Now that Obama has given the signal – we can talk about it.
The President wants a Consensus with the US Senate in passing aggressive Climate Change legislation.
Do the Senators get it or somebody has to break the news to them.
Just so we are all on the same page…
What is the President talking about is simple.
What the heck is climate change?
Because, Let’s be real…
The Senators know jack shit about it.
Therefore – somebody has to bridge the science and education gap and teach them the basics.
And please God – let it not be the Heartland Institute’s scurvy dogs – running around like rats in the ships leaky holds.
To protect you from the rat poison… we seek to inform.
Again like all humble public servants – we step up to the plate.
So we take it upon ourselves to do this…
Here it goes: This is Climate Change for Dummies.
Or to be politically correct: This are the Cliff Notes of Climate Change…
Go on – Read it. Study it and memorize it; print it out and make reference copies to be folded and kept in your wallet for emergencies.
If you like it just email it to your state Senator or representative as they are sure to benefit and be Thankful to You forever.
Well maybe not forever but you get the idea…
Dear Senator,
A simple Climate Change Science primer for Environmental Emergencies. Keep a copy close to you at all times.
After polling the maximum number of US Senators to be found daily on duty, at the Capitol’s golf courses we selected to answer their most important questions about Climate Change.
Here is the anthology of these conversations:
Feast your eyes and increase your knowledge.
First off: What the heck is climate change if it isn’t just the freaking weather…
The Earth’s climate has always varied, so the term climate change is now generally used to describe the changes caused by human activity – specifically, greenhouse emissions such as carbon dioxide andmethane, which build up in the atmosphere and trap heat.
Maybe is the same like the global warming communist scare.
As human activity increases the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere far beyond their natural levels, much more heat is trapped. Hence, the term climate change is often used interchangeably with global warming.
Can it be explained by natural causes or should we leave it up to Hollywood to show us whom to blame?
Measurements at the Earth’s surface show that average temperatures have risen by some 0.4C since the 1970s. Scientists are confident this change can be blamed on human emissions because the increase is too big to be explained by natural causes.
Although natural factors such as changes in the sun and large volcanic eruptions are known to have warmed and cooled the planet in the past, these effects are not powerful enough to explain the rapid warming seen recently. Only an increased greenhouse effect caused by higher amounts of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere can explain it.
Multiple choice question: What is the main greenhouse gas producer – except us of course. Multiple answers: a) Russ, b) Inhofe, c) All of us.
Water vapour in the atmosphere produces the strongest greenhouse effect, but it has been in balance for millions of years. Human emissions, though relatively small, tip that balance.
Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas produced by human activity. It is produced when we burn fossil fuels: oil, gas and coal. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million by volume or ppmv.
Before the industrial revolution, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 ppmv. Two Hundred and Eighty parts per million of CO2 by volume. Remember that.
It is now 386 ppmv and rising by 2-3 ppmv each year. When other greenhouse gases such as methane are included, the total level in the atmosphere, known as the carbon dioxide equivalent, is closer to 440 ppmv. Four Hundred and Forty parts per million of CO2 by volume. Remember that too.
The future temperature rise is expected to be 4C – Even if we all hold our breath is it gonna go that high?
Scientists say continued emissions will cause the planet to heat up further. To work out how much, they use computer models based on the programs used to predict the weather.
These models are not perfect, and struggle to simulate some features of the climate system such as clouds. To get around this, the scientists run many different versions and pull the results. The computer models predict that if emissions continue to rise at the present rate, average temperatures will most likely increase by 4 C by 2100.
There are uncertainties, though – for example, the planet’s oceans, forests and soils could release their massive stocks of carbon as the world warms, leading to much greater temperature rises than human emissions alone would cause.
OK now. Tell me why are warmer temperatures bad when we can play golf in Minnesota in the middle of the winter. Eh?
Most plants and animals have evolved to live in a fairly narrow ecological niche. Some will move to find their desired conditions, others will be able to adapt. Those that cannot move or adapt will perish. Some animals, such as the polar bear, have nowhere to move to.
A warmer climate will affect agriculture and water availability. Increased temperatures are also expected to limit rainfall in some regions and bring more extreme weather events such as storms to others.
Sea levels will rise - gradually at first as the extra warmth works its way into the oceans and makes them expand; more quickly if the gigantic ice sheets in Greenland and west Antarctica start to break up.
Can we tackle global warming like the Monday morning quarterbacks ? Or if we promise not to pass gas.
Scientists say the only realistic way at present is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How to do that – and where – is a political hot potato.
Because it takes time for the heat to build up in the atmosphere, and because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, there is a lag in the system, which means the effect of any changes will not be felt for decades. Put bluntly, we are headed for about another 0.5C of warming whatever we do.
What are the Kyoto protocol and the Copenhagen climate talks and Bonn meetings and the Mexico city negotiation? Is it a French thing where they all sit around and talk? Like when we go to Paris to drink decent coffee, fondle the goods and see the Moulin Rouge and we say we are talking officially to Carla and the small guy?
The world’s only existing treaty to limit emissions, the Kyoto protocol, has had limited success, and expires anyway in 2012. Us and some others never joined it. Politicians and the UNFCCC are working feverishly to develop a legally binding replacement treaty that would include all countries and maintain legally binding emission reductions.
Even the countries excluded from Kyoto, such as China, and those that refused to join, such as the US have now joined the Copenhagen Accord; that was negotiated and agreed upon by the world’s poorest and richest nations and by the greatest emitters and the most vulnerable countries, in Copenhagen this last December.
After fractious nerve raking and parochial short-termism negotiations – Obama flew in like a super caped hero and – salvaged the talks by banging some heads together. And thus we landed this lucky agreement as a Christmas gift…
Who wants to overthrow the Copenhagen Accord and Why?
