That's the title of my new article in Salon. I had proposed "The political fight of the century," but the editors wanted a stronger headline -- and subhead:
Americans must not allow global warming deniers to block the policies needed to avert catastrophic climate change. Our future is at stake.
Now that the relevant science is settled -- namely that failing to quickly embrace strong greenhouse gas reduction policies would be the greatest act of self-destruction in human history -- the fight to save a livable climate will indeed be the greatest political fight of our times. As the piece concludes:
Conservatives can't stop the impending catastrophe with anti-government rhetoric. But they can prevent progressives and moderates from stopping it by blocking aggressive climate legislation. Progressives and moderates will need all their political skill and tenacity to overcome the obstructionism of the anti-science, anti-technology conservatives. This is unlike any previous political fight; it is a fight to save the health and well-being of the next 50 generations, a fight to preserve our way of life. Losing is not an option ...
The article summarizes the current state of conservative anti-science intransigence on climate, which I have discussed at great length (see Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 6" and "Krauthammer, Part II.") I then describe how I think the next couple of decades will play out, assuming most conservatives continue to press what they are convinced is a rhetorical and political advantage in opposing strong climate legislation:
Conservatives can probably enjoy another decade or so of disregarding the climate science and demagoguing climate legislation. Yes, the weather will become increasingly extreme as we slip closer to permanent changes in the climate. But most of what happens next decade will just be a more frequent and intense version of what happened in the last decade.
Unfortunately for the planet, the next decade is pretty much going to be the last one to reverse course the "easy" way. By easy, I mean deploying clean energy technology at an aggressive pace with a negligible net economic cost, 0.1 percent of GDP per year or less. It's a strategy that can be deployed largely by the private sector with the help of well-designed government programs and regulatory reforms.
If conservatives block serious action until the 2020s, then the nation and the world will begin a desperate race to avert catastrophe. By then, the world's carbon dioxide emissions and concentrations will be so high that the relatively easy market-based technology strategy will not be able to stop us from crossing the point of no return, when major amplifying feedbacks kick in and undermine all efforts to avert catastrophe. The most important feedback is probably the melting of the permafrost and tundra, which could release 1,000 billion tons of carbon -- more than the entire atmosphere contains today -- much of it in the form of methane, which is 20 times more potent at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.
I call the period from 2025 to 2050 "Planetary Purgatory." Assuming conservatives block a major reversal in U.S. policies in the next decade, by the 2020s, everyone will know the grim fate that awaits the next 50 generations, including widespread desertification, the loss of the inland glaciers that provide water to a billion people, sea level rise of 80 feet or more at a rate that might hit 6 inches a decade and extinction of most species on land and sea. Maybe then, as the miseries of global warming overtake everyday life, a backlash against conservatives will begin to rise, one that will ultimately relegate that political movement to the dustbin of history
Because if we don't turn the political tide against James Inhofe and his gang of deniers now, we will be forced to act out of desperation soon enough. If we delay serious action to 2025, we would then need to cut global emissions by 75 percent in a quarter century or less. And that would require a massive, sustained government intervention into every aspect of our lives on a scale that far surpasses what this country did during World War II. I can't see how the conservative movement as it now exists could possibly survive having been responsible for ushering in decades if not centuries of untold misery and intrusive government.
You can read the whole piece here.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer
Comments
View as Flat
jatrussell Posted 10:47 am
30 Jun 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COQC-eY5RGM&feature=re ...
Permalink
hapa Posted 12:09 pm
30 Jun 2008
~~
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:07 pm
30 Jun 2008
All of it faith-based idealistic dogma drama, just like the fundamentalist conservatives.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:23 pm
30 Jun 2008
Just because something is put on the internet doesn't make it true.
The exact authors who that video references says that the argument in the video is wrong.
http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8
http://greyfalcon.net/solar7.png
http://greyfalcon.net/swindle3
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 3:53 pm
30 Jun 2008
Through it's cycles, the sun varies in intensity by less than 1/10th of one percent.
>> Changing Sun, Changing Climate?
By contrast we are heading toward a doubling of CO2 and we know that it blocks outgoing infrared radiation.
So the effect of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is similar to adding a much thicker quilt to your bed, whereas the effect of the suns fluctuations is like varying the output of your electric blanket by less than 0.1%
Why are you and your ilk so intent on insisting the sun causes warming but not greenhouse gasses? It clearly has nothing to do with the science. As is demonstrated by the desperate need of the denialist lobby to blatantly and continually twist and spin what the scientists are finding. The stream of half-baked ludicrous claims by denialist-delayers is incredible. Have you people no morals?
