No. 1 at what? you may ask. Well, the United States of America, of the eight largest economies in the world, leads the way in doing the least to address global warming according to the G8 Climate scorecards released this wekk prior to next week’s meeting of the Group of Eight:
The US has done the least among the world’s eight biggest economies to address global warming, a study released on Thursday found.
Though to be fair, none of the G8 countries is doing enough to combat the rapid increase of carbon emissions which could spell disaster for our planet in the near future.
The study shows time is running out, Regine Guenther, director of the World Wildlife Fund Climate Change Program in Germany, said in a statement. “We have 10 to 15 years left in which the global emissions have to peak and decline,” she said.
The G8 Climate Scorecards 2008, a report by Ecofys, an independent consultancy, was commissioned jointly by environmental organization WWF and international financial services provider Allianz. It ranks the G8 countries according to nine quantitative indicators, such as comparing past emission trends since 1990 and progress against the country’s Kyoto target. It also scores performance on three specific policy areas, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and development of carbon markets.
“The scorecards show that the leading industrialised countries are not set to meet required emission reductions to stay within a 2 degree warming,” said Ravi Singh, Secretary General and CEO, WWF-India.
You might wonder why a corporate financial giant like Allianz is so concerned about global warming. Well, maybe its because they are one of the largest insurance companies in the world, as well as being a leader in other financial services. Insurance companies have to take a hard look at the science of global climate change because what happens to the climate has serious consequences for their business, unlike say, the oil companies, who would just as soon ignore and deny that global warming is happening at all.
Indeed, carbon emissions are rising at a rate of 2% per year, in excess of the 1.5% rate upon which most climate models are based. A state court judge in Georgia just ruled against the granting an air pollution permit to a coal burning power plant, based in part on what is already known about the role carbon emissions play in warming the earth’s climate. Right now we are headed for an increase in atmospheric carbon of monumental proportions unless we act quickly to change our behavior.
Tyndall Centre scientist Kevin Anderson: “Since 2000 the world has gone ballistic in terms of carbon emissions.” Anderson has recently revised his projections for climate change and now thinks that the “best we can expect” is stabilising atmospheric concentrations at 650 parts per million CO2 equivalent, equating to warming of about 4°C. He suggests we “mitigate for 2°, but adapt for 4°”.
Adapting to 4°C of warming would be quite a challenge. With this level of temperature change, we can expect a huge increase in drought-prone zones, a mass extinction of half or more of the life on earth, hundreds of millions of refugees from areas deprived of fresh water or inundated by rising seas, and widespread starvation due to food and water shortages.
The Stockholm Network’s Carbon Scenarios report . . . reaches a similar conclusion, projecting a warming of nearly 5°C if global policy on climate continues to fail. . . .
So, if global warming is accelerating at a rate higher than predicted, and the major world economies are not doing enough to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees celsius, which is the least dangerous scenario for the planet, why do so many Americans and others believe that climate change is no big deal, and that threats of imminent harm resulting from global warming have been exaggerated, despite the fact that, year by year, we are seeing signs that global warming is a reality. Signs such as the possibility that for the first time in human history the North Pole may be free of arctic ice this summer. Well a lot of it has to do with the work of a few conservative think tanks based here in the good old US of A:
A recent academic survey of environmentally sceptical books found that 92 per cent were linked with these think tanks, which include the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Since the early 1990s, these and other industry-funded front groups have been leading an anti-environmental backlash, changing the tenor of the political debate on environmental issues and bombarding the media and the public with disinformation.
The authors of the study, published in the June edition of a journal called Environmental Politics, argue that, far from being a true grass-roots movement, “environmental scepticism is an elite- driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement”. The “self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised ‘Davids’ battling the powerful ‘Goliath’ of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade”, given that the “sceptics are supported by politically powerful conservative think tanks funded by wealthy foundations and corporations”.
Indeed, almost every day you can find on the op-ed pages of American newspapers and on the web articles written by climate change skeptics and deniers associated with one or more of these conservative organizations. The disinformation being put out rivals, if not exceeds, the lies and deceits peddled by the tobacco industry during the latter half of the 20th Century. Except now, instead of the health of smokers at risk, it is the entire planet which has been placed at risk. We are witnessing perhaps the largest extinction event in the history of the world, and it is happening with frightening rapidity. No wonder Dr. James Hansen of NASA has suggested that the oil and coal companies (and others who are funding this disinformation campaign) are committing crimes against humanity (from his testimony before Congress last week).
The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper I have written with several of the world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation. […]
. . . We must draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide to preserve the planet we know. A level of no more than 350 ppm is still feasible, with the help of reforestation and improved agricultural practices, but just barely – time is running out. […]
Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species would leave a more desolate planet.
He’s right, you know. Only mass public action on a global scale can prevent this looming disaster. We have already seen some of the effects such as diminishing glaciers and arctic ice, loss of species, severe droughts and an increase in violent weather patterns across the globe. As long as we allow the global climate change skeptics to dominate the public debate, however, the less time we will ultimately have to prevent the worst case scenario, which is the loss of the human species along with millions of others.
As always the case with human beings, we have met the enemy and he/she is us: our stupidity, greed, ignorance and apathy. If we allow the fossil fuel industries to win this battle the result will be far worse than a few million smokers with lung diseases, however. The cost could be our own survival.