350.org activists at an Earth Day rally in San Frasncisco's Golden Gate Park. (Courtesy of 350.org)
Climate activists: Prez-elect should go to UN climate talks in Poland
By Eoin O'Carroll | 10.10.08
The global environmental group 350.org has issued a challenge to whoever wins the presidential election: attend the next round of UN climate talks this December in Poznań, Poland.
It’s about time that the US got involved in the UN’s efforts to halt global warming, says the group:
For seven years now the United States delegation at the UNFCCC meetings has been an obstructionist force stalling and blocking progress while the rest of the world has attempted to tackle the climate crisis. It would send a remarkable signal and a new wave of energy if the next US President took the initiative to re-engage with the international community on this most pressing issue. We need to remind the US Presidential candidates that there’s an even bigger meltdown than the one on Wall Street, and that the world is counting on them to be part of the international solution to climate change.
To make this happen, the group has set up a page where visitors can send an email to the Obama and McCain campaigns asking each candidate to agree to attend the conference if he wins the election.
Participants of the two-week long 14th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP 14, will work toward drafting a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, the system of mandatory carbon caps that are set to expire in 2012. The United States is the only industrialized country that has not signed the protocol.
Writing in Grist, author and 350.org cofounder Bill McKibben, argues that American participation in the talks is crucial.
[E]ither Barack Obama or John McCain will need to reengage the United States in the international process for reaching a global agreement on climate change. If we don’t, we can cut as much as we like out of our carbon emissions and it won’t do much to slow the planet’s warming. Even as the financial markets struggle, we have the capital and the technology to make a crucial difference. After all, Americans are the biggest per capita polluters of all, but we’ve played no role in the global climate talks over the last eight years. That must end. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said last year that we have until 2012 to make huge changes as a planet or it will be too late.
McKibben helped launched 350.org in March to highlight what he often calls “the most important number on the planet,” that is, the maximum safe ratio, in parts per million, of carbon dioxide atoms in the atmosphere. Leading scientists say that CO2 concentrations higher than 350 ppm put us at risk for catastrophic climate change. Current atmospheric concentrations are at 387 ppm and rising.
The group released a brilliant animation in June to highlight the issue (the spot was produced by Free Range Studios, which also produced The Story of Stuff, which is well worth watching if you have 20 minutes.)
The group also put together a video about thier invitation, which you can watch here:
<< Bicycle recyclers empower riders | MainComments
2. George Reilly | 10.16.08
Mr. “Mike Higgins” doesn’t reveal which fossil-fuel corporation he works for, or where the organization he links to (the Idso family) gets its funding. But that doesn’t really matter: what’s obvious is his familiar strategy of “sow doubt and uncertainty” by scientific-sounding arguments that ignore the facts on the ground. We no longer have time to waste debating those who serve the destruction of our planet- the debate is over, the time for action has come, for our sake and that of our children.
3. Nick | 12.11.08
Mr. “George Reilly”’s extreme fervor to the cause bears eerie resemblance to the blind fanaticism of a zealot. Notice how he not only dismisses anything he feels a threat to his point of view, but seeks to ruthlessly crush dissenting opinion. Consider that 45% of the scientific community (among them Antonino Zichichi, president of the WFS) doesn’t consider the theory of global warming credible and 55% oppose using government funds to combat something which hasn’t been proven.
As there is still strong debate in the scientific community as to the veracity of the theory of global warming, do the advocates of global warming have the grounds to haughtily declare that “the debate is over”? Do they have the right to slander individuals who dare voice contrary opinions? Should they use fear and distort facts to advance their political aspirations? Are they justified in demanding hundreds of billions of dollars from developed countries and ordering fragile developing countries to curb their economic growth and aggravate their precarious situation? Are they free from criticism?
They would very much like you to answer with a meek “Yes”. But a growing number of individuals would answer with a resounding “No”. More and more people are beginning to inform themselves and ask questions. We must accept that climate change is inevitable and the temperature of the planet is rarely stable for any long period of time. Much like the global cooling hysteria of the 1970s, history will show the global warming craze of the 2000s to be nothing more than short lived alarmism.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Mike Higgins | 10.11.08
Readers should note that none of the links in this article support the underlying reason that the President-elect should attend the next round of climate change talks. The so-called “brilliant animation” is simply propaganda about the supposedly harmful effects of a higher concentration of CO2 in the air. It provides no evidence of these harmful effects.
Virtually every scientific study about the effects of an increased concentration of carbon dioxide conclude that more carbon dioxide in the air significantly increases the rate of growth of plants and reduces the amount of water that plants require to grow. More plants on the Earth is good for human beings as well as for animals who consume them for nourishment.
See http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/extinction/mr1ch12.php for further details.
Most importantly, the author of this blog has yet to write an article or reference a study that scientifically concludes that increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has caused or has the potential to cause dangerous global warming. all such conclusions have come from computer climate models, which are not only susceptible to grossly inaccurate assumptions, but have yet to accurately predict temperatures five and ten years in the future, much less one hundred years. Note that there is no argument in scientific circles that the Earth has cooled over the past six years.