Profile for Pro Oxygen
Rating
Canada
-
My general interest is in working with people to keep climate stable. My focus is on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and the website I run at CO2Now.org. The atmospheric CO2 trend is at the heart of the problems of global warming, climate change and ocean acidification. Wherever we are in the world, we need to figure out how to change our ways and our energy sources as fast as practical so we can soon live without greenhouse gas emisssions.
All Messages
Atmospheric CO2 out front in Education and awareness
Posted on Sep 18 2009 at 07:15AM by Pro Oxygen
Like no other greenhouse gas, CO2 is at the heart of humanity’s biggest long-term problems: global warming, rapid climate change and acidification of the oceans. As we talk, plan and act to bring emissions down, it is important to keep the current CO2 level visible and out front for all to see.
In the 1990s, 192 countries adopted an ultimate objective of stabilizing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that is safe. (I am paraphrasing.) Is this not what must be done to end global warming? Essentially, it is impossible for global warming (and ocean acidification) to end as atmospheric CO2 continues to rise.
Whether we like it or not, and despite all the good efforts so far, CO2 concentrations keep rising at a rate that is accelerating from decade to decade. The objective reality is this: the planet and humanity will be in better shape if we can get CO2 emissions as close to zero as possible, and as fast as possible. We need to do more as individuals, communities, and countries. (And yes, I am working on my own carbon sins.)
To help make CO2 more visible, I created the website CO2Now.org. This site keeps the latest CO2 data where you can't miss it: on the home page, and on every page of the site.
Here's what you probably won't notice. The site offers website widgets that can be embedded on any other website. (Most of the CO2Now widgets were launched in September 2008. I wrote about them on connect2earth in October 2008 – before C2E was re-launched.)
At present, hundreds of websites use a CO2Now widget to display the latest CO2 level for their site visitors. Widget users include businesses, local governments, NGOs, educators, activists, bloggers, unions, media sites, and others. Together, the sites that display CO2 levels are based in more than two dozen countries with site content in at least a dozen languages. This is all a hopeful sign that people want to see and share the unfiltered reality about CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
To see the widgets and how they are used, here are some links:
Every month at CO2Now.org, the data for each widget gets updated. Around the world, websites with a widget are automatically changed so the always show the latest scientific measurements of the monthly mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Who makes the measurements? Two major scientific institutions at the world-famous Mauna Loa Observatory. This is a remote location more than 2 miles above sea level.
All CO2Now widgets are available without cost to the websites that use them. In the past year, people have been finding the widgets and adding them to their site. This passive approach has worked well.
But maybe it is time to promote them, and get even more of them in use. What do you think? Might you be able to suggest some good ways to promote the use of CO2 widgets to other sites. Can you think of a site that SHOULD be displaying CO2 from its sustainability page, environmental-responsibility page, or home page?
I’ve been asking these and other questions for a while now. It would be helpful to know your impressions, thoughts, perspectives.
This is my first post to Connect2Earth in 2009. Naturally, I look forward to the conversation ahead.
Read more on this topic »Age of Stupid | Victoria, BC, Canada in Education and awareness
Posted on Sep 18 2009 at 07:21AM by Pro Oxygen
This is showing September 21, 2009, in Victoria, Canada, sponsored by the British Columbia Sustainable Energy Association. Looking forward to it.
Read more on this topic »Atmospheric CO2 out front in Education and awareness
Posted on Sep 19 2009 at 02:50AM by Pro Oxygen
Chely, That's a (great) long list with just a few words.
Here's CO2 levels via Twitter: @CO2Now.
Some individuals have figured out how to get a widget on Facebook and MySpace. I am getting some help with the widgets, so they will become more available.
My local government has a CO2Now widget on its climate action page. (This is something that makes me happy.)
Do you think individuals would be willing to email or visit their own local government...and show them how they can put atmospheric CO2 on display? Would people just do that, or what would help to make it easy to do that?
Read more on this topic »How can nations unite? in Politics and policy
Posted on Sep 19 2009 at 03:04AM by Pro Oxygen
Don't we eventually need to get emissions to zero, or pretty darn close to zero? If we talked about that, would the UN need to divide the world into Annex I countries and Annex II countries? Are these questions overly idealistic or essential?
Read more on this topic »350 Endorsements in Politics and policy
Posted on Sep 19 2009 at 03:34AM by Pro Oxygen
It was great to learn that the Secretary General endorsed the 350 target for atmospheric CO2. If you're able to send a link to the story, it would be much appreciated.
Some more recent endorsements for 350:
Nicholas Stern
Rajendra Pachauri
Leading individuals are talking in the right direction. It is going to be a lot harder for the big institutions and major industrialized countries to follow. As many of us as possible can help by bringing constructive pressure within our own countries and institutions.
Read more on this topic »CO2 = 0 in Politics and policy
Posted on Sep 19 2009 at 04:46AM by Pro Oxygen
That's a good reference. Keep in mind that 80% of 1990 levels by 2050 is the target for industrialized countries. For all countries, developed and developing, the global target drops to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. It sounds like a huge undertaking, and it is. Although better than the present-day trajectory, it means more than 40 years of worse and worse warming, climate instability, ocean acidification and a mess of a lot of other problems. It may seem weird, but I think we need to help governments commit to that goal. National governments need to be in the game with some big commitments. But that is not the end of the story. From there, its up to regular people to make rapid changes to help governments and the world pass those targets long before 2050. We can't pawn responsibility onto governments. As individuals, we need to figure out how to heat our homes, run our cars, and barbecue our dinner without using fossil fuels. Have faith and hold onto the right long term targets. We'll get there.
Read more on this topic »CO2 = 0 in Politics and policy
Posted on Sep 19 2009 at 04:48AM by Pro Oxygen
That's a good reference. Keep in mind that 80% of 1990 levels by 2050 is the target for industrialized countries. For all countries, developed and developing, the global target drops to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. It sounds like a huge undertaking, and it is. Although better than the present-day trajectory, it means more than 40 years of worse and worse warming, climate instability, ocean acidification and a mess of a lot of other problems. It may seem weird, but I think we need to help governments commit to that goal. National governments need to be in the game with some big commitments. But that is not the end of the story. From there, its up to regular people to make rapid changes to help governments and the world pass those targets long before 2050. We can't pawn responsibility onto governments. As individuals, we need to figure out how to heat our homes, run our cars, and barbecue our dinner without using fossil fuels. Have faith and hold onto the right long term targets. We'll get there.
Read more on this topic »Comprehensive Idea and Campaign in Politics and policy
Posted on Sep 19 2009 at 03:05PM by Pro Oxygen
Check out 350.org and the October 24, 2009, global day of climate action. That's the campaign -- raising visibility of 350 as a target for atmospheric CO2. As far as 'comprehensive idea' goes, well, 350 is an atmospheric target. That means it includes all human emissions plus Nature's sinks / emissions. Very all encompassing. The Indian Youth Climate Network is very involved in the 350.org campaigns -- including the GreenDream folks (engineering students based in Kerala).
Read more on this topic »Some governments are hard to talk to in Education and awareness
Posted on Sep 20 2009 at 03:13AM by Pro Oxygen
Chely, thank you for sharing that experience. I imagine that it is easier in Canada to approach someone in government. Also, my work is in government, so my perspective is going to be different from a lot of people. In the situation you described, working with a group is a good idea. Could it work to find a "green" person in government? Or maybe a "green" person outside government who has links with government officials? In Canada, a lot of local governments have someone with a "green" title like Sustainability Coordinator. So that makes it easy to find a person to talk to. Do local governments in Brazil, for example, have any kind of environmental office or position? And is a CO2 widget worth all the effort? I am sure there is much I do not understand.
