Todd Stern, the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, was in my neck of the woods the other day. Speaking at Dartmouth College, an hour's drive from where I'm spending a quiet vacation with my family, he said something so disturbing that I was compelled to dust the beach sand off my feet and respond.
The speech started off so well. His description of the climate crisis was unflinching:
Whether we look at the steady increase in global temperature; the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to the highest level in a half-million years; the march of warmest-ever years (9 of the 10 hottest on record have occurred since 2000); the dramatic shrinking of mountain glaciers and Arctic sea ice; the accelerating rise in sea level; or the acidification of our oceans; the tale told by the evidence is consistent and it is compelling.These things matter. They warn of droughts and floods and extreme storms. They warn of water shortages, food shortages and national security risk. They warn of what 11 retired generals and admirals wrote about in 2007 -- climate change becoming a "force multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world." And they introduce the threat of catastrophic, non-linear change."
And his reference to climate denial was spot on: "Climate change has long been a partisan issue but when you see a parade of conservative candidates publicly recanting the apostasy of having acknowledged that global warming is real, you know you've entered Wonderland."
Like the Stephen King beach-reading thriller I set aside to write this piece, a touch of foreshadowing hinted at what was to come. His reference to the to the failure of the Copenhagen climate conference -- which quite literally could have changed the course of history -- suggested that we were somehow wrong to have expected our leaders to effectively address the threat that he had so eloquently just described: "Copenhagen is remembered for its chaos, for the spectacle of world leaders improvising an agreement in the final hours to avoid meltdown, and for the dashing of over-inflated expectations." [My emphasis added.] It's worth recalling that U.S. obstructionism was one of the reasons for the near-meltdown.
Then he dropped the bombshell:
For many countries, the core assumption about how to address climate change is that you negotiate a treaty with binding emission targets stringent enough to meet a stipulated global goal -- namely, holding the increase in global average temperature to less than 2° centigrade above pre-industrial levels -- and that treaty in turn drives national action. This is a kind of unified field theory of solving climate change - get the treaty right; the treaty dictates national action; and the problem gets solved. This is entirely logical. It makes perfect sense on paper. The trouble is it ignores the classic lesson that politics -- including international politics -- is the art of the possible.
The 2°C goal, which he later equated with "old orthodoxies," is the threshold beyond which climate change could have truly unforeseen and catastrophic consequences. Many scientists and more than 100 governments argue that even a 2° rise in temperature is highly dangerous, and are calling for a global goal limiting temperature rise to 1.5°. To understand the significance of these numbers, read Bill McKibben's plain truth about the terrifying math of climate change, published in Rolling Stone last month.
Stern suggests that we abandon the 2° goal in favor of actions which are politically possible, whatever that means in the polarized context of the climate wars. Yet even he acknowledges that "this kind of flexible, evolving legal agreement cannot guarantee that we meet a 2 degree goal." In other words, half measures are better than nothing. And the threat of runaway climate change? No problem I guess; we can just leave that to the next generation to deal with.
In making his speech at a college event rather than in a formal negotiating setting, Stern may have been testing the waters to see whether the idea would float. Or it may signal a firm change in the U.S. negotiating position going into the next round of climate negotiations in Doha at the end of the year. The reactions to the speech by the European Union and the Association of Small Island States were scathing, but whether their opposition will be sufficient to stave off a U.S. course change remains to be seen.
U.S. negotiators will undoubtedly float the idea in deeper waters at informal talks in Bangkok later this month. If they succeed in getting the 2° goal dropped, we will all find ourselves in deep water indeed. And if left to the U.S., we'll be paddling with tennis rackets. Even Stephen King couldn't make this stuff up.
