The next President, be it Barack Obama or the Republican nominee, will be judged by history primarily on whether or not they were able to have our country play its proper leadership role in overcoming global warming. That's because the next presidency will be the most important ever when it comes to overcoming global warming. No other President -- past or future -- will face the kairos moment that the next President will.
In the New Testament, kairos is that moment or moments when salvation or deliverance is offered as something one must choose or grasp. Such a time doesn't last forever. Kairos opportunities must be seized before they pass you by. When it comes to overcoming global warming, we are in kairotic time; our global warming kairos moment has arrived, and it won't last forever. Global warming pollution needs to peak by 2015, if not sooner. Otherwise we may not be able to avoid dangerous tipping points, and even taking drastic measures that are much more costly may not save us.
A poll out last week suggests that with the right kind of political leadership we could be on our way to overcoming global warming. This new poll for Reuters by Ipsos Public Affairs and Stanford University finds the belief that the earth is warming has gone up since November 2010, from 75 percent to 82.5 percent. This includes a 6 percent increase in the number of Republicans who believe this, and a 9.5percent increase in Independents. At the same time, there has been a nearly 4 percent drop in those who believe that global warming is mostly or partly caused by humanity. (Even with this drop, a strong 71.5percent believe this.) In addition, the percentage of those who are now extremely or very sure that global warming is or isn't happening has gone up by 13 percent. In other words, more people are becoming more sure that they are right.
Here's my take on what's happening. The extreme weather and hot temperatures are convincing more people that global warming is taking place -- but some are still wanting to be in denial about the fact that we're causing most of it. In addiiton, because global warming is now such a hot topic in Republican presidential politics, and powerful skeptics like Limbaugh and others are continuing and even intensifying their opposition, this is combining with the weather to create a situation where more people are making up their minds as to what they believe, as demonstrated by the 13 percent increase in those who are sure of their views. Thus, things are heating up (in more ways than one) and shaking out.
One final thing to note about the polling. Both the November 2010 poll and the latest one find that 15 percent of those polled consider global warming to be "extremely important" to them personally. Unfortunately, on this question the pollsters didn't provide a breakdown by political identification (Democrat / Republican / Independent). But even if this 15 percent is made up entirely of Democrats, that is still significant politically given that turnout will be a huge factor in the upcoming election. Add in the facts that 70 percent consider global warming to be extremely (15 percent), very (27 percent), or somewhat (28 percent) important, and 72 percent believe that it is mostly caused by humans, and you have a platform of public attitudes to build upon politically.
I'm not saying it's at the top of the list for even those who consider it extremely important. But I am saying that presidential candidates (including our current President) don't have to run from providing leadership. Indeed, taking a principled stand is the presidential thing to do. Bluntly speaking, you don't have to wimp out on global warming to get elected -- in fact, looking strong on it will actually help.
But this political moment to help shape and lock in attitudes won't last forever. More and more people are starting to make up their minds on global warming, and once we make up our minds they are hard to change.
Both substantively and politically the kairos moment for global warming has arrived. To create the conditions for our country to play our part in overcoming global warming, the next President must have campaigned on doing so, and then fulfill this pledge. Failure will not be treated kindly by future generations as they suffer the consequences.
The Rev. Jim Ball, Ph.D., is author of Global Warming and the Risen LORD.
Al Gore: Obama's EPA: Confronting Disappointment
President Obama Says Global Warming is Putting Our Safety in ...
President Bush Forgets About Global Warming - ABC News
Global Warming Jokes - Late-Night Jokes About Global Warming
Fanned
What on earth is that supposed to mean? It'll continue rising steadily through 2015. If it peaks, it would be astonishing. Do you mean the rate of increase in greenhouse gas production will turn negative? That would be fairly surprising too.
The views of the populace on physical reality are not such a big deal. Many won't spot there's a problem until their vacation hotel in florida has to relocate reception to the first floor. Do you think the 28% that approved of Bush 43 will be concerned about what their grandchildren will have to face?
US gas consumption is much higher now than it was in the 1970s: US vehicles have become marginally more efficient, but their weights and numbers have increased.
The population density in Europe and the US is similar, if you discount the empty middle and west of the US. Europe, Japan, Taiwan and increasingly China. has better infrastructure than the US to cope with large urban populations.
Air in the US isn't usefully cleaner because of China - there's lots more acid rain is in China, but the greenhouse gas emissions are still up there for all to enjoy.
Preliminary data from the US government's Earth Systems Research Laboratory at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, where measurements of CO2 have been continuously monitored for almost 50 years, show that 2011 CO2 levels peaked last week at 394.97ppm. This is an increase of nearly 1.6ppm on last year and the highest ever recorded.
Should we even try?
Thus far, the "evidence" that humanity has any major role in the slight increase in global temperatures is very weak indeed.
The Little Ice Age lasted for about half a millenium and ended in the mid-nineteenth century. What little recorded temeprature reading we have start at the time at the tail end of the Little Ice Age and progress through the expected warming period.
Attempting, in our arrogance, to charge a natural climate trend that we have little understanding of could well trigger a climate event worse than the hysterical predictions of disaster from those who want to use the mythical AGW to create social change on a global scale.
If you feel a life needs to be examined, examine your own.
C02 levels will pass 400ppm in as early as 3-4 years. CO2 is rising at a rate unprecedented in the planets history. Each year after 2015 the costs of reducing C02 to 350ppm, and preventing its rise to 450ppm becomes much more difficult if not impossible. We can now reduce C02 at 5% a year- every year and bring the planets energy level back in balance.
After 2015- the amount per year for reduction increases, and becomes more and more difficult. If by 2020 events with climate change become out of control- who will be blamed for doing nothing?
If the USA cannot lead- which thus far is very obvious, how can it set any kind of an example to other developing nations? China thus far has shown more enterprise in developing Solar energy then the USA- and at least their leadership acknowledges the reality that GHG are causing climate change.
In the end- if we continue on a business as usual path as we are on today- it all but guarantees a societal catastrophe.
On the other hand, his essay was *not* spiritual in nature, so why do I find it in the Religion section? If set my views on the capital gains tax in writing and throw in a few theological terms, does that make it a religious essay? Would a "mea culpa" suffice, or must it be Greek? :-)
What 'tipping points'? 'Save us' from what? The honest answer to these questions is that there's very little reason to believe that humans are warming the planet, and almost no reason at all to think that a warmer planet will be less hospitable to humans than it is now. These concepts were dreamed up by political partisans for political reasons. There's nothing 'scientific' about them.
Our problems are economic. The plant's fine, the doom coming at is is from a government that's too big and spends too much.
It's sure to be far cheaper to plow on, and then realize that remediation is very very expensive.
I imagine you're a "values voter", and opposed to gambling. Anything contradictory in that position?