Read more on this topic »A dream worth making real in Politics and policy
Posted on Sep 20 2009 at 09:41PM by Pro Oxygen
Oil means money for a lot of people, businesses and countries. In Canada, we produce a lot of oil and we consume a lot. This is our reality today. If we know the reality is bad and dangerous, do we change it by accepting it? Or by dreaming of what seems impossible (going to the moon, zero emissions, 350 ppm) and making incremental steps (and leaps) in the right direction? Where does oil money come from? People like me who use the oil. I use it to heat my home and run my car and even my lawnmower. I use propane for my barbecue. I am realizing that if I stop doing those things, then there is less money for the fossil fuel business. If others stop using fossil fuels themselves, then there is even less. In some ways this will be hard to do. For myself, I can switch from an oil furnace to a heat pump (electric) within a few years. I can replace my gas lawnmower before the next grass-cutting season. (There are lots of electric lawnmowers at WalMart.) Within a few years, I can replace my car with an all-electric, or a plug in hybrid. I haven't thought as much about the barbecue, but a charcoal barbecue would be very nice. In terms of my own fossil fuel usage, it is possible to get my own direct fossil fuel usage pretty close to zero within the next 5 years. These are the fossil fuels I have the most control over. I am fortunate in that most of our electricity is from hydro power, but solar-thermal power is being promoted to heat the hot water in local homes. Although most of us have some tie to fossil fuel usage, there is something different about our circumstances. To me, zero emissions seems doable very quickly if we look at what we could actually do. I know that I cannot ever bring another internal-combustion engine into the world again -- knowing that it will spew emissions for a decade or two or longer. I just can't bring myself to add more fossil-fuel burning capacity to the planet. If lots of people said no to the purchase of internal combustion engines, the markets will move away from fossil fuels and traditional cars -- and following the money that those people have to buy furnaces and vehicles that run without fossil fuel. In Canada, we are free to make these kinds of choices, although it is against the tide of what the vast majority are doing. At least, we are free if we have the financial means or access to financing. Are people free to make those kinds of "leadership" choices in Liberia or India or Brazil or other places?
Read more on this topic »Aiming for the impossible in Politics and policy
Posted on Sep 21 2009 at 05:39AM by Pro Oxygen
Glad you like those little widgets. They remind us of the stark reality. Atmospheric CO2 is motoring upward, and it's hard to imagine this big ship turning around any time soon.
Here in Canada, the Northwest Passage is opening as the Arctic Sea Ice extent diminishes, especially during the summer. There are a lot of people in this country who are excited about the oil drilling opportunities, and our government is flexing its northern sovereignty to keep other national interests at bay. This is an example of what you are talking about.
There's all kinds of reasons why fossils are going to keep being used, and even why they are needed. Atmospheric CO2 is headed for 450 ppm and it could even get to 550 or higher the way things are going. CO2 is rising in the atmosphere at a rate that is faster now than it was before Kyoto. And yet, scientists talk of the ultimate need to bring emissions down to zero or very close to it. Some friend like to talk about negative emissions, and technically at least, that is possible. And if it goes too high, the challenges of getting back to safer CO2 levels only get greater and greater -- in terms of finding a place to put all that warming and acidic CO2 we are releasing from the earth's crust (or the rainforests), and in terms of our collective capacity to deal with the food, disease, economic and other related problems.
It's really hard to know that it's going to turn around in time. The question is how we choose to respond? What can I do, or each of us do to help address the root causes? What can we do in terms of our understanding, our actions and what we share with others? Why is it that "having coal" and other fossil fuels means we're probably going to use them? What can we do to change what seems inevitable? We can't deny the reality that what is needed seems unachievable. At the same time, we can go way beyond acknowledging the obstacles. Author Stephen Covey's famous yet wise edict is "Begin with the end in mind." It is not just helpful, but vital that we talk of what is needed in the end, and of the strings of actions that can get us there. The answers are not simple by any stretch. And still, we can achieve the impossible when we know the impossible is so badly needed. I can imagine Canada that gets its energy from a mix of hydro, solar, geo-thermal, nuclear and wind energy. I can imagine a Canada without tar sands, coal mines and oil and gas drilling. I can also imagine a transition that is bumpy but peaceful. The key, as I see it, is getting ordinary people saying yes to energy from sources other than fossil fuels, and no to fossil fuels. There are key roles for governments and technology companies and the financial sector and others. But I think it's when the fossil fuel markets -- people like you and I -- get together and politely say, I figured out a way without fossil fuels, the whole picture starts to change. Reality starts to resemble what we can only dream about at the moment.
Read more on this topic »Living Examples! in Education and awareness
Posted on Sep 21 2009 at 05:53AM by Pro Oxygen
Some great actions! There is a lot to be said for jumping in and working with different people and figuring out what is needed. It seems like we need the right mixture of study, action, discussion and more study....and so on. I hope someone can help you with the disposal challenges.
Read more on this topic »Living Examples! in Education and awareness
Posted on Sep 21 2009 at 05:53AM by Pro Oxygen
Some great actions! There is a lot to be said for jumping in and working with different people and figuring out what is needed. It seems like we need the right mixture of study, action, discussion and more study....and so on. I hope someone can help you with the disposal challenges.
Read more on this topic »The 350 CO2 target is in the Copenhagen Negotiating Text in Politics and policy
Posted on Sep 21 2009 at 06:40AM by Pro Oxygen
This is amazing.....the target of 350 ppm (or less) has made it into the negotiating text for a Copenhagen climate treaty. It happened at the June UNFCCC negotiations in June, and I just saw here at 350.org. Interestingly, this is 350 ppm CO2e, not 350 ppm CO2 -- so it's a target that is less (and probably even safer) than the Hansen et al target of 350 ppm for CO2. Also note the downgrade of the temperature target.
Here's an excerpt from the negotiating text:
9.4 The shared vision is to establish a global approach to addressing climate change through
enhancing action by all countries to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases and to provide adequate
support for vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change. Actions taken shall play a significant
role in ensuring that global greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be stabilized as far
below 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent as possible, with temperature increases limited
to as far below 1.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels as possible. Action taken shall be a major
contribution towards moving to a low greenhouse gas emission society that is compatible with sustainable
development objectives and consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities
and respective capabilities. The right to survival of all nations is a paramount objective.
What should be included.... in Politics and policy
Posted on Sep 22 2009 at 07:34AM by Pro Oxygen
You mention conditional financial aid, and that needs to be there. Lifting pro-competition regulations is interesting. I think there is good and bad to that. Realistically, some (or maybe a lot) of what you suggest is going to be needed.
To be frank, I find the climate treaties to be mind boggling. They are jam-packed with stuff and mechanisms that cover scenarios around the world. I wonder whether the drafters have a complete handle on all that detail. (In a post I made yesterday, I noted that a June 2009 Copenhagen draft makes reference to 350 CO2 equivalent. I had never heard of this target, and it is effectively less than a 350 CO2 target. Was it a typo? A misunderstanding? Intended? The drafting and negotiation process is even more foreign than the finished treaties.)
There is one thing I think is most important. A long term stabilization target for atmospheric CO2. This can tell people and governments were we need to get to. It is not enough to say "avoid 450" when really we need to drop below present levels. There needs to be more than an atmospheric target, but the target helps get the right things into the treaty -- the steps to the long-term target. A CO2 stabilization target is not in Kyoto, and I really hope a 350 target ends up in the Copenhagen treaty.
Another important thing: there needs to be a deal with every country signed on . One of the major handicaps for Kyoto was the absence of Australia (until recently) and the absence of the US. That messed things up. We need all governments in the game. This is not what is in the deal, but agreement is vital for "what's in" to have sufficient effect.
Read more on this topic »Science in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Sep 22 2009 at 07:55AM by Pro Oxygen
Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said on June 26, 2009:
“Today, international action on climate change is urgent and essential. Indeed,
there can no longer be any debate about the need to act, because the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of which I am chairman, has
established climate change as an unequivocal reality beyond scientific doubt.”
The scientific literature (including IPCC reports) deals with solar cycles. Their effect on climate is small compared to human use of fossil fuels / burning rainforests. The selection of facts out of context should be avoided.
I hope this helps.
Read more on this topic »GoogleEarth & YouTube Climate Videos in Education and awareness
Posted on Sep 26 2009 at 12:21PM by Pro Oxygen
Peaceful guy, after loading Google Earth, I tried out the tool. The tool seemed to be an animated chart...not that great really. Your idea of hyper-local climate scenarios would be very cool, but wow, the resources to do that would be HUGE. I also checked out the YouTube invitation to submit videos that could be shown at COP15. This will be an amazing forum to check into, maybe even upload something. I'm not planning on making my own video, this month anyways. There's way too much happening between now and the October 24 global day of climate action. However, here's a video of mine that was submitted in January 2009 to the YouTube "Davos Debates". This video responds to their question, 'will the environment lose out to the economy in 2009?' Michael.
