#145 – James Nelson: Reflections on the Copenhagen Climate Summit

/in , , /by

UPDATE January 8, 2010, by James Nelson: On December 17th, the day I left Copenhagen, a 22 minute film was debuted concerning wide scale revegetation in developing countries. They talk about trees but they primarily use shrubs and deep rooted grasses. The film is entitled “Hope in a Changing Climate“. The case studies are from China, Rwanda and Ethiopia. The narrator in some places coincidentally used almost word for word my talk the prior week in Copenhagen. I talked with people from Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. They were very supportive. The film link is here.
In the coming days, I will redo my trip report referencing this film. I am not exaggerating to say these concepts “rehabilitating degraded land” have been used with dramatic results here in Minnesota and other parts of the world and are very cost effective (utilizing surplus labor) for dealing with climate change. I received a great deal of encouragement in Copenhagen.
Posted by Jim Nelson, Jan 3, 2010: I spent 16 days in and around Copenhagen and observed and participated in the Climate Summit. Here is my summary report.
Modest but meaningful progress was made at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Copenhagen. It was exciting to participate in a small way in one of the most momentous and far-reaching issues of our time. I tried to contribute using my experience in business, civic organizations and horticultural activities. Most of all I tried to carefully listen learn and discern a response to these challenges.
The conference fell short of its goal of producing a world-wide binding treaty to limit green house gases but it did produce emission pledges by all major developed countries including for the first time the United States and China. Key elements of the Copenhagen Accord include overarching goals, fresh commitments of funding and new incentives to obtain the greatest impact on reducing greenhouse gases. New mechanisms for standard measurement and verification were strongly debated and only loosely agreed among major countries fearful of giving up sovereignty.
The paramount goal is to limit temperature increases of the earth’s surface by 2 degrees Celsius. This agreement calls for specific commitments from individual countries. Furthermore, there must be standard reporting and independent verification of each countries activity. Funding was a very contentious issue. In the end $30 billion was approved for the first 3 years and a goal was established to mobilize $100 billion per year by 2020.
At Klimaforum 09, the People’s Climate Summit, civil society groups conducted a conference in parallel with the government deliberations. Here diverse groups from around the world manifested the unfolding climate change drama with compelling exhibits, publications and seminars. It was the UN Association of Denmark, part of the World Federalist Movement that provided the human face for the somber climate models and contentious policy debates.
Over several years, the Danish group has worked with UN groups from Brazil, India, Tanzania, Finland etc to assure that the voices of marginalized people were heard. They produced compelling panel discussions on the personal impacts of climate change. These long term changes extend far beyond normal patterns in variability in temperatures, frequency and intensity of rainfall. We learned these changes can be dangerous especially to poor nations or regions were food production is impacted, creating instability and ultimately triggering a migration of “climate refugees”.
At this conference it was my opportunity to propose a piece of the climate jigsaw solution puzzle. My grassroots solution to climate change focused on the unique properties of deep rooted native plants, to filter contaminants in water, prevent erosion, to counter the tendency to flood, to provide homes for wildlife and pollinators and especially the capability to sequester carbon deep in the soil. My presentation also focused on grassroots organizations that actively promote the regeneration of native plants and cultivate the future generations of people to value and expand that tradition. Many in the audience felt that my contribution was very applicable to developing countries with degraded landscape and underutilized workers.
Many leaders believe that we are heading for a serious climate issue unless we align economic activities with natural processes. If the political leaders were deciding “what” we must do to preclude severe climate problems, it was business leaders that illustrated “how” we are going to going to dramatically improve efficiency in a carbon constrained world. Midway through the conference, during a pause in the negotiations, the business community hosted “Bright Green” where 170 leading clean-tech companies showcased innovative technologies: windmills, smart electric grids, biocatalysts for new fuels and many innovative carbon sparing technologies. Just as the revolution in information technologies fueled the growth of industry and jobs in the current generation, the transformation to a less intensive/energy economy could propel growth for the next generation.
Climate change has strong but differential effect on people within and between countries and regions and between this generation and future generations. We need to continue to strongly advocate for strong legally binding climate treaties. We need to insist that agreements contain effective international organizations capable of orchestrating global and enforcing solutions. A strong legal framework will give businesses the regulatory certainty to make investments in new jobs and technologies to make the needed improvements.
We need to renew our commitments to Citizens for Global Solutions and other vital civic organizations to assure that the voices of those least capable of coping with climate change can be heard and answered.
He can be reached at kdjnelsonATgmail.com

#137 – Dick Bernard: "Climate" vs "Weather": A matter of huge consequence.

