In less than a month, world leaders will gather in Rio de Janeiro for the United Nation's 2012 Earth Summit. At stake: a new global green deal that could pull our planet back from the brink of irreversible climate change.
Two months ago, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned that the world is heading towards a 6°C temperature rise by the end of this century: "Energy-related CO2 emissions are at historic highs, we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would almost double by 2050."
A 6°C temperature rise would mark the end of most life here on earth. According to Australia's Climate Change Research Centre, it would create something "similar to the depths of the last ice age."
The clock is ticking. The IEA says that global warming will hit the point of no return in 5 years time. And according to leading NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen, "In the near term, things will be bad enough." He says that there will be widespread drought followed by floods: "Economic losses would be incalculable. Food prices will rise to unprecedented levels. If this sounds apocalyptic, it is."
According to a recent report from the World Wildlife Fund, there has already been a 30% decline in wildlife since 1970. "There would be panic if the FTSE index showed a decline like this," says Professor Tim Blackman from the UK's Institute of Zoology. "Nature is more important than money. Humanity can live without money, but we can't live without nature and the essential services it provides."
And it's not too late, not yet. But, "we need to address this with the same urgency and determination with which we tackled the systemic financial crisis," says David Nussbaum, CEO of WWF-UK.
97% of all climate scientists now see extreme weather as a "serious" risk to our planet. This is not some splinter view espoused by the fringes of society, this is the mainstream. In the words of Jim Hansen: "The science of the situation is clear -- it's time for the politics to follow."
So, why hasn't it? According to Helen Clark, the head of the UN's development program, it's because it's too politically risky and this is a problem if one is only in power for four years.
But, according to Nick Clegg, the UK's deputy prime minister, "Some say that we have to choose between boosting growth and being green. What a load of rubbish. Going for growth means going green. The race is on to lead the world in clean energy."
In other words, the rise of the green sector may herald the start of our next industrial revolution. And, as economist Lord Stern points out:
Industrial revolutions bring some dislocation. When the electric light came in, the whalers and the candle makers had to adjust. But, there are huge opportunities; it's a story of growth; a story of innovation; and going to the pioneers.
Lord Stern believes that fossil fuel subsidies need to be phased out and ploughed into the green economy instead. According to the IEA, over $400 billion was spent on the fossil fuel sector in 2010. In the same year, green energy received less than one fifth of that money.
British barrister Polly Higgins adopts a similar view. She believes that the "problem needs to be part of the solution." She says that we need to abolish subsidies for polluting industries; outlaw those sectors and then create financial incentives in the other direction so that those same companies can thrive in a world of clean energy. Essentially, we need to turn "the poacher into the gamekeeper."
Polly Higgins then takes another step forward. She believes that environmental destruction should be treated as an international peace crime just like genocide and other crimes against humanity:
We need to expand our circle of concern so that it's not just human life, but all life on earth. It's not just humanity that is sacred; all life is sacred. We need to put people and planet over and above profit. We are standing at the precipice of civilization where morally it is wrong to cause this damage. And, we can close this door much like we closed the door to slavery 200 hundred years ago.
She has asked the UN to accept "ecocide" as the 5th crime against peace and will present her case before world leaders in Rio next month: "Ecocide is in essence the very antithesis of life. It leads to resource depletion, and where there is an escalation of resource depletion, war comes chasing behind."
According to Sir David King, the UK's former head scientist, we are facing a century of 'resource wars.' But, as Ms Higgins points out, our global future need not be so bleak. We can put an end to this mindless destruction, and regain control of our destiny here on earth by protecting the planet that gives us home.
In the words of George Bernard Shaw, "We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility of our future." It's time for us to act wise, otherwise we may forsake our future. Michelangelo once said, "I saw the angel in the marble, and carved until I set her free." We can all see our planetary angel and she's suffering; it's time to set her free.
Follow Aiko Stevenson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@AikoStevenson
Kit Vaughan: Gambling With the Future of the Planet
http://zoltansustainableecon.blogspot.com/2012/05/rio-20-part-4-what-if.html
The campaign has begun to have large scale long term damage and destruction of our environment, the web of life, our life support systems recognized as ecocide and prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.
Are the following act ecocide ?