Read more on this topic »We're low on the learning curve in Education and awareness
Posted on Sep 26 2009 at 12:30PM by Pro Oxygen
There's about 6.8 billion of us on the planet. Awareness of the problem has increased in the past four years or so. But we, collectively, used to be really low on the learning curve, and now we're just a bit higher than that. We need to keep plugging away -- learning / sharing individual lessons. Thinking locally and globally. Acting locally and globally. We need billions of people to figure out how to switch from being more part of the cause of climate change and far more a part of the solution. It starts with individuals thinking, talking, doing....all of those things, not just one...and inspiring others to do the same. This is hard stuff.
Read more on this topic »Disheartening reality in Education and awareness
Posted on Sep 26 2009 at 12:50PM by Pro Oxygen
Young and old, I see most people going through life without addressing their minds to the challenge of climate change. Within myself and my family, I do not find it easy to make the changes I know are needed. So I can understand how a person who is not reading IPCC reports...and not watching videos by Al Gore and others....and not engaged in someway on these issues....can just carry on the way so many others are...snogging and shopping, I think Chely put it. The reality is disheartening, but how do we inspire others to want to change? People need to do this? We certainly need to try to inspire others, and inspire more people to inspire more people. What are the things that will really work? M
Read more on this topic »Reading and thinking and doing in Education and awareness
Posted on Sep 27 2009 at 08:35AM by Pro Oxygen
Byju, you are right that personal action is vital to learning what must be done. This is an essential ingredient for leadership, for showing others how it can be done, for inspiring (not telling) others to take similar actions. You have touched on this point in a few of your blogs. And that is how things actually get changed.
Still, personal action is not the answer all on its own. It is important to think and talk and learn about what actions are essential and which methods are most effective for the challenge at hand. This includes sharing info and testing ideas with people of different backgrounds and in different forums (including C2Earth). If it's circular talk without sincere effort or interest, it is probably worth very little. But the contemplation and planning processes, especially when combined with some action along the way, can make a world of difference for the end result.
How am I getting info, sharing it, incorporating changes in my own life? This is happening in lots of ways. A lot more now than last year, and a lot more last year than in years prior. It's a developing thing. These days, I've gone beyond my own reading to help get what scientists are saying out in the public realm -- with video and some events that are in the works. I'm starting to go from running a website from home (CO2Now.org) to helping bring people and leaders together in the community to work on these issues. And while I continue to consume the fossil fuels I see as being at the bullseye of the problem, there are positives like cycling to work, and operating just one car. I know this is not enough, and I would even admit that "the environment" is not the whole or the sole reason for these green actions. There are financial and health reasons, along with "doabillity" reasons, and that's alright too.
Have you seen the movie The Bucket List? It's a couple of terminally ill patients who set out to accomplish their "must do's" before they kick the bucket. In my mind, I have a green bucket list. There are four things on it. These are four things I want to stop doing as soon as possible. Then I will know that I am living a lot better. I want to stop heating my home with oil or any kind of fossil fuel. I want to stop driving a car that runs on ancient energy. I wan to stop cutting my lawn with a gas-powered lawnmower. And I want to stop barbecuing with propane. For starters, I am mentally out of the market for any internal combustion engine or product that runs on fossil fuels. This commitment isn't something as visible as buying an electric car, but it is a necessary step in the right direction. I can see myself completing my green bucket list within 3 years. The motor vehicle might take a bit longer. When those things are done, I will have ended my direct consumption of fossil fuels -- the things I control most directly. This is not the end of the challenge, because much more can be done with food, long-distance travel and items that are purchased. But I have come to realize that by ending our most direct use of fossil fuels, we are ending the indirect fossil fuel for someone else. When I can give someone a ride in an electric car, there won't be a carbon footprint to share, at least not in terms of operating fuels.
This is obviously not the only way to think and do things. For me, the focus on direct fossil fuel use makes sense because it hits the problem in the bullseye. The problem is so big and hard to solve largely because billions of people use and rely on cheap fossil fuels to sustain their standard of living. We can't wait for other individuals or governments or institutions to do this for us. And, as you might say, talking and thinking and reading without getting to action does very little. It's all needed pretty quick.
Read more on this topic »Effective stories. Great actions. in Education and awareness
Posted on Sep 28 2009 at 04:30AM by Pro Oxygen
Check out:
Part 1: What are you going to be?
Part 2: Betting on the future
Part 3: Taking action for 350
Bonus Reading:
Read more on this topic »A big problem in Politics and policy
Posted on Sep 29 2009 at 01:05PM by Pro Oxygen
J: climate refugees will be a huge problem. Responses to climate challenges tend to get divided into three parts: mitigation, geo-engineering and adaptation. Is the displacement of people by climate change something we should plan for under adaptation? This would be adapting to societal / social / human civilization changes, not adapting to changes in the climate system and our physical environment. I wonder whether the funding and programs for adaptation are designed to address this issue. With 2010 just a few months away, it looks like "2010" is a typo. I sure hope it's a typo! M
Read more on this topic »Answers to climate change in Lifestyle and economic changes
Posted on Sep 30 2009 at 07:46AM by Pro Oxygen
Ya, talking of 'answers to climate change' or 'solving climate change' or, I suppose 'ending global warming' is like talking about catching a big, slippery fish. It's really big, and there's both the positive feedbacks in the system (which is bad news for us) and latent heat energy in the system that will "catch up" even if greenhouse gases were stabilized. At the same time, we gotta catch that big, slippery fish. It's going to take almost all of us if we're going to be successful.
Read more on this topic »all together in Lifestyle and economic changes
Posted on Oct 01 2009 at 07:32AM by Pro Oxygen
Chely, Pola, Shlapak... it's true that governments aren't doing enough and people aren't doing enough...and governments aren't providing enough of the right information and people aren't providing the political support so they can implement changes that are big enough. I think, at the end of the day, we all have to do more, and we need governments to big doing way more than they are now...and we need people everywhere doing way more than they are now (and yes, I need to do way more than I am doing now). With Copenhagen on the horizon, the spotlight is on what governments will do. Let's not forget about the people, and at the same time, it is vitally important that consensus be reached on some ambitious targets. Unfortunately Canada (my country) and Russia are doing the most to keep the industrial countries from signing on to 80% reductions by 2050 from 1990 levels. The last I read, Canada was proposing targets for 2020 that are higher than their Kyoto targets (which they missed by a long shot). We're all in a tough spot.
Read more on this topic »A good question in Lifestyle and economic changes
Posted on Oct 02 2009 at 08:24AM by Pro Oxygen
How do we deal with that situation? This situation? That's a big important question. We're probably on track if we're just trying to answer that. Here's one attempt. We need to keep our eyes and ears and hearts wide open. We need to look at our own actions and thinking first. And, I think it helps to see others as essential to the solution -- asking questions like -- how can this person be persuaded to do what's needed to become part of the solution. (It's easier to do this when you're part of the solution.) M
Read more on this topic »Food in Lifestyle and economic changes
Posted on Oct 02 2009 at 08:28AM by Pro Oxygen
Winoria, you're right about the significance of food choices. I haven't gone veggie, at least not recently. I need to look at that more. M
Read more on this topic »Reefs, oceans and living in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Oct 05 2009 at 01:53PM by Pro Oxygen
From Charlie Veron, a prolific scientific author....a summary of an article published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin:
Coral reefs & the critical importance of < 350 ppm for CO2
I'm reading Sea Sick: The Global Ocean in Crisis by Canadian journalist / author Alanna Mitchell. It shows the importance of oceans to life on earth -- something that is easy to miss when we're living on land and think of earth from a land-based perspective. It's giving me a greater appreciation for what's happening with coral reefs. M
Bioenergy in Lifestyle and economic changes
Posted on Oct 05 2009 at 02:02PM by Pro Oxygen
MoD...keep up the good work, figuring it all out. Although not exactly about the initiative you are taking, here's an article that may be of some help..
Is Garbage the solution to tackling climate change?
Yes. in Lifestyle and economic changes
Posted on Oct 06 2009 at 06:09AM by Pro Oxygen
I agree.
Read more on this topic »Smog is bad. CO2 is really bad in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Oct 06 2009 at 06:21AM by Pro Oxygen
You've lived in Beautiful British Columbia longer than me. I used to live in other parts of Canada. Although the air is mostly clear in other parts of Canada, there is still something sweet and lovely about British Columbia air. This is not to say that smog is better or worse than it used to be in 1980, I do think Vancouver air is worse now than it was 20 years ago. Still, I feel we are fortunate relative to other urban parts of the world.
