In today’s The Oregonian, an article painted what we have been hearing as a very dire future for Greenland and West Antarctica. Now, new data has shocked scientists because Greenland, like the Arctic sea ice, is melting much faster than the most optimistic projections of the IPCC, as expected. You see, the IPCC has people who really know their thing, and people who kind of know and so want to fight about what is said. From now on, we should base what we know about climate on current observations, not a document that will be unchanged for at least 5 years.
At the UK Climate Camps, organized by climate activists who see the growth in aviation a huge barrier to eliminating global warming pollution, George Monbiot said his recent book, Heat, is now outdated because of the recently recorded effects of global warming, which point to the fact that the industrialized world must be climate neutral within 2 decades to perhaps have a chance of preventing the ice sheets from fighting back.
Perhaps scarier than that was the idea that as these massive ice sheets melt, the land beneath it springs back. What if the land beneath these ice sheets can influence land elsewhere? Another scary observation is the fact that the Arctic tundra, as opposed the the Alaskan tundra, has been found to contain massive amounts of carbon as well that could spontaneously be released with moderate warming. All this points to a clear picture. We need a climate neutral world as soon as possible.
How can this happen? Well, carbon capture and sequestration won’t be commercial until at least 2020, and even if it did China will not pay more for something it’s sure it hasn’t largely caused (though recently it has announced it will spend over $250 billion in renewables, more than the U.S. has committed to; plus, they have an RPS, and we don’t). A new international treaty must be about greenhouse gas elimination and equity. The world must become climate neutral, but nations should pay their fair amount. The developed world, having put up there some 70% of all emissions, must pay 70% of what it will cost to make the world climate neutral (and this means shutting down every single coal-burning power plant and being fully powered by renewables). After all, if it can waste money in useless wars, unnecessary congestion and consumption, and huge armies, it can pay for the most threatening problem ever to face humanity. The good news is that it may well turn out to be a money-maker in the long-term, though at an initial cost.
The Ice Sheets are speaking. Their message is clear: either we do or we die.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
The way I see it, the problem isn’t going away until society, global and local, decide that it isn’t about buying one thing to offset another, a quick fix to sweep it all under the carpet, or keeping up with the earth-friendly Joneses by buying Organic or a biodisel car. Corporations, businesses, governments, and individuals alike need to be held tangibly accountable by governments. This isn’t a problem that is going to just “go away” nor is it a problem that is going to be held at bay by a few clever green washing tactics. People are going to have to make some serious changes, and I agree more and more that doing things on the microcosmic level isn’t going to make a true difference. Asking for global change through people who can make change…is the only way anything will really move in a new direction (like here for example). People have to ‘really’ want it. Even with all the talk about environmental progress and change, it is a trendy thought. Our longterm solution isn’t concerned with polluting and saving polar bears…it is concerned with the all mighty dollar.Just look at China. There is a country that has developed rapidly economically, but didn’t have the foresight to manage the waste that has come of such growth. Respiratory and heart diseases related to air pollution are now the leading cause of death in China. Acid rain falls on 30% of the country. China surpassed the United States as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, putting out 6,200 million tons, to America’s 5,800 million. Those figures are going to have to be cut by 25% by 2050, and by 75% by 2100 (even though they’ve been steadily increasing by 2% every year). I’m horrible at math…but it doesn’t take much to figure out that we are already in some serious trouble.