Update (12:44PM EST, 8/8/2012): I received the following message from Wendy Nassmacher on behalf of Todd Stern in reaction to my post:
There have been some incorrect reports about comments I made in a recent speech relating to our global climate goal of holding the increase in global average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius. Of course, the US continues to support this goal; we have not changed our policy. My point in the speech was that insisting on an approach that would purport to guarantee such a goal -- essentially by dividing up carbon rights to the atmosphere -- will only lead to stalemate given the very different views countries would have on how such apportionment should be made. My view is that a more flexible approach will give us a better chance to actually conclude an effective new agreement and meet the goal we all share.
My response, to which I have not yet received a reply:
Thanks for sending me this clarification. I don't agree that my reporting of his speech was incorrect -- I was working from a transcript of his speech, and the clarification below essentially confirms his original statement and my (and others') interpretation of it. In essence, he is saying that we are more likely to achieve the 2° goal if we don't force the hard decisions needed to get us there. Given that existing pledges and policies (a flexible approach if ever there was one) are taking us towards a 3.5° world or higher (see: http://www.climateactiontracker.org/), there is no evidence to support his thesis. It would appear that the US interprets the 2° goal as aspirational, rather than as a firm commitment based on a scientific imperative. And this, I'm afraid, is tantamount to giving up.
Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg
it is between those who think it is too late for humans, and those who think we have a fighting chance to survive.
Plato-- Commented Aug 8, 2012 at 22:28:41
“He is a second class liar as well.”
Plato-- Commented Aug 8, 2012 at 08:50:43
"How could climate science get any worse.?
There is poor peer review by the authors buddies so anything gets through it !
Models are crashing and burning with no ability to predict future temperatures. "
Plato-- Commented Aug 8, 2012 at 09:07:22
" Dr Mann in his zeal for the cause ignored sound science and water boarded the data until it told him what he wanted it to say."
Plato-- Commented Aug 7, 2012 at 23:57:00
“Electronic engineering and computer modelling.
The climate models obviously didn't predict the future well did they ?”
Plato-- Commented Aug 7, 2012 at 23:59:27
“Why are his models always wrong then ?"
Plato-- Commented Aug 7, 2012 at 22:10:25
“He has no more degrees in climate than I do ! "
Plato-- Commented Aug 3, 2012 at 10:46:37
“I say again Dr Hansen doesn't have a degree in climate.”
Plato-- on Senator Inhofe who is funded by fossil fuel donations:
Plato-- Commented Aug 2, 2012 at 07:56:40
“Inhofe is dead right about global warming."
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-findings-on-california-0380.html
Plato--/Larry/netdr posting immedeately below
has been banned from the climate change pages more than 40 times this year alone, such that he now openly brags of having stockpiled 100 more aliases, as the following link shows irrefutably,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/bernie-sanders-climate-change_n_1723334_173476555.html
So, it seems likely that Plato--/Larry/netdr and all of his other 140+ aliases are sock puppets of "Larry", our most obvious, resident paid professional shill - and one very clumsy astroturfer.
But what prompts him to do so?
Well, where he claims to hail from, Plano, Texas, today's high, even with thunderstorms, was 108, roughly its average high for the past two weeks.
So, maybe he needs the AGW denier/astroturfer/shill money in order to pay his A/C bill?
banned aliases:
netdr (twice)
NGC2623
Hoosier-Daddy25
leesburg-larry (twice)
neptune2 (twice)
Ptolemy101
Texas-Titan
Texas-Husker
ceasar200
Larry Schneiderwind
falconia
zillaii
ptolemyii
Saturn1
platoii
mars222
jupiter5
mercury999
soctates
earth999
saturn999
Plano-Husker
Pluto-
Neptune-
Bills-
skepticalone-
Netdr-
Plato-
LarrySchmidt
Texas--husker
net-dr
Texas--Titan
Titan-
Ceaser-
Copernicus
Copernicus-
Copernicus--
Hoosier-daddy
Arrhenius
Arrhenius-
Plano-husker
http://climate.nasa.gov
Speaking of ice, it's getting hot in here. Could you spare me a few cubes? I promise to pay you back on Tuesday.
