COP 17

[biffvernon]

Keep up with COP17 http://oneworldgroup.org/durban

[biffvernon]

There are rumours of China shifting in a good way. It is upon the US Congress which the fate of the world will stumble.

[Norm]

[img]http://avaaz_images.s3.amazonaws.com/1821_article-1267613431136-0887DDCC000005DC-568731_636x300_1_460x230.png[/img]

Our oceans are dying, our air changing, and our forests and grasslands turning to deserts. From fish and plants to wildlife to human beings, we are killing the planet that sustains us, and fast. There is one single greatest cause of this destruction of the natural world -- climate change, and in the next 4 days, we have a chance to stop it.

The UN treaty on climate change -- our best hope for action -- expires next year, but a dirty and greedy US-led coalition of oil-captured countries is trying to kill it forever. It's staggeringly difficult to believe, but they are trading short term profits for the survival of our natural world.

The EU, Brazil and China are all on the fence -- they are not slaves to oil companies the way the US is, but they need to hear a massive call to action from people before they really lead financially and politically to save the UN treaty. The world is gathered at the climate summit for the next 4 days to make the big decision. Let's send our leaders a massive call to stand up to big oil and save the planet -- an Avaaz team at the summit will deliver our call directly. Sign the petition

http://www.avaaz.org/en/the_planet_is_d ... 30&v=11424

[biffvernon]

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... l.pdf+html

Anderson & Bows paper published yesterday.

The analysis suggests that despite high-level statements to the contrary, there is now little to no chance of maintaining the global mean surface temperature at or below 2◦C. Moreover, the impacts associated with 2◦C have been revised upwards, sufficiently so that 2◦C now more appropriately represents the threshold between ‘dangerous’ and ‘extremely dangerous’ climate change. Ultimately, the science of climate change allied with the emission scenarios for Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 nations suggests a radically different framing of the mitigation and adaptation challenge from that accompanying many other analyses, particularly those directly informing policy.

[frank_begbie]

Let it happen, we deserve to suffer the consequences.

Time for another species to have its turn.

[clv101]

The climate scientists and the activists they inspire have clearly failed at communication, influence and persuasion. The scientists and activists have not presented their case, including what to do about it in a compelling/convincing enough way.

I don't know what the 'solution' is... but then I don't really think it matters, or that a solution really exists. I have little to no faith 'we' are in pro-active control of the climate system. What will be will be but I largely think we're just on the rollercoaster, strapped in for the ride.

Even if there was 90+ percent acceptance, would that really change anything? 90+ percent of folk know that a couple billion people don't have clean water and/or sanitation, resulting in million of deaths... most people know that pharmaceutical patents keep otherwise cheap medication from billions of people resulting in millions of deaths...

My point is that millions of people are allowed to die of preventable causes with ~full western understanding of the situation. Why would climate change be any different?

[emordnilap]

I recently completed a questionnaire for Friends of the Earth; one of the questions was something like the following: "Do you think FOE's climate law campaign is:" followed by multiple check boxes. I ticked most boxes, you know, such as "inspired", "topical", "targeted", "unwinnable" etc.

[Blue Peter]

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... l.pdf+html

Anderson & Bows paper published yesterday.

From the conclusions:

By contrast, the logic of such studies suggests (extremely) dangerous climate change can only be avoided if economic growth is exchanged, at least temporarily, for a period of planned austerity within Annex 1 nations

How lucky is that for Gideon! Though I suspect that it's real austerity, as opposed to the (mainly) faux stuff we've seen so far,


Peter.

[biffvernon]

What will be will be

Once you get to think that your actions cannot even have a marginal effect you risk losing all interest beyond that of a nihilistic observer.

I prefer to be a butterfly, knowing that the smallest action may lead to great change.

[ujoni08]

I agree, Biff.

[clv101]

Well, it's tricky isn't it. I see the trajectory civilisation takes as an emergent property, and distinctly not the proactively designed trajectory of our leaders (influenced to a greater or lesser extent by 'the people'). That's what I mean when I say we're not in proactive control, but just strapped into the rollercoaster.

I don't think it follows automatically from that, that one's individual actions have marginal effect, leaving one a nihilist observer.

I guess my main view is that something fairly fundamental changes between the trajectory drivers of individuals/small groups, and the drivers of the Earth system as a whole (including its embedded human civilisation). When I say what will be will be, that absolutely does not mean we should stop campaigning for all we're worth. My "what will be will be" factors in the huge amounts of effort, takes for granted that people, including myself, will be proactive within areas that concern them. What will be will be should not be read a business as usual either.

I believe the die is already cast, we're just not quite clear what numbers came up yet. I expect the historians in 2100, describing the 21st century's trajectories of energy supply, emissions, population, temperature etc. to conclude they were mostly the result of things set in motion long ago, mostly beyond the influence of heads of state at a meeting in South Africa Dec 2011. We can tinker at the edges, but whether the we see 2C, 4C or 6C of warming by 2100, whether the population is 3bn 6bn or 9bn, is influenced more strongly by factors we aren't in control of than those we are. Remember, behaviour change, changing the value system of billions of people is not something we're proactively in control of.

[Ludwig]

What will be will be

Once you get to think that your actions cannot even have a marginal effect you risk losing all interest beyond that of a nihilistic observer.

Well, that's what I think and I couldn't think otherwise. I have watched what happens in the world, and seen how those with good intentions ALWAYS get beaten down. The balance of power is overwhelmingly with the bastards and always has been.

"Little people" have had the delusion of freedom and power for the past 50 years, but this is only because there was SO MUCH oil that the bastards could let us have a load of it without any inconvenience to themselves.

I prefer to be a butterfly, knowing that the smallest action may lead to great change.

A butterfly's wings might change the location of a storm, but they don't diminish its force.

[clv101]

I prefer to be a butterfly, knowing that the smallest action may lead to great change.

A butterfly's wings might change the location of a storm, but they don't diminish its force.

And critically, the butterfly's wing are not able to influence proactively, towards a desired outcome, that's my main point.

[frank_begbie]

As long as we have the money system we're f***ed.

Greed comes first.

The environment comes way down the list, and always will until something really massive happens to shake people out of their complacency.

We need another 9/11.

[biffvernon]

I have watched what happens in the world, and seen how those with good intentions ALWAYS get beaten down. The balance of power is overwhelmingly with the bastards and always has been.

Hmmm....if we look back over the last couple of thousand years of history I think there have been one or two shuffles is a good direction. I don't think I would choose to have lived in former times.