Former Irish president
Mary Robinson emphasized the need to leave fossil fuels untouched.
Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian
Already, a thousand blogs and columns insist the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
new report is a rabid concoction of scare stories whose purpose is to
destroy the global economy. But it is, in reality, highly conservative.
Reaching agreement among hundreds of authors and reviewers ensures that only the statements which are hardest to dispute are allowed to pass. Even when the scientists have agreed, the report must be tempered in another forge, as politicians question anything they find disagreeable: the new report received 1,855 comments from 32 governments, and the arguments raged through the night before launch.
In other words, it's perhaps the biggest and most rigorous process of peer review conducted in any scientific field, at any point in human history.
There are no radical departures in this report from the previous assessment, published in 2007; just more evidence demonstrating the extent of global temperature rises, the melting of ice sheets and sea ice, the retreat of the glaciers, the rising and acidification of the oceans and the changes in weather patterns. The message is familiar and shattering: "It's as bad as we thought it was."
What the report describes, in its dry, meticulous language, is the collapse of the benign climate in which humans evolved and have prospered, and the loss of the conditions upon which many other lifeforms depend. Climate change and global warming are inadequate terms for what it reveals. The story it tells is of climate breakdown.
This is a catastrophe we are capable of foreseeing but incapable of imagining. It's a catastrophe we are singularly ill-equipped to prevent.
The IPCC's reports attract denial in all its forms: from a quiet turning away – the response of most people – to shrill disavowal. Despite – or perhaps because of – their rigours, the IPCC's reports attract a magnificent collection of conspiracy theories: the panel is trying to tax us back to the stone age or establish a Nazi/communist dictatorship in which we are herded into camps and forced to crochet our own bicycles. (And they call the scientists scaremongers …)
In the Mail, the Telegraph and the dusty basements of the internet, Friday's report (or a draft leaked a few weeks ago) has been trawled for any uncertainties that could be used to discredit. The panel reports that on every continent except Antarctica, man-made warming is likely to have made a substantial contribution to the surface temperature. So those who feel threatened by the evidence ignore the other continents and concentrate on Antarctica, as proof that climate change caused by fossil fuels can't be happening.
They make great play of the IPCC's acknowledgement that there has been a "reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012", but somehow ignore the fact that the past decade is still the warmest in the instrumental record.
They manage to overlook the panel's conclusion that this slowing of the trend is likely to have been caused by volcanic eruptions, fluctuations in solar radiation and natural variability in the planetary cycle.
Were it not for man-made global warming, these factors could have made the world significantly cooler over this period. That there has been a slight increase in temperature shows the power of the human contribution.
But denial is only part of the problem. More significant is the behaviour of powerful people who claim to accept the evidence. This week the former Irish president Mary Robinson added her voice to a call that some of us have been making for years: the only effective means of preventing climate breakdown is to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Press any minister on this matter in private and, in one way or another, they will concede the point. Yet no government will act on it.
As if to mark the publication of the new report, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has now plastered a giant poster across its ground-floor windows: "UK oil and gas: Energising Britain. £13.5bn is being invested in recovering UK oil and gas this year, more than any other industrial sector."
The message couldn't have been clearer if it had said "up yours". It is an example of the way in which all governments collaborate in the disaster they publicly bemoan. They sagely agree with the need to do something to avert the catastrophe the panel foresees, while promoting the industries that cause it.
It doesn't matter how many windmills or solar panels or nuclear plants you build if you are not simultaneously retiring fossil fuel production. We need a global programme whose purpose is to leave most coal and oil and gas reserves in the ground, while developing new sources of power and reducing the amazing amount of energy we waste.
But, far from doing so, governments everywhere are still seeking to squeeze every drop out of their own reserves, while trying to secure access to other people's. As more accessible reservoirs are emptied, energy companies exploit the remotest parts of the planet, bribing and bullying governments to allow them to break open unexploited places: from the deep ocean to the melting Arctic.
And the governments who let them do it weep sticky black tears over the state of the planet.
Reaching agreement among hundreds of authors and reviewers ensures that only the statements which are hardest to dispute are allowed to pass. Even when the scientists have agreed, the report must be tempered in another forge, as politicians question anything they find disagreeable: the new report received 1,855 comments from 32 governments, and the arguments raged through the night before launch.
In other words, it's perhaps the biggest and most rigorous process of peer review conducted in any scientific field, at any point in human history.
There are no radical departures in this report from the previous assessment, published in 2007; just more evidence demonstrating the extent of global temperature rises, the melting of ice sheets and sea ice, the retreat of the glaciers, the rising and acidification of the oceans and the changes in weather patterns. The message is familiar and shattering: "It's as bad as we thought it was."
