|
||
100 Months and Counting Until Climate Change Is Irreversible
More than a decade before the new millennium, Prince had written a song about it. "Party like it's 1999," became a classic and North Americans even used it to usher in the New Year.
According to Andrew Simms, a UK climate change specialist, the world has about 100 months to count down before something less celebratory takes place: 100 months is the time it will take for climate change to reach that inevitable "tipping point" -- the point when the world as we know changes. Runaway changes in weather patterns will start, there will be droughts; some land will be made inhospitable; we can expect to see the collapse of species in the sea and on land. Basically, terribly scary stuff is expected to happen.
In an opinion editorial in the UK's Guardian, Simms says that "in just 100 months' time, if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change."
For Simms, the 100 month countdown is nothing to celebrate, but there may be time to make some changes. Drawing on the example of the New Deal implemented by US President Roosevelt during the 30s Dust Bowl and depression era, Simms from the New Economics Foundation, outlines UK's New Green Deal (he helped pen), and its associated website onehundredmonths.org, intended to give UK citizens a plan to counteract climate change. The model could work well for America too.
Steps Americans Can Take to Help Reverse (or Slow Down) Climate Change
According to Simms' impressive article (I've summed up his points):
- Avoid infrastructure that is fossil-fuel-dependent (such as the construction of new airports, coal-fired power plants) that lock us in patterns of future greenhouse gas emissions, radically reducing our ability to make the short- to medium-term cuts.
- Appeal to governments to stop defecting blame and responsibility: "It is wildly unrealistic to think that individuals alone can effect a comprehensive re-engineering of the [West's] fossil-fuel-dependent energy, food and transport systems. The government must lead."
- Governments should launch a Green New Deal, similar to the one launched in the UK last week, taking inspiration from President Roosevelt's famous 100-day program implemented in the face of the dust bowls and depression.
- Rein in reckless financial institutions and use a range of fiscal tools, new measures and reforms to the tax system, such as a windfall tax on oil companies.
- Resources should be invested in a massive environmental transformation program that could insulate the economy from recession, and create countless new jobs.
- Overhaul a nation's building stock, and tackle the city. First up, he says, remove the money of oil companies pouring into cities. Re-list these companys' resources as "unburnable."
- Instead of using vast sums of public money to bail out banks (because they are considered "too big to fail"), banks should be reduced in size until they are small enough to fail without hurting anyone.
- With oil prices wobbling around $130, there is a huge amount of unearned profit waiting for a windfall tax (companies made profits when it was $10 a barrel). Money raised would go towards a long-overdue massive decarbonisation of our energy system.
- A rolling program to overhaul heat-leaking buildings and homes will massively cut emissions and tackle fuel poverty.
- Weaning agriculture off fossil-fuel dependency.
- The "one person, one car" on the roads, should be transformed to a variety of clean reliable forms of public transport. This should be visible by the middle of our 100 months.
More New Green Deals on TreeHugger:
New Deal II: The Next Dam Thing
New Green Deal: 100 Months to Save the Earth From Climate Change
Imagine Another New Deal, Greener Than the First
::TreeHugger via ::Carbon Catalog
Follow Karin Kloosterman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/http://twitter.
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
We got a cool front comming threw florida already its gonna be a bad winter, nail plastic over your windows!!
re: "Humankind has been an industrial race for about 70 years...And you are saying that humankind can INADVERTENTLY frack up something that has stood for BILLIONS of years…?? Is THAT your argument??? I won't even BOTHER to show the evidence..."
Michale32086 / 09:15AM 08/07/2008
not “70 years” - 200 years. the industrial revolution began in the late 1700s.
and that “something that has stood for BILLIONS of years” - earth's atmosphere – is actually quite small and extremely fragile. so when billions of humans pump it full of pollutants for 200 years, what do you think happens? where do you think all that crap goes? vanishes as if by magic? drifts harmlessly into outer space? doesn't really exist cuz it's invisible to the naked eye?
simply because you cannot imagine that something so massive, dynamic and destructive as anthropogenic climate change is actually happening, doesn’t mean that it hasn't and/or isn’t - it only means you probably lack the mental dexterity to perceive it and/or the intellectual courage to admit it.
moreover, the fact that some change in climate occurs naturally shouldn’t suggest that the severe impact of anthropogenic activity hasn't thrown the entire system out of whack - it has - resulting in a tremendous amount of additional c02 entering the atmosphere - at rates too fast for earth’s life-forms to evolve and adapt.
infact, michale, you’re an excellent example of “not yet evolved and adapted to these changing conditions.” this failure could easily cause your own demise.
The afore mentioned "What Do You Do" scenario is an accurate representation..
Because IF the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) types are correct, it's going to take some RADICAL measures to halt the deterioration of the atmosphere..