/in /by

From time to time I’ll add updates to the end of this post. For other blog entries on Climate, see “Climate Change” under Categories.
For current information, see International Panel on Climate Change.
Early yesterday morning came a brief e-mail from someone who reads these posts: “…if the world doesn’t limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2020 or shortly thereafter, the chaos and conflict will be overwhelming. You don’t remind your readers of that; 2010 is a good year to begin; have a happy one.”
While not sure what he meant by the 1.5 degree reference*, I responded in agreement, but saying also “…[people] have limited capacity for dealing with issues. So, Health Care Reform [has been] the only game in town…Climate Change will be an even more crucial and difficult issue.”
A few hours later came a Christmas letter from someone I’ve known his whole life: “…this last week replacing my furnace that was so high tech and energy conserving that it [has] failed to keep the house warm during this crisis of Global Warming.” I’m never quite sure how to take his comments, but his implication is one would fit the profile of the anti-climate change scoffers.
Around and in between the two accounts, the news was dominated by the guy who apparently tried to blow up the plane on the ground in Detroit. I say “apparently” because you’re never quite sure what to believe in these accounts either. Since then, he’s been linked to al Qaeda, and is said to have admitted that he was somehow connected to a Middle East terror cell. And, crucially, he has a Muslim sounding name….
So it goes in the world of virtual reality that we inhabit. Fully two pages of the Sunday paper in our metropolis was devoted to this endlessly dramatized story.
I have noticed that the climate change deniers like to focus on the more immediate issue of local weather to buttress their anecdotal case. So, I was shoveling heavy, wet snow on Christmas Day, and my uncle in North Dakota was talking about a pretty serious blizzard in his area; both usual winter activities in both places. Therefore, so goes the reasoning, everything is “normal”.
Climate is a far more complicated and long term and much scarier kind of phenomenon. It is, therefore, easier to scoff at, to deny. Recent news is that countries bordering the North Pole are now interested in claiming it…it will be, quite possibly soon, a year round shipping lane.
Unfortunately, the term “Global Warming” has been over-used, and later seized, as somehow proving that the Climate Change folks are alarmist idiots. It sells well, along with stolen e-mails supposedly proving, again through highly selective anecdotal (though stolen) “evidence” that even the scientists can’t agree on the issue nor how to “sell” it to a skeptical public.
One thing is pretty certain: if the scoffers prevail, future generations – possibly even our own – are stuck with their shortsightedness, IF (as is likely) they turn out to be wrong. Even if we immediately implement every means of changing our lifestyle, we may already be too late.
I’m reminded of the story of the frog in the water: put him on a stove, and very slowly increase the temperature in his environment and he’s oblivious. Sooner or later, he’s cooked. He realized his problem a bit too late. “He” will be our kids and grandkids….
Perhaps a half dozen years ago, a college friend of mine, then a long-time PhD and chair of a department of the physical sciences at a major university, wrote me that climate change was going to do us in, starting with small but crucial changes in ocean current patterns due to subtle changes in water temperature. This was long before anybody had Al Gore to kick around.
I wish I would have kept my friends e-letter from back then.
I think he’ll end up being right. As will my friend who sent me the brief e-mail yesterday*.
UPDATES:
Dec. 27: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’, here
Dec 27: * Response on the reference to 1.5 Celsius reference above (from the source, a thoughtful senior citizen who prefers to remain anonymous.)
1 degree C = 1.8 degrees F
1 degree F = 0.56 degree C
There are many sources on the Web, and this seems to be one of the best for lay people. “Climate Math: 2 = 350 =40”
“In summary: 2 = 350 = 40 (means that) to avoid a global warming by more than 2 degrees Celsius we need to reduce our current atmospheric CO2 concentration from 387 [parts per million] ppm to at most 350 ppm within this century. To ensure we are on the right path, the first step has to be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 40 percent by 2020. Now let’s get to work!”
That and the following article note that the most climate-vulnerable nations, especially the Pacific and sub-Sahara Africa ones, are warning that the increase in world temperature must be limited to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) instead of the developed or developing nations 2 degrees C (3.6 F) by 2020 to avoid catastrophic effects in their regions.
See “Vulnerable nations at Copenhagen summit reject 2C target.”
What Obama and Clinton brought to Copenhagen was a pitiful 4-percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020 or so. That’s partly because many members of Congress and their constituents are pathologically denying reality, with [MN] Cong. Bachmann being one of the worst.
See “U.S. EPA says greenhouse gases threaten human health as UN climate conference opens.”
Fortunately we also have Minnesotans like Will Steger who has launched a strong campaign to reduce atmospheric CO2 from its current 387 ppm level to 350 ppm by 2020. At public televisions preview of Ken Burns’ “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea,” he delivered a sobering lecture on ice-core research in Greenland and other polar areas that documents atmospheric CO2 changes in the last 400,000 years. The current ones are unprecedented. See Steger’s website.
Along with the economic barriers to achieving “2/1.5 = 350 = 40, we have the demographic barriers of exponential population growth, especially in many of the so-called developing nations where climate change effects are likely to be the most severe. But for various reasons those barriers are too often ignored.

