Monday, 22 September 2014

The speech I haven't heard yet - An open message to our leaders

Forty years. More.  However you count it, from whichever moment this started, our so-called leaders have been aware that we are living on borrowed time for decades. And what have they done?

For forty years we have known that this big blue ball, our planet home, the Earth, the natural and human systems which function in it and on it and form all that it means for us to exist, our home is suffering. We, the people of the World, are steadily and inexorably brutalising our home, and now the foundations are trembling.

Now we know, our intelligence and science and experience shows us, our victim, our much-beaten servant Gaia, has a fever. This fever is the warming climate to which we are already committed and which will continue to rage for many decades to come.

We know, as our ‘leaders’ know, that for decades we have been borrowing from the future to pay for our present prosperity. Our capacity to exploit the resources of nature and the resources of our poorer neighbours has now extended to include our ability to exploit the resources of time.

And so the time has come round once again, when our leaders will gather together for the 21st time to talk about what is happening, what might happen, and what might be done. To talk, yet not to act. To argue, yet not to decide. To show us, their citizens, their mandate, that they are ‘taking this problem seriously’, and yet, in making the face and making the noise, doing too little, too late.

If we let them, they will go away from these talks, like all the others, with no agreement, no commitment, no decision to take action. They will set aside the urgency of our problems once again and pass the problem on for future generations.

We need to let them know, in clear terms, that we will not tolerate their indecision any longer. Not in our name, not with our mandate. We are no longer just concerned, no longer worried, we are angry.

In our human history, there have been crimes so brutal, so appalling, that even now, many years after slavery has been abolished and so nearly eradicated, many decades on from the abomination of the Holocaust, these crimes still resonate so strongly that we are reluctant to recall them, we are almost afraid to mention their names. Yet here and now we must.

The evil that is slavery costs the lives of millions of people, and the liberties of millions more.  The evil that was the Holocaust, six million Jews and five million more human lives.

And we see the figures, the statistics and the estimates of those who will be displaced, whose lives will be cut short by disease, famine, drought. The lives already lost and yet to be lost. The dead people, the innocent victims of our polluting, destructive, acidifying, climate changing ways. 

Hundreds of millions.

If we do not demand action to prevent this now, we are signing up, in advance, to another, most brutal, most evil of crimes against humanity. And we should shout this out loud and clear for all to hear:

Not in my name.

Not with my consent.

We must make it clear to our leaders that we hold them to account. This appalling future of suffering, this crime against humanity, can be resisted. It can be reduced. Millions of lives can be saved. But only if we act now. The time to talk is done. We have heard the talk. We are sick of the talk. They must act.

Our leaders have on their shoulders the heavy burden of responsibility for the well-being of us all. But let us be clear; doing nothing, at this point in time, with the cost so transparent, is a conscious decision to permit evil. And so we say to you our leaders; by this measure we will see your true worth. By your decisions we will see the colour of your souls, and pray that they are not as black as oil.

And we must tell them, again, and again – not in my name. Not with my consent. Not with my mandate. 

You are not our masters, you are our representatives. We have entrusted you with the power and the means to act for us. If you will not act, we will judge you, as history will judge you, and we will see you as you truly are, to the depths of your souls. And you will lead us no longer into darkness.

We want you to take action now, in our name and in the name of generations to come. We want you to turn away from the path of evil and fight with us and for us to protect our fellow citizens, our brethren. 

This is our World, our home, these our lives, and we are angry. And if you resist us, we will bring you down. In all the nations of the Earth, we the people will stand for what is good and what is right. You can stand against us, or you can stand with us.

This glorious, magnificent, vital, big blue ball that is Gaia, the Earth – this is our World, and we will fight for it. This planet is our home, and we will defend it. These children are our children, and we will stand before those who threaten them and cherish and protect them. We are the citizens of the World, and we want action. We sisters and brothers, parents and children, rich and poor, we call you now to account, and say to you; we are your justification, your voters, your mandate, and we are telling you our will.

We want you to take action to protect us all against the ravages of exploitation and the abuse of the planet and our climate. 

We want action, and we want it now.


27 comments:

  1. "They must act"

    Huh..I believe they are subsidizing wind power and have all sorts of meetings to debate whether the third world nations get cash to pay them the cost to move 5 meters higher.

    So Ferguson, I keep marching holding my "free Leopoldo Lopez" sign, and all I got me was a couple of NY Times and Washington Post editorials. I don't even get a statement from Obama saying "97 % of decent people think Leopoldo Lopez ought to be free".

    When I marched with my sign with the warm weather protesters they were holding up signs saying "vote Green", "save the Arcturians", "divest for earth" and so on, but I didn't see a single common sense proposal. You need to reorganize and give them something practical to hold like "raise carbon taxes" and "stop electric car subsidies for the rich".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely, you of all my visitors should support this statement, Fernando. I am calling our 'leaders' to account, reminding them of their position and their responsibility. This should resonate with you, who are so determined to see human justice in the face of political oppression.