Just how high do you think we can take CO2 concentrations? Is there any limit in your opinion? If there is a limit, then how do you work out what it is from within your moral, logical and scientific vacuum?
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:46 pm
30 Jun 2008
But I wonder who is putting the words into the Republican politicians mouths? Is it really Will and Krauthammer? (Will supports a carbon tax, if my memory serves me. Krauthammer supports nuclear, rationing even.) Would not the fossil fuel industry be the real culprits? In other words, is our problem not structural rather than ideological? Wouldn't campaign finance reform be in order (as Gelbspan suggests)?
And finally this quote from Joe illustrates to me that he hasn't fully absorbed the impact of what fossil fuel depletion will mean to our available energy:
Krauthammer and the conservatives have it backward. The solution to global warming doesn't require rationing energy or anything else. It requires a government-industry partnership to accelerate existing and near-term clean energy technologies into the market. That strategy preserves the energy abundance that has made modern civilization and sustained economic development possible
Permalink
enki Posted 12:25 am
01 Jul 2008
Mike Johnston
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 4:32 am
01 Jul 2008
I infer the purpose of the very lengthy poll was to select the talking points the public was most apt to agree with. I concluded a major drilling campaign was about to be unleashed.
Sure enough, a couple of weeks some of the issues addressed in the poll appeared as talking points in the mouths of Bush, Cheney, McCain and some in Congress.
How easily we are manipulated!
Permalink
jatrussell Posted 10:04 am
01 Jul 2008
Permalink
jatrussell Posted 10:23 am
01 Jul 2008
CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. So what?! Man-made CO2 contribution is absolutely DWARFED by natural sources. And clouds absolutely DWARF CO2 in their ability to counter CO2's greenhouse effect. The historical record reconstructed by scientists shows over and over again that global warming preceeds increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations by a few hundred years because the sun warms the oceans releasing CO2, a process that takes time due to the huge thermal sink that oceans represent. When solar output decreases then so does earth's temperature.
I have one minor criticism with the video. It does not discuss earth's orbital changes around the sun contributing to ice ages, etc., probably because those occur over eons rather than human lifetimes like solar output variations.
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 11:48 am
01 Jul 2008
Your statement that "Man-made CO2 contribution is absolutely DWARFED by natural sources" is just plain wrong. The level has been fairly constant for thousands of years and is now cranking up in line with the known emissions due to humanity minus a chunk of this that is going into sinks such as the ocean. Websites peddling disinformation blythly tell you otherwise. You are being lied to. It is fairly easy for you to confirm this for yourself. Go do some open minded investigation of the literature. The RealClimite website is a good place to start. It will point you to plenty of research conducted by actual scientists.
Global warming has very dire consequences in store for us all. Many of my extended family are farmers in South Australia where landholders are on their knees due to ongoing drought, a drying trend that shows no sign of abating and which Australia's peak science organisation the CSIRO, along with the Bureau of Meteorology predict will continue to escalate as greenhouse gas concentrations increase. I spoke to my father the other day. He's already lost his farm. He said the autumn rains have failed to materialize yet again and that there will probably be an exodus from the land this year. This is a real problem that is impacting the lives of real people.
Australian Bureau of Meteorology Drought statement
1 in 1000 year drought hammers Australia
Australias biggest river system the Murray-Darling is dying
We were warned about this twenty years ago and the science has become firmer on the outcomes and consequences year by year. The fossil fuel industries, their cronies and their dupes among the public have run a constant disinformation campaign in order to delay action on this. Millions of peoples livelihoods and lives are at stake. If that isn't a moral issue I don't know what is.
It is time for you to take an objective look at the science. The video link you provided points to a video that has been pulled. But I see that is refers to the Global Warming Swindle documentary. It isn't surprising that it was pulled. The makers had to reissue it about 5 times after it's first airing because of complaints from a number of the scientists interviewed that their views were placed out of context and misrepresented.
To get a better understanding of why it is such a dishonest misrepresentation of what the science says do a search for articles addressing the swindle at RealClimate. The seventh and eights articles in that list address it directly, and the others indirectly. They are all well worth a read as are all the comments.
Time to open your eyes and get a grip on reality.