Also, the thing that is invisible is CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases). Atmospheric gases are well mixed and background atmospheric levels are similar around the world. We can't see or smell them, but the data shows that they are going up and their effects will be greater and more enduring than smog.
What do we do? in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Oct 06 2009 at 06:27AM by Pro Oxygen
What do we do for the long-term change in face of short term illusion? Try not to get sucked into interpretations based on the ever-changing weather. Keep an eye on solid, objective, relevant data. Read good science sources and get well grounded in what is happening beyond what we can see. There lots more things that can help, I am sure. Is there something you do that helps support long-term commitments to change?
Read more on this topic »Hi in Politics and policy
Posted on Oct 09 2009 at 08:26AM by Pro Oxygen
Saludo! Here's an article in the Wall Street Journal on the affordability of achieving the ambitious CO2 target of 350 ppm.
Read more on this topic »how we do things in Lifestyle and economic changes
Posted on Oct 09 2009 at 08:34AM by Pro Oxygen
What you are saying is important. We do need to be aware of how we do things and how we do life. It's not just what we do.
Read more on this topic »Universal in Politics and policy
Posted on Oct 10 2009 at 06:52AM by Pro Oxygen
Yes, we need international institutions, and also general principles, recognition of universal natural laws / realities. "Universal" is a big deal, and we need it in lots of ways. Keep working toward that, and keep figuring out how to make constructive improvements.
Read more on this topic »Atmospheric CO2 data for September 2009 in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Oct 12 2009 at 10:08PM by Pro Oxygen
No surprise -- atmospheric CO2 data at the Mauna Loa Observatory is 384.78 parts per million, up from 383.07 in September 2008. (It was 380.81 in September 2007.)
Read more on this topic »Agreed in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Oct 13 2009 at 05:15AM by Pro Oxygen
Action IS needed....if we were to get CO2 to stop rising tomorrow, and that isn't really possible, but if it were, global emissions (mainly from fossil fuel use and then clearing of tropical forests) need to drop by 56% -- and then even more over time as the ocean and land sinks get saturated. That is a lot of action that is needed very quickly. To get CO2 to move toward 350, emissions need to get even lower, and action is needed even faster. For governments like mine, it means stepping up to some ambitious but reasonable targets like 80% reduction by 2050 --- with as much as possible front loaded. For individuals, it means we need to step up and be leaders and get as close as possible to zero emissions as possible -- this decade, not four decades from now. We need to help governments surpass the climate treaty targets. That means electrifying everything. It also means looking beyond CO2 to CH4 and N20 and other greenhouse gases -- and looking at the meat and distant foods we eat. For myself, I don't have things all figured out but I know I'll get there . There is definitely some discomfort in doing most are not, at least at this point. But do we have a choice? I think the choice is whether to we want bad changes to be forced upon us in the future, or we want to make much better changes now that are of our deliberate choosing. Of these choices, only one is a good one.
Read more on this topic »24 oct in Education and awareness
Posted on Oct 20 2009 at 06:35AM by Pro Oxygen
Good idea in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Oct 20 2009 at 06:41AM by Pro Oxygen
Two-way plugs for houses on the grid....a very good idea that should be adopted in a big way.
Read more on this topic »Not Many CONNECT-2-EARTH Posts on Oct 24 in Education and awareness
Posted on Oct 25 2009 at 07:52AM by Pro Oxygen
It was an amazing, historical day day. Normally when I google 350.org, the website 350.org jumps to the top of the list. Today, here's what that search brings up:
- NPR
- Bristol Herald Courier
- CNN
- Triple Pundit
- Examiner.com
- PeopleMagazineDaily
- Boston Globe
- Juneau Empire
- Daily News India
- The Age
It feels like a shift is happening. There were a few events in my home town. The big one was Future Fest. A group called KAIROS arranged for some church bells to ring, although I did not hear any. There was also a screening of A Sea Change that attracted almost 350 people, and led to a great discussion with a very informed panel. It was a great experience to be able to organize that, and also to get the help of so many. The work on the awareness front is not done, and there is also so much to do in terms of action -- personal action, community action...and so on. Another action is the launch of the new CO2 Toaster widget. I'll create a separate blog about that. Read more on this topic »
CO2 Toaster Widget in Education and awareness
Posted on Oct 25 2009 at 07:58AM by Pro Oxygen
Here's an online climate action that was launched Oct 24... a personal collaboration with Toronto artist Franke James and Toronto web programmer William James. It's the CO2 Toaster Widget.
It presents scientific data as part of an interactive widget. We hope it gets more people making a connection with atmospheric CO2 levels. Check out the widget and feel free to share it. Michael.
Read more on this topic »nuevos paradigmas in Discussion in Spanish
Posted on Oct 27 2009 at 06:45AM by Pro Oxygen
To move toward a new paradigm, I think individuals need to see the importance of getting their direct emissions as close to zero as fast as possible. A lot more people need to have the carbon literacy to recognize that fundamental need. From there, we need our financial values to align with environmental values. And our social values as well.
Read more on this topic »Microplankton + interrelated matters in Education and awareness
Posted on Oct 28 2009 at 03:22AM by Pro Oxygen
This subject is new to me, as of a month or two ago.
I am reading about it (and related issues) in Sea Sick: The Global Ocean in Crisis by Canadian journalist Alanna Mitchell. (I highly recommend this book. Tim Flannery calls it "A riveting book of revelations about earth's largest and most important habitat." I think he's right.)
Here is something that seems very important. Microplankton are both at the base of the ocean's food chain and of the chemistry of the earth's oceans. These tiny plankton are the original photosynthesisers that are responible for the planet's first big pulse of oxygen. Life as we know it needs oxygen to exist (in and out of the oceans). They have really shaped life on earth. As they convert the energy of the sun into food and oxygen, they also absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in the ocean. So, they are one of the planet's main mechanisms for removing carbon from the atmosphere. The planet's carbon cycle and thus, the climate system, works through plankton.
The good news is that plankton is highly adaptable to different conditions. They can survive in cold water (eg. 2 deg C) and in "hot" water (eg. 45 deg C). Less is known about how climate change will affect plankton. Climate change could, in some places, cut plankton off from the nutrients they need to reproduce. On the other hand, it could mean that the plankton go into overdrive as has been seen in some places. One theory about the "overdrive" scenario is that the smaller plankton will thrive because they have more surface area relative volume and can survive better in low-nutrient water. Smaller plankton means extra steps are needed to convert the energy of plankton all the way up the food chain to fish.
It seems to me that more study is needed into plankton and microplankton. It is also obvious that we don't need to wait for these kinds of studies to talk, plan and take actions to get our individual carbon emissions as close to zero as quickly as possible. There are other greenhouse gases that need to be dealt with concurrently, but the impacts of carbon on oceans takes away any doubt that CO2 is the priority greenhouse gas when it comes to atmospheric stabilization. There are other reasons, but with life on land being so dependent on life that exists in the oceans, we need to stop pushing atmospheric CO2 levels higher and making ocean pH more acidic. It is not a mystery that our carbon emissions are bringing harm to life on earth.
Sea Sick is changing my perspective on the environment--revealing the importance of oceans to life on land. I am also learning that oceanic issues need more attention in the climate treaty talks, and more attention in general.
Read more on this topic »Should Canada just shut up? in Politics and policy
Posted on Oct 28 2009 at 03:56AM by Pro Oxygen
Here is one scientist’s view of what one country should do at
the Copenhagen climate talks.
The scientist is Andrew Weaver, world-leading climate expert and lead
author for 3 of the 4 IPCC assessment reports. The country is
Canada.
Dr. Weaver’s view. “Canada should just shut up because it has
lost all credibility in the last few years on this [climate] portfolio. Nobody
respects Canada’s opinion’s anymore.” Although not mentioned
in this article (The Georgia Straight, Oct 22 – 29, p. 21), world
leaders walked out in Bankok in response to a Canadian proposal to take a
different (and unaccountable) approach to climate treaty making. I
don’t know what is worse: critizing one’s own country and leaders,
or having a government that believes so deeply in the freedom of speech that
there is no sense of responsibility to the planet and no articulated-link to
science. I think the latter is worse, and I am grateful that
there are scientists like Dr. Weaver who know both the science and much of the
political landscape. We need more people who can effectively
straddle both areas.
