Don’t miss out. Stay Informed. Get EcoWatch’s Top News of the Day.

tweisyearwoodbwZero emissions is an ambitious but achievable goal.” —UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

Zero has become the most important number for humanity. Why?

Any chance of stabilizing the climate hinges on transitioning to zero greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as humanly possible. Simply slowing the rise of emissions will not work. For the first time, the world’s leading climate authority, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has embraced a goal of near zero greenhouse gas emissions or below.

Top military experts and government institutions like the U.S. Department of Defense and National Intelligence Council warn that climate destabilization threatens our national security, yet global emissions just keep going up. Leading biologists like E.O. Wilson warn that the sixth great extinction is now upon us, yet emissions keep going up.

By heating the globe at such a relentless rate, we are playing a deadly game of planetary Russian roulette. In the words of Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Penn State University: “There is no precedent for what we are doing to the atmosphere. It is an uncontrolled experiment.” If you believe your own eyes that climate chaos has already gone too far, the only logical response is to stop making things worse.

We are not suggesting ending the use of fossil fuels tomorrow. Decarbonizing our industries, homes, transportation, power generation and food production will take years of concerted effort and require every ounce of courage, ingenuity, patience and humility we possess. But intergenerational justice demands that we commit ourselves now as a nation to leading this green industrial revolution.

Some will no doubt call this goal unrealistic, saying it cannot be achieved, but they would underestimate the creative genius of the American people. What is unrealistic is thinking we can continue with business as usual and leave a habitable planet for our children. Americans are a supremely resourceful people with a long history of meeting, and exceeding, monumental challenges. While we have never faced anything as daunting as the global climate crisis, there are precedents for the U.S. overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds.

When destiny came knocking during World War II, we initially resisted, then answered by leading the allied forces to victory in three and a half short years.

It took a Civil War to end the scourge of slavery, and a monumental civil rights struggle to outlaw segregation, Jim Crow laws and discrimination, but we not only overcame, we elected a person of color as President of the United States.

When President John Kennedy boldly challenged America to land a man on the moon in less than a decade, our best and brightest responded by accomplishing this seemingly impossible task ahead of schedule.

It is now time for our generation to do something great.

Zero Emissions Bandwagon

It may surprise you to learn that zero emissions has already been embraced as a goal by business leaders as well-known as Bill Gates, and world leaders as prominent as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria; UN climate chief Christiana FigueresPrince Charles; and former President Jimmy Carter, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu of The Elders.

Again, even the conservative, consensus-based IPCC supports near zero emissions or below, albeit on a year 2100 timeline that belies the urgency of their August draft report, which warns of “irreversible impacts” from continued emissions.

Major corporations, like Google, have embraced a zero carbon goal. Others like Microsoft and Deutsche Bank are moving in this direction by committing to net zero emissions, or carbon neutrality (using carbon offsets or carbon credits to balance out remaining emissions). 684 college and university presidents (and growing) have taken a similar climate neutrality pledge. And a fossil fuel divestment movement is picking up steam on college campuses (including Stanford UniversitySydney University and historically black colleges and universities) and in houses of worship around the world.

Pages: 1 • 23



Comments

  • Robert

    Thanks to both authors for a clear picture of the scope of the problem as well as showing that we do have the means to solve this human caused issue.

    “Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3}

    B.1 Atmosphere

    • The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist.

    The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C,based on the single longest dataset available4 (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}

    • For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficientlycomplete (1901 to 2012), almost the entire globe

    has experienced surface warming (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}

    • In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4} ”

    IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

    • socalpa

      “trends based on short records” ? You mean, like the warming 1980 to 1998 ?…..That short record?

      • Robert

        Let us know when you have some actual science to bring forward. Show everyone your best.

  • Clive Elsworth

    Good article – thank you!