#53 – Bob Barkley: Fact vs Theory

/in , , /by

I play golf at a private club where those I play with, quite predictably, are predominately conservative to right-wingers.  And I am the vocal counter agent to all of their views.  Many of them would be surprised, however, at how many of the silent ones come up to me privately and encourage me not to let up.  They needn’t worry. I won’t!

 

Nevertheless, in a recent exchange the subject of global warming came up.  And the gentleman who raised the issue said – using it as a parallel example to another we had been debating – that “it’s sorta like all that Al Gore stuff on global warming where half the scientists believe one way and half believe the other way.”  Then he added, apparently to astonish me, “And the earth’s temperature is actually lowering!”

 

I responded with, “I think Gore is supported by considerably more than half.  And I believe the earth’s temperature is actually declining precisely because of global warming.”  This last statement threw him completely, but it was time to tee off and we left it at that. He ended up, I think, more astonished at me than me at him.

 

But I decided to do a little homework when I got home. And it brought me to the point of a better understanding of the whole area of fact versus theory.

 

Most of what we argue about these days is based upon theory, although we take our positions as though we know the “facts.”  As it turns out, global warming is a very good example of just that.

Wikipedia tells us: “A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things: 1) it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and 2) makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.”

“In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term ‘theory’ is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.”

 

Given that definition, I would have to conclude that global warming may be approaching classification as a theory, but may not be fully there.  For example, the “simplest possible tool” for explaining global warming may yet be the normal cycles that have occurred over the eons of the earth’s existence.  For the sake of argument, let’s just assume that all that is true.  It means that no matter how convincing all the global warming arguments may be, we are still left to believe what we find most appealing, and that may be a long way from “fact.”

 

Fact, on the other hand, is defined in the dictionary as, “1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences, 2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed, 3. A real occurrence, 4. A thing that has been done.”

 

Well, global warming is “based on real occurrences,” and it “can be demonstrated to exist.”

 

But I have to conclude that global warming is certainly more theory than fact.  So where does that leave us?  Where it leaves me is that we need to lighten up a little and quit trying to take absolute positions on things that are at best still marginal theory.  After all, not too long ago, in the long existence of this earth, most people were convinced beyond doubt that this place was flat. [And Thomas L Freidman still thinks it is.]

 

Here’s what I learned so far on global warming. There are petitions, garnered by the pros and cons alike, signed by thousands. To quote a Yahoo Answers response I got, “There is a very large majority of scientists whom support the idea of global warming and anthropogenic climate change in general. Hundreds of surveys and studies and meta-surveys have long since confirmed that this is occurring and that mankind has contributed to the concern.”
”However, there is a minority viewpoint held by several dozen climate scientists who feel – for various reasons – that the climate is not changing or that the change is not primarily human-caused, however, personally speaking, I find that a lot of the scientists – appear to have been “compromised” at some point.”

 

There is a lot more, and it certainly appears that there is better scientific consensus on global warming than on many other current debates.  But the skeptics remain, although it seems they are gradually falling away. Most scientists do agree that man is contributing to this phenomenon, although many are not as alarmed as some.  Then, as always, there’s the corporate interest at play – as the quote just above suggests when using the word “compromised.”  As one guy says, “Follow the money.”  The Exxon/Mobils of the world spend untold millions on pooh-poohing the whole thing while the so-called green industries are advocating that global warming will kill us all in a few months.  We are being spun to death on this issue like many others.

