"I Count" London November 2006. Do you count ?

Reference:"with a decade at most to avert global warming catastrophe"
Why do I keep mentioning that book "Its a matter of survival"? Its a book readable by anyone and clearly and dramatically(non boringly)explains our predicament and what needs to be done.Take chapter two for instance:
"HOW DID WE COME TO THIS?
here's a strange phenomenon that biologists refer to as 'the boiled frog syndrome.'
Put a frog in a pot of water and increase the temperature of the water gradually from 20c to 30c to 40c...to 90c and the frog just sits there.But suddenly,at 100c(212F),something happens:the water boils and the frog dies.
scientists studying environmental problems, particularly the greenhouse effect,see 'the boiled frog syndrome' as a metaphor for the human situation: we have figuratively,and in some ways literally, been heating up the world around us without recognizing the danger.
Psychologist Robert Ornstein, co-author of NEW WORLD,NEW MIND, points out that those people who have been sounding warnings receive the same response from us as would someone attempting to alert the frog to the danger of a rise in its water temperature from,say,70c to 90c. If the frog could talk,he would say,'there's no difference, really. Its slightly warmer in here,but I'm just as well off.'If you then say to the frog,'If the heat keeps increasing at that rate,you will die,'the frog will reply,'We have been increasing it for a long time,and I'm not dead.So what are you worried about?'
'Our situation is like the frog's,'says Ornstein.Today,despite the fact that researchers using the most sophisticated atmospheric-monitoring equipment in the World are telling us that our future is at risk,we-as individuals and as governments-ignore or minimize the warnings
The frog has a fatal flaw,explains Ornstein.Having no evolutionary experience with boiling water,he is unable to perceive it is dangerous.Throughout their biological evolution, frogs have lived in a medium that does not vary greatly in temperature,so they haven't needed to develop sophisticated thermal detectors in their skin. The frog in the pot is unaware of the threat and simply sits complacently until he boils.
Like the simmering frog,we face a future without precedent,and our senses are not attuned to warnings of imminent danger.The threats we face as the crisis builds-global warming,acid rain,the ozone hole and increasing ultraviolet radiation,chemical toxins such as pesticides,dioxins,and polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs)in our food and water-are undetectable by the sensory system we have evolved.We do not feel the acidity of the rain,see the ultraviolet radiation projected through the ozone hole,taste the toxins in our food and water,or feel the heat of global warming except,as the frog does,as gradual and therefore endurable.Nothing in our evolutionary experience has prepared us for the limits of a finite world, one in which a five degree climate change over a matter of decades will mean the end of life as we have known it on the planet.
How did we come to this?How did we plan our own obsolescence?The answer lies in millenia of human history,a surprisingly brief chapter in the chronicle of the planet.You can see just how brief if you use a standard calendar to mark the passage of time on Earth.The origin of the Earth,some 4.6 billion years ago,is placed at midnight January 1,and the present at midnight december 31. Each calendar day represents approximately 12 million years of actual history.Dinosaurs arrived on about December 10 and disappeared on Christmas Day. HOMO SAPIENS made an appearence at 11:45pm on December 31.The recorded history of human achievement,on which we base so much of our view of human entitlement,takes up only the last minute of that year.
Dinisaurs had a fortnight of supremacy on this planet before they were eradicated by some environmental catastrophe.We have had 15 minutes of fame. And in that short period we have transformed the world. In fact,HOMO SAPIENS has managed to extinguish large parts of the living world in a matter of centuries.
For the past million years,our biological makeup has changed very little: we are essentially the same creatures as those that emerged along the Rift Valley in Africa.But culturally we are a completely different genus. Where once we lived as part of the natural world, we now seek to conscript it in the service of our ends. And the result has been that we have altered the ecosphere in which we evolved into a form that cannot ensure our survival.
...we are now the most ubiquitous large mammal on Earth, and armed with technologiacal might,we have assumed a position of dominance on the planet. We have gained the ability to destroy entire ecosystems almost overnight,with dams,fires,clearcut logging,agricultural and urban projects,and mining.And our self-awarded mandate to do so is predicated on the assumption that we possess the knowledge to manage the environment,that nature is sufficiently vast and self-renewing to absorb the shocks we subject it to,and that we have a fundamental entitlement to nature's bounty.That has been our history,but the reality is different.Our machinery,based on fossil-fuel consumption,produces carbon dioxide in quantities that exceed the ability of the natural world to absorb it,as we inject almost 6 billion extra tons of carbon annually into the upper atmosphere,just from the burning of fossil fuels.....Through the span of human history,we have considered those resources infinite and have believed that the human mind would always provide solutions to our problems.That belief has entrenched in us a mindless acceptance of certain truths and an equally mindless lack of comprehension of the consequences..."
The boiled frog metaphor certainly shows to me,anyway,why most of us find it impossible to take seriously the overwhelming danger of the already happening climate change.

