And yes, the rate at which green house gas emissions have accelerated has increased astronomically since 2000. I wonder why?
The growth in global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels over the past five years was four times greater than for the preceding 10 years, according to a study that exposes critical flaws in the attempts to avert damaging climate change.
Data on carbon dioxide emissions shows that the global growth rate was 3.2 per cent in the five years to 2005 compared with 0.8 per cent from 1990 to 1999, despite efforts to reduce carbon pollution through the Kyoto agreement. […]
Dr Mike Raupach, chair of the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of researchers who compiled the latest figures, warned yesterday that emissions were spiralling out of control.
“This is a very worrying sign. It indicates that recent efforts to reduce emissions have had virtually no impact on emissions growth and that effective caps are urgently needed,” he said.
Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are 380 parts per million (ppm), about 100ppm higher than before the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago. Some computer models predict damaging and irreversible climate change if carbon dioxide levels rise above 450ppm or 500 ppm.
We are on a runaway train to global catastrophe, yet what is the hottest story in the news? Britney Spears break up with Kevin Federline. Tells you all you need to know about our corporate media.
I’ve been reading “The Weather Makers” by Tim Flannery. Highly recommended.
Everyone needs to hear more about the detailed effects on the ecosystem of even the inevitable global warming we are already committed to. If anyone thinks it’s just that ocean levels may rise in future decades, there’s so, so much more we all need to know! Just because you can’t see it does not mean huge changes are not already underway that could make the Earth uninhabitable for our species.
Usually I really enjoy getting a copy every year and reading the articles, but this year they had an article called something like “Ten Reasons Why Global Warming Will Be Good For Us.” Things like less reliance on air conditioning, shipping lanes opening up in the Arctic that would reduce time to market through polar routes, that sort of thing. Their conclusion? “Yes, this article is one-sided, but so are all the reports about how climate change will be so terrible. We are going to need to learn to live with the effects.” Or words to that effect.
In my mind this article was completely irresponsible. It makes global warming seem like something that’s only going to make tomorrow’s winter vacations on Hudson’s Bay just like today’s summer vacations at St. Tropez, and that is simply not true.
The simple truth is that we cannot trust the media to expalain the reality of global warming to their audiences. It isn’t in their interest to do so, since their revenues are dependent on multinationalcorporatiosn which have a vested interest in amintaining the status quo (oil companies, car companies, etc.)
And with all the staffing cutbacks among news organizations, you frequently end up with reporters and editors who lack enough basic scientific knowledge to ferret out the diamonds of truth among all the piles of corporate based bullshit propaganda.
BTW, their is a cottage industry of folks who put out articles like this downplaying the significance of global warming. I’ve literally come across dozens of articles and op-ed pieces in my web research that basically have this same theme: global warming is not that bad or the science is not clear or supporters of global warming are all quacks and misfits, etc.
Sad, but true.
I shouldn’t be let near a keyboard when I’ve been sleep deprived lol.
How the Republicans have been able to marginalize major environmental issues such as this, has been one of the biggest political tragedies of the past six years.
John Kerry raised expectations for me in 2004 when he was asked how he planned to minimize the impact of the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, and his reply was something to the effect of…”I hope to be able to make it unnecessary for people to feel the need to vote for the Green Party candidate.” That raised hope that he would elevate environmental issues into the national debate. My feeling at the time was that if he could do that, he would surely enhance his chances of winning. Unfortunately…he never seemed to follow up on that implied promise.
There have been other opportunities for Democrat to seize the initiative on this and the overall issue of the environment.
If the new Democratic Congress gives short shrift to these issues, their tenure as majority may be short-lived. As well it should be under those circumstances, because one of the most critical issues no our national security, as well as global security, is what we are doing to our environment. There is a massive leadership vacuum there just waiting to be filled
(Nancy & Harry…are you listening?)
Too few Democrats have done more than give lip service to this issue. Gore is the primary exception, but then he is out of office. Many of those in office who are running for something are afraid to limit their access to lobbyist and industry campaign contributions.
We need to see some action from the Dems in Congress on this issue, if omly to highlight GOP obstructionism. Somehow, though, I suspect we will be let down again.
If losing New Orleans and most of the Gulf Cost offshore oil production for months/years didn’t wake people up to the dangers of global warming, it’s pretty hard to see what actually will.
This was the one feature of that bad movie “The Day After Tomorrow” that was accurate. The blatant Dick Cheney rip-off VP character was still in denial regarding the real danger we were facing even after Los Angeles had just been erased from the face of the Earth by freak tornadoes.
Nothing is going to wake anyone up until coastal cities are actually flooding with water from melted ice caps and Florida and the Gulf Coast are scrubbed down to the bedrock by killer hurricanes with 200-250 mph winds.
The only thing anyone can do is make sure they move far, far away from the source of any warm water storm activity and live at least 50 feet above sea level.
As Steven said upstream, I’m afraid rising water levels is not even close to the half of it!