Editor's note: This guest post was written by former Vice President Al Gore for the Hopenhagen movement.
The world has arrived at a moment of decision.
As long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere, we move closer and closer to several dangerous tipping points—points which scientists have repeatedly warned would, if crossed, threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human civilization possible on this planet.
I’ve said it numerous times already, but right now we are trapped in a dangerous cycle—borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf, and then burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change.
Right now, here in the US and all over the world, people are demanding action. There is a much broader consensus than there was when President George H.W. Bush negotiated—and the Senate ratified—the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. And there's much stronger consensus than when we completed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
The road to the signing of an agreement in Copenhagen will not be easy, but the world has traveled this path before. More than twenty years ago the US signed the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we banned most of the major pollutants that created the hole in the ozone over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support: President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill joined hands to lead the way.
We can do it again and solve the climate crisis, protecting our planet for future generations.
--
Help turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen at Hopenhagen.org
Indeed the opening statement mimics the verbal cadence of a certain manifesto: “The world has arrived at a moment of decision…. avoid irretrievable destructionâ€; this could have also been easily stated as “ There is a spectre haunting the world – the spectre of Environmentalism.â€
Mr. Gore uses such hyperbolic verbiage throughout his very brief article that it is difficult to even follow his train of thought while being barraged with cataclysmic terms throughout his discourse, i.e., dump 90 million tons; dangerous tipping points; repeated warned; (my favorite) irretrievable destruction; dangerous cycle; etc.
Better would be to provide data for us to consider then we will make our own decision. This article provided nothing of that sort.
We know that the mercury contamination of our fish and water is real.
Why the he@# is no one in Copenhagen talking or shouting about ways to fix that ? ? ?
-------
The Texas Department of Health has issued fish consumption advisories for over 329,000 acres of lakes and rivers,
*** INCLUDING THE ENITIRE GULF OF MEXICO ****.
Mercury From Coal-Burning Power Plants Threatens Our Water, Fish and Health
Coal-burning power plants are the largest industrial source of mercury emissions in the United States, and ten percent of these emissions come from plants in Texas - more than any other state. Five of the nation's top ten emitters of mercury are in the Lone Star State.
When mercury is released into the air, it settles in rivers, lakes, and streams. Bacteria in the water convert it to methyl mercury, a very toxic form of mercury. The toxic mercury bioaccumulates in the bodies of animals. Eating contaminated fish is the main way people are exposed to unsafe levels of mercury. Unlike with some other toxins, there is no way to clean or cook mercury out of fish.
http://www.cleanwateraction.org/programinitiative/making-texas-mercury-free
Did you hear its snowing in Australia? Which isn't that unusual,
except for the fact that it's SUMMER in Australia....
Here are some nice looking hydrogen fuel cell powered electric cars parked in Copenhagen ready to take people such as you for a ride which produces ZERO emissions, except for the water molecule: http://fuelcellsworks.com/news/2009/12/01/parade-of-hydrogen-cars-energises-copenhagen/ .
And while taking a ride in these hydrogen fuel cell cars, have the driver take you down to the docks in Copenhagen and have a look at this hydrogen fuel cell powered ship: http://fuelcellsworks.com/news/2009/12/02/worlds-first-fuel-cell-ship-tourpresentation-in-copenhagen/ .
So perhaps, sometime after Copenhagen, you can convene a summit in the U.S. of all the CEO's of the Oil and Oil Refining Corporations in the U.S. and asked them whey they are not installing hydrogen gas pumps on their service station parking lots in order to get the Hydrogen Economy underway.
It is possible to manufacture hydrogen gas using electrolysis, but it costs a lot. And it costs even more if you insist the production of that electricity not generate CO2.
but it is one of the very few options we have to replace fossil fuels
in our vehicles. And the price to build the infrastructure to make the switch
to hydrogen will only go up the longer we wait. Hydrogen is also THE most
abundant gas in the universe, and chances are we will never have to worry
about "peak Hydrogen". Unlike electric cars, we will not have a problem with
battery disposal and, unlike ethanol fuels, farming acreage for food
production will not be reduced.
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html
A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.
We're not talking about controlling our climate. We're talking about not recklessly changing it with no regard for consequences. We've already changed it enough.
http://www.physorg.com/news179670878.html
Are we no better than algae?
"Discovering a new and unexpected atmospheric compound in the air over forests is fundamental research. Nevertheless with manmade climate-change looming on the horizon, the research might find applications sooner than expected. The new aerosol-precursor may be extremely important when researchers attempt to compute projected climate change. "That means, that the new compound is a missing link in more than one sense", Professor Kjærgaard states.
"Clouds can retain as well as block the heat of the sun, so, if we don't understand what drives the formation of clouds, our climate-models are bound to be less than exact".
http://www.physorg.com/news169202056.html
I don't believe there is the political will, either in the US or abroad, to impose the kind of economy-busting measures Gore and others propose. The Emerging Nations have essentially said that it is not up to them, that it is up to the US and other economically advanced countries to carry the burden. No country in its right mind, however, is going to sit back and watch as the rest of the world presses forward economically, industrially or otherwise while it guts its own economy in a fool’s quest to lower CO2 emissions. The US, too, cannot and will not "stand down" while China, India and other nations big and small do everything they can to build their economies. It’s been suggested that China and India, only now really coming into their own, should not have to participate to the extent the US does. They both agree of course. China is adding several coal-burning plants each week. Even Australia, generally considered sympathetic to climate issues, is one of the world's leading coal exporters, not the least to China.
