GLOBAL WARMING: Top Scientist Tells Us We Have ONE YEAR Left to Act

I covered this somewhat last week, but it is, quite simply, the biggest and most important issue facing us today. So I am going to hammer away at it a bit and I have added a little bit.

Global warming is hitting us already. It is no coincidence that some of the biggest storms and an unexpected number of storms are hitting us now. Nor are food shortages coincidence...nor are they caused primarily by biofuels. Extreme weather, an expected part of global warming, is hitting us hard, damaging crops around the world. Crops are established based on a particular climate. That climate has changed and it will take time for agriculture to adapt and infrastructure to be put into place. Time and money.

Global warming isn't our future. It is our now.

I have covered how the more optimistic scientists think we have 10 years (now more like 8) to deal with global warming before we are hit with the full brunt of it. Essentially that means we have that period to mitigate the eventual effects. Keep in mind that there will be some delay before the worst happens. That relative optimism is fading. Now even some of the most optimistic scietists are realizing that the models were wrong. Global warming is hitting harder and faster than predicted. Things are WORSE than the models predicted. Jim Hansen, possibly the top global warming scientist and the head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Sciences (where my wife works), has revised the estimate of how long we have to act to mitigate global warming down to one year. This is our last chance right now. Time has run out to act.

This rather frightening statement is covered in some detail on Daily Kos. The statement that we have one year to deal with this gigantic problem is demoralizing, and it plays into one right wing talking point that has always struck me as particularly stupid: well it's too late now so let's not do anything. In the Daily Kos article it addresses this right wing talking point fairly well:

Some have speculated that we have already passed tipping points, and there is nothing we can do. The first may be right (probably is, unfortunately), but I strongly disagree with the second. a) Keep in mind there are widely varying degrees of badness: 1 million people dying is very different from ten million dying, which is very different from a billion dying, which is very different from 5 billion dying, which is very different from 6 billion dying. I don't know where on this scale we fall, but I think we still very much do have the ability to keep it close to the start. So b) all these windows are closing fast. That's why Hansen-- and so many of us here on dKos-- feel such a strong sense of urgency.

I think we have a year to keep the disaster down to more the million dying mark. If we don't take advantage of that year we have left and, as individuals and as a society, take huge steps in the next year, I believe a billion (as a very, very rough estimate) could die within the next 50 years due specifically to global warming related events. Flooding (of the scale Bangladesh sees annually but much more widespread), famine (already started over a large area of the world), water shortages, the spread of tropical diseases, and war due to dislocations, hunger and competition over water will all take a large toll. And for what? What did we gain by putting it off? Nothing. Not one goddamned thing. The delay by the right wing who ran our country so poorly accomplished nothing except making it harder and harder to pass along an acceptable standard of living to our children.

There is no more time to debate, delay or wait for someone else to deal with it. I have said "ten years" so often now. But global warming accelerated this past couple of years far beyond what any models predicted. Things are worse than even some of the more pessimistic predictions and things have been accelerating. Waiting any longer means, quite simply, more and more deaths.

If you can, offset your carbon usage. I suggest either Native Energy or Carbon Fund, though I use other ways as well (like purchasing energy efficient and solar stoves for families in Darfur or Central America or Haiti...let me know if you are interested in this kind of carbon offset).

Donate to tree planting programs that are designed to effectivly sequester carbon while benefitting both the local economy and environment. Not all reforestation projects are created equal and according to a study done a couple of years ago in the scientific journal Nature, many of the monoculture plantations that are planted are counterproductive. I suggest reforestation through Paso Pacifico, Trees, Water, People, or through the Nobel Peace Prize winning Green Belt Movement which combines empowerment of women with reforestation in Kenya.

And anyone in almost any part of the United States can purchase (sometimes in a roundabout way) their home energy from renewable energy generation companies. Joy and I have been doing this through a NY State program for a few years now and the increase in our monthly bill was only a matter of pennies. You can buy green energy through this website.

These are three ways you can start to make a differnece.

We can't wait any longer.

Stopping global warming is not just about saving the environment for the hunters, fisherman, hikers, and other outdoor enthusiasts of today and tomorrow. Global warming is a matter of national security. Will we live in a world where we must fight our neighbors for fresh water and food?

— General Wesley Clark, quoted in Global Warming: The Last Chance for Change

[A note and warning to global warming deniers: I am done with you. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, clearly stated by every credible climatologist, and the consequences are too important for dithering denial anymore. I am done with global warming deniers and will delete all but unusually intelligent comments from deniers. We don't have time for your BS anymore.]