What the report describes, in its dry, meticulous language, is the collapse of the benign climate in which humans evolved and have prospered, and the loss of the conditions upon which many other lifeforms depend. Climate change and global warming are inadequate terms for what it reveals. The story it tells is of climate breakdown.
This is a catastrophe we are capable of foreseeing but incapable of imagining. It's a catastrophe we are singularly ill-equipped to prevent.
The IPCC's reports attract denial in all its forms: from a quiet turning away – the response of most people – to shrill disavowal. Despite – or perhaps because of – their rigours, the IPCC's reports attract a magnificent collection of conspiracy theories: the panel is trying to tax us back to the stone age or establish a Nazi/communist dictatorship in which we are herded into camps and forced to crochet our own bicycles. (And they call the scientists scaremongers …)
In the Mail, the Telegraph and the dusty basements of the internet, Friday's report (or a draft leaked a few weeks ago) has been trawled for any uncertainties that could be used to discredit. The panel reports that on every continent except Antarctica, man-made warming is likely to have made a substantial contribution to the surface temperature. So those who feel threatened by the evidence ignore the other continents and concentrate on Antarctica, as proof that climate change caused by fossil fuels can't be happening.
They make great play of the IPCC's acknowledgement that there has been a "reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012", but somehow ignore the fact that the past decade is still the warmest in the instrumental record.
They manage to overlook the panel's conclusion that this slowing of the trend is likely to have been caused by volcanic eruptions, fluctuations in solar radiation and natural variability in the planetary cycle.
Were it not for man-made global warming, these factors could have made the world significantly cooler over this period. That there has been a slight increase in temperature shows the power of the human contribution.
But denial is only part of the problem. More significant is the behaviour of powerful people who claim to accept the evidence. This week the former Irish president Mary Robinson added her voice to a call that some of us have been making for years: the only effective means of preventing climate breakdown is to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Press any minister on this matter in private and, in one way or another, they will concede the point. Yet no government will act on it.
As if to mark the publication of the new report, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has now plastered a giant poster across its ground-floor windows: "UK oil and gas: Energising Britain. £13.5bn is being invested in recovering UK oil and gas this year, more than any other industrial sector."
The message couldn't have been clearer if it had said "up yours". It is an example of the way in which all governments collaborate in the disaster they publicly bemoan. They sagely agree with the need to do something to avert the catastrophe the panel foresees, while promoting the industries that cause it.
It doesn't matter how many windmills or solar panels or nuclear plants you build if you are not simultaneously retiring fossil fuel production. We need a global programme whose purpose is to leave most coal and oil and gas reserves in the ground, while developing new sources of power and reducing the amazing amount of energy we waste.
But, far from doing so, governments everywhere are still seeking to squeeze every drop out of their own reserves, while trying to secure access to other people's. As more accessible reservoirs are emptied, energy companies exploit the remotest parts of the planet, bribing and bullying governments to allow them to break open unexploited places: from the deep ocean to the melting Arctic.
And the governments who let them do it weep sticky black tears over the state of the planet.
I believe that we to should find alternative resources to energy and leave natural gas and oil in the ground not only for the global warming, but also for let foreign dependency. More people have to get together and fight the governments abroad and stateside to lobby against the oil companies. To force new enterprises to establish and win the people over in a less expensive fuel source that benefits our world.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s unreasonable that politicians are admitting and agreeing (in private) that the only effective means of preventing climate breakdown is to leave fossil fuels in the ground, but they do nothing to act upon these acknowledgments. This article leads back to the idea that we want to have our cake and eat it too. It’s just not possible to address these issues without consuming less and producing less. We need to make sacrifices for long term benefits. We cannot deny the direct effects that humankind has had on climate change and global warming. It’s ridiculous that people are claiming that scientists with indisputable evidence are scaremongers. With global temperature rises, melting of ice sheets and glaciers, and changes in weather patterns, these are just issues that we can’t ignore. It’s a step towards the right direction that former Irish president, Mary Robinson is admitting that the only effective means of preventing climate breakdown is to leave fossil fuels in the ground, but it means nothing when governments are not acting on this claim. It is obvious that these issues that not a priority for a politician’s agenda so they do nothing about it. It’s really important that we decrease the use of fossil fuel and reduce production of it because the use of windmills, solar panels, and nuclear plants will ultimately not do much if we aren’t reducing production of fossil fuels. It’s really unfortunate that so many governments don’t place this issue as a priority and instead continuously try to gain oil reserves from other countries. If we don’t address this issue now, it’ll be an even bigger issue in the future when it might be too little, too late.
