A Contract with the Planet

The people of the low lying cities of Southeast Asia will not be voting in the New Hampshire primary. The glaciers of Greenland will not be swayed by the next debate, and remain extreme in their allegiance to the thermometer. The weather patterns of the American Midwest and the malarial mosquitoes of Africa are not impressed with the new Chevron ad campaign or the fantasy of "clean coal."

The dots of climate change have been connected by the IPCC, polar bears, and the victims of the latest typhoon. And yet Congress and the presidential candidates argue over incremental changes in CAFE standards and modest goals for industry to be realized by the year 2050, while scientists tell us that the world we will be living in in 2025 will already have burned up most of our reserves of hope -- as well as one in four species. One would think industry and government ought to be able to move more swiftly than geologic time. We are told of the speed with which Detroit re-tooled to make airplanes in World War II and yet they are unable to make even modest change to next year's line of cars and trucks.

But, instead of citing the science, Hillary Clinton seeks refuge in Voltaire saying, "we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good." WRONG. The "good" she is offering us is a policy of half-measures and capitulation that puts expedience before necessity. The "perfect" that she suggests is well beyond us is actually called LEADERSHIP. And on the issue of climate change leadership means looking at what needs to be done and demanding it, not looking at what feeble gesture our ransomed Congress might be capable of and settling for it. There is a time for compromise and a time for resolve, and if the most recent IPCC report is not enough to rock your world then you are not qualified to become the leader of the one we are all living in -- Democrat or Republican.

What we need is a CONTRACT WITH THE PLANET. We need everyone with an advanced degree in WHAT WE NEED TO DO NOW, from environmental groups to faith based organizations to industry to set forth guidelines-- not carefully couched minimums, but things that will actually make the difference. Five or ten goals that we NEED to attain, not because they are easy, but because they are required of us. And then we need to insist that the media put them before the candidates and that the candidates put them before the media. This is no less a moral issue than what Newt Gingrich offered up in his Contract with America 12 years ago. It is time that we make Mother Nature the most powerful lobbyist on this issue-- not the emissaries of coal, oil and the automotive industry.

We are told in the IPCC report that the technology required for saving our world exists. Furthermore, history teaches us that demand and application will make that technology cheaper and more efficient. We can't allow these solutions to be obscured and derided by those staked to the status quo. The chemical reactions at work in our atmosphere remain beyond the influence of polls and focus groups -- they cannot be finessed by consultants and are not concerned with compromise. To deal with them we will need to be so much more than "good." As George Bernard Shaw said, "All progress depends on the unreasonable man." We need that man, or woman, to step up now.

Comments

[Boadicea]

I agree with you.

But you neglect to mention the most egregious of offenses against mother nature in this country - mansions.

Spinning a 28,000 sq. ft. mansion with granite countertops throughout as an "energy star" home is beyond a lie. Every square foot of enclosed living space does two things - it uses up energy, and it takes up space that could be green.

I can hardly take any environmentalist seriously anymore who doesn't address this issue. Some of us are already doing far more to reduce carbon emissions and repair Mother Earth than most environmental crusaders, simply by being poor. Leave us alone for a while, and start talking to the mansion-builders.

[OhgReaTone]

Arresting climate change is obviously not going to come from the current American leadership - it will have to be a grassroots effort - with individual stepping up and volunteering to manage their own lives.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2007/10/22/making-mulch-saving-the-planet/

[ConnieInCleveland]

America needs a campaign that is fact over spin. I want a new 'American Party'. I want Al Gore re-elected with Chuck Hagel for Vice President. Two individuals willing to speak 'Truth to Power' for America, not a party. If Gore/Hagel '08 were part of the mix, they could take on the spin from day one! America needs to get away from spin and back to facts. Spin is making Americans dizzy and accomplishing nothing. Something needs to change quickly, '08 may be too late. The current group of candidates are spinning for '08, not using facts necessary for today!

[SplatticusFinch]

As George Bernard Shaw said, "All progress depends on the unreasonable man." We need that man, or woman, to step up now.


Ah heh heh heh. Yes, where is that unreasonable man or woman who can lead us to Bizarro America.

[lamarguerite]

Thanks Scott. Climate change is a complex problem, that will require many players for it to be solved . For all the players to work together, there needs to be a conductor with the authority to decide on the tune.

Without a leader, we are going to lose precious time, and maybe even the chance to sustain ourselves and our world as we know it, in the long run.

What puzzles me is the psychology of denial at work in some of our leaders, and also commentators for this article. They would do well do study Pascal's wager argument. I wrote an article in my blog about that very topic a few weeks ago.

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com
'It's All About Green Psychology'

[Asmarina]

"....malarial mosquitoes of Africa "

could you kindly refrain from using Africa as if it was a country?

i know it seems trivial, but it's misleading.

thanks.

[veracitatus]

Others have pointed out that a contract with the planet is maybe not a good metaphor here.

But a new social contract that incorporates the realities of life and the dynamics of the planet would certainly be apropos.

As to leadership, consider the vision of the brave lieutenant on the battlefield calling his men to charge, jumping out of the trench and halfway into the field he looks back and sees no one following. The men are afraid to die. Someone else here said that politicians are really followers and that is sadly true.

It is unfortunate that so many Americans of both (all) political persuasions are afraid to admit the truth of how our consumptive lifestyle and growing numbers is at fault and the cause of the problem we now face. A modest (say Eastern European-like) lifestyle for one billion people world-wide would probably not make a huge dent in climate and could be sustained through alternative energy production.

And Americans are afraid of the implied battle. They will need to give up so much of the material goods (toys) and services they have come to believe is their birthright. They will not follow a leader who truly knows what needs to be done and how to do it.