The total net forcing is unknown in the real system. We don’t know the impact of water vapor, aerosols, the deep oceans etc. We do not know how much the planet will warm as a result of more CO2. 1C for a doubling would be no problem, 3C for a doubling would be a concern.
Once science understands how much the planet will warm as a result of more CO2, there is the issue of what will happen to the lives of people as a result of it getting warmer. The largest potential change could be to rainfall patterns, but we have no reliable models. We have no reliable models to predict how much sea level will rise either.
In spite of the lack of knowledge, there are many people who are SURE that they know what we should all be doing and want us to take their direction immediately. That makes sense how?
So hop in and I'll show you how fast it can go!
Here it is in plain language:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90
Denial = human suffering and death - and Americans are already already becoming climate refugees. How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice for a false ideology?
Drought in USA right now..
A corn crop dries in a field on July 28, 2011 near Perriton, Texas...
Drought in Zimbabwe...
Erosion of Virgin Land...
Shrinking of the Aral Sea...
All of these statements are the result of human activities, the same
as in many other places in all continents with arable land. All of
these activities, of course, increase the amount of greenhouse
gases (GHG) in the atmosphere. At the same time, it is impossible
for nature to be so precise in response. It is the main argument
against GHG theory in climate change.
Ghg Are Not Guilty!
GHG are only indicator of human activities. Human activities
changed continents, and these changes are real reasons for
climate change. These changes are proportional to increase of
amount of GHG in atmosphere. It is easy to calculate changes
in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other GHG by human
activities. If scientists believe that these changes are responsible
for climate change, it is easy to put the coefficient of the changes
into computer models; and computers will show exactly that
the result of global warming is proportional to the increasing
amount of GHG in the atmosphere. If climate change really is
because of changes on continents by human activities, we are
making the wrong suggestions on how to save the world. In this
case, all recommendations from scientists are dead wrong.
You could evaluate these mistakes.
mioffe_2000@yahoo.com for free digital copy.
All of these scientists were peer reviewed, have their PhD. All other information some times from wikipedia I checked by provided sources of information. I used only to easy copy and paste. English is not my native language and it help me make less mistakes.
.. so I guess it is consistent to both try and block moves towards emission trade for airlines, and try to dodge the responsibility to do anything about climate change. Even if it would take us beyond 2ºC, which is already a very high risk thing to do.
It was started in 2012, when killer beetles destroyed till 2012 year 100,000,000 acres of forests.
Amount of GHGs by wildfires and decay emitted by dead trees is bigger than from all transportation system in USA, Mexico and Canada together.
It must be priority #1 to build in USA small power plants inside affected forests to produce electricity, heat, hot water from the cheapest in the world wood energy from these dead trees.
After cleaning area we could regrow forests.
Alive forests will produce more evaporation of water in air, more humidity. It means more probabilities of rain-real cooler system for climate change.
It will be very profitable businesses with real jobs, which will stay in USA, Mexico and Canada forever, despite globalization.
If you care about your future grandchildren as I care about my five right now this reality must shape your behavior for future of our grandchildren.
Trees are dying because of climate change. The beetles are the first round of the planet's recycling system.
Yes - plant trees - everywhere. Make sure they will grow in their new homes, however. We must base our decisions on the conditions of our new planet, Eaarth. The old Earth is gone. Not all fossils are in the ground...yet...
Mr. Stern should be staunchly insisting that the US step up to the plate and honor our agreement of keeping warming with 2 degrees.
The intensity of the current drought in the US and extensive wildfires should be enough to wake people up. The climate is changing. Without drastic intervention to cut back greenhouse gas emissions, situations like our current drought will only become worse.
Yes, some people can see the forest despite the trees (of paid scientists working for fossil fuel companies.) And more companies are building sustainable energy sources here in the US.
Given the amount of obstruction in the CONgress, it likely will get worse.
Oh, it's WAY longer than that, Mr. Stern.
The current level is the highest in AT LEAST 800,000 years, and is almost certainly the highest in 15-20 million years.