<div class="gmail_quote">Someone might find the following response I<br>wrote months ago to a participant in a local Moscow discussion of McKibben's book<br>"Eaarth" of some interest. My ideas are supported with<br>
numerous credible sources, though of course much more research is </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">required to fully support my claims I have removed any reference to who I<br>wrote this response to, but they are someone of significance in the<br>Moscow community.<br>-----------------------------<br>
I basically address two issues below, that adaptation to climate<br>change is not a sane strategy, and that Moscow in some important<br>respects is not substantially addressing climate change more than<br>federal efforts. I demonstrate with facts why the Moscow city 20<br>
percent reduction below 2005 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by<br>2020 is climate change environmental "greenwash."<br><br>Realistically, I think that the "right actions" to a large degree will<br>
not be taken at any level, personal, city, county, state, national,<br>international (UN), multinational corporate, etc. to substantially<br>mitigate human impacts on climate for decades. When I write<br>"mitigate" I mean actions that will at minimum stop atmospheric CO2<br>
and ocean acidification from continuing to increase. But regardless,<br>the attempt should be made, at all levels. The sooner the problem is<br>addressed, the sooner increases in atmospheric CO2 will stop, thus<br>reducing the magnitude of long term impacts over centuries.<br>
<br>You state "it's not a question of the science being good..." Yet if<br>you think the peer reviewed science relating to human impacts on<br>climate that I reference in this email is credible, it should be<br>
apparent that adaptation as a primary focus of addressing climate<br>change is not a sane option, given the global nature and magnitude of<br>the probable long term impacts. Regarding the credibility of the<br>science on this issue, the so called "debate" regarding global warming<br>
should be placed in the context of this survey of publishing climate<br>scientists, who offer a 97 percent agreement with the IPCC on global<br>warming: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<br>"Expert credibility in climate change"<br>
<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107</a><br><br>Discussion of adaptation as a rational practical long term option<br>offers many an excuse to continue with an intensive fossil fuel<br>
economy and lifestyle, assuming adaptation will mostly address<br>whatever problems climate change poses. Of course adaptation will be<br>necessary, maybe extreme geo-engineering, but these are emergency<br>responses to a situation out of control, not a primary solution to the<br>
problem. As the US National Academy of Sciences in a May 2010 release<br>phrased it, in caps on their website:<br><a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010" target="_blank">http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010</a><br>
"STRONG EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE UNDERSCORES NEED FOR ACTIONS TO<br>REDUCE EMISSIONS AND BEGIN ADAPTING TO IMPACTS"<br><br>MIT study:<br>"Probabilistic Forecast for Twenty-First-Century Climate Based on<br>
Uncertainties in Emissions (Without Policy) and Climate Parameters"<br>Article in full direct free:<br><a href="http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44627/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf?sequence=1" target="_blank">http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44627/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf?sequence=1</a><br>
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html" target="_blank">http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html</a><br><a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1" target="_blank">http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1</a><br>
<br>June 21, 2011 IPSO Report: Extinction Event Inevitable If<br>Current Trajectory of Damage Continues.<br><a href="http://www.stateoftheocean.org/ipso-2011-workshop-summary.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.stateoftheocean.org/ipso-2011-workshop-summary.cfm</a><br>
<a href="http://www.sustainablelivingmagazine.org/planet-watch/environment/clean-water/129-our-oceans-in-crisis-new-study" target="_blank">http://www.sustainablelivingmagazine.org/planet-watch/environment/clean-<br>water/129-our-oceans-in-crisis-new-study</a><br>
<br>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article refers to<br>"dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the following climate<br>tipping points emphasized: Arctic summer ice free, Himalayan Tibetan<br>
glaciers, Greenland ice sheet, Amazon rain forest, ENSO, Thermohaline<br>circulation, West Antarctic ice sheet.<br><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/49/20616.full" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/content/106/49/20616.full</a><br>
"Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and<br>other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions"<br><br>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:<br>"Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop<br>
yields under climate change"<br><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594</a><br><a href="http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/crop-yields-could-wilt-heat/" target="_blank">http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/crop-yields-could-wilt-heat/</a><br>
<br>Regarding potential warfare from climate change, military scholar<br>Gwynne Dyer's book "Climate Wars" outlines various scenarios:<br><a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/8/gwynne_dyer_on_climate_wars_the" target="_blank">http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/8/gwynne_dyer_on_climate_wars_the</a><br>
And US General Anthony Zinni stated in the following article:<br><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html</a><br>
"We will pay for this one way or another," Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a<br>retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, wrote<br>recently in a report he prepared as a member of a military advisory<br>board on energy and climate at CNA, a private group that does research<br>
for the Navy. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today,<br>and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay<br>the price later in military terms," he warned. "And that will involve<br>
human lives."<br><br>-----------------------<br>Given the above scientific studies and reports, billions of people<br>are likely to be profoundly negatively impacted, especially if<br>projections of global population reaching 9 billion are credible.<br>
Global average surface temperatures increasing less than 3 C. is one<br>level of change under business as usual, and some might argue this is<br>managable with adaptation, though the MIT study referenced indicates<br>this has less than 1 percent chance of being the outcome by 2100. But<br>
5.1 C. increase, the median probability of temperature change in this<br>MIT study, entirely possible with a global business as usual approach,<br>is globally catastrophic, even if some areas of Earth will remain<br>habitable. Sea level rise alone would be a global disaster: Rahmstorf<br>
and Vermeer 2009 paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of<br>Sciences indicating potential sea level rise by 2100 of 75<br>to 190 cm (close to two meters at the high end):<br><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.full" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.full</a><br>
<br>The IPSO report on the oceans, which is directly related to climate<br>change, given ocean warming and acidfication is caused by human CO2<br>emissions, is reason enough for dramatic action to reduce greenhouse<br>gas emissions. "Extinction event inevitable?" This statement is<br>
coming from calm rational scientists, not a paranoid lunatic on the<br>street corner holding a sign "Repent Sinners! The End is Near!".<br><br>The PNAS paper on impacts to US agriculture from climate change,<br>
"Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop<br>yields under climate change," should be a wake-up call for citizens of<br>the US. Perhaps in the Palouse we will not experience major<br>agricultural collapse, but if there is large scale agricultural<br>
declines in other areas of the US, we could face an influx of<br>population with dramatic impacts to our area. And betting that the<br>Palouse will remain as agriculturally productive as it is if global<br>average surface temperatures increase 5.1 C by 2100, with further<br>
climate change probable from 2100 on, is a roll of the dice.<br><br>Again, is this science credible? If the projections even have a 50<br>percent chance of being credible, this is enough for dramatic action<br>at all levels. Imagine a flight where the pilot informs you there is<br>
a 50 percent chance of a fatal crash, due to mechanical problems.<br>Would you take that risk? Would you insist the mechanical problems be<br>fixed before you or your family took the flight? We are talking about<br>taking huge risks regarding the entire biosphere of our planet, with<br>
serious consequences for centuries, I should not have to point out,<br>though it seems many people don't fully wrap their mind around what<br>this implies.<br><br>I don't want to come across as holier than thou in this response,<br>
because I am just as responsible for human induced climate change as<br>anyone in the US, the nation that has contributed by far the most<br>historical CO2 emissions to our atmosphere of any nation, thus the<br>most to climate change. While China's annual emissions are probably<br>
ahead of the US now, China has a long way to go to catch the US for<br>total historical CO2 emissions, which given CO2 atmospheric lifespan,<br>is the most critical emissions fact regarding inducing climate change<br>from greenhouse gases:<br>
<a href="http://www.350resources.org.uk/2010/10/18/co2-emissions-compared-across-countries-1-total-current-2-total-historic-3-per-person/" target="_blank">http://www.350resources.org.uk/2010/10/18/co2-emissions-compared-across-countries-1-total-current-2-total-historic-3-per-person/</a><br>
<br>Our power and wealth as a nation is predicated essentially on our<br>exhorbitant consumption of fossil fuels, thus moral responsibility<br>among the world's nations to address climate change falls most heavily<br>
