UK’s Best Known Environmentalist Speaks at IVC

Tony Juniper - Executive Director, Friends of the Earth (UK) and now parliamentary candidate for Cambridge

“The elections are coming, the elections are coming” might be the headline for the first half of the first year of this new decade. In the second half of the decade we may hear a more panicked cry: “The climate is changing, the climate is changing”. By then it could be too late, or too costly, to do anything about it.

It’s no secret that the climate conference in Copenhagen last December didn’t produce a binding agreement on the emission of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide being the main concern. Since then, the world has seen the PR machines of those who stand to lose out if we clean up the environment working at full tilt to convince us that climate change isn’t real. Mother nature isn’t listening to them. However, some politicians may be. And, that is a major cause for concern.

Strong leadership at all levels of government is needed if effective steps are to be taken to stem our greenhouse gas emissions. What can two small village do? That’s one of the issues to be raised at a special community meeting called by HICCA at 7:30 PM on February 18th at IVC. The guest speaker will be Tony Juniper, best known as the former England director of Friends of the Earth and one of the contributors to the Climate Bill passed by Parliament last year. He isn’t a politician but as a campaigner he has debated, cajoled, convinced or battled most of them in his 25 year career. He is also running to represent Cambridge in Parliament under the Green party banner. That doesn’t make him a neo-politician, in fact, just the opposite.  He talks common sense.  

Climate Change Odds Much Worse Than Thought

A new report points to a global temperature rise of at least TWICE the previous esimate.  Rather than a 2.4C rise it could reach as high as 7.4C unless urgent and immediate action is taken now. The wheel on the right depicts researchers’ estimation of the range of probability of potential global temperature change over the next 100 years if no policy change is enacted on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The wheel on the left assumes that aggressive policy is enacted.

ScienceDaily (May 20, 2009)

— The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth’s climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that. 

Researchers in the field have been saying for some time that the effects of climate change are occurring much faster than labouratory computer models have predicted.  Now, those models are beginning to catch up.  The new projections indicate a surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius (which could reach 7.4 degrees) compared to a increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees.

The important message that comes from this new report is the need for immediate action to prevent a planetary disaster.   Action must come from each of us.  There is no technological ‘magic bullet’ that will save us from disaster.  We as individuals must act to reduce our personal CO2 emissions RIGHT NOW.  We must act as nations to set strict policies to reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.  The time for debate has passed.  Action, urgent action, is needed. 

For details on the scientific report see: Science Daily

A Frustrating E-mail

Many of you will instantly recognise the name - Jim Hansen.  He’s the NASA scientist who, as Head of the Goddard Institute in the US, has been at the forefront of the Climate Change movement.  He’s the guy who has access to all of the data collected by NASA and countless other scientists working in the field and in labs around the world. And, the guy who probably has the clearest vision of what the future holds if we continue burning fossil fuels.  He understands that we are in the grips of a planetary emergency - but nobody seems to care all that much.  We’re seeing many of the same things happen here, and share in the same frustrations.

This is what his e-mail said:

            ” … My frustration arises from the huge gap between words of governments, worldwide, and their actions or planned actions.  It is easy to speak of a planet in peril.  It is quite another to level with the public about what is needed, even if the actions are in everybody’s long-term interest. 

            “Instead governments are retreating to feckless “cap-and-trade”, a minor tweak to business-as-usual.  Oil companies are so relieved to realize that they do not need to learn to be energy companies that they are decreasing their already trivial investments in renewable energy.  They are using the money to buy greenwash advertisements.  Perhaps if politicians and businesses paint each other green, it will not seem so bad when our forests burn.

            “Cap-and-trade is the temple of doom.  It would lock in disasters for our children and grandchildren.  Why do people continue to worship a disastrous approach?  Its fecklessness was proven by the Kyoto Protocol.  It took a decade to implement the treaty, as countries extracted concessions that weakened even mild goals.  Most countries that claim to have met their obligations actually increased their emissions.  Others found that even modest reductions of emissions were inconvenient, and thus they simply ignored their goals.

            “Why is this cap-and-trade temple of doom worshipped?  The 648 page cap-and-trade monstrosity that is being foisted on the U.S. Congress provides the answer.  Not a single Congressperson has read it.  They don’t need to – they just need to add more paragraphs to support their own special interests.  By the way, the Congress people do not write most of those paragraphs – they are “suggested” by people in alligator shoes.

            “The only defense of this monstrous absurdity that I have heard is “well, you are right, it’s no good, but the train has left the station”.  If the train has left, it had better be derailed soon or the planet, and all of us, will be in deep do-do.  People with the gumption to parse the 648-pages come out with estimates of a price impact on petrol between 12 and 20 cents per gallon.  It has to be kept small and ineffectual, because they want to claim that it does not affect energy prices!

            “It seems they would not dream of being honest and admitting that an increased price for fossil fuels is essential to drive us to the world beyond fossil fuels.  Of course, there are a huge number of industries and people who do not want us to move to the world beyond fossil fuels – these are the biggest fans of cap-and-trade.  Next are those who want the process mystified, so they can make millions trading, speculating, and gaming the system at public expense.

            “The science has become clear: burning all fossil fuels would put Earth on a disastrous course, leaving our children and grandchildren with a deteriorating situation out of their control.  The geophysical implication is that most of the remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels (tar shale, etc.) must be left in the ground or the emissions captured and put back in the ground.  A corollary is that it makes no sense to go after every last drop of oil in the most remote and pristine places – we would have to fight to get the CO₂ back out of the air or somehow “geoengineer” our way out of its effects.

           “A more sensible approach is to begin a rapid transition to a clean energy future, beyond fossil fuels – for the sake of our children and grandchildren, already likely to be saddled with our economic debts, and to preserve the other species on the planet.  Such a path would also eliminate mercury emissions, most air pollution, acid rain and ozone alerts, likely reversing trends toward increasing asthma and birth defects.  Such an energy future would also halt the drain on our treasure and lives resulting from dependence on foreign energy sources.

            “What is it that does not compute here?  Why does the public choose to subsidize fossil fuels, rather than taxing fossil fuels to make them cover their costs to society?  I don’t think that the public actually voted on that one.  It probably has something to do with all the alligator shoes in Washington.  Those 2400 energy lobbyists in Washington are not well paid for nothing.  You have three guesses as to who eventually pays the salary of these lobbyists, and the first two guesses don’t count.

            “I get a lot of e-mails telling me to stick to climate, that I don’t know anything about economics.  I know this: the fundamental requirement for transition to the post fossil fuel era is a substantial and rising price on carbon emissions.  And businesses and consumers must understand that it will continue to rise in the future.

            “Of course, a rising carbon price alone is not sufficient for a successful rapid transition to the post fossil fuel era.  There also must be efficiency standards on buildings, vehicles, appliances, electronics and lighting.  Barriers to efficiency, such as utilities making more money when we use more energy, must be removed.

            “But the essential underlying requirement is a substantial rising carbon price.  Building standards, especially operations, for example, are practically unenforceable without a strong cost driver.  The carbon price must be sufficient to affect lifestyle choices.

            “648 pages are not needed to define a carbon fee.  It is a single number that would be ratcheted upward over time.  It would cover all three fossil fuels at their source: the mine or port of entry.  Consumers do not directly pay any tax, but the fee’s effect permeates everything from the price of fuel to the price of food (especially if it is imported from halfway around the world).

            “As a point of reference a fee equivalent to $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton CO₂) would yield $670B in the United States (based on energy use data for 2007).  That would provide a dividend of $3000/year to legal adult residents in the United States ($9000/year to a family with two or more children).

            “A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average would gain economically, if the fee is returned 100 percent to the public on a per capita basis.  With the present distributions of income and energy use, it is estimated that about 60 percent of the people would get a dividend exceeding their tax.  So why would they not just spend their dividend on expensive fuel?  Nobody wants to pay more taxes.  They prefer to have the money for other things.  As the price of fossil fuels continues to increase, people would conserve energy, choose more energy efficient vehicles, and choose non-fossil (untaxed) energies and products.

            “Hey, does anybody know a great communicator, who might level with the public, explain what is needed to break our addiction to fossil fuels, to gain energy independence, to assure a future for young people?  Who would explain what is really needed, rather than hide behind future “goals” and a gimmick “cap”?  Naw.  Roosevelt and Churchill are dead.  So is Kennedy.”

Jim

Hotter, drier summer forecast

Well, maybe it won't be THAT dry!

A hotter and drier than average summer is expected this year, according to the Met Office seasonal forecast. Ewen McCallum, Met Office chief forecaster, said: “The last two summers were wet for many but featured near-average temperatures. This summer’s forecast predicts a change, with below average rainfall and above average temperatures. We expect a trend of warmer summers in the decades ahead because of climate change.”

RAINFALL

“For the UK and much of northern Europe rainfall is likely to be near or below average. A repeat of the wet summers of 2007 and 2008 is unlikely.  Average or below-average rainfall is also likely over eastern Europe.
We base our average rainfall on measurements over the whole season for the years 1971-2000.  The UK average for June to August is 227 mm.”

TEMPERATURE

“For the UK and much of Europe temperatures are likely to be above average. As you would expect, temperatures can vary quite widely over the summer. So we take an average for the whole season and measure against that.   The UK average for June to August from 1971–2000 is 14.1 °C.”

Scientists Surprised

In the summer of 2007, a large portion of Arctic Sea ice - about 40 per cent - simply vanished. That wasn’t supposed to happen. At least not yet. As recent as 2004, scientists had predicted it would take another 50 to 100 years for that much ice to melt. Yet here it was happening today.

It raised the question: Had global warming suddenly pressed the gas pedal to the floor? If so, the world was in for quite a climate ride - dramatic, jarring changes in climate much sooner than expected. Climate scientists were deeply worried.

“It really caught the scientific community by surprise,” Professor James Ford, a McGill University geographer and Arctic expert recalled. “The Arctic system is close to crossing the threshold beyond which we will get dramatic changes in climate.”

The sudden mass melting brought an earlier ice event into new perspective. In 2005, scientists at the Canadian Ice Service, the nation’s leading ice specialists, were examining satellite images when they noticed that the Ayles Ice Shelf, which is about as big as the island of Montreal, had suddenly broken free from the top of Ellesmere Island and floated away.

Vincent Warwick, an Arctic expert at Université Laval, said at the time: “This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead.”

The ice melt of 2007 seemed to confirm Warwick’s fears. Reports since then claim the Arctic ice could be gone by 2013.
We have already crossed some critical climate thresholds. The world not only has to drastically cut back its greenhouse gas emissions but also begin to take steps to deal with the inevitable changes that global warming will cause. The much-feared tipping points - which would cause massive icecap and ice shield melting, and plunge the world headlong into severe weather systems, causing broad devastation and rising seas - seem increasingly probable.

This is why, scientists say, the United Nations climate talks that began this week in Bonn, Germany, and will culminate in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December, are so important. They are a last chance for the world to come to its senses and negotiate an agreement to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Article continues:  http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/saturdayextra/story.html?id=cdba2d64-0803-478a-8e26-7ba82f5596fe

The Age of Stupid (UPDATE 2)

CambridgeArt’s Picturehouse has AGAIN extended its screenings of the Age of Stupid from 2, then 6 and now  to a full 8 days, April 1st - 8th.  Don’t miss it! The Age of Stupid is the new movie from Director Franny Armstrong (McLibel) and producer John Battsek (One Day In September). Pete Postlethwaite stars as a man living alone in the devastated future world of 2055, looking at old footage from 2008 and asking: why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?    (see video clips below)Showing at the Arts Picturehouse 38-39 St Andrew’s Street, Cambridge, CB2 3AR Box Office: 0871 704 2050

Stern Attacks Politicians Over Inaction

Nicholas Stern, the prominent economist appointed by Gordon Brown to analyse the impact of climate change, has attacked politicians for failing to take on board the severe consequences of failing to cut world carbon emissions.