    If you want to *do* something please consider joining Citizens Climate Lobby http://citizensclimatelobby.org/

    James Hansen is on their advisory board, and they are putting forward revenue neutral legislation that would significantly reduce CO2 emissions over time, whilst boosting the US economy and jobs and protecting domestic industries. Even better, it would provide an incentive for other countries around the world to adopt similar legislation, including developing countries where emissions are growing fastest.
    They are respectful and friendly and provide a community based education on the issues, and on how to help build the political will that’s needed.
    They are growing rapidly, but need your voice too! (I’m working on starting a UK presence.)

    • mchiarel

      What is the Citizens Climate Lobby doing to shed light on the environmentally destructive effects of animal agriculture?

      • Clive Elsworth

        Their legislation starts by puting a rising fee on fossil fuels and rebating that equally to citizens. That is what economists say is the most efficient way to move us all onto low carbon economies.
        I don’t know all the CCL volunteers (there are hundreds, probably thousands by now), but I suspect many of them like you, are concerned about environmentally destructive animal agriculture and are bringing it up with their elected representatives.

        • mchiarel

          Thank you. I hope that there will be efforts to eliminate government subsidies to industries that contribute to environmental degradation and climate change and create policies that support organic farming.

          • socalpa

            I agree , subsidies to solar were 90Billion dollars in FY 2012. Subsidies to Oil development 4 bill FY 2012.
            End all subsidies NOW !

          • Paul Kangas

            Germany is going 100% solar now, and it gives NO gov. subsidies to solar. Instead, it requires Utilities to pay solar farmers $0.99 kwh, if you signed up in 1999 for 20 years.

          • socalpa

            “Susbsidies aimed at stimulating the growth of renewables have driven up concumer energy prices by 12.5% in 2013.[45] To date, German consumers have absorbed the costs of the Energiewende,.

            A 2013 cover story in Der Spiegel magazine titled, “Luxury Electricity: Why energy is becoming more expensive and what politicians must do about it,” showed gold-plated and diamond-encrusted power cables, which succinctly summarized the mood of the German public toward high energy prices. Since the feed-in tariff (FIT) program supporting renewables started in the early 2000s, electricity prices have more than doubled, from 18 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2000 to more than 37 cents in 2013. By comparison, the average electricity price in the United States is 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. The reality is that unless the current system is corrected, electricity prices are expected to increase in Germany by 35% for consumers and some 30% for industrials by 2020.

            Not surprisingly, Energiewende is now being challenged by power companies, industries, consumers, and government officials. Part of the explanation for the increase in electricity prices can be found in the generous government support for renewable energy technologies. The FIT subsidy program, the main mechanism used by Germany to promote the adoption of renewable energy, has cost more than $468 billion, and some estimate that program costs could exceed $1.3 trillion by the time it expires in 2015.

      • Newshound75

        I’m glad to report that these 2014 CCL events have gone 100% plant-sourced with their food & drink: the international CCL conference in DC (June 2014), the Northeast Regional CCL conference in NY (March 2014), and the Tornadoes Regional CCL conference in MO (Sept 2014). No animal products served at any of these.

        CCL is setting a great example; I hope climate activists everywhere and other environmental conferences will follow their example.

        • mchiarel

          Thank you. Yes, CCL is setting a great example. We need more organizations doing the same.

  • Paul

    The Zero Emissions Manifesto is just what we need! The world’s leading scientists in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report states that the world MUST reach zero greenhouse gas emissions by some point to stabilize the global average temperature. If we don’t reach near zero or zero emissions, we are guaranteed to face major global climate catastrophe. WE MUST NOT ALL THIS! Support ZERO EMISSIONS! Deep thanks go Reverend Yearwood and Tom Weis for highlighting the solution to this dire threat and giving us all hope IF we do the right thing beginning NOW.

    • mchiarel

      Zero emissions is meaningless unless it addresses the biggest contributor – raising animals for food. Any effective zero emissions policies must eliminate subsidies to animal agriculture and promote a sustainable plant based diet.

      • gwsmith

        That’s right! All together now – Stop breathing and eating! It’s the only way to save the Earth!