Those radical measures will completely and utterly DECIMATE the economies of many MANY nations...
So, do you let those "3 children" (the world economies) "die" on the very VERY VERY long odds that Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is a reality??
Michale.....
Michale, you keep saying that the planet's cooling, but you cite no evidence. What is it based on? If you have evidence to back up your statement where can I see it? Thank You. WASanford
Sheesh, and I keep hearing that the environmentalists are hysterical! Take a deep breath!
Just because industry blows a lot of smoke whenever they don't want to change doesn't mean you have to inhale deeply. We we're told that adding sulfur scrubbers to smokestacks would mean we would never have affordable electricity again. Then we got them to add the scrubbers, and life went on.
Kodak said it would be too expensive to clean up the silver they were dumping in the river. Then when they were finally forced to clean it up, and recycle the silver, it actually saved them millions of dollars.
The American car makers have been fighting CAFE standards for decades, because "Americans don't want small vehicles". Now, they are losing billions trying to sell big trucks, instead of smaller vehicles.
I don't believe for a minute that any economy is going to be decimated by pursuing more efficient, cleaner, and ultimately less costly energy solutions. Industry makes a lot of noise about how it will be the end of the world, just because they don't like change. What they are saying is total BS.
The biggest, most profitable companies in the next 20 years are going to be the ones that develop the technology for efficiency and alternative energy solutions. They will be the new Ciscos, Intels, and Microsofts. Unfortunately, the dinosaur thinking prevalent in the US will mean those companies will probably come from places like Japan, Europe, and South Korea.
}}}}}}}}}}}
I don't believe for a minute that any economy is going to be decimated by pursuing more efficient, cleaner, and ultimately less costly energy solutions.
}}}}}}}}}}}
And if you are wrong???
Can you not even concede the possibility???
Michale.....
But you never answered my question?
What would you do??
Would you drive slow and careful, thereby assuring the death of those 3 kids?? Or would you get them to the hospital in time to save their lives??
Michale.....
The planet is not cooling Michale. Please stop lying about that.
It isn't???
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=Planet+Cooling+Last+10+years&btnG=Google+Search
You sure about that???
Michale.....
@BlackbirdHighway
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Ok, so there isn't unequivocal proof. So, isn't our situation rather like driving on an unfamiliar road through fog at night?
Most people would rather err on the side of caution, because once you've driven over the cliff, it's a little late to start being careful.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
You raise a very good point...
But your car driving thru the fog on an unfamiliar is not quite accurate...
Let's tweak it a little.
You are driving down an unfamiliar road in the fog. In the back you have 3 very sick children who will die if you don't get them to a hospital quickly... You remember looking at the map and that there are no huge obstructions ahead.. It's a straight paved road... Now, granted, a tree MIGHT have fallen down and blocked the road... Or a sinkhole MIGHT have developed.. But the odds of that happening are not very high.. 1 in 50, lets say..
By YOUR logic, you should drive very slowly and carefully, so as to "err on the side of caution" and not risk killing everyone in the car... But, if you DO drive slowly and carefully, the 3 kids in the back seat will surely die....
So, what do you do?? Do you go with the odds and save those 3 kids' lives?? Or do you take the slow and easy approach, keeping yourself save, but ultimately having those 3 kids die???
It's a tough call.... What do you do??
Michale.....
The surest way to reduce emissions before the tipping point is by rationing gasoline and introducing a carbon tax.
The increase in global temperatures in the past few decades (the 70s was a cold decade) has been minimal relative to temp increases and increases that have occurred over the past 5000 years. Most people probably don't realize that global temperatures are still relatively low compared to the average of those 5000 years. The fact is that the temperature would increase within the "normal range" of the past 5000 years with or without fossil fuels. It's futile and pointless to fight it.
So, you are saying that climate changes that would normally take 5000 years have just occurred in only 30? That sounds like cause for alarm to me!
Someone find me that Ayn Rand quotation about how environmental catastrophes are always ten years into the future. Close enough to move people to immediate action, far enough away so they forget when you're wrong.
Barack is fond of the ten years quote. Al Gore flat out said when confronted about being wrong about his other 10 year predictions from more than 10 years ago that he only uses 10 years because of the exact reason you cite. Long enough to forget, short enough to cause alarm.
}}}}}}}}}}
but none of these problems unfolded in a linear fashon
which is a huge part of the problem you are ignoring
}}}}}}}}}
Prove it...
I can unequivocally prove that the Earth has undergone cyclic climate LONG before humans were around to have an impact....
Show me the UNEQUIVOCAL proof that Humans have caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling)....
You can't because it doesn't exist...
Michale.....
Why don't you just write your own article and submit it to the HuffPo? The comments section really is not the most effective place to make your point...
