Do we need to cut emissions 80% in 10 years? Or is 40% in 10 years enough if we reach a 95% reduction in 20? Also I presume these numbers are absolutes cuts (not per capita)? Also  do these figures for the developed world allow some atmospheric space for the Global South? Or does the Global South need to make the same percentage cuts as the global north.
I know you have written a great deal on this. But if you really want to be brutally honest, then end with a bottom line -- what percent cuts in absolute (not per capita terms) how fast? That is something you should be able to say in a couple of sentences.

Amazingly, when they discuss transportation, they actually discuss electric rail before (and more) than PHEVs, which I personally like, but also they point out the importance of hauling freight by (electric) rail and replacing air travel.

There's also a section on efficiency, and very interestingly, materials production -- steel and cement are big energy users.  

http://tinyurl.com/34f24f

When oil crisis hits, fantasyland will become nightmare

Wed Feb 6 2008

Frances Russell

Oh wait, that's what the majority of the population does NOW. (except with cheaper booze)

I checked my calender and it's my despair day on my "grief for the planet" cycle.  How about that stock market?


Put the Carbon Back

The time has come to give a heartfelt thanks to all the "greens". We owe them a debt of "Flatutude" for making the world a better, cleaner, greener and safer place for the rest of us!

So here it is:  *-----* THANK *---- YOU! *----*

Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, The Green Party,  
The RMI and Amory Lovins, NRDC, The Gaia Movement and James Lovelock. The WELL, Stewart Brand and Larry Brilliant etc. etc... And all other pro-market environmentalists, greenwashers and green fronts.

As for the rest of the world: YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN, DUMMY. DO SOMETHING!

[Must we call for emergency mobilization? Must we seek to put all "available and necessary resources" at the service of a global crash program to stabilize the climate?]

Of course, we must.  But, the collective WE will not act sufficeintly and in time to reduce (I would settle for leveling off)the buildup of CO2 equivalent concentration in the global atmosphere.

The US has the world's largest and highest paid environmental awareness industry and this is the sunset on Bali; the 11th time the world has focused on an international agreement to save our children's future. (Press coverage abounds) Yet, in 2007, US  demand for oil, natural gas, coal and electricity all increased by 2 percent or more.  Go figure! Is anyone listening to the warnings or do we expect the problem to go away?

I am telling anyone listening that this century will see the collapse of capitalism (start with sea level rise) and I have no idea what will replace it.  We are only hanging on for the ride.

Time for truth telling to force us to prepare our children to survive the future we are delivering to them.

People tell me I must offer up a solution to this tragic future I forsee.  I say there are some problems that are intractable if all players are not investing in the solution.  The Arctic ice meltback of 2007 happened with a .6 (C) mean average global temp increase  but knowing people debate whether 2 degree (C) increase is maybe too much to sustain the earth's ecosystems and climate balance.  HELLO!

China and India have about 40 years of reasonable  productivity then the light go out as the Himalayan glaciers have no more water to give to the more than 1.6 billion people surviving on those mountain streams.

Code Red is a start but turning on the emergency siren is where I am going.

John L. McCormick

Well, if you accept the analysis here, and I do, then we need a major reduction in the atmospheric carbon concentration from its current level.  The only real issue is how fast we can do it.  We are, in the lingo, facing a "peak and decline" future in which the rich and the poor, somehow, someway, work together to bring the concentration far below where it is today.  

There are a million variables in all this.  You ask me to specify an necessary emissions reduction and a time period.  But if you want a very simple story, it's probably better to think in terms of specifying a peak year and a subsequent rate of decline.  

This is very different from how things have been thought about in the past.

In terms of the "sharing the world" problem, also known as the "what will be left for the South?" problem, well it's the key.  And I can't really do better here than in our recent book, "The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World."  You can download it at http://www.ecoequity.org/GDRs.  Take a look at Figure 13 and the surrounding text.  It's a picture that got a lot of play in Bali.

Be well, toma

Tom Athanasiou toma@ecoequity.org

A one percent increase.  This after oil prices reached record highs, the economy slowed, Americans found themselves sliding deeper into debt, and we were all bludgeoned as never before with the realities of global warming and the impacts of our personal consumption on that problem.

The fact that the U.S. population probably grew by at least that amount (i.e., per-capita consumption  held steady or fell) does not re-assure me.  Because exponential population growth in the U.S. remains a reality for the foreseeable future, and further compounds our challenges.