As I read this I can't help but think about the words of the young twenty something man in my recent publication - Soul Gifts: The World's Self-Help Book. Rene Matte quotes Thomas Hobbes, "Man is a social and political animal ... If he does not want to change, then he must be forced to." I am following this scientific discussion with interest. I am hoping to convince my family to visit the far north - to see for ourselves the difference in our tundra. Yesterday I offered an extensive collection in my possession to The Gregg Centre at the University of New Brunswick. This collection relates to my uncle Harry L Gill, DFM who is buried in Bangladesh (1943) ... the fight for freedom. And yet - how well do we handle "freedom". Ah .. such large issues. All this is part of my book - meant as a humanitarian offering. Much love to all of you who are expressing interst and concern about what is before us. xo Barbara

Alert in French:

ALERTE A L’ACTION A DIFFUSER LARGEMENT !
La Cour Suprême des Etats-Unis doit légiferer sur la réglementation des émissions de carbone

Par Climate Ark, un projet de Ecological Internet, Inc.
http://www.Climateark.org/
Le 21 novembre 2006

PASSEZ A L’ACTION!
Avec au maximum une décennie devant nous pour empêcher une catastrophe mondiale à cause du réchauffement climatique, faites savoir à la Cour Suprême des Etats-Unis que le dioxyde de carbone est de toute évidence un gaz très polluant qui cause le chaos climatique actuel et que, en tant que gaz nocif, doit être régulé par l’Agence pour la Protection de l’Environnement (EPA) des Etats-Unis.

http://www.climateark.org/alerts/send.asp?id=supreme_court_climate

Dans l’un des plus grands procès concernant l’environnement qui doit être jugé par la Cour Suprême des Etats-Unis c’est le changement climatique et la réglementation des émissions de dioxyde de carbone qui seront mis sur la sellette par la cour la plus haute du pays et ceci pour la premiere fois dans l’histoire.

Pour résumer, vont être jugées les preuves pour le changement climatique pour déterminer si les données disponibles sont suffisantes pour permettre de dire que les émissions de CO2 représentent une menace pour la santé et le bien-être public.
Le procès s’appelle ‘Massachusetts vs.EPA, 05-1120’, le Massachusettes contre l’Agence pour la Protection de l’Environnement, 05-1120.

Deux questions majeures sont à l’honneur: Est-ce que l’Agence pour la Protection de l’Environnement (EPA) peut réglementer le CO2, et si elle le peut, est-ce qu’elle doit le faire. La décision de la cour qui est attendue pour juin 2007, avec les plaidoyers oraux au calendrier dès la fin novembre et début décembre de cette année, pourrait enfin accélerer la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre par les Etats-Unis, ou enliser tout le mouvement vers un arrêt total.

Il est fort peu dans les habitudes de cibler la Cour Suprême des Etats-Unis avec une campagne de protestation par email. Mais comme lors du mouvement pour les Droits Civils dans le passé, le problème du changement climatique causé par l’homme est si important et tellement englué par des dialogues de sourds parmi les politiques que nous nous devons de faire appel à la Cour de ne pas seulement donner son aval aux solides données scientifiques, mais, si nécessaire, de ‘légiférer depuis la barre’ et fournir des lignes directrices claires et nettes sur cette mesure qui menace la vie et la Terre.

En prenant part à cette campagne vous enverrez aussi bien votre message par email que comme pétition qui sera envoyée à la Cour Suprême par courrier, d’où l’importance des adresses pour légitimer notre action. Dites à la Cour Suprême de juger que les Etats-Unis doivent réglementer les émissions de carbone maintenant sous:
http://www.climateark.org/alerts/send.asp?id=supreme_court_climate

Dear Glen,

Well done with this one! I've signed it.

Just two thoughts, though:

1. Of course carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. However, I
didn't alter the email because I wasn't sure about the law; maybe this
email could only deal with carbon dioxide. I'd have needed to do
possibly quite a bit of research to check this out. It still gives a
strong message

2. For some actual figures see the writings of George Monbiot, e.g.

http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2006/09/87-cut-by-2030.html

and

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/101006EB.shtml

In the UK this has been embodied in a petition to the Prime Minister, at
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Carbon-Rationing/.

