background preloader

Climate Change

Facebook Twitter

Climate Change and Intergenerational Evil. TEDxTheEvergreenStateCollege - David Roberts - Climate Change is Simple. James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change. As Climate Change Worsens, A Cascade of Tipping Points Looms. Some of the most alarming science surrounding climate change is the discovery that it may not happen incrementally — as a steadily rising line on a graph — but in a series of lurches as various “tipping points” are passed. And now comes a new concern: These tipping points can form a cascade, with each one triggering others, creating an irreversible shift to a hotter world. A new study suggests that changes to ocean circulation could be the driver of such a cascade.

A group of researchers, led by Tim Lenton at Exeter University, England, first warned in a landmark paper 11 years ago about the risk of climate tipping points. Back then, they thought the dangers would only arise when global warming exceeded 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. But last week, Lenton and six co-authors argued in the journal Nature that the risks are now much more likely and much more imminent. The “climate emergency” is not just political rhetoric, they argue. Is Your Carbon Footprint BS? | How to Save a Planet. Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson: This is How to Save a Planet. I'm Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson. Alex Blumberg: And I'm Alex Blumberg. And this is the podcast about what we need to do to address the climate crisis, and how to make those things happen.

Ayana: So there's this question we get from a lot of listeners, and one listener in particular summed it up perfectly. Anna: Hi, Ayana and Alex. Alex: Oh, this debate. Ayana: This debate. Alex: How much do our individual actions actually matter when it comes to climate change, versus how much is it all about big systems and policies sort of beyond our individual control? Ayana: Yeah, and Anna says her brother thinks none of that stuff is actually gonna get us out of the climate crisis. Alex: But Anna says in her voicemail, she's not so sure about that. Alex: So we focus a lot on this show on big-picture solutions. Ayana: Yeah. Alex: One listener even told us about a spreadsheet he made tallying up all his family's actions. Ayana: I love a spreadsheet! Johan Rockström: 10 years to transform the future of humanity -- or destabili...

Cryosphere

Sciency. Oil and Power. The truth about climate change? A recent article by Naomi Klein raises all kinds of disturbing questions. Things are so bad from the perspective of climate change, she claims, that climate scientists are beginning to sound alarm bells. This in itself speaks volumes. By temperament scientists prefer to search for truth whether in the lab or the field, not engage in propaganda wars - which have little to do with truth. In war, truth is always the first casualty. Global food production may be adversely affected by climate change and global warming in the near future, raising the specter of geopolitical chaos and genocidal wars over land and access to resources. Such an analysis is frightening for obvious (and not so obvious) reasons. Ultimately, we are dealing with what social psychologists call "cognitive dissonance".

Why global water shortages pose threat of terror and war | Environment | The Observer. On 17 January, scientists downloaded fresh data from a pair of Nasa satellites and distributed the findings among the small group of researchers who track the world's water reserves. At the University of California, Irvine, hydrologist James Famiglietti looked over the data from the gravity-sensing Grace satellites with a rising sense of dread.

The data, released last week, showed California on the verge of an epic drought, with its backup systems of groundwater reserves so run down that the losses could be picked up by satellites orbiting 400km above the Earth's surface. "It was definitely an 'oh my gosh moment'," Famiglietti said. "The groundwater is our strategic reserve. It's our backup, and so where do you go when the backup is gone? " That same day, the state governor, Jerry Brown, declared a drought emergency and appealed to Californians to cut their water use by 20%. Already a billion people, or one in seven people on the planet, lack access to safe drinking water.

Considering Extinction: Are We Falling Off the Climate Precipice? Jamail explores what climate scientists just beyond the mainstream are thinking about how climate change will affect life on this planet. What, in other words, is the worst that we could possibly face in the decades to come? The answer: a nightmare scenario.I grew up planning for my future, wondering which college I would attend, what to study, and later on, where to work, which articles to write, what my next book might be, how to pay a mortgage, and which mountaineering trip I might like to take next.

Now, I wonder about the future of our planet. During a recent visit with my eight-year-old niece and 10- and 12-year-old nephews, I stopped myself from asking them what they wanted to do when they grew up, or any of the future-oriented questions I used to ask myself. I did so because the reality of their generation may be that questions like where they will work could be replaced by: Where will they get their fresh water?

What food will be available? “We’ve Never Been Here as a Species” Geoengineering: Can We Save the Planet by Messing with Nature? Guests Clive Hamilton professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia. He is the author of the new book, Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering. This is viewer supported news Donate As the carbon dioxide in the air hits 400 parts per million for the first time in human history, some are arguing that the best way address climate change is to use the controversial practice of geoengineering — the deliberate altering of the Earth’s ecological and climate systems to counter the effects of global warming.

