I'm trying to get the folks I know to use "global climate instability" instead.  It's both more accurate, since it gets at the issues of disrupted rainfall, hurricanes, etc., and sounds considerably more immediate and threatening.

(And yes, I realize this doesn't negate your point about the global scale daunting people.)

Yes indeed we need to remake the way humanity lives in the world. Or the consequences will be like any other living creature that uses up all its resources and despoils it's home. It ends up being a formerlly living creature.

I've always liked how the book Ishmael conveys that humanity (me) needs to alter the story we're enacting (related to the "myths" we believe in).

Sure, we were born and raised in an social/political, etc environment that is enacting a certain story, one that focuses on short-term successes/goals as the cost of long-term sustainability. But we have the power to change, to self-help ourselves, our communities, our friends and family, our country and our world. The first step is realizing there's a problem, then realizing that smart people have done good work to come up with solutions. Finally, enacting those solutions powered by our belief that this is the story we want to enact.

It's tough to realise that something 'global' can be fought by individual people. That's why you hear 'the world's big enough and tough enough to look after itself'. Ditch 'global', and let's start looking at 'local'. It'll lead onto global in the long run, and be much, much less daunting.

Today, 174 countries have ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the Protocol, except most notably, the US and of course, Australia.
Global Warming is here and it will impact on every one of us - somewhere, somehow, sometime - for generations to come. The simple solution to the issues of Global Warming involves changing one's (personal, business, political) behaviour away from the "me, myself and I" philosophy, to a more unselfish one of really caring for the "other" e.g. people, species, environment. Australia's Prime Minister John W Howard's arrogant pronouncements are not Holy Writ, neither is George W Bush's.

Global Warming is happening but it is not all doom & gloom that some would have us believe. However, we must not put our head in the sand, we have to confront the issues - not deny them. Just as importantly, we need to get on with our lives. As individuals, we can do something from the grass roots level, but we deserve that our leaders take real steps, to address the very real problems raised by the very real facts about Global Warming. We don't want or need political posturing and grandstanding - particularly from our countries' leaders.

Not too many of us understand or realise what's been going on behind the scenes. This has led to a lot of controversy, confusion and uncertainty - and much of the blame for this can be attributed to - politicians, the media, some research scientists themselves and most certainly, to powerful and well resourced vested interest groups, who have the ear, and the funding carrots of, the said politicians, media or research groups.

Excellent work behind the scenes has been conducted by members of the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aided by environment organisations, business/industry groups, research institutions, local governments and indigenous organisations.

The role of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to assess on a comprehensive basis - scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the science based risks of human-induced climate change - its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The IPCC doesn't gather scads of data just for kicks - it issues very comprehensive reports at regular intervals for very specific purposes. Why is this so important? Because the IPCC reports are the top of the food chain, the standard of standards, the Big Kahuna of rational and logical reasoning. The IPCC reports are the most ambitious, comprehensive, heavily reviewed, authoritative knowledge-gathering enterprises ever undertaken. It's got its flaws, but nonetheless, it is as close as humanity is ever likely to get to the understanding of climate change.

If you think the IPCC's WG1 report released in February caused controversy - the next two will cause a much greater controversy - watch the sceptics come out of the wood work.

WG2 - "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" - THIS WEEK 2-5 April 2007, Brussels, Belgium. Public release 6th, regional explanation for Australia in NZ on 10th

WG3 - "Mitigation of Climate Change" - 30 April - 3 May 2007, Bangkok, Thailand.

189 countries are Parties to the UNFCCC. This almost universal participation demonstrates that countries around the world do take this global threat seriously, that they are concerned, and that they act accordingly.
The Protocol was designed only as a 1st step to tackle the problems of Global Warming. It does have issues, but because it is a dynamic treaty, they are being addressed continually. Negotiations are being had to move the protocol to the next stage, that after 2008. Australia and the US should be part of that.

We have the UN for a reason; it is not good enough for a major UN signatory to take the ball home if they don't like how the other players play the game. It happened with the war in Iraq, it is happening again with the war on climate change.
Australia only produces about 1% of global GHG emissions, but we are the highest per capita contributor of GHG in the world. It would send a very strong message to the world that we are willing to accept our global responsibilities, to be a team player with the rest of the world, if we really involve ourselves in the UNFCCC process.

A definition of sustainable development was given by the World Commission on Environment and Development: `development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'.
This implies a complex balance - sustaining the economic growth that is essential for poverty reduction while using natural resources in a prudent fashion.
It also implies ensuring greater equity, both within and between societies and generations - achieving a stable relationship between human activities and the natural world that does not diminish the prospects for future generations to enjoy a quality of life at least as good as our own.

People must be able to rely on experts and leaders to guide us. In the context of Global Warming, we have the experts, are we sure about the leaders?
The issue of what we can do is primarily a function of our attitude and behaviour on how we deal with energy use. We need a more sustainable way of doing things - primarily in terms of: - electricity generation, transportation, agricultural and land management practices, intensive manufacturing industries (aluminium, cement, mining, etc), private & commercial practices.

No matter what we do, Global Warming is going to cost us in some way, but those costs can be reduced or off-set.
WHAT CAN WE DO?
We need to think globally, act locally - we can act in an environmentally sustainable way at the grass roots level, but we need our business and political leaders to act in an environmentally sustainable way at the highest levels of society - we have to question our political leaders, our future depends on them making the right decisions.
HOW?
1)    Adapt to Global Warming
2)    Reduce our GHG emissions
Global Warming is not about political ideology - it's about giving everyone a sustainable life, the planet an environmentally sustainable life - all else follows.

"Aging scientists don't die, they just turn into grumpy old farts and contribute in a small way to GHG emissions."

As an applied climatologist (meteorologist & physical oceanographer), I applaud your well articulated comments about "climate change".
The equation is quite simple:  Increasing population + limited natural resources (renewable and non renewable) = lower standard of living.
Technology has and can sustain our quality of life, but can do only so much at a time.

The history of the human race as been replete with doom and gloom, and what is occurring these days is probably no different.  However, the explosion of instantaneous communication has just help to exaggerate these dire predictions.  Truth be told, worldwide, the standard of living is at the highest level (materially) since the dawn of man.  We may have lost are spiritual way but I believe that people's relationship to nature and their environment may be just what the doctor ordered for this new renaissance.  At least one can only hope.

It seems like we're on the cusp of a paradigm shift in how humans relate to and live in the environment.  Maybe the global warming thing is just a final push to do so.

Jan Curtis
Wyoming, USA

I love that PB&J campaign! I've been meaning to write about it. So clever and human-scale.

www.grist.org

Thanks, I love the PB&J website...  Caniscandida would like to know that it takes 16 PB&J sandwiches to save a chicken's life, I'm sure.  My father, who is almost 84, has been giving talks about climate change/global warming here at his assisted living community.  Just today he talked about ecological footprints to 35 folks here.  He works hard to make the ideas accessible, talking about our children and grandchildren and their lives, giving ideas about light bulbs and less driving, etc.  My father inspires me so much with what he is doing here, which I consider your basic PB&J approach. This approach is simple, patient, and persistent.  Wendell Berry always said that to define a problem as global makes it impossible to deal with, but a local emphasis makes it approachable.

An ounce of practice is worth twenty thousand tons of big talk. -Vivekananda