Hopenhagen: Your Passport To The Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen
On December 7, leaders from 192 countries will gather in Copenhagen to determine the future of our planet.
They're all part of the UN Climate Summit, which aims to create a global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto protocol. Try to imagine who's going to be at the table, and who's lobbying like crazy to be there, too. The mind boggles.
So, what's an average bloke to do? What if you don't want to just sit back and watch and wait? Well, the UN and a coalition of advertising agencies came up with a campaign to raise awareness of the summit and its importance. And to encourage us to sign a petition that will persuade leaders to act. "Show the world you support change." Some clever writer created the inspiring (and Obamaesque) twist, Hopenhagen. "Turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen."
Fantastic, right? Millions of signatures carry a lot of weight. They'll encourage our leaders to do the right thing.
But is there something more we can do? Can we move beyond a petition? Take action? Maybe even go to Copenhagen?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Zazengo has launched a new campaign on Facebook to help people take active steps toward reducing their own carbon footprint. And doing so can help you earn a place at the table.
It's called the Hopenhagen passport. And it's the brainchild of Vicki Saunders, CEO of Zazengo. Zazengo is an online engine designed to help people move from awareness into positive action at home, at work, and in their community.
I asked her how the Hopenhagen passport works. "Our goal is to go beyond the petition. We want to show actions that people are taking in their daily lives to reduce their carbon footprint, like turning off lights, unplugging electronics, and washing clothes in cold water. And things they're doing to encourage more action, like writing to elected leaders. As you take action, and invite your friends to get involved, you move up from citizen to delegate to envoy to ambassador. The more you do, and the more you encourage others - you get points for their actions, too - the faster and further you go."
Regular readers will recognize Vicki Saunders as a New Radical (that is, she's applying the skills from her first career to help save the world - for more, see archived articles about the New Radicals). Vicki is a serial entrepreneur whose focus has shifted to developing sustainable businesses that tackle major challenges. Companies, organizations, and government agencies use Zazengo tools to challenge their stakeholders to take action and track the results of what happens.
Like the Hopenhagen passport.
So, are you ready to become a citizen of the world? Do you want to add your name to the petition and sign up for a Hopenhagen passport? What do you think is going to come out of Copenhagen? And are you feeling hopeful about the future of our planet? Please comment below, or, as always, I invite you to email me directly at JULIA (AT) WEARETHENEWRADICALS (DOT) (COM).
Julia Moulden is on tour, talking about the New Radicals. She has signed the petition, and will create a passport this weekend.
Al Gore: We Are Now in a Crucial Moment -- It's Time to Make a Decision
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 destroys the planet. Every bit of that has got to change.
Climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global Warming- Science - The New York Times
Climate Change - Global Climate Change Initiative - global warming ...
Enviros Waging 'Orchestrated Pressure Campaign' on Climate Bill -- US Chamber CEO
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The BBC's climate correspondent has reported that the earth hasn't warmed since 1998. If this is true, then what was the truthfulness of all the stories in the press over the past few years about the terrible things that "global warming" was causing during this ten year period?
Did Tiger Woods really lose the U.S. Open in 2009 because of global warming? Or not?
Were the polar bears really facing extinction over the past ten years? Or not?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Except it is not true that the earth has not warmed since 1998 and all you have to do is to check any temperature indexeand it will tell you.
Polar bears face extinction in the near future over the next 50 years and not the prior ten? Why do climate deniers, who make it up as they go anyway, then create simplistic strawman that supposedly wins an argument for them. Why can't deniers speak to these serious issues as if they were adults instead of always creating caricatures?
Obliviously, R2 has no inquiring mind because an inquiring mind does not simply repeat right-wing regurgitated talking points.
Deniers when you can explain certain basics without falling back on your familiar talking points you may look like more than than just that clown who gets dunked in the water at the circus for a dollar!
Why are mountaintop glaciers melting all over the world? Why was Arctic ice at its third lowest extent of the summer and least mass of all time when considering thickness? Why are migrations of animals out of flux and pests returning earlier? Why were ocean temperatures at their warmest recorded levels over the summer? Why were the Southern Hemisphere average temperatures for land and ocean surface combined the warmest on record for August?
Deniers, please explain without falling back on your silly talking points or mentioning Al Gore?
You make claims in five categories: mountaintop glacier melt; low Arctic extent and mass; disrupted animal migrations and early appearance of pests; warmest ocean temperatures; and, record high August temperatures for the Southern Hemisphere.
Please share your sources for each. Also, describe the method(s) used to determine ocean temperatures.
Oh man, it is not like you are going to look them up anyway. But because it would deny climate change in your mind unless I gave some sources, please bother to use them. Also, try to answer the questions although I know you will make no such effort.
The mountaintop glacier you can find with a simple google search. I won't do all your homework!
Arctic ice:
http://nsi
http://www
Warmest ocean temperatures; and, record high August temperatures for the Southern Hemisphere is sourced from NOAA. They collected data and you must ask them their methodology. After all, when I collect the data I'll share my methodology.
http://www
Migrations :
http://www
http://get
Early return and spreading incidence of pests:
http://www
http://www
http://new
http://www
http://www
Just remember, the greater majority of the countries attending the summit have absolutely no interest in reducing carbon emissions. They only care how much the developed nations will give away in "reparations".