This is a rush transcript. AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to look at the issue of climate change, the growing concern about climate change and what to do about it. Some are arguing the best way to address climate change is to use the controversial practice of geoengineering—the deliberate altering of the Earth to decrease the level of greenhouse gas emissions. DAVID KEITH: This geoengineering idea, in its simplest form, is basically the following. James Lovelock: 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan' | Environment. In 1965 executives at Shell wanted to know what the world would look like in the year 2000.

They consulted a range of experts, who speculated about fusion-powered hovercrafts and "all sorts of fanciful technological stuff". When the oil company asked the scientist James Lovelock, he predicted that the main problem in 2000 would be the environment. "It will be worsening then to such an extent that it will seriously affect their business," he said.

"And of course," Lovelock says, with a smile 43 years later, "that's almost exactly what's happened. " Lovelock has been dispensing predictions from his one-man laboratory in an old mill in Cornwall since the mid-1960s, the consistent accuracy of which have earned him a reputation as one of Britain's most respected - if maverick - independent scientists. For decades, his advocacy of nuclear power appalled fellow environmentalists - but recently increasing numbers of them have come around to his way of thinking. "Not a bit! Climate Change 2013: Where We Are Now - Not What You Think. The flats on Padre Island National Seashore, Texas, are only inches above sea level. This year, sea level rise could have taken these flats, forever, in time frames that matter.Click here to support news free of corporate influence by donating to Truthout. Help us reach our fundraising goal so we can continue doing this work in 2014!

We are in the midst of an era of frightening contradictions, when it comes to public understandings of climate change. While climate changes are occurring more quickly than scientists have ever predicted, most people’s knowledge of these realities remains hazy and clouded by political overtones. Because of both the counter-intuitive nature of climate change and the massive misinformation campaigns created by the fossil fuel industry, the general population is 20 years behind most climate scientists when it comes to the straightforward fact of "believing in" climate change. There are many other ways that we know for sure. A Brave New Proclamation. What bike helmets can teach about climate change — Howie Chong : Howie Chong.

My previous post on bike helmets seems to have garnered a lot of interest. My little blog went from a handful of visits a day to several hundred visits an hour. According to my web host, my week to week page views are up a projected 62,000%. Someone even linked my post on Reddit. I'm not sure if this counts as going viral (33,000 viewers is far short of millions of viewers), but for some reason my post seems to have struck a chord.

Many have found my reasoning to be counter-intuitive. And it is. If having a helmet reduces the chance of getting a serious head injury, how can biking without a helmet increase my safety? If we zoom out and look at this problem from a bird's eye view, we'd see this as what economists, sociologists, environmentalists, and political scientists call a collective action problem. This dynamic of individual benefit producing a collective cost was identified in 1968 by Garrett Hardin, a biologist at UC Santa Barbara. I'll say that again. Two reasons climate change is not like other environmental problems. If you’ll forgive me for stating the obvious: Most people don’t understand climate change very well. This includes a large proportion of the nation’s politicians, journalists, and pundits — even the pundits who write about it.

(I’m looking at you, Joe Nocera.) One reason for the widespread misunderstanding is that climate change has been culturally coded as an “environmental problem.” This has been, in all sorts of ways, a disaster. Lots of pundits, especially brain-dead “centrist” pundits, have simply transferred their framing and conception of environmental problems to climate. However, there are two features of climate change that make it importantly different from other environmental problems, not just in degree but in kind.

The first difference is that carbon dioxide is not like other pollutants. To make this clear, let’s use the old bathtub analogy. Take a familiar air pollutant like particulate matter. So when it comes to the particulate-matter bathtub, the drain is very large. Rationally Speaking, We Are All Apocalyptic Now. (Photo: thierry ehrmann / Flickr)If we are rational and consider objective scientific evidence of environmental collapse including groundwater depletion, topsoil loss, chemical contamination, ocean dead zones, species extinction, bio-diversity reduction and climate disruption, we need to be apocalypticists, argues Robert Jensen.

We are all apocalyptic now, or at least we should be, if we are rational. Because "apocalyptic" is typically associated with religious fanaticism and death cults - things that rational people tend not to take literally or seriously - this claim requires some explanation. First, a definition: The term is most commonly used in reference to the Book of Revelation, also known as The Apocalypse of John, the final book of the Christian New Testament. The two terms are synonymous in their original meaning - "revelation" from Latin and "apocalypse" from Greek, both mean a lifting of the veil, a disclosure of something that had been hidden. Modern green movement: Eco-pragmatists are challenging traditional environmentalists over scope of nature. Photo by Harley Soltes. In 2005, two renegade greens tried to kill off environmentalism in broad daylight. The environmental movement, they said in a provocative essay, had grown stale and ineffectual.

