It's Over: Action on Global Warming Seen as Inevitable

My school system has no budgeted money to repair the school building so water does not get in and flood the halls. It does have the money to pay for clean up twice a year. Oddly it costs about as much to clean up twice a year as it would cost to repair the building. We have seen the documents.
This is how we humans seem to do things. We declare that we can not afford to prevent a problem... though we will jump in with all resources after the fact.
(BTW how is New Orleans?)

Isn't it strange that the news is that companies are finally ceding to the global warming reality?

Mr. Cynical here. I see the companies knuckling under to political pressure. In order to not run afowl of the regulators, they do those things that are necessary to keep them off their backs.

Like I said in another string, Steve, global warming is upon us, but it's a natural phenomena that we can't do anything about. It'll happen with us or without us.

Yes, I find it very strange that anyone, other than Gore, is even talking about global warming.

I've never been convinced of global warming. Or, rather, I'm not convinced that we are causing it. I just have not seen any evidence that we have caused it.

Something had to end the ice age, and it sure wasn't cars or factories.

Dale: "I see the companies knuckling under to political pressure. In order to not run afowl of the regulators, they do those things that are necessary to keep them off their backs."

I agree in part. Corporations, seeing the writing on the wall, now want to guide the direction of regulations so as to minimize impact on their record profits. Personally, I wish them well - so long as a decrease in CO2 emissions and other GHG emissions is real and effective.

Dale: "...global warming is upon us, but it's a natural phenomena that we can't do anything about."

This is your belief, and you are certainly entitled to it. However, most scientists doing the research will disagree with you.

Matthew: "...I find it very strange that anyone, other than Gore, is even talking about global warming."

A significant majority of people, regardless of political persuasion, believe global warming is a significant issue.

Matthew: "I've never been convinced of global warming. Or, rather, I'm not convinced that we are causing it."

And you probably never will be.

"I just have not seen any evidence that we have caused it."

And you probably never will.

Super comment, Steve B. It is important to realize that we cleaned up the problem with the ozone layer somewhat and could do something to reduce gas emissions which would definitely turn back the clock on these dire warnings. The science is in. This is no longer controversial.

Joe: "It is important to realize that we cleaned up the problem with the ozone layer somewhat...."

I read recently that the hole over Antarctica is at near record size. Scientists were anticipating that the ozone hole would close, but it would take 65 years, assuming there is no resumption of CFC emissions. That is a big assumption, given the Bush administration's push to ease regulations.

Joe: "...which would definitely turn back the clock on these dire warnings."

There is no turning back the clock. Warming is going to increase over the next centuries. The issue presently is how much it is going to increase. As James Hansen at NASA describes it, it is the difference between a soft landing and a catastrophic one. I think this is one of the least misunderstood aspects of this issue. We are not going to reverse anything - we can only work to prevent the worst case scenario.

Al Gore believes we are capable of slowing down the process. I heard a scientist explain that we are already affecting the warming of the planet. It just stands to reason that the more we use pollutants that our air is affected, thereby the temperature. In my region of the country, our winters are definitely warmer. I don't know whether to be alarmed or not but I think the science tells us that it is an issue that needs addressing.

Good article and comments Steve B.

The science on human induced global warming is indeed solid and the scientific debate is over. Among researchers and thier studies world wide, the story being told by their results is that Human Induced Global Climate Change is a valid description of our current situation. There definitely is a consensus among scientists studying aspects of Global Warming (yes, there even is a scientific study which supports that statement).

Part of the remaining problem is a terrible lack of leadership in the public arena. Comments like those from Mathew L. are a perfect illustration.

Bush has been such an awful leader in so many ways, the climate change issue is no different. His administration has infact publicly endorsed the view of human induced climate change, supposedly placing them among those in consensus on the issue. They have remained quite on this however, have provided no leadership, and infact have done everything possible administratively behind the scenes to impede the message getting out.

My point is that, were there an intelligent competent leader at the helm of this nation, that leader would help the general population including folks like Mathew L. understand that this is serious, it is real, and it does require action on our part. Al Gore is actually picking up the slack (the limp limp slack) that Bush and his cronies have developed in the process.

The scientists have done their part (continue to do thier part). Some have spoken out. Some have have written books. Some journalists covering the work of the scientists have written articles and books. The growth of understanding in society (which has indeed become large) has also been occuring.

We are left in this situation now with no appropriate leadership in the presidency.

Follow this link for an excellent piece regarding the consensus of scientific research on global warming:
www.countercurrents.org/cc-oreskes250706.htm

Leadership on climate change will not come from the political sphere in my opinion. Serving politicians are too focused on the short term, i.e. winning the next election and therefore "spinning" the information outside of their control to at least look ok in the minds of the electorate. Politicians will monitor the trend of the electorate and will move on climate change only when the electorate forces them. Personally, I think leadership will arise from the scientific/entrepeneurial sector with the recognition of how valuable (profitable) new technologies can become.

Sara P.

Good points.

"Politicians will monitor the trend of the electorate and will move on climate change only when the electorate forces them."

I think this last election, along with public opinion on global warming pushes this forward.

"Personally, I think leadership will arise from the scientific/entrepeneurial sector with the recognition of how valuable (profitable) new technologies can become."

Leadership in the scientific/entrepeneurial sector is there. For example, see ECD Ovonics

http://www.ovonics.com

The problem is that they have been trying to develop in an energy market that favors fossil fuels. Now that there is a favorable political climate, I think there will be incentives for the deployment of new technologies that already exist.

David.

"My point is that, were there an intelligent competent leader at the helm of this nation, that leader would help the general population including folks like Mathew L. understand that this is serious, it is real, and it does require action on our part."

We'll see what the new Democratic congress does. If Democrats are smart, they will take advantage of the favorable political winds and put Bush and the Republicans in a position to act or obstruct change. I think the public is enough aware that it will take note. In any case, I think the next president, Democrat or Republican, will act. Hopefull, though, Bush will not obstruct further and waste another two years.

I've seen the article you link above. Indeed, there is no scientific debate to speak of on this issue. The fact that the public still mysteriously sees that the science is not clear can be chalked up to a very successful PR campaign by Exxon, designed to misrepresent the science.

For an excellent source of scientific debunking of the so-called scientific uncertainty, see

http://www.realclimate.org

Personally, I don't debate so-called "skeptics" anymore. I am more interested in discussing solutions.

There is more going on with the Bush's lack of action on climate change than a mere measuring of the pulse of the electorate. The leadership that is called for is one that is aware of the situation, listens to the science, takes action, and provides that atmosphere and environment in which positive change and action can and will occur. The leadership of answers and action will come and Is coming already from the private-science sector as Sara and Steve mentioned and as his previous articles have described. The matter of leadership is important, both state and federal and in both branches of government and is more than a matter of politicians testing the winds of the electorate (though those are blowing more strongly towards action now). The lack of awarness among the public comes from both the intentional lack of leadership (and obstruction) of the Bush administration and the efforts of Exxon-Mobile as well as an amount of basic human nature. As with the elections of November in general, the stories you report above are positive steps. Emplacement and enforcement of any regulations generated from expected legislation or rulings still falls to Bush et al....

David, you are right obviously regulation and enforcement still fall on the politicians, etc but how does one motivate the mass citizenry to action on this issue when most are struggling with day to day issues (family, finances, etc)......? I've been studying some of the successful consumer marketing campaigns of the past and the issue of climate change, in my opinion, needs a (or a better) marketing campaign including very specific calls to action.

Sara, Yes, I agree with you about that.
I think that a well developed & successful awarness/marketing campaign is important.
I think part of that 'campaign' or effort involves removing the fear of economic whammies and upheaval that are being threatend and thrown out there by denialists and obstructionists. Part of that is aided by a broad scale and public acceptance of reality by government leaders. Acceptance of looking for, finding, and working with solutions will not happen broadscale until uncertainty of the need of changing direction is endorsed and verified as necessary as a matter of Policy.

Another way in which broadscale acceptance of change will occur is in a manner which is not necessarily noticed conciously as an 'effort' that runs perpendicular to people's current state of comfort (habits of behavior) but rather is percieved as helpful and natural to every day lives. There are many ways that we as a society have changed our behavior as of the late 20th and early 21st century which is different from how we (as a society) have behaved earlier in the 20th century as well as the 19th (and so-forth). When we are short on water because of droughts, we alter our behavior and find ways to trim those inefficient and wasteful actions. We find that they are actually not painful to us at all, but in the long run pay off to the whole society. We also feel empowered in the taking of positive action, in aiding eachother, and in the ability to make a difference (it is indeed, amazingly, a human need).

Related to the first point I made, is that instead of fear of change (away from old systems and technologies), there is the realization that new sectors of society open up and accomodate income, employment, and the economy as a whole. It has happened again and again. Stagnation, is actually the harmful and dangerous course in this and any long term human issue.
And possibly, just possibly, people will understand the importance of the quality of life rather than sustaining the engine of the status quo...
(sorry to have strayed there...)

Government's are definitely doing their best to create concern regarding the impact to people's lifestyle and financial well being if steps are taken to address climate change. Here the PM has been at pains to point out the economic importance of the coal industry....implication lots of jobs lost, higher prices for every thing, etc. Good summary of the local discussion available on this website. See right hand tool bar for local reports on issues. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1722956.htm

Sara. Had you seen this article? What do you make of it?

Bush's only big ally in warming debate shifts
Australian prime minister now willing to look at carbon trading

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15715199/

David: "The matter of leadership is...more than a matter of politicians testing the winds of the electorate (though those are blowing more strongly towards action now).

I agree. But I look at the current crop of political "leaders" and do not see a John F. Kennedy in the crowd. No one that I'm looking at has the ability to inspire people to take up a great cause.

As far as the public is concerned, I think a real leader would be able to tap the growing concern with global warming felt by the public. Kennedy inspired people to enter the sciences and to contribute to the space effort. Today, the public gives politicians (dems) cover to begin to approach addressing the issue. I hope they act, and act quickly.

Steve, Hadn't read that particular article but appears similar to reports on the public broadcaster here on Howard's shift. I believe his change of heart is driven by 2 things: 1) Polls showing climate change is the number 1 issue for Australians and 75% of Australians saying we have to do more now, and 2) He must call an election next year. It will be an issue with climate change already having enormous impacts on Australia.

Note however the quote in the article "It's in Australia's national interest to play a part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions but in a way that doesn't damage our vital industries, such as the coal industry" He's watching those polling figures closely I'd suggest.

The entities selling and banking on the 'horse-cart and its accessories' (including horse breeders, iron shodders, feed suppliers, etc.) certainly don't want to see their businesses left on the edge of town with the tumbleweeds rolling by, which is understandable. The politicians representing those interests are doing their part to protect them. But another thing they are doing to scare the citezenry away from conceptualizing a change is to frame that change as a 'single step or leap from one phase to the other' with no discussion of the intermediate steps. They are scaring away the broadscale public and bussinesses from the process of discussing, debating, and developing those intermediate steps that allow for the shift without dropping 'the workers and the investers' into an abyss that separates now from then (the new energy paradigm, as it were). As steve has posted in his articles before, there are businesses that are starting to create those intermediate steps, but the mass public and most bussinesses are scared into thinking that accepting the start of change means dropping our security blanket now and standing naked until something else comes along. The reality is that coal and oil will not be stopped point blank, but will trail off as others come online, allowing for a survivable step from one to the other for workers and investors (and politicians).

