements based on "common but differentiated responsibilities," and developed countries must pledge ambitious emissions reduction targets. The alternative business-as-usual approach, which is to do nothing, will shoot CO2 levels up to 900 ppm by 2100, causing worldwide temperatures to increase nearly 7 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels to rise anywhere from 3 to 7 feet, nearly tripling predictions made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.

In fact, temperatures are accelerating at such a clip that the IPCC's 2007 report, a gathering and distillation of thousands of peer reviews submitted by hundreds of the world's top climate experts, was outdated upon presentation. Since then, scientists have abandoned the language of numbers and data analysis in favor of urgent calls for immediate action. There are, of course, a few odd deniers, such as William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University, who announced last week at an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing that we are actually in a "CO2 famine" and that increased levels "will be good for mankind." For the most part, however, the consensus is that if temperatures continue to rise as they are, we will not escape hell and high water within the next decade. And where policy is concerned, Obama is considered our last best chance to get it right. "We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world," said James Hansen of the NASA Institute. "America must take the lead."

Obama has made it clear that slowing the climate clock is a top priority for his administration. Beginning with his environment and energy cabinet picks, the "Green Dream Team," it's fair to say, as Representative Lloyd Doggett did at a Ways and Means committee hearing, that "this president is committed to changing the White House into a greenhouse." And it's no surprise that after eight years of Bush obstructionism, Obama's willingness to engage on warming and energy matters is being seen as a "sea change" by the international community. But if he really wants to make good on his claim to a new dawn of American leadership, the United States must at least bring the framework of a federal carbon-caps legislation to the Copenhagen table. On the other hand, putting together meaningful legislation will be difficult, especially when the de facto leader of the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh, is encouraging the spread of ideas that climate change is a conspiracy cooked up by the Chinese, the "ChiComs," to destroy the US economy.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, kyoto, ipcc, copenhangen

Sophie Ragsdale is a freelance writer. She currently lives in Brooklyn, NY.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
no action no problem
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Mar 17, 2009 3:19 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the last decade has produced no overall global warming, it's premature to hit the panic button. Clearly an independent body needs to evaluate the current state of climate change. The UN's IPCC is packed with recipients of grants that favor those who cry panic in the face of lower than predicted temperatures and lower sea levels than predicted.

In the middle of a world economic decline that threatens the lives and livelihoods of billions, it is reckless to slap cap and trade, carbon taxes and regulations on coal in order to prevent a calamity that probably isn't going to happen.

And what climate change does happen, as it always does, is due to forces far beyond the puny technology or activities of Man. What Hubris! Indeed, an allout effort should be made to look at a more likely cause of longterm climate change-solar radiation.

In the meantime, do no harm. Limit carbon for rational economic and health reasons yes. But not for a crisis that exists because some folks always need a "cause". Save the Earth sounds good. But Man couldn't "save" the Earth even if he wanted to.

Americans, Chinese and Russians, as well as Europeans, aren't going to pay the ridiculous carbon taxes Obama and Bill McKibben and the radical enviro lobby demand. forget it Bill. Ain't gonna happen. CO2 is good.

No C02, no life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: no action no problem Posted by: greenknight
Nothing is going to get done
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Mar 18, 2009 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if we keep lumping our environmental problems under the term "climate change". All that does is bring on the endless arguments about how climate change is/isn't occurring and is/isn't related to human activity or is/isn't a normal geological cycle. The phrase "climate change" is incendiary. It whips people into a froth and gets them arguing for hours, and for what?

We have to start couching the problems we face in terms of the pollution of our water, air and soil, the consumption and destruction of our forests and wetlands, the ruin of our oceans and the demolition of mountain ranges for dirty coal. Those things are visible, tangible and undeniable. Only when we deal in undeniable reality will people stop the pointless argument about whether or not the earth is warming, and think in terms of solutions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US to lead the way
Posted by: julipuck13 on Mar 18, 2009 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree we talk about climate change but it makes up a number of components that should be seen as a larger goal but broken down into smaller compnents. Until we seriously look at population sustainability and economic stability instead of $$ we will have problems. You can't separate the social aspects of climate change from the environmental or political aspects.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where is the "science" .....
Posted by: jal64 on Mar 18, 2009 3:42 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.... that proves any of this alarmist claptrap? It is obvious that Sophie is the denier or just plain ignorant of the fact that NOT ONE un-biased report proves any "fact" in this article. She decries the warming of the last decade when even the IPCC admits there has been no such phenomenom. All the alarmist claims are based on computer models which is NOT science. Nor is "consensus" real science. Computer models are nothing more than GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. True Science is theory proved by actual observation. There are no actual observations that prove these computer models.

What IS real science is the fact that the earth has been warmer than now by at least two degrees at least twice in the past 2500 years ... and we have yet to drown civilization. This is proven by ice cores that have been taken from several sites around the globe. This PROVES that warming is not caused primarily by CO2 nor any activity of man. The real cause of warming is solar activity over which we have no control. It would be stupid in the extreme to cripple world economies in an attempt to prevent something which cannot be prevented.

In addition I would be VERY suspicious of any outcome of a confab of thousands. This meeting will be nothing more than a political rubber stamp of a report that has probably already been drafted and approved by a small cabal of treehuggers. A favorable vote of 50.1% will be trumpeted as "consensus". Much like the original IPCC report that was rewarded by the Nobel Prize. Whattacrock!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement