Climate conference, Ross Gelbspan
He won pulitzer prize, wrote a book called The Heat is On, then another called Boiling Point. One of the top science books of 2004.
He runs theheatisonline.org.
Years ago this conf could have been held in a phone booth.
I’m renaming the talk: “Straddling between solutions and survivalism”
I’m not going to talk about disasters. But why is everyone frustrated?
Anecdotes to illustrate how out of touch we are:
* Wrote a piece tying Katrina to climate change; got a lot of flak for it. About 2 weeks later a group of german editors came over to US and the organizer gave them a copy of the piece. They asked why are you talking about this, it’s obvious.
* Spoke overseas — wanted to know why american public and administration are so blind about this issue? our process is SO contaminated by business interests. Not the pattern overseas. European countries have already committed to 40-70% reductions in the next 50 years.
This puts local activists at a uniquely unfair but powerful level. No impediments from the large organizations; access to local press even if not national press.
Climate change hits poor countries hardest and first. If you act locally, you’re helping people around the world.
Local action is less important for its emissions reductions than for its political impact.
Three observations about global climate change:
* It’s FAST. We’ve been blindsided by global warming. First real signs in 1988, only 18 years later we’re close to the point of no return. Incredibly short period for enormous changes in massive planetary systems. We’re seeing impacts now we did not project to see until 2085.
* Lag times and feedbacks. We have a lot of inertia in the system and some positive feedbacks — like the Siberian tundra.
* Extreme sensitivity of earth systems to a small bit of warming. All over the world, life is migrating toward the poles. All that has resulted from 1 degree of warming. But we’re looking at 3-10 degrees.What we need is a rapid switch to noncarbon sources, and we need it yesterday.
Fossil fuel lobby knows it better than everyone, and is protecting themselves at the expense of everyone else, and democracy in particular. Massive disinformation campaign. It worked for a long time to attack the science and marginalized the science of the largest peer-reviewed scientific consortium in history. It has been very successful.
The central drama is clear: the ability of this planet to support its population vs one of the largest commercial enterprises in history.
In the 90s the coal industry launched a disinformation campaign designed to persuade us that global warming is good for us. They’re patient and persistent. Planning to create an anti Al Gore film. “Manufactured Denial”. Exxon-Mobil has spent tons of money and used it to move political levers, tight with the Bush administration.
Many people, much evidence named. He’s clearly a reporter.
At the beginning of the year a group of evangelicals came out with a strong climate message. In July a different group proclaimed that climate change was “God’s will” — they were paid $3M by Exxon-Mobil. The white house has become the east coast office of Exxon-Mobil.
Activists need to work on the press. When the press covers an issue, the public responds. The industry PR people have been too successful — American public is about 10 years behind the rest of the world.
Why? New outlet career path flows through politics. Institutionally arrogant to nonpolitical areas of coverage.
Campaign of PR has had corrosive effect by insisting that there’s been a debate in the name of “journalistic balance” but it’s been journalistic laziness. On opinion, journalists should be fair. But on fact, they should report the facts. “There is no debate among reputable scientists.”
When you talk to a reporter, be angry about this. Don’t let them be conned.
THERE IS NO DEBATE, don’t let people pretend there is. It minimizes urgency and scope.
Editors have viewed climate change as a proxy issue for political liberals, but that’s not true. Lots of examples of conservatives who support it. Examine the real rather than assumed effects of climate change.
Bush’s energy plan is a “fast track to climate hell”. Many examples of administration throttling science and scientists.
This is not conservatism, it’s corruption disguised as conservatism.
The science is SO robust and the impact is SO visible, it becomes a crime against humanity. An attempt to privatize truth.
We find ourselves in a schizophrenic predicament — UN diplomat says we may be fighting for the survival of humanity.
A switch to renewables does not imply a destruction of living standards. But we need to join with the world to move over.
Three prescriptions:
* $25 Billion spent annually to subsidize coal and oil — $200 Billion worldwide. Move it over to renewables.
* Create large fund of $300 billion/year for a decade to subsidize sustainable energy development in developing countries. Tax on international currencies?
* Adoption of a 5% / year improvement in efficiency for each country. Start out by efficiency improvements, then move to renewables.Plan of this magnitude, regardless of the details, would create millions of jobs, raise living standards, drive renewable energy industry into an engine of growth for the world.
Could be a path to world peace.
Could also be the end of a toxic nationalism we have long ago outgrown. The real economic issue is whether the world has a large enough labor force to accommodate nature’s deadline. We’re already too far along to avoid significant disruptions. The healing potential is tempered by a loud question: how are people of good will to respond in the face of a coming age of collapse? No easy answers, uncharted territory.
We’re left with hearts, minds, technology, and dedication. Use it.
He’s going to post the speech on his website.
Q: what do you think of nuclear power?
A: Probably can’t dismantle it. How many windmills can we build for each nuke?
Q: New election was partly a vote against Bush policies? Inhofe’s committee leadership was first to go, thank goodness.
A: Dems are too limited in their ambitions. Some other countries may sue the US for invalid carbon subsidies under WTO agreements.