According to Guardian Reporter David Adam: “His stark warning about the potentially “devastating” consequences of global warming came as scientists issued a desperate plea last night for world leaders to curb greenhouse gas emissions or face an ecological and social disaster.”

“In a significant break from the scientific tradition not to comment directly on policy, the experts insisted politicians must stand up to “vested interests that increase emissions” and “build on a growing public desire for governments to act”.

The Telegraph is reporting: “At an emergency climate summit in Copenhagen, scientists agreed that ‘worst case’ scenarios were already becoming reality and that, unless drastic action was taken soon, ‘dangerous climate change’ was imminent.”

‘Softly-softly’ Approach Isn’t Working

Prof Kevin Anderson, the research director at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Manchester, said: “Scientists have lost patience with carefully constructed messages being lost in the political noise. We are now prepared to stand up and say enough is enough.”

Speaking after giving a keynote speech, Stern said he feared that politicians had not grasped the seriousness of the crisis. “Do the politicians understand just how difficult it could be? Just how devastating four, five, six degrees centigrade would be? I think not yet. Looking back, the Stern review underestimated the risks and underestimated the damage from inaction.”

He added: “Much of southern Europe would look like the Sahara. Many of the major rivers of the world, serving billions of people, would dry up in the dry seasons or re-route.

“What would be the implication? Hundreds of millions of people would have to move, probably billions. What would be the implication of that? Extended conflict, social disruption, war essentially, over much of the world for many decades.”

The Prince of Wales on a tour of South America warned that nations were “at a defining moment in the world’s history” over climate change. He delivered his most impassioned and urgent plea yet on the need to tackle global warming, saying there were “less than 100 months” to save the planet.

Complied from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/stern-attacks-politicians-climate-change

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/environment/4982149/Worlds-leading-scientists-in-desperate-plea-to-politicians-to-act-on-climate-change.html

Melted Roads, Wilted Gardens

“Taxpayers will have to pick up a bill of hundreds of billions of pounds to pay for the damage caused to services by heatwaves brought on by climate change. “  That’s how an article in today’s Times starts.  Author, Lewis Smith, continues: “…the ground around houses can dry out leaving homes much more vulnerable to subsidence.”

The research performed by Alistair Hunt of the University of Bath attempts to pinpoint the costs of climate change and the need for increased local taxes to pay for the damages. It’s worth a read.  However bad the picture he draws might be, remember this: he appears to be using projections released by the IPCC in 2007.  While the article talks about changes by the year 2100, recent scientific studies and measurements are showing that climate change is occuring much faster than predicted - perhaps by 2020 or even earlier.

Of course, climate change isn’t about money.  It’s about survival.  Our survival - our families, our communities, our country and the world we know .   It’s clear that we have the ability to prevent this disaster, but it’s not clear that we have the will.  Action to reduce CO2 emissions by huge amounts need to begin today. Yet government and business seems to be planning for the longer term - 50 years or more.  By the time their plans are implemented we will probably have passed several critical tipping points which will remove any hope of reversing the climate bomb.

Climate change is a problem that must be solved at the individual and household level.  Each and everyone of us must decide to make a difference.  In Histon and Impington we have a chance to do just that with our Greening pledge cards.  Start by making some small changes in your daiy life then tick the boxes and place that Greening card in your window.  Do it now … while there is still time.

Bubbles Spell Trouble

Methane and What We Can Do Today!

Next Page »