The momentum behind our current economic 'model' in the United States (i.e., borrow and spend! tell people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear! tell citizens to go out and spend whenever things look grim --remember 9-11? continue to expand those sprawling suburbs and big-box stores to satiate consumers' hunger for Big and Cheap!).

"Only" a one percent increase.  We have barely started to think about maybe asking somebody below decks to consider scaling back the amount of coal they are throwing into the Titanic's boilers ... much less doing all we can to start turning the ship around.

I'm not optimistic about the general outlook for change, unless global Peak Oil hits sooner than later.  If it hits sooner, the reality of 'limits to exponential growth' will begin to sink into the minds of the American consumer.  If it doesn't hit for another decade or two, then the fantasy will be maintained for that much longer.  

The WWII mobilization involved the US (and other countries) government virtually taking over the economy and guiding and even commanding production.  Are we in that sort of emergency?  Because if we are, then we should be talking about spending trillions of dollars to reconstruct the world economy, no?

the only way the Non-Annex 1 [poorer] countries are going to make a "substantial deviation from baseline" emissions paths, in time, is if the wealthy countries provide them with the technology and development assistance necessary to do so without compromising their development prospects...Green collar jobs are part of the answer. So is the solar revolution. So is "cap and auction" (as against "cap and grandfather")...

These seem to be the most concrete suggestions.

In terms of "how to do this" thing, well that is the question isn't it?   I'm a bit tired at the moment (maybe I should get some of those chocolates that keep Dave going), so I'll only say a few brief things.

1. I do not believe the problem is fundamentally a technological one.  Which is not to say that we've already invented / innovated all the stuff we need, but we can.  We are clever.  

2. That said, the emissions reductions that we now need are so daunting that the techies and modelers among us need to do some "existence proofs."  Just so we know for sure that we can, say, do this w/o nukes.

3. The real problems, though, are political and, more to the point, social.  The only way we're going to rise to this occasion is by acting, really acting, like we're in it together.  If we do so, the regulatory and institutional problems can be solved.  At least this is my belief.  In this sense the real key words in my new essay are the ones that Jon skipped over:

Politically this can only happen in a progressive manner (not in the sense of "progressive politics" but in the sense of "progressive tax") as part of a package that mobilizes the longing for economic justice as well as the drive for climate stabilization. In other words, we need a new deal that's not limited to climate protection, but also reforms "development" and drives poverty alleviation in the wealthy world as well as the poor.

Maybe I'm a fool but I really believe this.  We're not going to get out of here without a global New Deal.  And we're not going to get one unless we get one here in the US as well.  

But we already know that, don't we?

-- toma

Tom Athanasiou toma@ecoequity.org

By the way, we briefly met at a Community Memory/activist meeting in Berkeley long ago, in which you proposed that the progressive community should standardize on z80s/s100, accompanied by lots of groans, soon to be just a memory because IBM introduced their PC soon after.

I suppose there is a lesson in there somewhere, like, it's difficult to standardize or predict, a point that many here have raised whenever I advocate massive governmental programs to reverse global warming.  And speaking of computers (I don't know if you're still in that game), but some really fancy computer models with graphics and animation would be a really good way to get started, so if you have any information on that, please point the way.

But I still think it's necessary to give people a vision, both social and political.  I think Lester Brown has done some very good work in that direction with his Plan B books, for example.  And the code red piece also has some very interesting links.

But how do we, then, start to spread a global consciousness, which is really what you're arguing for?  Most work now is local, which is great and necessary, but there is very little movement trying to tie in the global aspects of this, politically.  How do we create links with India, Europe, China, Africa, you name it?  How do we make this movement global, or do we hope that the millions of movements that Paul Hawken talks about in "Blessed Unrest" act as the Earth's immune system?  

Anyway, hope the conversation continues.

Perhaps our children will soon enough come to understand that the choice to "consume less" is the most efficacious and powerful thing any person in the "overdeveloped" world can do to preserve life as we know it and the integrity of Earth.

If consuming less resources occurred collectively among individuals in the human community who are conspicuously over-consuming, as my generation of elders is doing now, then a sustainable "consuming less" behavioral repertoire could make a huge difference, one that really makes a difference. It could help the family of humanity save itself from its unhealthy, obscenely increasing and soon to be unsustainable per-capita over-consumption activities.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/