Copenhagen will prove to be a blip tainted by Climategate and a lack of genuine resolve the world over.
Clean energy is already economically viable. That's why Texas, for example, is making the move to cleaner, renewable energy sources.
The rest of your post is nothing more than a rehash of talk radio arguments. It represents a selfish, shallow, uninformed view of both the problem and its solutions.
at worse for a short period of time we pay a little extra for energy. in the long run we pay less for energy and deprive terrorist and anti american regimes of their source of funding.
who benefits from not developing renewable fuels terrorist and anti american regimes.
the choice is your be a patriotic american and work for renewable energy or be anti american and work against renewable energy.
“When the Holy One Blessed be He created Adam, He took him and caused him to pass before all the trees of the Garden of Eden. He said to him, ‘See how beautiful and praiseworthy are my works; and all that I have created, I have created for your sake. Take heed that you do not damage and destroy my world.’†(Koheleth Rabbah 7:28)
Numbers 35:33
So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are:
because he is..
CO2 doesn't directly cause any problems at all. The only alleged indirect problem which is being predicted is that the earth will become warmer. Now, explain to me why that is even a bad thing. It is not abnormal for the earth to be warmer than it is right now. There was a 300 year period during the middle ages when the temperature was even higher than it is now, higher even than the most "dire" predictions of temperature increase. That was a period of civilization where agriculture and human life flurrished. It was even warm enough that grapes could be grown in northern england.
What would be the harm in having that happen again? It would be very beneficial to have a long enough warm season to grow two plantings of wheat per year in southern Canada. That would allow more people to be fed. I know that here in Ohio winter is the worst time of year for all forms of life. If we want more life on the planet, make winter shorter and milder.
as for co2 you might want to try http://www.350.org/
btw -- what are you going to tell your grandchildren.
“When the Holy One Blessed be He created Adam, He took him and caused him to pass before all the trees of the Garden of Eden. He said to him, ‘See how beautiful and praiseworthy are my works; and all that I have created, I have created for your sake. Take heed that you do not damage and destroy my world.’†(Koheleth Rabbah 7:28)
Numbers 35:33
So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are:
Besides. Lets just say hypothetically that the earth is going to warm to the level claimed by the most dire of predictions, a few degrees C. What exactly is the harm in that? That isn't even a bad thing. More heat means more life. If what we want for the planet is to have more human, animal and plant life then we would WANT the earth to be warmer. Right now the most abundant areas of life are on the equator, the hottest place. Making the temperate areas of the planet even warmer would only allow us to have more and more life. Right now the arctic regions are nearly lifeless, warm them up a bit and there will be just that much more life there.
One thing is certain: western countries have become fat and sassy, all because their industrial development time lines began before others in our recent history. Now that nations like China, Brazil and India are developing out of 2nd world status and emerging into 1st world (sorry about the old cliche but it applies here), they are hungry for prosperity for their people, yet all while their time line of development places them at odds with the environmental condition of the planet our industrial revolution took place when the planet was clean and information about conditions travelled slowly around the globe. Not anymore.
We need a revolution in thinking, a Manhattan project for clean energy conversion. The seeds have been sown by leaders such as VP Gore and almost ALL respected scientists in every major nation. Our failure to act is our downfall.
There is an obstacle: big oil and big coal. Fat and sassy companies and countries will and are balking at taking the high road and voluntarily committing themselves to these changes. It's the same old excuse "why should we do it, when the others won't".
Here's why: we consume up to 25% of the world's energy. If we converted half of that to non-atmospheric-polluting energy, it WOULD make a tremendous global impact.
Those who do not commit are selfish.
CO2 doesn't directly cause any problems at all. The only alleged indirect problem which is being predicted is that the earth will become warmer. Now, explain to me why that is even a bad thing. It is not abnormal for the earth to be warmer than it is right now. There was a 300 year period during the middle ages when the temperature was even higher than it is now, higher even than the most "dire" predictions of temperature increase. That was a period of civilization where agriculture and human life flurrished. It was even warm enough that grapes could be grown in northern england.
What would be the harm in having that happen again? It would be very beneficial to have a long enough warm season to grow two plantings of wheat per year in southern Canada. That would allow more people to be fed. I know that here in Ohio winter is the worst time of year for all forms of life. If we want more life on the planet, make winter shorter and milder.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/01.html that refute your c & p.
culture stops buying stuff ... when it starts driving less, starts heating with wood and solar,
begins walking places, and realizes that life can still be rewarding sans three cars, four computers, and a large screen tv in every room.
This isn't something that Americans will do willingly, but will be forced to do by economic necessity.
At the end of the day, it won't be a love of the planet that awakens the need to change, but unpayable credit cards, and four dollar gas.
... Or worse.