I bet the figures given by George Monbiot are somewhere near the
mark, and they're much more stringent than anything that the UK
Government is proposing.

Best regards,

Michael (Sackin)

RESPONSE: I think the case deals specifically with whether carbon dioxide should be considered a pollutant under
the Clean Air Act. I am reading Heat right now by Monbiot, really like his stuff. I think 90% is about
right. I also think that getting going soon on 50% right now as was agreed in principle at recent Kyoto
meeting and then adjusting the target is better than waiting to have the will to have the target just right.
Regards,
Glen

Since water vapor is by far the number one greenhouse gas I firmly believe we would all be missing an opportunity if we don't take a stand now and include it in our sights and define it as a pollutant. The most obvious step would be to ban clothes dryers. They consume precious energy, contribute directly to global warming as well as generating greenhouse gas. Actually, washing clothes is the root cause of the dryer problem. We should all stop washing clothes. As soon as the clothes get wet, they will begin to dry (more water vapor) so we shouldn't wash clothes. I think we may be on to something.

As for CO2, it is a necessary building block of life. It has been observed that CO2 has lagged increases in global temperature in the past and has therefore been a result rather than the cause of warmer temperatures. I know images of boiling frogs are more vivid than boring scientific fact but one fact is evident to all but the most avid warmer, man lived in only a small portion of the earth during the ice age. Man has benefited greatly from the Holocene warm spell. The projections for future warming are based on computer models that have, at their core, assumptions that are at best unlikely. In short, we are much more likely to see a return to an ice age than to boil like a frog in a teapot. I recently read that the last 8 years have shown a slight decrease in temperature along with missed targets for carbon emmissions. Those two developments don't jibe well with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The AGW theory fell apart at the turn of the century when the predictions failed to come true. The reason is that AGW is a politically motivated hoax. It has its origin in merry old England, by the then Prime Minister Thatcher (1979). It was an attack on the coal miners in England as well as a means to level the economic global playing field. She founded the Hadley Center to promote her hoax. You all know that organization today as the IPCC.

Re George Monbiot's 90% figure:

George Monbiot actually goes for 60% cuts by 2030, and that is based on up-to-date science, including the fact that the carbon sinks are shrinking all the time, so if we don't get enough cuts soon then we will need even more cuts later...and eventually even 100% won't stabilise the atmosphere (if we leave it too late).

However, once you agree on a 60% cut, you'll be into the tricky question who is allowed to emit what. George Monbiot takes the 90% figure from the Contraction and Convergence model, which says that we all have equal rights to the atmosphere and that we have to work to converge our emissions because otherwise we'll never get the kind of global action which will save us. This means that the highest-polluting countries need to cut back the most - and the UK are amongst the higher-polluters (for the US you'd be looking at even greater cuts, for countries like India or China at less cuts because their per capita emissions are much lower).

OMG! I know this won't make it to the site. Are you all serious? Is this a joke? If not, WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO? BREATHE LESS? You people have reached the height of insanity. PLEASE keep it up. This may well be your undoing.

"Chris" wrote:

.....OMG! I know this won't make it to the site. Are you all serious? Is this a joke? If not, WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO? BREATHE LESS? You people have reached the height of insanity. PLEASE keep it up. This may well be your undoing.....

Too bad there are so many of you out there who can see only in black-and-white.

For people like you it seems like it's EITHER completely ignore what's happening around us OR relentlessly foam at the mouth over those who AREN'T ignoring reality and accuse them of trying to force everyone back into the Stone Age.

It's getting boring, frankly.

Wake up already.

The sooner we start facing what we're eventually going to have to face anyway, the easier it will be for us to make the necessary adjustments in our thinking on matters of growth, consumption and waste production.

Since you guys like analogies, if you relate the total human produced greenhouse gases to the total of all GHG including the natural ones from plants decaying etc. in terms of the calendar year, you wouldn't encounter your first human caused green house gas until quarter to 12 midnight on the day before New Years Eve. By that time all the frogs will have boiled.

Planktos takes sides in Supreme Court Case on Regulation of “Global Warming “ CO2 by the EPA

The Supreme Court ponders the case of whether the US EPA ought to begin regulation of CO2 as a cause of harm to the environment but the case seems to focus solely on the popular case of "global warming". All sides ignore the oceans where the real and present harm and danger of high
CO2 is now apparent.

Indeed several justices have showed sympathy for the administration's position opposing the case.