Is Dr. Weaver praising any countries? Yes. China. He
cites President Hu Jintao’s promise last month to curb the increase in CO2
emissions. “I actually think China is going to show leadership on
this, and the rest of the western world will follow.”
Whether the leadership comes from China, Canada, or somewhere else, we
surely need more leaders and less followers. We need
leaders in the West, the East, among the LDCs and everywhere, even outside of government.
(I think "outside" government is at least as important as governments
themselves.) We need climate leadership based on what science shows
is needed. We need responsible leadership.
Geo-engineering in Climate - It's getting hot
Posted on Oct 28 2009 at 04:04AM by Pro Oxygen
MOD, here is a good 16 minute video about geo-engineering (David Keith at the University of Calgary -- TED talks.) Another very interesting survey / perspective of geo-engineering options is found in the Geo-engineering chapter of James Lovelock's latest book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia.
Read more on this topic »Geo-engineering II in Climate - It's getting hot
Posted on Oct 28 2009 at 04:17AM by Pro Oxygen
Yes, we need to keep the focus on plan A -- focus on the causes of the problem. We need to avoid the moral hazard of fixing the symptoms and ignoring the root causes -- and we need to avoid unintended consequences. Still, before long, we're also going to need a plan B that complements or enhances plan A (mitigation) and which may be less expensive than adaptation. It's not so much whether or not we do more geo-engineering (Lovelock points out that we're already doing that), the important thing is what we do and how we do it together with steps to address the root causes of the problem. See David Keith on TED Talks.
Read more on this topic »A Sea Change is SMART in Climate - It's getting hot
Posted on Oct 28 2009 at 04:25AM by Pro Oxygen
Having watched The Age of Stupid and A Sea Change, the one movie I would recommend to people is A Sea Change. This is a wonderful, very human film about the terrible problem of ocean acidification. It is a movie that artfully conveys understanding of what is causing the problem, and it even shows how acidification rates can be stopped.
Read more on this topic »4 degrees + 350 CO2e in Politics and policy
Posted on Oct 28 2009 at 04:48AM by Pro Oxygen
Thank you for putting things into context. The 4 degrees prediction is rapid and severe. In Six Degrees by Mark Lynas, the 4 deg C mark (globally) is roughly the point when the tropical rainforests shut down. So, scientists talking of 4 degrees should be a grave warning for people to make some important changes.
With respect to CO2 vs. CO2e, here is an explanation at 350.org about not just the differences in the targets, but also the fact that LDC and AOSIS are deliberately aiming for the tougher target of 350 CO2 e. I can now see that it is very deliberate. It would be great to talk to / film a science or political leader from one of the LDC / AOSIS countries to talk about the selection of this target.
Read more on this topic »individuals + aiming for zero in Politics and policy
Posted on Oct 28 2009 at 05:12AM by Pro Oxygen
It does not seem realistic for a country to expect to achieve zero emissions any time soon.
When it comes to individuals, especially those who are willing and able, zero direct emissions can be achieved within a short period of time. This may not help with the COP15 negotiations, but if enough individuals get to zero emissions and make the achievement known, it adds pressure on more individuals, on industry and on governments to follow suit. Plus it means less carbon and other GHGs in the atmosphere and oceans. It is time to focus on COP 15, but it is important to keep up the supports for individual and community actions. Talking about the benefits of zero emissions for individuals is a good way to go on that front.
Read more on this topic »stabilization targets + climate negotiations in Politics and policy
Posted on Oct 28 2009 at 06:11AM by Pro Oxygen
In Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, the central point is that CO2 is higher than the natural ceiling of 300 ppm and rising at an unnaturally high rate. He presents these facts as being at the centre of the global warming problem. The natural question, then, is: What should atmospheric CO2 be in order to be safe? Another one is this: Why aren't people talking about what CO2 is? A third is: What level of CO2 is the world aiming for?
With these questions in mind, I emailed the UNFCCC Secretariat in Bonn Germany -- April 2008. Here is the response:
"Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change there is no greenhouse gas stabilization target specifically outlined, nor are there target peaks for CO2 or any other known greenhouse gas. With this in mind, not having peak targets set, there is also no target for post-peak stabilization. Under the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, Parties to the Convention agreed on the reduction of greenhouse gases by Annex I Parties (which, as you may know, covers the developed countries).
The Kyoto Protocol is the result of a series of negotiations, in which Parties agreed on targets on quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments (QELROs) under its Article 3.
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on CO2 stabilization scenarios is recognized in conclusions and decisions under the UNFCCC. The Bali Action Plan makes a reference to the IPCC work on the inter-relationship between emissions reduction and stabilization targets and peak CO2 emissions, reflecting the consideration of these issues in the UNFCCC process.
Greenhouse gas peak and stabilization targets are not under discussion under the UNFCCC. It is through reduction of emissions that stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be achieved. Therefore, setting
emission limitations and reductions provide mechanisms for action.
Additionally, not only is mitigation being discussed, but also adaptation to climate change as it (climate change) is already occurring. Some countries more than others are already feeling the impact of climate change.
There is no conclusion on what levels of greenhouse gases constitute dangerous anthropogenic interference. As mentioned before, different levels have different impacts on different regions. Action to address climate change is being taken through mitigation, adaptation, financial mechanisms and technology transfer. To answer your final question, the link between emission reductions and greenhouse gas stabilization as envisioned in Article 2 of the Convention is that, as mentioned before, emission reductions provide a way for countries to take actions, and it is through emission reductions that stabilization will be achieved and not the other way around. Stabilization will come through actions that limit and reduce emissions, and through sinks. In the IPCC Assessment Report stabilization scenarios are mitigation scenarios that aim at pre-defined greenhouse gas reduction target. Putting it in other words, stabilization is the goal, mitigation (reduction) is the means towards that goal."
I learned a great deal from the explanation I received. It provides clarity about the differences between articles 2 and 3 of the UNFCCC.
However, the action by countries to not set a stabilization target for atmospheric CO2 or any other greenhouse gas is convenient for negotiators, and a problem when we need leadership that can let 6.8 billion people know where they need to get to on this issue.
With the global warming problem and its pervasive causes, I remain to this day at a loss as to how countries can think we can get the better part of 6.8 billion people all moving in the same direction when there is no end, quantified target for atmospheric CO2.
How can 192 countries lead the charge when they cannot quantify and measure progress toward the destination?
Yes, we need "reduction actions" AND we need "stabilization goals" so we know how much to reduce by -- so we can figure out how to get to the goal, and so its plainly obvious whether we are doing enough to get to where we need to be. We need both, not just reductions targets, and we also need everyone in the tent. (That didn't happen with Kyoto and that was a big problem. It may be even harder to get everyone in the same tent this time around.)
Fortunately, Bill McKibben asked Dr. Hansen to identify the safe upper limit for CO2, and now the world negotiators are talking about an atmospheric CO2 stabilization target of 350 ppm and less. And there are 80 countries (LDCs and AOSIS) lined up to push for the extra-ambitious 350 CO2e target.
The 350 target has not been adopted in a consensus-based treaty, and it is important to have a strong government climate treaty. Whether or not the UNFCCC agrees on a 350 target, and whether or not it agrees on a global reduction of 50% by 2050, and whether or not it gets the mechanisms in place to support and spur the achievement of ambitious emissions reductions, those of us who see the value of a target now have the science-based 350 target. That target is now on the table for Copenhagen. It has 80 countries behind it and personal endorsements from Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Lord Nicholas Stern, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Al Gore and others. [click here for more details.] Individuals are leading. The big institutions are, at least at this point, lagging behind. The funny thing is that "avoiding 450" is consistent with stabilizing at 350 ppm or less. The point that Hansen's paper and 350 target introduce is this: the time that CO2 is in the danger zone must be minimized to dangerous changes to the climate system.
The higher level climate talks are not focussed on a stabilization target. Those talks need to continue just the same, and they need to produce some good fruit. The push for 350 brings focussed and constructive pressure to the negotiators to agree on ambitious targets. It seems to be exactly what UNFCCC Sec. Gen. Yvo de Boer has asked the world to provide. Talking about targets is positive and constructive in many ways.
Read more on this topic »When there is a will there is a way. in Climate - It's getting hot
Posted on Oct 28 2009 at 12:56PM by Pro Oxygen
Even if it seems impossible, it does not mean it is impossible. If the need is real and understood, people have the ingenuity to figure out the ways to get there...to achieve what seems impossible. It's like aiming to go to the moon and bring the astronauts safely back. It is inconceivable for most, but achievable when the decision is made, aim and purpose clarified, and resources are committed.
Read more on this topic »mitigation + adaptation in Politics and policy
Posted on Oct 29 2009 at 06:49AM by Pro Oxygen
Your
blog is informed and sincere and I hope that more people hear what you are
talking about, and I am interested in learning more.
I had never heard that industrialized countries should focus on mitigation and the so-called developing countries should focus on adaptation. The emissions target of 80% reductions by 2050 for industrialized countries, and the lesser target for other countries does fit with that approach. While there is a need for industrialized countries to prioritize mitigation and less industrialized countries to prioritize adaptation, I would agree with your sentiment that all peoples must cooperate on both fronts at the same time.
I sent you an email. Michael
Individuals are endorsing 350 in Climate - It's getting hot
Posted on Oct 29 2009 at 07:10AM by Pro Oxygen
It's worth emphasizing that the "leading leaders" are endorsing the 350 CO2 target as individuals. Here is a link: http://www.victoria350.org/350/who-says-350/.
Other than the 80 LDCs / AOSIS countries which endorse 350 CO2e, it is individuals rather than institutions (or governments) that are supporting the target. Individuals are ahead of the institutions on this. And while the institutions are a bit slower in giving public endorsement of a 350 target, they seem to be talking less about "avoiding 450." With the help of recent science, including an article in the September edition of Nature, change is happening.
Read more on this topic »Cost of Inaction in Politics and policy
Posted on Oct 30 2009 at 06:28AM by Pro Oxygen
I am not sure that the assumptions for estimating the costs of action would be the same as the cost of inaction. The costs of inaction go far beyond a value that can be assessed in monetary terms. If a dollar value could be assessed, I am sure that it would be so huge as to be mind boggling. Mass immigrations would be one of many symptoms of a huge problem.
For example, how does one cost out, in financial terms, the value of multitudes of extinct species? How does one cost out the value of social, economic and environmental stability and sustainability on Earth? Today, we live in an era of insufficient action, at least in collective terms. Greenhouse gas emissions are growing, not lessening. As a result, atmospheric concentrations are growing, not lessening. Ending the use of fossil fuels is so absolutely important to the future of our planet that we need as many people and countries as possible to get talking and moving in that direction. It does not matter if we're annex I or annex II, rich or poor. We all need to put the spotlight on the need to end the use of fossil fuels, and the need to end the destruction of rainforests. Even though a Copenhagen agreement will almost certainly not be enough, there needs to be a Copenhagen agreement with, at least, a global commitment to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050. This is the opportunity for governments to collectively step up to the plate and show that they are serious about playing a big role on this problem. Then it will be up to ordinary people to support, and push and lead the charge to not just reach that target, but to exceed it. If it is possible to attach a cost to inaction, I think it is so high that it should be a great motivator for humanity to switch from net problem producer to net problem solver.
Read more on this topic »arnold.pen2net.com in Education and awareness
Posted on Oct 30 2009 at 06:33AM by Pro Oxygen
Please provide a direct link to your blog article (instead of just the home page). Michael
Read more on this topic »Let our kids pick the final destination in Climate - It's getting hot
Posted on Oct 30 2009 at 07:06AM by Pro Oxygen
I love it when someone puts the focus on goals and targets. Thank you for thinking out loud about this subject.
How do we get where we need to go if we cannot say what we are aiming for? How can a leader lead without saying where they are headed? Whatever the situation and whatever the purpose, a clear goal is an essential of the process of solving a problem or achieving something great, or both at the same time.
With a goal that is based on what science says is needed, for example, there is something concrete for people to figure out how they will do more to move toward the goal than away from it. Unlike machines and computers, humans possess great ingenuity to figure out the means to solving the problems. Maybe the solution requires heavy-handed regulation, and maybe none at all. Maybe the solution is heavy on technology, and maybe its low tech. Maybe it takes big corporate money, and maybe it takes the resourcefulness of a coordinated group of people. Maybe it is other things, maybe it isn't, and maybe it is a combination of approaches that have been mentioned, and those that have not. The point is this: The existence of a science-based goal mobilizes ingenuity to solve a problem. We have a problem that needs fixing. We have science that tells us the maximum level of CO2 that should be in the atmosphere. "Less than 550" used to be the target. Then "less than 450" and "less than 450 CO2e". Now the talk is shifting to less than 350, and even less than 350 CO2e.
Whether one of the 350 targets is accurate or not, the direction is clear. It also grounds a person in knowing what solutions are not enough. For example, a 5% reduction in emissions is not going to stabilize atmospheric CO2 when a global reduction of 56% (2009 levels) is needed to do that.
It is just as clear that significant behavioural changes will be needed to move towards stabilization at a CO2 level that is less than today's. Others are not done talking about what the goal should be, and they need to go through that process. Still, I look forward to winding down the discussion of the goal and seeing more energy and ingenuity getting invested in designing and implementing plans to get to these targets. Let's talk about the best ways to achieve 350, at least in a directional sense, and get on the road. Let's test new changes and ideas. Whether CO2 might be just fine at 360 or 350 or 316 -- the best play is to start moving in that direction and let our kids determine the final destination.
Read more on this topic »Harness the energy of youth in Climate - It's getting hot
Posted on Oct 30 2009 at 07:11AM by Pro Oxygen
I agree there is so much more than can be done by enabling young people to bring their energy and passion to this problem. I would add the suggestion that youth can be empowered with good information, and by encouraging them to ask tough questions.
Read more on this topic »Nanotechnology in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Oct 31 2009 at 05:04PM by Pro Oxygen
Nanotech is worth researching. However, I am skeptical that it will make a big contribution to stabilizing atmospheric CO2 / GHG levels ala article 2 of the UNFCCC. The chemical reality is that burning fossil fuels (and forests) pumps a lot of carbon molecules into the atmosphere. They heat the planet and acidify the oceans. The nanotech research should be pursued in a proper context, and not as a cure to our problems. Nanotech may help us find substitutes to fossil fuel energy, such as more or better photovoltaic solar cells.
Read more on this topic »Money and investments? in Politics and policy
Posted on Oct 31 2009 at 06:48PM by Pro Oxygen
There is a reality to what you are getting at. Money talks, as they say. There is also the reality of votes -- the currency that acts like money in political circles. And there are the physical realities of the planet and how that is changing as we continue to add more GHGs to the atmosphere and the oceans. Science helps us understand those realities. And then there are the words and messages that are used to communicate the realities -- which drives money, votes, etc. These things are interconnected. We need a lot of the right pieces at the same time. I agree that money and investment is important. We need governments, small and large businesses, people from everywhere. Everyone needs to be in the game.
Read more on this topic »What if in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Oct 31 2009 at 07:22PM by Pro Oxygen
Some more thoughts.....
Yes, it is an excellent strategy for people and communities and institutions with the means to buy tropical forests for the sustainability of the planet. Yes, technology has a role, although let us recognize the higher wisdom and complexity of nature before thinking that our technological wizardry is a better option. Yes, impacts on the earth's ecosystem are beyond the planet's ability to regenerate. They have been since about 1988 (when, incidenentally, atmospheric CO2 moved past the 350 ppm threshold). (See the WWF data for Earth's Ecological Footpring). Is it too late. There are opinions out there, and while no one knows, we are in a serious predicament. No, other planets and moons make for a lousy substitute our beautiful, life-sustaining planet earth.
Read more on this topic »Blueprint for replacing fossil fuels and reducing energy consumption in Education and awareness
Posted on Oct 31 2009 at 08:31PM by Pro Oxygen
What would it take to shift from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy by 2030? Read this Stanford University article. It could mean a 30% reduction in world energy consumption.
Read more on this topic »¿Qué crees que es la mejor ... in Discussion in Spanish
Posted on Oct 31 2009 at 08:45PM by Pro Oxygen
¿Qué crees que es la mejor manera de motivar a la gente en Guatemala, o en
América Central? Países de todo el mundo son tan diferentes, así que una
estrategia en un país puede no funcionar tan bien en otro.
objetivo común in Discussion in Spanish
Posted on Oct 31 2009 at 09:56PM by Pro Oxygen
... así que ... los problemas mundiales y las consecuencias pueden motivar a la
gente si ellos entienden los problemas, y si ven que los vínculos entre las
acciones y los problemas. Eso hace que sea importante que las personas tienen un
objetivo común que pueden ser medidos y controlados, así que ver cómo se conecta
con lo que están haciendo a nivel local.