The destabilisation of our planet's climate with ocean acidification and coral bleaching ;
The destruction of the mountain ecosystem from coal mining;
The conduct of the CEO and Board of Directors of BP who proceeded over the Toxic disaster in the Gulf of Mexico;
The dead zones in our oceans;
The destruction of the Amazon;
The destruction of Boreal Forest ecosystem and toxic lakes due to tarsands mining;
The plundering of fish resources at unsustainable levels;
Is ecocide a threat to the web of life on our planet, national security, living sustainably, human mental, physical and spiritual well being ?
114 nations are signatories to the International Criminal Court (ICC)
The ICC gets its mandate via the UN General assembly votes
To find out more about prosecuting ecocide visit http://thisisecocide.com/
If you agree with this campaign share it on your networks
Write your political leader demanding the investigation the threats posed by ecocide.
Write your local media asking why they are not alerting citizens about this threat to our future and failure of politicians to regulate and prosecuted a group that can be described as radical fundamentalist capitalist?
Gordon Chamberlain
Eradicating Ecocide Campaigner
Toronto Canada
Among the MANY unfounded statements in the editorial, this oft-repeated canard deserves to be relegated to the trash bin. It is patently false:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/
As with past gatherings (Durban anyone?), nothing will be accomplished at Rio+20. The concerned attendees will arrive on their private jets, greeted by big, black SUVs, be taken to swanky hotels, enjoy the hors d'oeuvres and copious quantities of alcohol, flap their gums, then agree to meet again in the future and continue talking.
These powwows aren’t really about fighting climate change, they’re about global wealth redistribution from the productive nations to the less-productive nations.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/IPCC1995_Fail.htm
Climate change is real. Man's part in climate change is negligible. The sun, for better or worse, controls earth's climate: http://www.prisonplanet.com/svensmark-evidence-continues-to-build-that-the-sun-drives-climate-not-co2.html
Deep Throat: Follow the money. Always follow the money.
Woodward: What do you mean? Where?
Deep Throat: Oh, I can't tell you that.
Woodward: But you could tell me that.
Deep Throat: No, I have to do this my way. You tell me what you know, and I'll confirm. I'll keep you in the right direction if I can, but that's all. Just... follow the money.
And trust me John I can be as cynical as you (but for different reasons) when it comes to the likely outcomes at Rio+20. The same lobbyists that have bought the American Congress have done their best to also sew up "business as usual" outcomes there... and will probably succeed.
After all, it's an American election year. No one wants to panic the herd with unpleasant facts like voluntary regulation and incremental change have done sweet frack all to stop a thousand and one Ecocides already in progress.
That's why I support Polly Higgins' campaign. It calls for a paradigm shift. It strikes at the heart of the problem... the urgent need for international law reform that mandates "think before you act" as opposed to "catch me if you can" outcomes. Outcomes that ensure REAL protection and fair and just global governance for the Planet.
In conclusion, as it appears to be fashionable to quote some reputable source on which to base one's opinion have a squiz at the World Economic Forum's 2012 list of Global Risks... it gives "greenhouse gas emissions" a big tick.
/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itKwB4QC1rk
Go get 'em Polly!
Today, we find ourselves standing at a similar precipice. And although nothing may come out of Rio, the change has already begun. More people are concerned about the environment than ever before. It's just a matter of time.
“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” Winston Churchill
I am not a pessimist, just a realist. I am confident the U.S. will survive the economic upheaval of the late Bush and current Obama terms and become once again a beacon for the world. The personal liberty we enjoy, though under attack, exceeds that of other nations.
I am sure you are sincere in your beliefs. I am an environmental scientist, by education/training and in my career. We may stand on a social precipice of class warfare, but I do not believe we stand on an environmental precipice. My work and travels in this hemisphere tell me that global warming is 1) quite moderate - well below the alarmist forecasts of the last 20 years and 2) principally of Natural, not man-made, origin.
Environmental concern (awareness might be more accurate) among the masses is a welcome and positive force. But people vote with their pocketbooks and to date, while they pay lip service to "green", they purchase the lowest-cost item that will accomplish the mission. That is the free market in action. When green energy solutions are price-competitive with the alternatives, that's when you'll see change.
Even the most wide-eyed innocent must surely realize by now that, as Ronald Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to our problem government IS the problem".
So a group of political fat cats noshing in Rio can't, and won't solve climate change - whether you believe climate change is a natural cycle (as I do) or anthropogenic.