If you want to understand the problem look no farther than Easter Island for a model of what will more than likely play out on the world stage. Some day, someone will burn the last liter of oil that was recoverable (lots will remain under foot but be far too expensive to extract). They will do it trying to stave off some aspect of a fierce climate (too cold or too hot). And when the flame goes out...

You will see leadership emerge when the cataclysm has struck and people revert to their willingness to follow any strong personality that promises to save them. One wonders if there is any possibility that it will be a competent leader.

V.

[jdm58]

I buy wind power. Every month, my supplier sends me a statement showing how much CO2 I prohibited from the atmosphere by making this purchase, and offers a comparison of how many days of average driving were eliminated, by that purchase. I wish two things:
1. There was a central information site that illustrates how much people/businesses are actually DOING about global warming, that would instill some kind of hope into the equation. In the '70s, it was easy to see the results of our efforts, in cleaner water and less litter on the highways. It is far more difficult to delineate any advancement on the GW front, but knowing that you're not the only one making an effort does invigorate the cause.
2. I wish all the GW naysayers would either shutup and let the rest of us work out a solution instead of arguing with them, or move to a low-lying island and prove there is no danger of flooding from GW.

[cloudy]

I'm of the view that people that can't find anything better to do than to complain about too many caps or too much bolding in other peoples' comments should simply get over themselves, individually and even the collectivity -- of choruses of protestation.

Burns' general idea that there isn't enough focus on the INSUFFICIENCY of existing proposals, even from supposed progressives (let alone Hillary Clinton),is right. And we shouldn't be swayed by those, like those in this thread, who cry 'chicken little'. They did this sort of thing about Vietnam, and they were wrong, about nuclear energy and they were wrong, &c &c. Usually, in recent times, but not always, the supposed Chicken Little's have been RIGHT ON (but never given sufficient credit for it, as on Iraq). Global Warming is clearly one of those issues -- tho some are too clever by half and try to pooh pooh the whole issue.

Now, about the view that it's already too late, let's not just think of zero emissions as the limit (and most of what I have heard about that hypothetical suggest that momentum would continue to show worsening, even then, for a few years, but after that the problem would VERY gradually dissipate).

But consider what would happen if ON TOP of stopping emissions, we also planted humongous numbers of trees, as well as large (mainly on the ground) air purifiers that would filter out all kinds of problems (including CO2 and methane, but also ozone-destroying chemicals &c) from the air. The notion that it is too late (which at some point of course turns out to be right) can be a self-fulfilling supplement to those whining about how the threats are exaggerated.

If you knew by clairvoyance that the ecology would be wrecked (as in the song "They took all the trees and put them in a big museum), what to do? Answer: go for the kudos and credit to oneself for being progressive by being complicit in the destruction of the planet and its justification (while those who are right as always get the blame)......

Cloudy

[nowaterboardUSA]

another correction. it was not the Contract WITH America. It was the Contract ON America!

[nowaterboardUSA]

Small correction. It was not The Contract FOR America it was the Contract ON America!

[JulieSA]

"...while scientists tell us that the world we will be living in in 2025 will already have burned up most of our reserves of hope -- as well as one in four species."

2025? So we have 17 years until our world is beyond saving and a quarter of our species goes extinct.

It's too late then. If everyone on earth stopped driving and heating their homes tomorrow, the level of CO2 that's already in the air would not be reduced enough to make a difference in 17 years. It will take longer than 17 years for the current level of atmospheric CO2 to reduce itself enough to make a difference in temperature, even if we halt all CO2 emissions tomorrow. And in the meantime a lot of people would die from not being able to travel, or heat and cool their buildings.

[zjr909]

I'm afraid humanity would have an easier time controlling the climate than controlling the population. Because to control the population we have to control our strongest urge - not the sexual urge: the urge to hate, to have enemies, to see the world as forever divided between "us" and "them." Look no further than ourselves. Now that the religious right is only a stone's throw away from banning abortion, they've already take up the next cudgel: banning contraceptives. The reason - the only possible "sane" reason - is to increase the population. Why? Simple: our newest "enemy" (the Muslims) outnumbers us considerably, never mind our weapons of mass destruction outnumber theirs by Malthusian proportions. But to the "us" vs "them" adherents, true strength lies in sheer numbers of people, not just weaponry. So I presume they're shooting for the billion mark - and quickly, before "they" overrun "us." It's a madness that our attempting to hold back the climate with a policy paper pales beside. We will either starve to death because the climate makes agriculture impossible; or we'll starve to death because we dare not allow our "enemies" to outnumber us. Like the man said: you pays your money and you takes your choice.

[Norpag]

I am continually amazed that people like Scott Burns seem incapable of acknowleding the fact that data from Britains Climate Research Unit show that the earth is cooler now than in 1998.There has been no warming in about 10 years. While 1998 was hotter than usual 2006 was cooler than 2002,2003,2004 and 2005.This year is about the same as 2006. During this time CO2 increased by about 5% casting further doubt on the CO2 - warming connection. A recent paper by Beck ( Google - Beck 180 years CO2 ) shows CO2 levels over 400 ppm in the 1820's and 1940's again showing the IPCC paradigm to be flawed to the point of fraudulence.
Polar bear numbers have been steadily increasing. Satellite data show that at current melting rates of the Greenland and Anarctic icecaps total sea level increase for the next hundred years would be about one and a half inches.
While Arctic sea ice has been at record lows Antarctic sea ice has been at record highs . The northern hemisphere has warmed while the southern has cooled . On balance the earth has cooled since 1998.
How many more years of flat or falling temperatures will it take for Burns and co to at least begin to question their faith?

[Dalicious]

The fact is that our climate models are still quite crude, and there is no certainty at all about what is causing the climate change. So if we start trying to tinker with carbon dioxide or similar concerns, we could be making things worse and not even know it.