And to the nice folks at HuffPo, I dare you to print Michael32086's piece -- if it's written and submitted...
Ma'am,
If I thought it stood a snowball's chance in hell of actually being printed, I would do it in a stone cold second...
But, alas, I am more than aware of the political ramifications on unpopular stances.. Even though my profile says I have been a member relatively recently, I have been posting to HuffPo since Sep of 2005...
To be honest, I think the only thing that has saved me from banishment is that I am a VERY ardent and enthusiastic Obama supporter.. :D And the fact that with few exceptions (4 to be exact) I am probably one of the most liberal ones here.. :D
Michale.....
If Michales article is as devoid of scientific facts as are his comments, it would be a waste of time.
Ok, so there isn't unequivocal proof. So, isn't our situation rather like driving on an unfamiliar road through fog at night?
By your logic, because there isn't unequivocal proof that there is something dangerous in the road ahead we shouldn't slow down and be somewhat cautious. Most people would not agree with that logic.
Most people would rather err on the side of caution, because once you've driven over the cliff, it's a little late to start being careful.
If we tax oil companies windfall profits (I'm not entirely clear what that is. Do you get to pick what level of profit is acceptable or does someone else?) are we likewise going to protect oil companies from windfall losses?
Why stop with windfall taxing oil companies? Why not apply that tax to everyone? No one is permitted to earn more than $10,000 per year. This will really force people to start using their bicycle to get to work because they wouldn't even be able to afford public transportation. Everybody would grow their own vegetables and there wouldn't be an A/C running in the entire country.
I'm sure the oil companies will continue to produce oil once they reach the windfall tax limit just like I'm sure people will continue to work even after they've been paid the last dollar they are allowed to earn during the year.
I hear that their profit margin is at 10%. Maybe gore should be limited to a 10% margin also. And wgile we are at it maybe our taxes should be lowered to 10%.
I am not defending the oil companies but the government deciding what a business profit margin should be is scary.
Then we won't have to sweat it.
CONT
What's more effective?? Giving $300 million to an AD AGENCY and LOBBYISTS so that they can TALK ABOUT a problem??? Or rolling into a small town and using that same $300 million to equip 30 THOUSAND homes with solar powered systems that make those homes nearly energy independent..
From an -actually DOING something about the problem- point of view AND from a PR standpoint, it's obvious which program is better...
Granted, the latter program won't make Al Gore or the lobbyists/lawyers/ad agencies any richer.... This is true...
But hay, what's more important?? Actually DOING something that would BENEFIT the planet??
Or doing something that benefits Al Gore and the lobbyists/lawyers/ad agencies???
Michale.....
Michale, sometimes I agree with you, just not this time. First of all I'm more than a little confused about the point you're trying to make. Secondly I don't think that this issue is about Al Gore or even Richard Branson, it's a very serious matter that if we cannot manage to do something about all our lives will change for the worse.
You never write about the science this involves. Perhaps you'd like to better inform yourself. You can do this at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ . This is neither All Gore or Richard Branson, it's you know, the guys who send the space shuttle into orbit. If anyone is able to understand this stuff it's them.
But mostly, I'd like to see you taking this issue more seriously. It's important to get people to act more responsibly towards the environment and to make them aware of the consequences of inaction. Then hopefully they'll act to do the things they can and demand action from their government to do the things they can't.
How can I take this issue seriously when the main proponents of this issue don't take it seriously??
How can Al Gore claim we are 100 months away from unmitigated world-wide disaster and yet he still goes flitting around in private jets and limos all over the world??
How can I take this issue seriously when Richard Branson pays HIMSELF 1.5 billion dollars, for the "environment" and then goes out and builds a spaceship for rich tourists to dump TONS of pollutants into the atmosphere..
Pollution is a serious issue...
Dependency on foreign oil is a serious issue...
Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is a joke. It's a con that has NO basis in science, but rather is a political issue designed to do one thing and one thing only. Make a select few richer at the expense of those who can't afford it..
Michale.....
WASanford, dude, you just nailed Michale. All he talks about anymore is all Al, all the time. Now he's reduced to saying, "well gosh, I'm a liberal, doesn't that give me more cred" ? Kind of sad, really.
Look, it's real simple...
You people (disciples of the Gore'acle) are going about this in all the wrong ways..
You need to re-frame things so that the movement doesn't come across as hysterical fear-mongers jackasses...
It's easy to do. You sell this as a way to energy independence. EVERYONE can agree that being dependent on foreign oil is a BAD thing. And what's even better is that the SCIENCE (IE facts) are with THAT type of program..
Same with pollution. EVERYONE has to agree that pollution is a bad thing and cleaner air is a laudable goal. You frame things THAT way and ya'all would get a LOT more support. And, once again, the SCIENCE is on your side in THAT debate.