ReplyDeleteJane Han
We clearly have enough evidence at this time to understand that the climate is changing due to our existence. To me, it is embarrassing that every politician in the world is aware of the solution to this increasingly problematic situation. Behind closed doors most politicians agree that the only way to slow down climate change is to leave the fossil fuels in the ground and find alternative ways to produce energy. We need more emphasis on solar panels, which allow us to utilize the sun’s rays to create electricity. Coal and oil are being used more than ever today and are leading to global temperatures rises. The evidence is simple to see because in Antarctica there has been a much slower rate of climate change because there are no humans that exist there. Then look at heavily populated areas like New York City where it seems cars burn fossil fuels all day long. The rate of climate change is tenfold. The world needs to start to reduce the amount of fossil fuels that are being brought up and focus on natural resources such as wind, solar, and hydro. If we can continue to harness this technology and make it better we will in turn be able to leave more fossil fuels in the ground and leave parts of earth that we should not touch alone. On the other side, as technology of natural resources continues to improve, we need to learn how to consume less. Wind, solar, and hydro may not be able to produce the same amount of electricity as coal fired plants. It is essential that we learn how to consume less and live in smaller more energy efficient estates. Many environmental economists believe that we are on the way to hitting peak oil very shortly. This means that we will be using the last of the fossil fuel and there will be no more to be replenished since it takes thousands of years to create. We must be smart about this bind that we are in. The future needs to respect that we can no longer own gigantic mansions and even live one family per house if we want to preserve this world. Climate change is a very hot topic at this point and time and I believe that we are indeed speeding the warming of the globe with our excessive use of fossil fuels and coal. Not only the U.S., but the world needs to know that these issues are on the forefront and need to be resolved with a pitch in from everybody.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Brodeur
Pace Pleasantville
Pretty eye opening to think that we are near the end of our time with fossil fuels. It is also pretty crazy to think that we could not be able to use anything for thousands of years.
DeleteDue to the increasing world population and mass-production needs, it almost appears impossible to make the long term sacrifices that are required to slow down man-made global warming. Everyday needs are just becoming more and more on a global basis. I do agree with you Nicholas on the subject about cutting down the materialistic needs that are making our climate suffer.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with the notion that if we want to see any development or growth in our world we must decrease or completely demolish the use of coal and oil. These two resources are ironically no resources to our world at all. The immense damage that both have done is enough to have more than 7 generations after us deal with quite a damaging environment (if there's anything left at all.) More over, the notion of public goods has yet to come into play for our government and its people. If we are to change the cycle we seem to constantly fall into we must break the prime factor, money. If economically we wouldn't base our sustainability on hovering words such as improvement and maintenance then we can attempt to financially invest in more equipped ideas that shy away from just replacing a problem with another, i.e. fossil fuel deflation with windmills. The next step towards a healthy world (in all aspects) would be understanding and really planning towards the equal growth of countries, generations and populations. Fossil fuels seems to be a constant fail towards any change to that.
ReplyDeleteDo you think it is even near possible to just completely demolish the use of coal and oil?
DeleteI think it's almost impossible to ask society to change the way they operate, as frustrating as that is. We are a society of massive consumption and unfortunately it is impossible to change this behavior because it is how we are programmed to function. The article states "We need a global programme whose purpose is to leave most coal and oil and gas reserves in the ground, while developing new sources of power and reducing the amazing amount of energy we waste." But people fight this at every turn, during the last election Obama was criticized for "waging a war on coal". The truth is we need to let it die, which means jobs will die, and when jobs die people become restless.
ReplyDeleteWe've burrowed ourselves into a massive hole with our habits and it will be a long haul to climb out. What we truly need are governments more concerned with sustainability than they are with please rich oil and coal companies. A government that cares about the planet they leave for the next 7 generations. What needs to happen are people who think more long term, and with more imagination to better form the portrait of what the earth should look like!
It is a sad predicament that the world is in. For the first time in the history of the planet mankind is affecting the climate in such drastic ways. It is our consumption patterns across the rich world that is directly contributing to the melting of the ice caps, ocean acidification, etc. World leaders are sttil yet to respond to the problem they all know exists. Until the politicians collaborate around the world with a concerted effort to stop destroying the planet, earth will continue to decline. What we need are people in office who do not want to be career politicians that benefit from the current system. Elected officials should be volunteering their time to create an effectual system that restrains the waste of mankind.