        • socalpa

          ROFL !!!!!!

    • Vive108

      Fossil-fuel derivatives (high tech solar and other so-called renewables) actually do little to nothing to reduce emissions. Solar panel production produces greenhouse gasses worse than CFCs, and wind turbines require mining and transport of rare metals. We really need to be looking at the inherent unsustainability of industrial civilization itself (as compared to lots of human societies who live outside of this civilization).

      See the work of UC Berkeley sustainability expert and longtime environmentalist Ozzie Zehner on this (his book is Green Illusions) as well as this recent presentation at the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference by two young activists whose life work is about stopping industrial ecocide and climate catastrophe: http://youtu.be/ujmouUY_WyA?list=UUA_lnbzO4FrUnlZC6gb3p9A

  • mchiarel

    “There is one single industry destroying the planet more than any other. But, no one wants to talk about it.” (from the film, Cowspiracy).

    The 2009 World Watch Institute report “Livestock and Climate Change” found that animal agriculture (raising livestock for food) accounts for 51% of annual worldwide green house gas emissions.

    Meat and dairy production is responsible for 10% of all human-related carbon dioxide, 40% of methane emissions (which are 23 times more damaging than carbon dioxide), and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions (310 times more damaging than carbon dioxide).

    US Government policies support this environmental degradation in the form of subsidies, paid for by our tax dollars. Subsidies come in many different forms – money to farmers for growing grains that are fed to animals raised for meat, use of public lands for grazing, rights to water at tremendously reduced costs, and laws that allow for the release of untreated sewage into our soil and water.

    Every individual has the power to make an immediate change that will contribute to the reversal of climate change by adopting a plant based diet. If everyone in the U.S. ate no meat or cheese just one day a week, it would have the effect of taking 7.6 million cars off the road. (EWG http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/reducing-your-footprint/)

    In addition, we need a grass roots effort to bring this major contributor to environmental degradation to the forefront. Powerful meat and dairy lobbies have successfully managed to keep the devastating effects of the animal agriculture industry from the public eye.

    Isn’t it time that each of us awaken to this huge “inconvenient truth”?

    • Lucy Howard

      Factory farming of both plants and animals is ecologically unsustainable. Small farms that practice polyculture and the humane treatment of meat animals is ecologically sustainable.

      • mchiarel

        That is true, Lucy. However, factory farming of animals is far more unsustainable than plants, considering that factory farms are used to raise the food to feed the animals, that will eventually be consumed by humans. Plus the animals themselves are a major source of emissions regardless of how humanely they are raised. The UN FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow” (2006) and the more recent “Tackling Climate Change through Livestock (2013) both address the growing effects of animal agriculture on the environment.

      • socalpa

        Says who ?

        • Lucy Howard

          Says Heifer Project International.

          • socalpa

            Is this a joke ? “Heifer Project International” ? Do you propose to eliminate cows as well as CO2 emissions ?

          • Lucy Howard

            Do a web search for “Heifer Project International.”

          • socalpa

            I looked at the site .What does this have to do with zero emissions ? I thought environmentalists opposed Dairy and cattle ?

            Further, I just checked and modern technology as well as improved conditions has decreased the world malnutrition rate from 37% (1970 WHO) to less than 13%
            (2011 WHO) despite a pop rise of 2.5 billion.

            What “sustainable” technology can exceed this rate of improvement or even equal it ?

    • socalpa

      You think rational people are going to buy into this hysterical nonsense you preach ?

      Buzz off Hysteric.

  • azaredaniel

    We need to Ban Fracking now. and implement a Residential and Commercial Feed in Tariff, and terminate Nestle and all other bottled water contracts, to address our Water and Energy Problems here in California and Nationally

    Brenna Norton, Organizer for Food & Water Watch quoted in one of many print and TV stations that covered Wednesday’s release of how much water the oil and gas industry is wasting and permanently polluting in California.

    “In this time of drought, our water is just too precious,” Norton told CBS Los Angeles. “We can’t have two million gallons a day that can never reenter the water cycle.”