There are real solutions to this that will allow us to stop emissions without an overbearing cost. For example I note that that the solar thermal electricity company Ausra has just opened it's first manufacturing facility in Nevada and is building power stations that can produce base-load power day and night, at a cost that is competitive with coal. Companies are chaffing at the bit to get on with solving this. The people setting up companies like this deserve a level playing field. It's time to stop supporting the fossil industries, and to cheer on the heros. We have wasted enough time. There is precious little leeway left in the climate system.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:45 pm
01 Jul 2008
Actually, that is true.
But it's also irrelevant.
The implied meaning that we aren't responsible for the increase in CO2 levels, which is false.
The trick of course is that even though natural emissions are gigantic. Natural carbon sinks are slightly bigger. Which keeps the system in relative balance.
Manmade emissions tip that balance.
Here's a little video explaining it all.
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon2
And of course, an admitance from the "Swindle"'s producer saying that "Of course manmade emissions are responsible! How dare you say I implied otherwise." Well something to that effect.
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon
And if you want a bit more science
http://greyfalcon.net/swindle3
_
And as you mentioned, the Milankovitch cycles are important for understanding iceage cycles.
http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitch
And of course, Natural factors are also very important.
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing4.png
Catch being they can't explain the warming we've seen in the past few decades. Which is what ALL scientific institutions around the world now agree to. (Yes, I really do mean ALL. American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the last one to go.)
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 3:23 pm
01 Jul 2008
And the Global warming art website has some very informative plots of emissions and atmospheric concentrations data.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:15 pm
01 Jul 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
314159265 Posted 6:56 pm
01 Jul 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 8:59 pm
01 Jul 2008
I am actually convinced that Climate Change is real, and is a concern. I am not screaming that the end of the world is coming however. And I am conscious that major changes to our economy will have a major and negative impact on poor people everywhere. So while I think we need to take measured action, we have to do that in a way that minimizes it's impact on the global economy.
Lastly, I don't care if you like me in this thread or not. It's called freedom of expression, and even "denialists" are entitled to it.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Backcut Posted 9:30 pm
01 Jul 2008
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
georgia Posted 12:27 pm
02 Jul 2008
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND PAST TEMPERATURE INCREASES. All the science points to this.
CO2 concentrations have been up to 20 times higher than today's level, and runaway warming did not occur. In fact, ice ages happenned.
The key is this. Our atmosphere does not warm/cool strictly by radiation. Convection, and other natuarl cooling mechanisms such as clouds, which keep the earth from reaching about 170 degrees F (which it would be in a pure radiative environment), render the greenhouse effect theory useless.
Sea level, which is incredibily difficult to even measure is not increasing at an increasing rate. Our best guesses, and that's what they are, tell us that sea level fluctuates, but has been rising at about 7 inches/century for the past couple. If you read the latest IPCC report (not the executive summary written by political types), they state that a recent acceleration, albeit small, in sea level rise, from 1992-2003, may just be due to decade variability, then they go on to project higher rates based on models that assume CO2 will cause warming. This is not science, but fodder.
Oh.. can anyone please point me to a list of scientists that are part of this manufactured concensus? I only know if 2 lists. One includes 400 prominent scientists from over 20 counties (many of which contributed to the IPCC reports). They disagree with the AGW theory. The other is a list of over 30,000 American scientists and methematicians that agree that CO2 should not be limited.
So where are all these concensus scientists beyond Charles Mann and James Hansen? Can you even give me a list of 50?
I'm waiting....
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:16 pm
02 Jul 2008
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warmi ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_BceWzg2oM
The 30,000 scientist thing? To put it simply, it was packaged with raw unscientific propaganda (made to look like it came from the US National Academy of Science), and generally is just a laundry list of whoever they could get to sign it.
Many of which have no recollection of signing it, would disagree with it now, and a significant amount aren't even real. Hollywood Actress Halle Berry, for instance, was on that list as a "scientist". Additionally they keep recycling the signatures from a period of over 10 years ago.
(OISM) Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine itself has only 1 paid staff member, yet has over $1 Million dollars in undisclosed sourced funding.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institu ...
_
That said, aside from the obvious 2500 scientist panel on the IPCC.
You also have every National Academy of Science.
And whats more, There isn't a single scientific institution in the world that disagrees. (Association of American Petroleum Geologists was the last institution holdout, and they switched last year.)
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake
Heck, not even the Bush administration, or Newt Gingrich disagrees anymore.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/29/whit ...
http://greyfalcon.net/gingrich
What's it gonna take?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:25 pm
02 Jul 2008
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date= ...
Permalink
snedunuri Posted 6:22 am
13 Jul 2008
Permalink
snedunuri Posted 6:24 am
13 Jul 2008
Permalink