ReplyDeleteI think that in order for the world to see some kind of a change, we must stop using fossil fuels such as oil and coals as a source of energy. They are damaging our world and continue to do so because we seem to heavily rely on using them for everyday needs. It seems like it won’t be possible to be able to change the way our society, let alone the world, on how function on a daily basis. We all know that wee need to find a way where we “can leave most coal and oil and gas reserves in the ground, while developing new sources of power and reducing the amazing amount of energy we waste.” This is easier said than done. Abandoning coal and oil will have a chain reaction that will effects millions of Americans as well as others in different countries. Jobs will be lost, and we can see impact that it will make on the economy seeing as money is being made off the use of these fossil fuels. It is scary to think that roughly seven generations are left, which is not a lot of time. The government needs to really take action fast before it’s too late.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very touchy topic. Many people believe there is a global climate change and are fully aware of consequences. Yet nobody wants to do anything because as the article points out, it will require going back to Stone Age. We cannot image our lives without electricity anymore. When hurricane Sandy hit and many people lost power for few days, it was a disaster. Government will never leave fossil fuels in the ground because they are the cheapest form of energy. I also believe that raising the price of electricity will only hurt low and middle income families (as I pointed last week). Many people now live from paycheck to paycheck and by raising energy cost, they will not be able to satisfy their basic needs. In order to bring consumption down, government should put a cap on the energy consumption. If any household consumes more than allowed, they should be required to pay a hefty price. This way only people who over consume will pay. Secondly, government should promote more alternative energy and reward those who use it. This will give others incentives to switch as well. One thinks is for sure, we need to change our behavior, but this cannot be done in one day.
ReplyDeleteSadly the persons in charge of making the decisions are most time the same persons benefiting from the oil and coal industries or the politicians end up owing this big businesses favorites for campaigning their career. Then the problem becomes them turing a blind eye to global warming and doing nothing to stop it. I don't know how you can be an educated person living in this society and not be aware of the changes being made. We see natural disasters effecting us in devastating ways every year and no changes being made about it. Like Liba Harvan, i also agree the people who suffer most are the working class and the poor from these crisis. We have the resources to find new ways of living while making a lesser impact on the environment, but i don't see this happening in my lifetime. That truly is sad, we are not leaving the planet better than we found it for future generations.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree that the only way to truly mitigate anthropogenic climate change is to "leave fossil fuels in the ground." Even if fossil fuels are abolished tomorrow and everyone on the planet stopped using them simultaneously, we can't truly stop climate change even then, as nearly all the literature on the subject I've read suggests that we're past "the point of no return." "Business as usual" will undeniably be a disaster of biblical proportions, and even slowly cutting back our global dependence on fossil fuels (the most feasible option" would still lead to catastrophes down the line. Truly stopping, all at once, is the only surefire way to minimize the damage and contain the fire.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I honestly don't believe there would ever come a time in society as we know it where fossil fuels will "be left in the ground." Fossil fuels are simply too effective, profitable, and ingrained into our society's existence to ever be given up by a society. Unless technology advances to a point where an alternative resource can be more feasible, abundant, cheap, and efficient than fossil fuels are today (which more and more I think may be wishful thinking), fossil fuels will continue to be used. I don't believe by 2050 we will be operating "business as usual," but I also don't believe any countries will have banned fossil fuels. The best we can realistically hope for is for countries to slowly but surely cut down overall use of fossil fuels.
This is a pretty scary topic to think about. What are we going to do to stop the over consumption of fossil fuels and other things that are hurting our environment. I do not believe all politicians are the same with not believing that we should keep going and these things are not true. Al Gore for example has been a person who talked about solutions for a while. He might be one of the few but I did want to point that out. It is also scary to think that one day we will just be either completely out of fossil fuels that we use because we have really wasted a lot of this. I think we will have a future that is a lot different from either not having enough fossil fuels or our climate has changed so much that we need to live life in a totally different way.
ReplyDeletesad but true climate change evidence is enough to claim that mankind is responsible for changes in the earths temperature from our existence. We must stop using fossil resources from being used as our primary source of energy and look to the future of the planet by finding other alternatives to use. Only problem with this is people will continue to use fossil resources as long as there around and at a affordable price. I believe that as long as there are fossil fuels in the ground mankind will continue to use up the resource until a new affordable and profitable method is found, unless extreme laws are put in place.
ReplyDeleteThe fossil fuel - global warming debate certainly is one of politics. On the one hand we are very aware that fossil fuels are being used as a main source of energy and that this resource is finite, and on the other hand it is true that the usage of fossil fuels are promoting climate change and other energy sources are being developed more intricately. The main as the article states is that we are not halting the usage of fossil fuels to prevent further drastic climate change. But it is not as simple as switching to solar panels for homes and switching to electric cars, because the oil industry is so deeply seeded in our economy that to simply stop using fossil would cause catastrophic results far sooner than the climate change will. Major companies may go bankrupt, many people will lose jobs, stocks will become worthless. So in my opinion the solution to the problem presented here is not as simple as the author of this article may like people to think. Climate change is bad, but destroying a colossal industry to fix this problem is bad also.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Maier.