Australia is an example of the needs and concerns of the people overtaking the fears of the industries and investors. They are experiencing potentially catastrophic droughts, they were hit by a larger-than-Katrina sized hurricane (cyclone) last year (spared somewhat by the great barrier reef and elevation on the coastline), and their scientists are posting warnings and calling for action (researchers at CSIRO just published a report on the rate of increase in CO2 emissions). Australia (as would the US) would do well to set aside their economic fears and start the debate over how to develope the intermediate steps.

Sara. It sounds like what you're describing is similar to what has happened in the U.S. The elections have left a political environment in which something can be done on the global warming issue. Broad public support does tend to influence politicians, and maybe that is happening in Australia too.

David. I don't think that there will be drastic changes. The most optimistic environmentalists only project (hope for) 20% of our energy need to be provided by renewable energy by 2020. I would like there to be much more than that, of course. Incremental change is the likely course.

The shift of the Australia PM reflects the optimism reflected in the title of this article. More and more people are seeing that warming is an issue that must be addressed, including an increasing number of those formerly resistant. It seems that there is a growing consensus among scientists, religious leaders, politicians and industry leaders that this is the case. So the debate has changed. No longer is it whether warming is occuring or not. The debate is now about what to do.

Important to remember - all this dialogue is "valid" and "important" - AND it's left-brain.
Now for a right-brain response:
1. Human beings seem to make their greatest creative leaps during "11th hour" situations
2. Planet Earth has graciously hosted our human "soul school" here, allowing us "playground space" so we can explore and grow up; Planet Earth also provides the "ground rules" and the "tests" of our creative potential and will-to-good.
3. Human beings have great areas of the brain that most fail to utilize - YET. Human education, in fact, tends to sterilize or anesthetize these fields. These areas are useful for such things as telepathic-empathic work with "all relations" - with all other beings on the planet - all other forms of awareness - GROUP HEARTMIND.
It is possible to speak with a worm, with a mountain, with a forest, a tree, a cell - and to get a picture that is greater-than-human.
It is possible to do what Native peoples do, and "cry for a Vision" which carries energy and inspiration for the solution to the challenge, as well as good for all beings.

We humans have really only just begun! We're at the "crisis" of our godescence.

Another thing that unused portion of our brains can be used for is manifesting and DE-MANIFESTING. I know folks who are weather-workers, and know of more in training. Machaelle Small Wright speaks, in her book "Behaving As If The God In All Life Mattered", of being taught to manifest things like garden tools out of thin air; but also, to de-manifest what didn't work.

Think about that. Think about maturing spiritually to the place where you, too, can participate in de-manifesting, say, toxic waste dumps. Think about it!

carolion. You discuss thoughts I've never thought about before. Thank you - I will think about it. Do you have any sources or articles on this?

Regarding the "11th hour," I think we are there, and I think there are very creative minds in the renewable energy fields. I was very hopeful when I heard Amory Lovins being interviewed by Charlie Rose recently on PBS.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/1/0719/59319

I also was immensely encouraged by a PBS video, featuring Stan Ovshinsky, founder of ECD Ovonics, who has worked primarily with what he calls the "hydrogen loop."

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/video/watchonline.htm

He has invented a metal alloy that "soaks up hydrogen like a sponge," precluding the need for storing it as a gas under high pressure. I think that approaching these problems with the spirit and with the metal alloy may be as good an example of "nirvana is samsara" as I can think of. If you have time to watch these videos I would appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.

Thanks, Steve. I'll see if I can get to a computer that will allow me to catch those videos.
In terms of my post above, I think you might enjoy Machaelle Small Wright's experiences with manifestation.
For some of the mind-opening concepts, you might find the SETH books intriguing.

I'm fascinated with the metal work you mention. Everything has consciousness, and all consciousness can be awakened to higher and higher vibrational levels-----so I love hearing about human shifts in relationships with metals. Yeah!

carolion. Thanks. I'll look at those.