 

It seems that a new study on this topic comes out almost weekly.  But from it all, I believe man’s contribution to global warming is real and substantial.  I believe that “theory” holds more water than any countervailing one.  That said, while action is justified and necessary, panic may not be.

 

We are a long way from “fact” in much of this.  We need to pay attention, react, but not over-react.  We need to share information but not preach.  We need to rid ourselves of reliance on fossil fuels no matter global warming or not.  This phenomenon may not be killing the earth, but it is killing many of us on it.

 

And then there’s this from Phil Chapman writing in “The Australian.” Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut. “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinders and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead,” he writes. Then he adds, “It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.”

 

And on top of all this out comes a new study telling us that there is a large gap between what scientists think and what ordinary citizens think. One article covering the release of this Pew Research Center survey states, “And while almost all of the scientists surveyed accept that human beings evolved by natural processes and that human activity, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, is causing global warming, general public is far less sure.” It adds, “Only about half of the public agrees that people are behind climate change, and 11 percent does not believe there is any warming at all.” Further, it concludes, “The report said 85 percent of science association members surveyed said public ignorance of science was a major problem. And by large margins they deride as only “fair” or “poor” the coverage of science by newspapers and television”

 

So I suspect from that we must assume that most of us are arguing over things we really know very little about whether it be fact or theory. Apparently we believe what we wish to believe – what makes most sense to us and what we’re most comfortable believing.  But often it’s not fact, and often not even real theory that we seem to argue about so vociferously.  It’s all mere supposition.

 

Supposition: “A guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence,” or, “a hypothesis that is taken for granted.”  I guess we should all begin our arguments with the phrase, “I suppose…” and let it go at that.  And then maybe we should also lighten up, but certainly listen.

 

Now, back to improving my golf game – where I have all too many theories at play all at once.

 

#41 – Dick Bernard: Lobbying

/1 Comment/in , , , , , /by

I watch commercial television infrequently, usually local and national news programs in the early evening.  Some times I’m stuck with it, as when we draw baby-sitting duty and some kids channel is on.
For a lot of years I totally boycotted the medium (I didn’t lose anything; on the other hand, it was probably over-kill on my part.)  But what I noticed is that the main purpose of commercial television is to advertise, which is to say, manipulate public opinion.  I had to get away from the medium to see this.
Advertising (lobbying) is incessant.
In the last few days, I have noted from assorted sources something that has long been obvious: Big Business through individual entities like the energy companies, pharmaceuticals, the American Medical Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce, etc., is set to launch major and expensive lobbying campaigns to, essentially, assure that their own status quo (profit making machines) is minimally changed, if at all.
Their target is lawmakers, yes, but really the main target is every one of us.  Prepare for the 2009 version of “Harry and Louise” (the immensely successful 1993 advertising campaign to stop health care reform.)  
Those who we elected to serve us will be bombarded with finely tuned positions.  So will we.
The constant temptation for citizens is to say, in one way or another, “I can’t make a difference anyway”, and then proceed to prove our point by not getting on the court.  This is a dangerous attitude.
The process is easy enough: find out who your own elected representatives are, their local phone number and address, etc., and send them your own brief and polite messages frequently.  It is ideal if they actually know you as people (you’ve worked for them in campaigns, donated or etc.) but regardless, they all know you as the most important person of all: “potential voter”.      Recognize that they have an exceedingly complex job: many constituencies, many priorities. 
Too many of “we the people” still have the attitude I once saw at a polling place: a very grumpy guy went into the booth next to me, came out and said, “now I’ve voted and I have the right to complain.”  I don’t know what he meant by this declaration: was he voting for (or against) somebody; did he mean that all he had to do was vote, and that ended his role in making decisions: did he feel his vote reserved his right to gripe about how terrible things are, but not work to change them? 
He seemed to be leaving the most important part of his job as a citizen behind.
Everything I remember about his attitude that day indicated that he thought he had absolved himself of any responsibility for the outcome between the elections.
Not true.
There are endless sources of information about how to more effectively lobby for your issues.  Here’s one worth looking at: http://www.wellstone.org/organizing-tools/being-successful-citizen-lobbyist.
Get on the court.