But this "OHMIGOD THE WORLD IS GOING TO END IN 100 MONTHS!!!!" crap just serves to turn people off and makes the movement come off as hysterical fear mongers...
And, for chreest's sake, quit raising billions of dollars just to TALK about the problem! That doesn't do anything to address the issue and just makes people who CAN think logically and rationally pissed off that they are being told what to do by a bunch of hypocrites.
CONT
Al Gore! Al Gore! Richard Branson.Al Gore! Al Gore! Al Gore! Al Gore! Richard Branson. ETC! ETC! ETC! Blah blah blah. Do you have ANY scientific left to use Michale?
Good points.
The GW crowd could also stop lying and skewing the numbers. Perhaps Al Gore could edit out the 20 minutes of BS inaccuracies that the British Courts ruled cannot be shown in their schools. They could admit that CO2 increases lag BEHIND temp increases , the Hockey Stick Graph is broken and NASA should not take temperature readings in asphalt parking lots.
I have said it before and I'll say it again..
When Al Gore & Richard Branson starts living like they want everyone ELSE to live then, AND ONLY THEN, will I concede that the threat MAY be real...
But when you have Al Gore making $300 million and spending that just to TALK about Human Caused Global Warming(and yet the planet is cooling) then I really don't see the imminent emergency?? Think how many homes Al Gore could equip with a complete solar power system for $300 million bucks! Al Gore could make 30 THOUSAND homes completely energy independent.. But nooooooo.. Al Gore would much rather make Ad companies, lobbyists and Al Gore richer than actually DOING something for the environment...
Take Richard Branson.. He spends 1.5 BILLION dollars... But he pays it TO HIMSELF!! Imagine how many hybrids Branson can put on the road for 1.5 BILLION dollars.. 75,000 gas guzzling, pollution causing cars can be eliminated from the roadways and replaced with environmentally safe hybrid vehicles.. But noooooooo.... Branson would rather pay 1.5 billion dollars to himself and then turn around and dump TONS of pollutants into the atmosphere by building a spaceship so that TOURISTS can spend about 20 mins in space....
So, you tell me... Is Al Gore and Richard Branson treating this Human Caused Global Warming(yet the planet is cooling) threat like it's real and imminent??
Of course they're not...
And, if they are not.....
Why should I???
Why should ANYONE???
Michale.....
"When Al Gore & Richard Branson starts living like they want everyone ELSE to live then, AND ONLY THEN, will I concede that the threat MAY be real..."
that's your criteria?
you didn't do well in logic in college, did you....
Actually, never went to college...
What's your point??
Michale.....
That"s right Michale, you'll say it again, and again, and again, because that's all you've got. You can't debate the science, so you're stuck in the political spin zone. Word to your mother, no one takes you seriously anymore. You've become a joke.
Why don't we simply steal a page from Pol Pot's book and force everyone out of the cities at gunpoint to work on collective farms and environmental re-education camps?
I, for one am growing ever more sickened by both the irrational hysteria growing around this issue, the ever more collectivist and radical solutions proposed, and the fact there is still a lot going on with climate modeling that is eminently debatable. (Yes, it's ENTIRELY the fault of greedy selfish humans and their collective effluent - pay NO ATTENTION to that gigantic ball of fusing hydrogen gas in the sky that's been bathing the place in thermal radiation for 4 billion years! What hubris.)
Hey, how about...instead of beating oil companies over the heads with sticks, calling them names, and stealing their money, actually give them a few carrots and engage them as partners in the effort to limit emissions and make us energy independent? You might have to hold your nose and offer them an R&D tax break, but they already have an established delivery infrastructure that could be altered to new purposes, as opposed to starting from scratch - and it wouldn't cost the government a dime - like they would even know how to "lead" to begin with.
You're totally right man, humans can't affect the planet at all.
No one is claiming that humans CAN'T affect the planet..
If every nuke on the planet was fired off, yes... There would be SOME impact on the environment.
Enough to kill off humankind??
Possibly..
And then, in a few hundreds of thousands years, the planet would correct itself and who knows what could develop..
However, the argument that humankind can INADVERTENTLY harm the planet's climate to SUCH an extent is ludicrous...
Look at the facts.. The Earth is approximately 4.5 BILLION years old.. That is 4,500,000,000 years...
Humankind has been an industrial race for about 70 years, give or take...
In other words, humankind has been an industrial race for 0.0000015% of the time that the Earth has been around...
And you are saying that humankind can INADVERTENTLY frack up something that has stood for BILLIONS of years in that minuscule amount of time??
Is THAT your argument???
I won't even BOTHER to show the evidence of Climate Change throughout history, long before humans were EVER a factor...
Michale.....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