It was beholden to a wooly-headed, tree-hugging worldview that was as dated as lava lamps, bellbottoms and Billy Jack. This save-the-Earth brand of environmentalism, which has long idealized wilderness (as true nature) while simultaneously designating humanity as the scourge of the planet, "must die so that something new can live," Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger wrote in "The Death of Environmentalism" (PDF). Their critique landed like a thunderclap in green circles. For a few moments, though, environmentalists debated the state of their planet-saving enterprise. Or perhaps the seeds that had been planted a decade earlier were just budding. Leading the charge is a varied group of what I call modernist greens (others refer to them as eco-pragmatists). Jim Harrison/Wikimedia Commons. It’s Not Easy Being Green by Joseph Heath - The Literary Review of Canada.

A couple of years ago, while contemplating the dandelions running riot alongside the road in front of my house, I decided it was time to get a weed whacker. I went down to my local Canadian Tire to see what was available. Being an environmentally sensitive guy, I picked out a nice 18-volt battery-powered one. I returned home, plugged it in overnight and set out the next morning to wreak havoc on the obstreperous dandelions. The results, however, fell somewhat short of expectations. My new trimmer, however, did not exactly whack the weeds. Oh well, I thought, I will finish up tomorrow. The fate of my weed whacker was sealed a couple weeks later when my wife decided that I was not doing a good enough job and that she would have to take on the dandelions herself. She then hopped in the car and drove away. Naturally it had a two-stroke engine. The new weed whacker, I had to admit, was a small miracle of miniaturization.

This was the weed whacker of my childhood memories. Andrew Simms - 50 months to avoid climate disaster – and a change is in the air. Sandy puts climate change back on the US election agenda | Environment. The images of a paralysed New York City at the mercy of Hurricane Sandy's wall of water have forced climate change on to the political agenda in the final week of the 2012 presidential election campaign. Even before Sandy made landfall political commentators were debating whether the storm would be better for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.

In any event it has brought forth statements from prominent Democrats and elected officials on climate change and spurred public debate about the neglected topic. Campaigners said the devastating storm could turn out to be the October Surprise of the elections, exposing Republicans' failure to engage with an issue that is no longer a distant threat, but a present day danger. Bill Clinton, campaigning for Barack Obama in Minnesota, attacked Romney for using climate change as a laugh line in his convention speech. He went on to argue the local leaders from both parties were already ahead of Romney and Republicans in Congress in engaging with the issue. Sandy forces climate change on US election despite fossil fuel lobby. Cross-posted from The Guardian Such is Big Energy's hold on DC, neither Obama nor Romney talk about climate change. But Americans are joining the dots Here's a sentence I wish I hadn't written -- it rolled out of my Macbook in May, part of an article for Rolling Stone that quickly went viral: "Say something so big finally happens (a giant hurricane swamps Manhattan, a megadrought wipes out Midwest agriculture) that even the political power of the industry is inadequate to restrain legislators, who manage to regulate carbon.

" I wish I hadn't written it because the first half gives me entirely undeserved credit for prescience: I had no idea both would, in fact, happen in the next six months. Maybe I'm wrong, though. "There has been a series of extreme weather incidents. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg added: "What is clear is that the storms we've experienced in the last year or so around this country and around the world are much more severe than before. " Not many. Chasing Ice movie reveals largest iceberg break-up ever filmed - video | Environment. Why the 'Idle No More' Movement Is Our Best Chance for Clean Land and Water. Clarifying My Views about Anthropogenic Climate Change. Nuclear Fusion and the Great Global Gamble | A\J – Canada's Environmental Voice. MAN. Climate Change and Intergenerational Evil.

Sustainability is destroying the Earth | stories of creative ecology. Facing-Climate-Change-Resources. When Will Climate Change Make the Earth Too Hot For Humans? Mapped: Climate change laws around the world | Carbon Brief. The great climate silence: we are on the edge of the abyss but we ignore it | Clive Hamilton | Environment. How Psychology Can Save The World From Climate Change : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture. Are You Deep-in-the-Gut Worried About Climate Change? Take Our Survey.

The Anthropocene Myth. George Marshall. Why geoengineering can be only part of the climate solution. We are deluding ourselves: The apocalypse is coming — and technology can’t save us.