#34 – Bruce Fisher, Carol Ashley: The Conversation about Climate Change

/1 Comment/in , , , , , , , , , /by

A reader comment follows this post.
Note from Moderator: On the local evening news on June 1, the weatherman noted that May, 2009, was one of the driest on record, exceeded only by May, 1934, a year of great drought.  Is May, 2009, just an unusual month of weather, or a looming manifestation of serious climate change problems to come?  Are those concerned about climate change simply worry-warts, or are those unconcerned denying an unpleasant reality?  Do we live in the moment, or act for the long term?
In early April, I publicized a website that features a 20+ section “Crash Course” to help understand the possibilities of the future, and by understanding help deal with those possibilities.  The website is http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse for those interested.  In my opinion it’s well worth the three hours it takes to view the sections. 
Carol Ashley took the time to view the series, and commented on it in #19 on this blog, May 11, 2009.
Bruce Fisher also took the time and on May 25 posted the following, to which Carol filed her own response.
Bruce Fisher: I’ve been thinking about the “Crash Course” and the significance of its concepts for our environment and economy.  A few days ago, [an] article by George Lakoff appeared in the Huffington Post and it struck me that framing is understanding and the environment and economy need to be framed together (the [political] right has done this for years with the emphasis on the environment as material resource for the economy).  As a cognitive scientist, Lakoff knows this best.  For those who have taken the “Crash Course”, [the Lakoff commentary at http://tinyurl.com/08pwon] is an especially relevant article.  [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/why-environmental-underst_b_205477.html ]
Carol Ashley:  From Lakoff’s article “…one of the things Westen and Lake get right is in an incomprehensible diagram on the back page: an explanation of why discussions of climate fail.  It is hidden in a discussion of “associations,” an inadequate way of discussing the public’s frame-based logic.  Climate and weather are usually understood as beyond immediate causation, something you are subject to, but can’t just go out and change right away.  Climate is not directly and causally connected to the values that underlie our concerns about our planet’s future: empathy, responsibility, freedom, and our ability to thrive.  They try to say that in the diagram, but the arrows and lines don’t communicate it.”
What I see in my rural area is that people are prone to see the weather as a daily event: at the most, a weekly or seasonally based phenomena.  It’s kind of the same problem in government…no long range vision.  So people are prone not to see the effects of short term actions, not to see the actuality of broader patterns and rather base assumptions on climate on a cooler than usual spring season, for example.
Rural people and those in small towns often value community and their particular environment.  (Their community tends to be very small comprising only their extended family, church and friends.)  They don’t value getting rich.  They also don’t trust government and haven’t for years. They vote and expect who they voted for to do the work of politics.  They tend not to stay informed.  They don’t have the time and the access to information.  And their lives are often a struggle to survive.  They, therefore, don’t make policy so these observations may not apply to others, but I think some applies to just being human and there are plenty of poor people in cities who for racial reasons are also mistrustful of others and rely on their communities.
There is also an issue of “delayed gratification” here, I think.  That ability to do what needs to be done, sacrificing what one wants for what one will have in the future and even forgoing what one wants for the sake of one’s children and grandchildren.  It’s easier to do that for one’s own children than to consider the world’s children.  I think, in order for delayed gratification to be possible for an individual, one has to have some basic needs met, like food, shelter and some measure of health.  Long-term poverty undermines that.
The reason this may be important is that those on the extreme right are often rural and poor.  People in cities who live in poverty are often focused on basic needs, too, and need framing that applies to them more immediately and practically.  The difference between the rural and city poor, I think, is the very fierce independence of the rural and their valuing of that independence and the rural environment over the desire for wealth.  Either way, the best way to reach these people is through major media and through churches.  (Even then they tend to be pretty independent minded and hold to what they have always believed.)  The framing has to reach them that way.  So the first step is back to square one, in my opinion.  Get corporations out of government and create an avenue for non-profit media.  Is that even possible any more?  Like most rural people, I doubt it.  The super rich are in control and will be.  Haven’t they always been?  Even in the beginnings of our country?
I suppose my pessimism comes partly from being rural and poor.  I have little ability to be an activist.  The poor and rural always seem to be at the mercy of others.
Note from Moderator: Essays from others on this topic are solicited.  Watch future entries.