"There is a lot of conjecture," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "When is the predicted cataclysm?" he asked Milkey (Massachusetts Asst. Attorney General)

"It is not so much a cataclysm as ongoing harm," Milkey responded, and "there is nothing conjectural about that."

The fact is that presently high and rising CO2 in our atmosphere is causing an immediate global cataclysm. That cataclysm isn’t occurring in the familiar terrestrial atmospheric biome of the planet but rather in that 70+% of the planet Earth that are our oceans. First ocean acidification, a direct consequence of the long rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere, has made the oceans 10% more acidic over recent decades. Reports of the UK Royal Society (2005) report the beginning of a cataclysm of global mass extinction of sea life will be well underway by 2050 and profound by 2100.

Secondly high CO2 has caused a great diminishment of wind blown terrestrial dust that reaches the ocean, starving the oceans of vital micronutrients. Scientific reports, with which there is no dispute, have clearly shown that this lost productivity has resulted in an ongoing cataclysmic change of state of the oceans from being a vastly effective CO2 sink via living plant life, to having lost the capacity to biologically fix and remove 4-5 billion tonnes of CO2 from the global atmosphere each year. This sum of CO2 is noteworthy for being a substantial portion of the "global warming" net problem with CO2, stated at 6-7 billion tonnes each year, it also represents a dramatic loss of food at the bottom of the ocean food chain. The loss of ocean productivity combined with over fishing have led to the recent cataclysmic reports of all seafood disappearing from our tables by 2048.

Planktos implores the honorable Supreme Court Justices to see that the evidence is very clear that there is just the cataclysm they demand - clear, present, dangerous and well underway. It is imperative that we empower and charge our government with the duty to act immediately to restrain CO2 emissions, restore, and revive our oceans. It is insufficient to make excuses that we, as resident Earthlings of this small blue planet, need not do anything but argue political and legal semantics while the cataclysm progresses.

With regard to the preposterous notion in the administrations legal maneuver to deny that the States have demonstrable losses do to high levels of anthropogenic CO2. It is clear by the plethora of ocean evidence that all of the coastal states that have historically derived revenue and benefits from their ocean fisheries that they have and will continue to suffer huge losses in this arena as a result of unabated high levels of CO2 pouring into our air and oceans from our rapacious appetite for fossil fuels.

Planktos is a California company working to develop and deliver practical and affordable solutions to the global ocean and climate crisis by restoring Earthly ecosystems on land and at sea.

For more information contact: Russ George, Planktos Inc. 1151 Triton Dr. Foster City, CA 94404 russ@planktos.com www.planktos.com

I jasmine believe that if people keep on using carbon dioxide products and keep up the power plant I will not need to tell you that you will indeed kill the earth and half the animals on the earth. Then the sun will and might blow up and earth will never be herd of and the only people or animals who know are the things that we have not yet discovered and will not EVER. The polar bears are dying and will not stop until we stop using CARBON using things.
CARBON USING THINGS = STRONGER O-ZONE LAYER = SUN RAYS CAN’T GET OUT = HEAT SETTLES ON THE EARTH = ICE IT MELTING = LESS FRESH CLEAN WATER = PEOPLE HAVE TO DRINK UN FRESH WATER

"The fact is that presently high and rising CO2 in our atmosphere is causing an immediate global cataclysm."

Hey Russ, you would be a lot more credible if you said "I believe" when making highly controversal statements like this one. Global mass extinctions? Come on! And the Royale UK Society is hardly an arbitor in this discussion. Say what? Trouble with global warming is it ended in 1998. The big push is to do something so you can claim you reversed the process when it just happened naturally. Time will tell....

The earth will survive global warming, whatever is causing it. The consensus that allows the United States to continue to function as a democracy will not, ultimately, survive courts....even the Supreme Court, legislating from the bench.

The very foundation of the US Democracy is that the people, through their representatives, will implement the policies desired by them. It is bad enough that Congress has delegated many of their powers to alphabet agencies such as the FDA, NTSB, EPA, etc. That was never how it was intended to be. Every law (and that includes administrative rules that have the force of law due to Congress abrogating their duty) should be debated and passed by recorded vote, so the people can decide if their representative is fairly representing them. They need to be held accountable, and this is the method that is supposed to do that.

If the Supreme Court is going to be allowed (or even encouraged) to legislate from the bench, then these positions need to be term-limited and elective, to give the people their say in the laws under which they have agreed to be governed. To do less would be no different than to return to a monarchy such as the US revolted from in 1776, when the North American populace had their lives ruled by the whim of King George.

A pox on anyone wishing judges to legislate......