Now some of the bad boys want to be even badder – and especially India and China – and say they had a rethink and they don’t want to live up to their side of the bargain.
What a scandal – You say – in a voice full of gravitas.
Repeat after me: Quelle Scandal…. with the accent at the last syllable of scandal. Oooh la la.
Climate Change and French lessons in one go.
Carla will be thankful – eternally.
But back to last December and the Copenhagen Accord. Can you explain it a bit?
This is when environment ministers and UN officials and negotiators from 193 countries met in Copenhagen to thrash out the successor to Kyoto protocol and this is what they came up with.
Environmental Parliament along with the civil society and all the NGOs were there lobbying hard for a resolution.
Still the two week meeting was a success. It’s being seen by many environmentalists as the crucial diplomatic event in the world and the Copenhagen Accord as the only one we’ve got.
Precious little accord that could….
Only it needs to be succeeded by Bonn and Mexico City to continue the negotiation rounds to endow and make legally binding the new Copenhagen Accord.
What would it take to keep it alive?
To do this the good men and women of the US senate must pass a succesful and robust Climate Change Bill to sort out the US but also and perhaps most importantly to show to the rest of the world that the US matters.
It will be the strongest and the best placed signal the US has ever had the temerity to lead.
If the Senate passes a strong Climate Bill and the President signs it into law before the Mexico City Rounds – then we are guaranteed an international agreement on meaningful cuts in emissions globally.
Only that course of action will prevent the worst consequences of climate change.
And it will firmly reestablish US leadership in this world. Simple really. And it doesn’t involve arms nor the military.
Can renewable energy help? Do dogs bark?
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that we already have most of the technology we need to bring down emissions significantly. These include renewable energy sources such as windmills, geothermal and solar panels, as well as more efficient cars and power stations.
What about carbon trading? Have you been to a supermarket lately? Is there anything for free?
Carbon trading is a market mechanism to achieve cuts in emissions.Countries or groups of countries (such as the EU) first agree a cap or maximum emissions level. Individual companies are then either given or must purchase carbon credits – the right to emit a certain amount of CO2. If they exceed their allowance they must purchase permits from another company that has company that has fallen short of its cap. If the cost of buying carbon credits is high enough it motivates companies to invest in measures to reduce their emissions.
To date, the EU’s emissions trading scheme has been heavily criticised for failing to reduce emissions. In the first phase, the number of permits issued was too high, sending the carbon price crashing and so removing any incentive for companies to spend money reducing their emissions.
What about carbon offsetting? Have you ever sinned? Gone for a confession? Done penance? And for those esteemed Senators amongst you who have never ever sinned – let me ask you a question: Have you ever stashed a concubine in a golf course?
You gotta make amends. That’s the basic idea.
Offsetting is controversial because some people see it as an excuse not to change our behaviour. There are also concerns about whether it delivers the promised savings, as much of the market is unregulated. To not worry. There are many thousands of golf courses all over and with earth warming – You could have them even in the wilds of Alberta. Stash the concubines in the freezer golf. Only for those pesky tar sands the landscaping could be green there.
But a fly over Alberta’s ultra toxic tar sands, will change your Life.
Promise.
With or without a concubine to keep you warm – your blood will go to your head.
Hopefully the right one.
What about Geo engineering? Like clean carbon? Like storing the CO2 underground? or blocking the sun? Or just calling the sheriff with the silver bullets…. to sort it out.
One technology that would allow us to continue burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil without increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is carbon capture and storage (CCS). This involves extracting CO2 at power stations then pumping it underground. Critics argue the technology will prove expensive and is several years away from being proven. At any rate it just might not work as the first commercial implementations by Wattenfall proved.
A more drastic approach is so-called geo-engineering. These are major technological fixes such as seeding clouds to bounce some of the sun’s radiation back into space or stimulating the growth of algae in the oceans to soak up CO2.
Or exploding nuclear bombs in the atmosphere – high up. DARPA’s idea – not mine. Appropriations money well spent, right?
Well you know the old saw about Military Intelligence. A small oxymoron they say. They will block the sun with nuclear explosions and we all die off from the radiation or we’ll play golf at midnight in the nuclear winter. With a glowing concubine to hold the putter in.
Naturally these efforts are much more speculative, but Barack Obama’s scientific adviser, John Holdren, has said that he is open to even these drastic measures if all else is tried and failed…
Yet we must simply exercise our CO2 reduction goals and act now on the simple fossil fuel emissions diet before we go for the uncertain ministrations of the liposuction… shadowy science squad.
Don’t entirely trust these guys and their motives of waiting till the bitter end and then apply magic bullets.
Mainly for two reasons.
First: there are No Magic Bullets.
Second: Have you seen Nip & Tuck?
Do you wanna throw your lot with these bozos?
Just remember that once the oceans are heated above normal and the sea level rises begins in earnest – the process is irreversible.
Same goes for when the glaciers melt completely…
And geo engineering won’t fix any of these.
Lastly remember the law of unintended Consequences.
Before we have to airlift and parachute cats from the sky – let’s just deal with what we have on hand.
Of course we are free to airlift Chihuahuas from La La land as a gift from the reformed now Governator to the rest of the Union. His sly attempt to bribe us so he can be allowed to run for President…
If only he could fit them with tiny parachutes and drop them all on the house of Paris Hilton – problem solved.
Meanwhile I’ll focus on parachuting concubines to your golf junket destination – if you promise to pass the robust Climate Change legislation we all need.
Putter on old boys.
We’ll slice that one too.
Yours,
Pano
Obama
PS:
Nada…