Brotherhood in Other
Posted on Oct 31 2009 at 10:02PM by Pro Oxygen
I also agree with you and Rubi that wars cause a lot of damage....mentally, socially, to the lands and oceans. It takes us away from living in balance with the Earth.
Read more on this topic »small things in Lifestyle and economic changes
Posted on Oct 31 2009 at 10:08PM by Pro Oxygen
jaj, you make a good point: don't overlook small actions like the decision to walk instead of drive. Sometimes it is easy to miss "zero emissions" actions because they are common and simple.
Read more on this topic »thinking like an insurance company in Lifestyle and economic changes
Posted on Oct 31 2009 at 10:12PM by Pro Oxygen
maybe we should think like an insurance company when it comes to making predictions for the future. And rather than planning to buy more insurance, I am sure it is better for people, collectively, to work together to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and end the main cause of global warming, climate instability and ocean acidification.
Read more on this topic »i hadn't thought about spray paint in Education and awareness
Posted on Oct 31 2009 at 10:14PM by Pro Oxygen
Spray painting is not something I had thought about before -- in environmental terms. I will take a closer look at this. Thanks. Michael
Read more on this topic »working together in Climate - It's getting hot
Posted on Oct 31 2009 at 10:19PM by Pro Oxygen
I agree that youth look at the issues and possibilities differently from middle-aged adults. A good way to harness those advantages is to team up young people and older people in pairs or small groups, even informally from time to time.
Read more on this topic »Learning in Climate - It's getting hot
Posted on Oct 31 2009 at 10:26PM by Pro Oxygen
Thanks for the comments Chely. Young, old or in-between, we can all choose to keep learning, or not. It is also good to look at life and the world from different perspectives. It is helpful to try and look at problems from someone else's circumstances and culture, and so on . It can be hard to do, and still, it is very important. You are taking that approach. Keep doing that -- through reading, travel, blogging, formal study and so on. Michael
Read more on this topic »Lots of technologies are needed in Lifestyle and economic changes
Posted on Nov 01 2009 at 04:57AM by Pro Oxygen
It is easy to create a list of problems with every technology in existence. And if a problem cannot be identified, one can say "beware of unintended consequences." A careful, reasoned approach is needed to match the right technologies for the right circumstances and need. For example, wind energy is terrible in some places, and perfect in others. It just means that we need lots of research and production for many different kinds of technologies at the same time. There is no silver bullet. But at the end of the day, all our actions and technologies need to enable us to make a transition into the post-carbon era where fossil fuel usage is by far the exception, not the rule as it is today.
Read more on this topic »We are degrading our planet as we speak in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Nov 01 2009 at 05:10AM by Pro Oxygen
Every region is hit by anthropogenic climate change, and it's happening as we speak. The label "global warming" fits because the average global temperatures are rising, and it may appears to be a misfit because there are pockets or regions of the planet where cooling can be experienced. As for risk, the risk is nothing that global warming will happen. It is happening. The risk is that it will worsen to a severe or unmanageable degree. It is risky behaviour to allow the conditions that drive global warming and climate to grow as they are. Mainly, carbon emissions and atmospheric concentrations are rising rapidly. These actions mean we are degrading our planet as we speak.
Read more on this topic »Six Degrees in Education and awareness
Posted on Nov 01 2009 at 05:16AM by Pro Oxygen
It looks like the Nat. Geographic video is based on Six Degrees by Mark Lynas...a book worth reading.
Read more on this topic »Scientific capacity in Politics and policy
Posted on Nov 01 2009 at 05:24AM by Pro Oxygen
You're right: building scientific capacity is important. I'm actually discovering how little has been known about the oceans. This is an area where there is room for much more scientific capacity, not just in some places but around the world. If I may add to what you are saying, it is that people and leaders in countries need to develop their capacity to use the scientific data in regular discourse about climate issues, and in decision making.
Read more on this topic »Adaptation is not the solution in Politics and policy
Posted on Nov 01 2009 at 05:27AM by Pro Oxygen
Switching from fossil fuels to renewable energies will prevent the need for severe adaptation. Adaptation does not address the root causes that are making the problem worse.
Read more on this topic »Maldives says 350 in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Nov 01 2009 at 05:33AM by Pro Oxygen
The cabinet for the Maldives held an undersea cabinet meeting to endorse a CO2e target of 350 parts per million -- because their country of 350,000 people are on the front lines of losing their country to rising sea levels. They are doing what they can to mitigate the causes of the problems. But really, they are asking other countries, including my country of Canada, to endorse policies that will get CO2 and greenhouse gases to levels lower than they are today. Canada is a country with far more capacity to adapt, has no goal that I know of for stabilizing atmospheric CO2. Silence is deadly.
Read more on this topic »Global warming is now simpler to understand than ever... in Education and awareness
Posted on Nov 01 2009 at 05:41AM by Pro Oxygen
Carbon Emissions Linked To Global Warming In Simple Linear Relationship
Read more on this topic »Transition planning for rapid shift away from fossil fuels in Politics and policy
Posted on Nov 01 2009 at 05:46AM by Pro Oxygen
Al Gore launches a 10-year safe climate plan with science and business leaders in Australia.
Read more on this topic »Welcome aboard in Education and awareness
Posted on Nov 01 2009 at 06:42PM by Pro Oxygen
Our earth is passing through a critical situation, and information received in recent years and decades shows that humanity is in the driver's seat. The choice now is whether we turn away from where we're headed, or keep accelerating toward cataclysmic changes in climate system (and thus, in our economic and social systems) that can only be predicted in general terms, not as a precise result. You've taken the initiative to say you are going to do something to help with the turnaround. Maybe you have already followed through? In any case, please take the next step and find a way to move forward, step after step, even if no one contacts you to invite you to speak somewhere, and even when some attempts produce few results. We're all figuring things out. Help will come to you, and in time, you will be able to help others. Regardless of our own country or circumstances, we all have the freedom to choose what we do, both in terms of our personal behaviour and in terms of our relationships locally and globally.
Read more on this topic »A worthwhile and beneficial venture.... in Lifestyle and economic changes
Posted on Nov 02 2009 at 05:15PM by Pro Oxygen
Chullu, it looks like you have a good team behind you. Consider getting in touch with Hemant at http://www.biogashelpline.com/biogas-events.php. Your organizations may be able to help one another. Michael
Read more on this topic »buen turista in Discussion in Spanish
Posted on Nov 03 2009 at 05:46AM by Pro Oxygen
ser un buen turista.
Forest carbon in Canada in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Nov 05 2009 at 12:22AM by Pro Oxygen
Michelle, I went back and found your October 27 post about forests. Forestry practices are the responsibility of the Canadian provinces. I live in the province of British Columbia on the Pacific coast which has the largest trees and forest industry in Canada. There are certainly very different perspectives in Canada and British Columbia as to whether the forests are well managed. I can say there have been a lot of changes in British Columbia since the days of the protests over logging in the Carmanah old growths (about 1993). Although forestry practices in BC used to be a lot worse, the industrial-scale forestry practices are still impacting the diversity of species in the forest, and the retention of carbon in the soils. I forest carbon cycles is not a focus of mine, I was able to find the following article about forest carbon cycles and the Canadian government's decision not to include its forests in its Kyoto accounting. I found it to be very interesting.
Nat. Resources Canada | Is Canada's Forest a carbon sink or a source?
Here are some more info sources:
NGO information about the Boreal forest: ForestEthics.org
BC Government info: Forest carbon and climate
Read more on this topic »Clive Hamilton Lecture in Education and awareness
Posted on Nov 06 2009 at 06:37AM by Pro Oxygen
This lecture by Clive Hamilton provides a realistic assessment of our situation. The UNFCCC has an ultimate objective to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. To stabilize CO2, the chief anthropogenic greenhouse gas, that would take a cut by about half from present day levels. Since the UNFCCC climate treaty was introduced in the early 90s, emissions have only climbed. Rather than slow down or reduce our emissions, they are growing at a faster rate. Some countries and sectors are getting their emissions down, and that is good. But overall, collectively, our emissions are heading in the wrong direction. I am not sure that the Obama Administration has adopted a pathway to a 550 ppm target, (God help us if it has) but this lecture in Australia by Clive Hamilton generally seems to capture the essence of humanity's conundrum. I personally believe that a lot of people need to get their emissions close to zero. A lot of people need to talk openly and loudly of the need for emissions to get close to zero. I for one can say that I need to get my emissions close to zero. It isn't easy, but I'm working on it. The sooner we deal directly with fossil fuels, the better the planet will be for future generations and other species. I believe that to be a plain fact. There is also a need to support the negotiations processes that are in place. At the same time, there is a need to be clear and unambiguous about the scale of what people need to do when their governments have decided how strong or how weak their climate commitments will be.
Read more on this topic »Good video in Education and awareness
Posted on Nov 06 2009 at 06:41AM by Pro Oxygen
This video is well done. The shrinking arctice sea ice is a kind of canary in the coal mine. Also, James Lovelock has written about sea level rise as a clear indicator that global warming is happening. Most of the sea level rise is due to the warming of the oceans and the associated expansion in the size of the ocean.
Read more on this topic »Good paper in Education and awareness
Posted on Nov 11 2009 at 06:21AM by Pro Oxygen
This was also published in Nature in September.
Read more on this topic »How's your country doing? in Education and awareness
Posted on Nov 11 2009 at 06:23AM by Pro Oxygen
Most of our countries are "inadequate." Some are medium. Norway and Switzerland are "sufficient" Click here (at climate tracker) to see how your country is doing
Read more on this topic »I generally like reading your posts ... in Politics and policy
Posted on Nov 13 2009 at 07:30AM by Pro Oxygen
I generally like reading your posts, this one in particular.
A key thing to mention up front is that 80% by 2050 (relative to 1990) is part of the target to reduce global emissions by 50% by 2050.
M
Read more on this topic »From the home of the Colossal Fossil in Politics and policy
Posted on Nov 18 2009 at 04:46PM by Pro Oxygen
You're right -- public will and personal responsibility are key -- they even promote political will and government achievement. At the same time, responsible government and political will is very much needed for government achievements, and to support individuals and businesses in their recognition and achievements on these issues. It all goes together.
Last night, I was inspired by the tremendous personal, public and political will to take action...and reminded of the terrible impact of a government that refuses to show up for an issue. It was a pre-Copenhagen rally in my hometown of Victoria, Canada. There were speeches from an IPCC lead author about the science and what different pathways mean, and the need to get to zero emissions, by a solutions researcher who showed we have all the technology we need to get to post-carbon prosperity without nuclear, by three younger persons who are going to Copenhagen and what youth are doing, thinking and saying, and Canada's national leader of the Green Party (the Canadian Green Party has no elected Members of Parliament) who, at the moment is one of just two national party leaders who will go to Copenhagen. Each speaker talked about how they are taking action and working with others to take and inspire actions. That was the inpiring part. We also heard about how Canada used to be a leader on environmental issues -- as sponsor to a major climate change symposium in Toronto in 1988, a leader of the 1987 Montreal Protocol deal (with effective trade consequences for non-compliance) -- back when Conservative Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister. (That was back in the days when atmospheric CO2 was 350 ppm and we hadn't realized it was probably a key upper limit for safe levels). And we heard about how our present Conservative government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is not getting science briefings on climate change, left New York where UN high level meetings were being held on nuclear and UNFCCC business to attend the opening of a Tim Hortons donut shop. We heard that of the countries that signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Canada is the only one that is not meeting its emissions reductions commitments (you could say Canada missed its commitments with gusto, and you could also say that prior governments -- and Canadians -- share responsibility - it's not just Stephen Harper and the Conservatives). We also heard that Stephen Harper is not going to Copenhagen because other leaders are not. This is shameful because if there is any country that needs to hear first hand what the rest of the world is doing and saying, it is Canada. There is no issue that will have more impact on Canadians than climate, and our Prime Minister needs to be there. If you want to contact Prime Minister Harper yourself -- and urge him to go to Copenhagen, his email is pm@pm.gc.ca and his phone number is 1-613-995-9364. I think the country code for Canada is 1. I am doing that and others are doing that, and it would help to have more jump in.
In response to the discussion on governments -- the absence of leadership and lack of interest and presence of a government to address such an important issue does make things very tough. It does not mean its game over, just that the people need to work extra hard. In Canada, despite many strikes against us, as one of the very worst countries in terms of Kyoto compliance, and the lack of cooperation in the lead up to Copenhagen, a lot of people and leaders here in Canada are working very hard to bring about change. When you see Canada raking in the fossil of the day awards, and possibly the Colossal Fossil award at the end, as it has in the past -- have fun with that, do bring attention to the absence and backwardness of the Canadian government on this. But also know that Canadian are ashamed that this is happening and many are working to change this. Every country needs to work to bring strong public will in line with strong political will. Both are needed, and we need to pay attention to that. I would suggest that when the Colossal Fossil award is presented at the end of the Copenhagen conference, that whatever country receives it, that one or more leaders from that country be given a Fossil Badge of Courage to highlight the work they have done in spite of an irresponsible and absent government. M.
Read more on this topic »Relationships in Climate - It's getting hot
Posted on Nov 27 2009 at 01:48PM by Pro Oxygen
This is a video that gets one thinking. And here are some thoughts...
There is a need for more energy on our relations and interconnections with the Earth systems, human systems included. I'd expect that many at Copenhagen will bring much expertise in that area, but would be surprised if there is much energy put into that. Will the biodiversity treaty get talked about much in Copenhagen? Even though it probably will not, it would be a positive if it did.
The separation of the climate and biodiversity treaty processes is understandable, to make it possible to start to understand the parts, and potentially a structural flaw in the way we try to address these problems -- by a process of separation and reduction. Somehow, there is a need to look at the climate system and the biosphere together.
Read more on this topic »200B? in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Nov 27 2009 at 01:58PM by Pro Oxygen
What would anyone need or want $200 billion? What would you do with it? Are you saying that you won't help save the planet if you don't get $200 billion? If so, why is that?
Read more on this topic »When do we switch from worsening to bettering? in Climate - It's getting hot
Posted on Nov 27 2009 at 02:30PM by Pro Oxygen
This is a good overview.
When I come across references to temperature increases of 4 degrees or so, I think of Mark Lynas' book Six Degrees where he describes what will happen to the world at one degree increments. It provides a kind of mental benchmark. Even at 3 degrees C, which he says is achievable by 2050 (which is an astounding possibility) the carbon cycle could reverse so the land sinks would become sources. And at 3 degrees, the process of Amazon rainforest collapse would begin, thus, as ML points out, leaving us powerless bystanders to runaway global warming. The time to act is now, while we can prevent further worsening of the problem.
My other comment is that every month that the atmospheric concentration of GHGs rises, we are quite frankly making these problems worse. It is common to talk about whether it is too late to do something. I think we should be talking about how long it will take us to stop making things worse. How soon can we turn things around and collectively start making things better? Wouldn't it be wonderful to hear our leaders talk plainly about when we can switch from making the problem worse to making it better?
Read more on this topic »Things that make you go "hmmmmmm" in Evidence of climate change and ideas
Posted on Nov 28 2009 at 03:47AM by Pro Oxygen
Best of wishes.
Read more on this topic »Some more optimism from China and Canada and US in Discussion in Spanish
Posted on Nov 28 2009 at 04:16AM by Pro Oxygen
There is still a long way to go. But it is good to get some good news.
In China, they are setting some ambitious targets for 2020, in the interest of national security.
Closer to my home, President Obama said he will go to Copenhagen on his way to get his Nobel Prize in Oslo. The pressure that creates on the government in my country, Canada, is HUGE because of the lack of ambitious climate targets in Canada is being tied to the need for a continental (North American) approach to carbon emissions, and my Prime Minister's refusal to go to Copenhagen was justified because few world leaders were planning to go. Now things are changing and the Prime Minister of Canada has said he will attend. The attendance of the Prime Minister or President, if it is only a cameo appearance, is an important signal. The other good news from Canada is that three opposition parties passed a non-binding resolution in the Canadian Parliament that calls for a 25% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. That is a big deal when Canadian emissions are up by 35% over 1990 levels.
By the way, congratulations on getting invited to join the WWF delegation in Copenhagen. That will be an incredible experience. Michael
Read more on this topic »Videos/images by Pro Oxygen
- Home|
- About|
- Terms of Service|
- Privacy Policy|
- Copyright Notice|
- Contact Us|
- Tell a Friend|
- Credits|
|
|
|
|