      Is there something in my speech you object to or disagree with? And please, my name is all over this blog, please try to get it right. And well done for marching - your presence is another drop in the ocean for the only true democracy - the People's democracy.

      Delete
    2. You want proposals, Fernando? They are out there by the thousands. Every one a piece of the whole. The GOPollutocrats block every one because they might cost their handlers a few bucks.

      The Fossil Barons are quick to point out the dilemma of "Stranded Assets" following environmental constraints on polluting the commons. The flip side is the "stranded assets" currently incurred by "We the People" with the mitigation costs of increasing forest firers, floods, storms, sea level rise, agriculture and property loses, acidified oceans, even lives should steps not be made stranding those fossil "assets" while there is still a chance for the survival of the kidders. You think?

      One of my current favorites is to end tax funded pollution. That would seam like a no brainer even for the likes of you, but no, you have drank the "kool aid" and embrace rapture. Well not in my name. Not with my consent..

      The GOPollutocrats do not fund abortion. Fine. A precedent. I fail to understand why Progressives tolerate their tax $$$ funding Planetary ecocide? I believe those days are about to end.

      We’re the first generation to feel the impacts of climate disruption, and the last generation that can do something about it.

      Thank you for your attention...

      Delete
    3. Fergus, my device is multilingual and it spells checks and adds letters to what I write. To make it stop using ferguson I had to give it a rough treatment.

      Delete
    4. Fernando, I understand that you first position is of political cynicism and a lack of faith in the media. On these matters we are not so different. But I'm curious to know whether you have given any further though to your position on climate change? Are you in a position to acknowledge, for example, that it is actually happening?

      Delete
    5. Fergus, you are absolutely lost in my field of dialectic leanmism (that's my term I will copyright). Why wouldn't I recognize that climate change happens? Didn't you read in my blog my estimate of post glacial rebound for Labrador after the last glacial stage? What about my estimate of Chevron's production anomaly, in which I posted a temperature chart from Berkeley?

      I think you got so drawn by your friends' intolerance, you missed the point that my focus is to question TCR and the response we ought to have. This is always within the context that I make freedom and human rights the number 1 priority.

      Did you know there's an epidemic in Venezuela? It's a mosquito borne hemorrhagic fever called Chikunguya. Two days ago the government ordered a doctor to be arrested because he issued a call to have an emergency declared in his town (Maracay). They had had eight dead the previous week. Now the estimate is that over one million will fall sick. But nobody seems to care. The leftists in N Y applaud and cheer the Venezuelan dictator when he speaks bullshit about the climate. And they don't mind the fact that Venezuela subsidizes gasoline but meanwhile their medical system is a shambles. So tell me again what's more important when I know people in Maracay who may die of the damned fever?

      Delete
    6. I did! Are you going back to the FBI agent with the lamps on the face approach?

      Here´s a comment I wrote at Climate Etc about a paper:

      "This paper is an excellent contribution. If this is confirmed in the future we can be confident the global warming problem is solvable.

      A well paced effort to reduce green house gas emissions can also help us transition away from fossil fuels in a “gentle fashion”, without threatening lifestyles or making traumatic changes.

      Future solution designers should focus on two fundamental issues: one, if we keep adding greenhouse gases it´s likely to get warmer, and two, we can´t expect to produce (rather cheap) fossil fuels forever. If we keep those two in mind it´s much easier to visualize how to work the two issues together to get us to safe harbour."

      The paper is here:

      http://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/lewiscurry_ar5-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity_clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf

      Here´s the Abstract

      Abstract: Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate
      response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750–2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges
      for forcing components provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its
      estimates of heat accumulation in the climate system. The resulting estimates are less dependent on
      global climate models and allow more realistically for forcing uncertainties than similar estimates based
      on forcings diagnosed from simulations by such models. Base and final periods are selected that have
      well matched volcanic activity and influence from internal variability. Using 1859–1882 for the base
      period and 1995–2011 for the final period, thus avoiding major volcanic activity, median estimates are
      derived for ECS of 1.64 K and for TCR of 1.33 K. ECS 17–83% and 5–95% uncertainty ranges are
      1.25–2.45 K and 1.05–4.05 K; the corresponding TCR ranges are 1.05–1.80 K and 0.90–2.50 K. Results
      using alternative well-matched base and final periods provide similar best estimates but give wider
      uncertainty ranges, principally reflecting smaller changes in average forcing. Uncertainty in aerosol
      forcing is the dominant contribution to the ECS and TCR uncertainty ranges.

