May 2008 Archives

Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is dissolving into the the world's oceans [ark], making them more acidic at great expense to marine wildlife, and happening earlier than expected [ark]. Anyone following climate science, policy and advocacy closely knows ocean acidification [search] is just the most recent news in a litany of evident climate change impacts [search] arriving strong and early. Meanwhile the best G8 leading polluters can do is a paltry 0.6% decline in emissions [ark]. To speak of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050 without more short-term climate goals [ark] is stupid and dangerous. A habitable Earth [search] depends upon urgent climate policy now [search].

A huge new global study illustrates the extent to which climate change is demonstrably impacting wildlife, plants and the environment [ark | more\ark]. 30,000 sets of global data about biological and physical changes were matched with a detailed database of global temperature change. Changes in plants, animals and the physical world -- from plants blooming early to polar bears becoming cannibals -- were found to be closely correlated to changes in temperature. It is preposterous to be debating the existence of something so evident, and criminal to further delay action to avoid the worst impacts of a human-caused chaotic climate system.

Two other studies illustrate the degree to which humanity has overwhelmed the biosphere [search], altering fundamental biogeochemical processess performed by global ecosystems, required for all life including humans. Human use of nitrogen is overwhelming natural cycling [ark] of the nutrient, dramatically altering oceans, soils and the atmosphere. This is a direct result of agricultural intensification [search] by excessive use of fertilizers to feed unsustainable human populations.

Bill McKibben [search] writes in "Civilization's last chance" [ark] the best summing up of the known threats facing humanity now from climate change if major emission cuts are not pursued immediately. His latest campaign efforts highlight the number 350, which he calls "the most important number on Earth" because of scientific understanding that if carbon emissions are not stablized at 350 ppm, it will not be possible "to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed."

It has been noted here that at 383 ppm we are already well past this threshold, and thus achieving 350 ppm will require gargantuan efforts if we are to survive much less prosper. The piece is a clarion call that long predicted limits to growth have arrived and the fate of civilization depends upon urgent massive emission cuts now, tomorrow, next year and certainly for the years and decades well before 2050 as is being proposed [ark | search].

Much ado has been made [ark | more\ark] regarding a study last week in Nature which found that global warming may slow or even temporarily cool over the coming decade. This was seized upon by all sorts of climate skeptics [search] and charlatans to suggest climate change is not so important after all. I have three brief responses.

Firstly, the rise in average global temperature is only one way to characterize change in atmospheric patterns and processes. It is becoming apparent that broader extremes around temperature averages -- as demonstrated by unusual weather events, including quite possibly the cyclone in Myanmar [ark] -- may be the greater harm. This is why "climate change" has long been recognized as a better term than "global warming" to communicate these dynamics.

Over 110 global environmental groups have came out against chimerical coal industry plans to bury carbon emissions [ark]. This coincides with Greenpeace's release of a new report entitled "False Hope" which correctly concludes that false promises of carbon capture and storage (CCS) [search] prolong the agony of coal dependence. CCS is revealed to be an untested myth that threatens to lock us into antiquated coal energy [search] and an obliterated atmosphere. CCS will not be ready in time (or maybe ever), wastes climate resources, is risky and undermines more rigorous approaches focused upon renewable energy.

It is pleasing to see Greenpeace join other biocentric groups in understanding ending the use of coal is essential to save the climate. Yet as with ancient forests, the question of "clean coal" splits the environmental movement. What is so mystifying is why generally rigorous environmental groups like Greenpeace -- along with so many other groups including Rainforest Action Network -- are so visionary on coal while continuing to insist that logging of ancient forests, equally antiquated and damaging to not only the climate but also biodiversity, can be certified as being environmentally acceptable. The economic dislocation caused by ending ancient forest logging [search] would be much less than ending use of coal. Centuries of both over-burning and over-cutting are the fundamental underpinnings of contemporary ecological decline.