How will we know we need to change?

This entry was posted on 10/25/2007 9:51 PM and is filed under Leadership,OIL,Energy dependence,Global Warming,Action.

                                                     

How will the American public know that we really NEED to act on global warming?  What are/will be the signals?  How strong do the signals need to be for us to act?

For those that have not yet heard this.....(from the Associated Press):

     "Several Democrats on Thursday challenged White House officials' claim that they removed large parts of proposed congressional testimony on global warming because the material conflicted with findings from a U.N. scientific panel.  Sen. Barbara Boxer released a paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of the phrases that the White House removed and the U.N. panel's report this year on how climate change affected public health.  The comparisons showed striking similarities.  Both raised virtually identical concerns:

heat stress on vulnerable populations; the likelihood of respiratory illnesses from increased air pollution; the spread of waterborne infectious diseases; and more injuries from severe weather events such as wildfires."

     At issue is testimony Tuesday by Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which Boxer heads."

**********
Heck, this week White House press secretary Dana Perino said, "there are public health benefits to climate change."    SCARY.   Seems to me that given a huge problem like global warming, information such as what Dr. Gerberding was reporting (although not "good" news) would be recognized as a tool that could be used to have people get behind taking meaningful action.  (and, let's cut this "climate change" crap; it's global warming and it's not desirable)

Signals
What are some of the primary signals of the looming global warming and energy crises?

  --- Global Warming signals ---
    - average temperature increases
    - glaciers melting
    - severe weather including drought
    - scientists studying and providing information on the effects of global warming (seems this is one of the reasons we pay scientists to do this -- so we have a better idea what's coming and we can react sooner).

How can we know what our current situation is if our elected representatives hide information?  This has happened before with global warming -- see Solve4Biggies entry Sex, death, fines, drilling, walruses and doctors:

       And, if the walruses had seen the (doctored) 2002 and 2003 White House reports on global warming they would know that we're not responsible.  They'd also know that Philip A. Cooney (the "doctor") started work for Exxon in the summer of 2005.

  --- Energy crisis signals --- 
    - oil price (recently hit a record high of $90 a barrel two weeks ago)
    - natural gas prices
    - U.S. increases in non-renewable energy use
    - world increases in non-renewable energy use

My hope is that we won't need to see more "signals" before we take significant action.  The longer we wait, the longer it will take to slow down and turn the "ship" around.  

    ~       ~       ~

Did you notice the "more injuries from severe weather events such as wildfires" part of the excerpt above?  Even if 10% of what is occurring NOW in southern California is a result of global warming (that we're not doing anything significant about)......very sad.

        

Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 10/26/2007 6:41 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
  Paul said:
  << let's cut this "climate change" crap; it's global warming and it's not desirable) >>
  
  I agree that using the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" is one of the refusniks' strategies (Frank Luntz said so!). But if one thinks about "global climate change" in scientific terms, that's still not a good thing either. It would be very bad to revert to another Ice Age, just as it will be very bad to get hotter by 5 degrees.
  
  If one thinks about this problem on a very long term scale---tens of thousands of years (if you can believe that Man can be around that long without destroying himself or the planet)---then it's pretty clear that at some point the possibility of another ice age exists. We would need the mechanism to release enough CO2 and methane to keep the planet's temperature from experiencing an extreme dip.
  
  Don't confuse my statement here with skeptics' assertions like "global warming has nothing to do with human emissions, so we can't do anything about it." Even if the current warming pattern had NOTHING to do with human activities---i.e. all the extra CO2 and methane are part of a natural cycle (which is UNTRUE!)---for survival's sake, we would still need to be trying to figure out how to get some of those GHGs back down to earth, locked away. Similarly, the threat of extreme global cooling would have to be addressed if it were there at some point in the future. Even though carbon capture and sequestration technologies face huge challenges, that and other global climate-control technologies---where we can release or capture GHGs---probably will be necessary in the (very) long run. But that's a long-term R&D project. Right now, reducing CO2 and methane emissions is the first order of business---we already know how to do that.
  
  Scientists are very clear about the fact that civilization has prospered globally because we have enjoyed a narrow band of stable, temperate global climate. A change in either direction is going to be generally bad. Right now, global warming is the threat, and we must address it or face consequences that will likely be very bad. But "global climate change" is not really a faux term at all, as long as you look at the long term.
  
  I wrote an article on "Climate Change" vs. "Global Warming" earlier this year, if anyone wants more musings on the subject.
  http://www.grinningplanet.com/email/07/166-article.htm
  
  Mark
  
  P.S. I believe that Dana Perino sprung fully formed from the forehead of Dick Cheney.
  Reply to this

Leave a comment