      Here´s a quote from one of my latest posts

      "So where do I go from here? Nowhere. Beyond this point it´s a climatology issue. The temperature increase which results from a given increase in CO2 concentration is a debatable figure. Notwithstanding President Obama´s "97 %" bullshit, that point IS being debated. My guess is that temperature may increase roughly 0.6 degrees C above today´s temperature, when the CO2 concentration reaches 560 ppm, AROUND 2060, if we burn fossil fuels at the rate I predict and the Transient Climate Response is around 1.5 degrees C to doubling CO2 concentration (I don´t want to get into a debate, this was prepared in a midpoint so it can be used by almost everybody)."

      The post is here

      http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/09/burn-baby-burn-co2-atmospheric.html

      I assume you can get your answer from the above. However, I´m starting to wonder if you do nuances. Do you expect everybody to bow and kneel to Dr. Mann´s Climate Scientology?

      Delete
    7. Fernando, I know Lewis's work already and Annan's response to it. Which points out the dubiousness of a couple of Lewis's assumptions. On the other hand, a lot of what you say sounds reasonable, until you start sniping at Mann again - why do you bother?

      I would point out that you are offering a 'best guess' based on your reading of Lewis (have you read other papers which contain other estimates?), but not offering a reason why this should be considered 'best' for anyone else. It's a matter of balancing different strands of research- which is what the AR5 does. Note that the nominal difference in Lewis' estimates do not fall outside the bounds of the AR5 assessment in any case.

      You need to separate your political prejudices (Obama, Mann) from your climate opinions. You also need to justify your opinions, rather than simply state them.

      As far as the argument about traumatic changes and damaging lifestyles, these are commonplaces shibboleths in the larger 'debate' which seem to be put to bed quite comprehensively by recent work which shows that de-carbonising the economy/society is more likely to increase wealth than reduce it, and that well-planned renewable energy is cheaper than FFs.

      So, next question: why should we consider a TCR of around 1.4 degrees? Why not 1.8? And, since the best opinion I can form from my own reading is that an ECS of 2.7-3.3 degrees is most likely, what reason can you give for me to consider this unreasonable or inaccurate?

      Delete
    8. Why is it a best guess? Because I have friends who are climatologists and I sat in a debate in which they concluded it was 1.6 deg C to doubling. That was a while back. Given the extension of the period without much warming and the much lower ocean energy uptake taking place I felt it was prudent to set it at 1.5 deg C when I extrapolated temperatures for the reading audience. I hadn't read the new paper I quoted above, but their numbers match my friends'.

      I suspect TCR will be lower once the models are re calibrated. Your tribe is heading for a political train wreck. They should have been low key and less strident. As for Dr Mann, isn't the guy your saviour? I get the sense you are entering personality worship territory. This is a serious weakness, he's not worth t. Or did you fail to read my critique of his poorly written article in Scientific American?

      Delete
    9. Who are these friends and where is their evidence supporting the conclusion? I presume it is published somewhere.

      Why do you spoil it all by writing such preposterous nonsense as your final paragraph? If you are determined to posture inanely and repeat yourself so often, you will not be responded to any longer.

      Your comment on 're-calibration' has been discussed at rabett's and your lack of understanding of models made apparent.

      Actually, I'm sick of your boorish and offensive comments. This is the principle: if you act like a cunt I'll treat you like a cunt. Fuck off.

      Delete
    10. My friends are professional metocean experts who work for a private corporation. Their work isn´t published, nor do they discuss their activities. Their main interest lies in investigating the ice conditions in certain regions. Did I tell you I worked on that project in the 1990´s? I made the call to make our company stay out of any activities in the Barents and Pechora sea at the time. The comments made about recalibration show they are afraid of what a model calibration will imply. If the current absence of surface warming, the growth in Antarctic ice, and other phenomena continue for a decade the transient climate response is likely to drop into the 1 to 1.5 degree C range. And this spells doom for the radicals, because we are running out of hydrocarbons anyway.

      By the way, I don´t respond to insults, and I ignore the baiting and the trash talk.

      Delete
    11. Your comment consistently shows that you understand much less than you think you do about the global climate system and climate models. You are simply reiterating familiar denialist memes.
      You also persist in calling the authors of the AR5, and many governments and their leaders, 'radicals'. This is nonsensical trash talk.
      The comment about running out of hydrocarbons is also wrong.
      If you really want to have a discussion, you must read the AR5 summaries, at the very least.
      My comments are not insults, they are observations. I will not permit you to have a platform for dishonest or denialist rubbish. You may have a platform to discuss science, or express your own opinions, backed by science. 'Friends' who have not published their findings may have credibility for you, but this does not sound especially convincing laid against the vast body of evidence available which you keep misrepresenting and contradicting without justification.
      I have very strong doubts as to your authenticity at this point. Prove to me that there is a reason to engage further with you, or go away; this is your choice.

