Check for web archive captures
Climate Change: Choose Your Tune And Pay the Piper!
By mickielynn on 2009-11-07 20:34:42
Money (That’s what I want), Roy Orbison The best things in life are free but you can give them to the birds and bees. I
need money that’s what I want, that’s what I want, that’s what I want... Your love gives me such a thrill, but your love cant
pay the bills. I need money that’s what I want... Money wont get everything it’s true, but what it wont get—I cant use. I
need money that’s what I want... We Are All One Planet, Molly Scott
We are all one planet, all one people of Earth.
All one planet, sharing our living, our dying, our birth.
And we won t stand by watching her die.
Hearing her cry and deny we live as she lives, we die as she dies...
These two songs above (one very materialistic and one very idealistic) represent two extreme approaches to solving the
problem of Global Warming. "Money" is the current Harvard Business School approach of planning for only two years of
short term gain and not factoring in the future effects of such behavior, or any current non-financial consequences on the
lives of people and other living things. Molly Scott’s song, written in the 1970’s, comes much closer to my own values of
seeing the Earth and all of its inhabitants as an interconnected web of life, but it leaves out all of the current political,
financial and corporate realities that need to be acknowledged and dealt with. Biophysical reality says that we’ve run out of
time if we are going to reverse the physical changes to the biosphere before life as we now know it becomes impossible. On
December 7, 2009 the Copenhagen summit will convene to work out a plan to stop climate catastrophe and to replace the
expiring Kyoto Treaty. Two facets of the work that needs to be done quickly and skillfully by all of the world’s nations are
the scientific and the financial parts of this problem solving. No matter what the will of the majority of people to bring about
a change in the production of greenhouse gases it will cost money to make the necessary changes. This weekend there’s a G-
20 meeting of finance ministers in Scotland where the cost needs to be one of the major topics of problem solving. Rich,
highly polluting countries need to take some financial responsibility for helping developing countries make the adaptations
to cut their emissions. Right now the estimate for the cost of a fair, effective and binding global treaty is about $150 billion a
year. The European countries have stepped up to offer some of these funds but pledges are far from this total. On Saturday,
October 24, 2009 there were thousands of events all over the world (including hundreds in the United States) calling
attention to the figure of 350 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As described by extremely credible scientific
investigation this is the limit of CO2 that will allow the Earth to safely sustain life as it currently exists. I recently read that
of all the world’s developed and developing nations, The United States was the only one that had only about 50% of the
population aware of and believing in this threat. It had been 57% but was now decreasing because of fierce advertising and
denial on the part of the major energy corporations. Right now there are 387 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We only have
about 5 years to reduce this number before an irreversible tipping point occurs that will make destruction of the environment
inevitable. If the United States doesn’t make a significant contribution to a binding, effective treaty then the effort to reverse
the events that we already see playing out in polar ice, mountain glaciers, ocean reefs, algae blooms, extreme weather,
droughts and floods will be doomed. World opinion says that the fate of a binding climate change treaty may very well be
decided in the US Congress. So what do you know about the status of current US climate change legislation?
Here’s a little quiz that you can take:
1. Q: Why is it important for the Earth’s atmosphere to have a concentration of 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide or
less? 2. Q: To stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at 350 parts per million, global emissions must peak by
which year? a) Now b) 2015 c) 2020 d) 2025 3. True or False - Right now the Clean Air Act requires the administration to
regulate greenhouse gas pollution from coal-fired power plants? 4. True or False — In Europe, which has instituted a "cap
and trade" system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the carbon "offsets" that companies can buy if they produce more
pollution than the cap allows, usually come from sustainable green development projects in poor countries. 5. True or False
— Ifthe House climate bill (H.R. 2454) became law, U.S. greenhouse gas pollution would be required to be cut incrementally
over the next twenty years. 6. True or False — The Senate is working right now on its version of a climate bill that is a step
better than the House-passed climate bill (H.R. 2454). If you want the answers to these questions, and more background on
current legislation you can find them at http://www.fenl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=3754&issue_id=102 So much more to
say but not enough space in one blog article. Knowledge is power. You can find facts, updates, videos and much more at
http://www.350.org