upon us, if we are honest about the magnitude of our impacts, as a<br>nation.<br><br>I don't perceive the residents of the city of Moscow substantially<br>addressing climate change, to any large degree more than it is being<br>
addressed at the national federal level. Consider the Moscow city 20<br>percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 level by 2020<br>goal. This is a feel good greenwash public relations effort, even if<br>some involved are sincere and hard working, that anyone studying<br>
climate science knows will not stop atmospheric CO2 from continuing to<br>increase, if viewing this level of reduction of emissions as a global<br>goal.<br><br>Atmospheric CO2 was increasing in 1960 ( Mauna Loa CO2 record:<br>
<a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full" target="_blank">http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full</a> ) at those levels<br>of global emissions, which were more than 60 percent below 2005<br>levels. 2005 million metric tons of global emissions from fossil fuel<br>
burning and flaring were 28,485:<br><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls" target="_blank">http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls</a> 1960<br>million metric tons of global CO2 emissions, including cement<br>
manufacture, were approaching 10,000: Global CO2 Emissions from<br>Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1752-2006:<br><a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html" target="_blank">http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html</a><br>
<br>This Moscow city "20 by 2020" plan should be presented to the public<br>with a clear prominent scientific statement that this is insufficient<br>to prevent climate change from accelerating, and much more must be<br>
done by everyone to address this problem. I have not heard this clear<br>prominent statement, from the mayor or anyone in city government.<br>Shocking! If such a statement has been made, please refer me.<br><br>Earth Policy Institute indicates 80 percent reductions below 2006<br>
levels, along with other mitigation efforts, to prevent severe climate<br>change impacts:<br><a href="http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_images/80by2020.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_images/80by2020.pdf</a><br>
<br>When you view the personal behavior of many Moscow residents, and<br>survey their views on climate change, it is clear that even if they<br>acknowledge the problem, many are not willing to substantially modify<br>their behavior (politically promote carbon tax, cap and trade or fee<br>
and dividend, to make carbon polluters pay for their damage, greatly<br>lower large home energy consumption, stop daily reliance on private<br>car/truck fossil fueled transporation, install solar thermal or<br>electric on their homes, etc.), or they simply ignore or deny the<br>
problem.<br><br>Some on Moscow's city council have publicly stated they do not think<br>human induced climate change is credible. Many prominent business<br>leaders are in favor of shopping malls on the edges of Moscow,<br>
regardless of the impacts on encouraging an energy intensive fossil<br>fueled lifestyle, and promoted the abandoned, at least for now,<br>Hawkin's mall development on the Pullman Hwy, as did some on the<br>current city council.<br>
<br>One of the prominent churches that occupies considerable space in<br>downtown Moscow, in one manner or another (college, etc.), with great<br>economic and ideological influence, has leaders that deny human<br>induced climate change is a serious problem, publicly promoting junk<br>
science on climate change. I've engaged in dialog on this issue with<br>several members of this church, with little or no sucess in changing<br>anyones mind. I wrote an op-ed responding to one of these church<br>members for the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, which you can read here:<br>
"Human effects on climate change are real" Friday, February 23, 2007<br><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2007-February/041709.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2007-February/041709.html</a><br>
<br>Lowering atmospheric CO2, which long term on a centuries time scale,<br>including both fast and slow feedbacks in the Earth's climate system,<br>is required if we want to prevent destabaization of Greenland and/or<br>
West Antarctica, and meters of sea level rise, with the resultant<br>immense economic impacts and disruptions to the lives of hundreds of<br>millions, will be an even harder goal. From NASA Goddard Institute<br>for Space Studies scientists:<br>
"Target CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?"<br><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf</a><br><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126" target="_blank">http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126</a><br>
<br>But if humanity does not stop atmospheric CO2 from increasing within<br>this century, and levels reach well into the 400s ppm or higher, we<br>will likely induce a global climate shift of a magnitude that will<br>render adaptation for billions of human beings, who are already living<br>
in environments stressed by economic, poltical and environmental<br>problems, an increasingly difficult option.<br><font color="#888888"><br>Ted<br></font></div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br></div>