After reviewing the data, I can with some assurance that the earth is not warming. NOAA data dictates that over the last 10 years the average temperature is dropping, there are no appreciable CO2 collections in the upper atmosphere (necessary to support the global warming theory) - ice caps are not melting, glacial activity is in tolerance when correcting for sensor drift.
I refuse to be held hostage to eco-guilt. There are real particulate eco-issues- but global warming ain't one of them.
It might be nice if participants in these discussions, publish their credentials in their HuffPo bio. I for one would appreciate using it as a filter to assess your contributions. 250 words is such a limitation that even with references it is often difficult to follow your analyses and critically evaluate it.
For example, guiganbresel posts a recipe for a CO2 - T analysis. I see the CO2 data, but what T data? The "don't-forget" warning about the functionality to use in plotting comes from where?
Then there's the issue of T data. Whose and which data are being used? Ideally, we want NIST traceable measurements using a statistically valid array of sensors monitoring every square inch, meter, kilometer, miles .... What dimension is best suited for measurement accuracy and modling needs. Radiosonde measurements seem appropriate, but even Cristy has errd in its application
( http://www
To sit here and try to assess where the state of the CO2 - T science is a futile task. It is best left to the NRC - NAS to publish a good crirical reviews on a yearly basis. And discussion based on THEM would be welcome. Any one know of such publications?
say fly..
o why o why..
r you in a chew about CO2?
it can't hurt you..
algae and forest blooms have always had our backs people..
they're nature's clue to CO2 being too much or too little.
The last ten years has demonstrated that CO2 doesn't control the earth's temperature. The earth's temperature has been stable despite steady increases in man made CO2.
The major topic of the Copenhagen meeting should be, how should the nations of the world redirect their resources, which previously have been spent on Global Warming issues?
Wow, how long has your head been up your arse? The earth's temps are increasing steadily. Why do you think the Arctic is almost ice free in the summer? Why are the earth's glaciers melting? Why are the birds arriving earlier and the flowers and trees budding earlier?
Because the earth is heating up due to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The audacity of Hopenhagen! I'll be there to support our nobel prize winning president!
http://new
Paul Hudson, a climate correspondent with the BBC, and Andrew Revkin, a climate correspondent with the New York Times, agree that the earth's temperature has been stable for a decade. Why haven't you noticed?
nice comment
hey doxieman..
don't you believe in climate change?
it's been going on since ThrBeginning.
and we may be a bunch of exacerbaters lol..
but we don't own the climate!
Check out the data yourself:
http://www
I recommend plotting it in MS Excel, calculating the +/- 3σ (use stdev function) and looking at the results.
You will find that only a couple of months out of ~370 months measured exceeded +3σ. Statistically you would expect about one out of one hundred measurements to be outside +/- 3σ. Looking at this data, I do not see 'out of control' behavior.
For more fun, look at the CO2 levels and see how they match (be sure to plot CO2 as ~1.3 * ln(Cx/Co)).
http://scr
You will see temperature going all over the place with CO2 moving smoothly up... Not very convincing.
CO2 has increased in the atmosphere from approximately 250 ppm in 1950 to 385 today. The graph of co2 increase looks fairly smooth to me and is getting steeper.
http://www
Not sure what you are trying to say and do here. Must be something you've debated with R2 in other arenas. Please, be more specific, I'd really like to follow your logic closely When you define "out-of-contol" what rules do you use, Western Electric definitions?
First - 10 years does not a climate make
Second - a flat 10 yr period in a system containg time constants that can be 10-100 year is not at all unusual
Third - linear statistical analyses don't work well with nonlinear systems
If the people who created the climate models had adequately estimated variability in their calculations, their predictions would include a range of possible outcomes that was inclusive of natural variation.
Did any of the climate modelers forecast a range of temperature that included zero temperature increase over the last ten years?
If not, it would appear the climate models did not adequately recognize the amount of variability in the climate system.
R2 , you seem to think that forcing and control are the same thing. Further, you seem to suggest that a smooth variation in T is to be expected when there is such a smooth increase in CO2.
The data for CO2 is smooth simply due to rapid mixing and good fundemental measurement methods. The CO2 data might look a lot worse if one used yearly growth of 100,000 selected trees as our tool. Right now, I suspect that the T measurements are about as precise as CO2 from tree growth data.
To suggest that CO2 as a "smooth" control knob should yield a smooth response in T is quite shortsighted. Let me give you an example that might bring the point home to you . You may have experienced this in your car as I have. Have you ever tramped on the gas pedal to accelerate, only to have the vehicle slow down some? Apply that lesson to your CO2 - T analysis.
i sure hope they put CO2 in it's place!
it's only a trace gas for cripe's sake..
how do the plants survive on such a trace gas?
hi onevoice..
well they don't.. that trace part is the left-over.
after the plants and other sinks are done.
and i think you already knew that!
(fingers crossed)
Fumes, you are blowing smoke. LOOK at the Mauna Loa data. You can SEE the plants eating and sleeping. It causes a seasonal pk-pk variation in CO2 of about 7 ppm. Yet, net CO2 marches on.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