      Delete
  2. Leif I bet the Greenland Vikings were quite concerned about climate change.

    So we are left with "thousands of proposals" you want the government to act upon? Which ranks first? Should we all sell oil stocks? Become vegetarians? I'm for ending all fossil fuel subsidies. We need to convince Venezuela's dictator, Maduro, to stop giving gasoline and diesel away. This is one huge contributor to emissions, and they need the money to but food and medicines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Different eras present different problems. Ours is faced with a big one but be thankful that all solution are non-violene. On the other hand all denial is to suborn mass suicide and violence to the n/th degree.

      Delete
    2. Denial about the adverse effects that the anthropogenic CO2 injection is having on planetary life support systems. Which by any measure is/will be horrific. The physical realities that climate disruption and associated impacts there in are having now. Soon to get so far advanced that feed back loops prevent the emendate generations, think your children, to address. Please re-read Fergus Brown's eloquent post above.

      “War becomes perpetual when used as a rational for peace,” Norman Solomon. “Peace becomes perpetual when used as a rational for survival.” Yours truly.

      Albert Einstein: "I do not know the weapons of WWIII but WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones." I vote for WW III, in which we are currently embroiled IMO, to be continually fought with Equality, Justice, Scientific thinking, Peace and Love. WW IV with sonnets.

      Delete
    3. We aren't injecting CO2. We emit it. The effect isn't "horrific". Saying it is horrific is an exaggeration. Calling me a "denier" because I don't agree with your statement is childish. Here in Europe it's also considered an insult.

      The inability to adopt a more polite approach to civilized debate renders you ineffective. I bet you wouldn't use the methods you use on me to convince your girlfriend to cook you dinner. So why should I accept paying taxes, subsidies and seeing young people brainwashed with what I consider a very poorly designed concept of reality? I'm much more rational than that.

      Delete
    4. The inability to adopt a logical, rational or honest approach renders you ineffective Fernando. If you don't want to be insulted, stop publishing bullshit.

      Delete
  3. Leif, that was buy, not but. My device is acting up after I gave it electroshock to convince it to stop using that f word.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Horrific is in the eye of the beholder. If you are any of the folks that have been a party to any of the "biblical" floods, droughts, fires, tornados, heat waves, snow storms, etc.(All of which receive extra punch from the added energy that CO2 and other climate forcers have added to all wether systems), I can assure you that "horrific" would be a very accurate term.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leif, you should be aware that Fernando's 'down' experiences (some quite unpleasant ones) have mostly derived from political and social directions, and this has flavoured his opinion on climate change. Many of us (self included) struggle to abstract from the personal to the larger social or distant, and this is a part of the problem in effectively discussing the problems of climate change and the solutions.

      I am trying to cut F some slack, but he tests my patience too often and falls into bad ways too easily. At least we can establish that he acknowledges the reality of AGW.

      Delete
    2. Leif, I don't think you can prove such attribution. Right now we are seeing a propaganda campaign by Obama and friends which happens to be identical to Bush's WMDs in Iraq, or Clinton's fake Kosovo "genocide". USA presidents lie, the lies drive the nation in the wrong direction. And this is why the USA has such low prestige and poor reputation. The same applies to the British regime, they seem to love lying alongside the USA. It must be a poodle complex?

      Delete
    3. Thank you Fergus: Actually I have seen him pop up on a few other places. I was forewarned. Feeding the trolls does give me an opportunity to attempt to inject a few of what I like to think are "rational thought worms" into others that just may be fence sitters and open to a more nuanced discussion.

      Thank you for your passionate plea and I am doing what I can to expose others to your site. Leif

      Delete
  5. It's such a great speech, and well supported by evidence, but in the nature of things, trusts people are able to discover for themselves that each part is well supported by reams of evidence. The attempt to create delay has had some success in attracting a seemingly infinite cadre willing to repeat poorly understood arguments that assert material proven not to be true, and let the weeds overwhelm the garden.

    I'd like however, to return to the substance of the matter, which is that we all need to stop letting our leaders get away with murder.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Susan: While I wholly agree with your conclusion, at this point I would be thrilled to see the end of tax funded pollution of the commons. That in itself would do a world of good to balance the socially enabled capitalistic paradigm that favors the exploitation of Planetary ecosystems over Planetary stewardship. I leave it to a World Court to establish, (at least IMO), the culpability of obvious purveyors of death to the n-th degree. I take perverse comfort in the fact that Planetary ecocide will be complete and they to will have nowhere to hide. In the mean time I will continue to do my best to minimize the carnage on all fronts.

    The Revolution, (R-love-ution?), will not be televised. It happens in the hearts and minds of the oppressed and compassionate.

    ReplyDelete

What do you think?