    The oil industry in CA is currently polluting over 3 million gallons of water each day due to fracking, acidizing and cyclic steam injection. By comparison, about 20,000 California homeowners use this much water in a day!

    3 -6 million gallons of drinkable water is used with Trade Secret Protected Toxic Chemicals for each well.

    Depleting a Precious Resource
    “Nestlé has two plants on the Colorado River Basin that take in water to bottle and sell under its Arrowhead and Pure Life brands. One is in Salida, Colorado, on the eastern edge of the Upper Basin; the other is in the San Gorgonio Pass, halfway between San Bernardino and Indio, Calif., on the western edge of the Lower Basin.

    According to annual reports filed up to 2009, Nestlé bottles between 595 and 1,366 acre-feet of water per year – enough to flood that many acres under a foot of water – from the California source.

    The company takes 200 additional acre-feet per year from the Colorado source. This means altogether Nestlé is draining the Colorado River Basin of anywhere from 250 million to 510 million gallons of water per year, according to the acre-feet-to-gallons conversion calculator.”

    “The Colorado River Basin is an especially critical water resource, responsible for supplying municipal water to 40 million Americans and irrigating 5.5 million acres of land. As the US Bureau of Reclamation has documented, 22 federally-recognized tribes, seven national wildlife refuges, four national recreation areas, and 11 national parks depend on the basin. In a new report by NASA and the University of California at Irvine, researchers discovered that between December of 2004 and November of 2013, the basin lost 53 million acre-feet of water. 41 million acre-feet, or 75 percent of that loss, came from groundwater sources, like those pumped by Nestlé.

    That’s more than twice the amount of water contained in Lake Mead, America’s largest freshwater reservoir. In the meantime, Nestlé, with 29 water bottling facilities across North America, pocketed $4 billion in revenue from bottled water sales in 2012 alone.” Carl Gibson

    Fracking and our Carbon emitting footprints.
    Here in California we emit 446 million tons of Carbon Dioxide a year, 1,222,000 Toxic Tons a Day, The California Public Utility Commission is thinking of replacing San Onofre and Hydro losses to generating with Natural Gas Power Plants condemning our kids and our planet to Heating UP and Burning UP, unless We start Changing and Fighting for real Sustainable Energy Policies.

    The state currently produces about 71% of the electricity it consumes, while it imports 8% from the Pacific Northwest and 21% from the Southwest.

    This is how we generate our electricity in 2011, natural gas was burned to make 45.3% of electrical power generated in-state. Nuclear power from Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County accounted for 9.15%, large hydropower 18.3%, Renewable 16.6% and coal 1.6%.

    There is 9% missing from San Onofre and with the current South Western drought, how long before the 18.3% hydro will be effected?

    We have to change how we generate our electricity, with are current drought conditions and using our clean water for Fracking, there has to be a better way to generate electricity, and there is, a proven stimulating policy.

    The Feed in Tariff is a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in Renewable Energy, the California FiT allows eligible customers generators to enter into 10- 15- 20- year contracts with their utility company to sell the electricity produced by renewable energy, and guarantees that anyone who generates electricity from R E source, whether Homeowner, small business, or large utility, is able to sell that electricity. It is mandated by the State to produce 33% R E by 2020.

    FIT policies can be implemented to support all renewable technologies including:
    Wind
    Photovoltaics (PV)
    Solar thermal
    Geothermal
    Biogas
    Biomass
    Fuel cells
    Tidal and wave power.

    There is currently 3 utilities using a Commercial Feed in Tariff in California Counties, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, and Sacramento, are paying their businesses 17 cents per kilowatt hour for the Renewable Energy they generate. We can get our Law makers and Regulators to implement a Residential Feed in Tariff, to help us weather Global Warming, insulate our communities from grid failures, generate a fair revenue stream for the Homeowners and protect our Water.

    The 17 cents per kilowatt hour allows the Commercial Business owner and the Utility to make a profit.

    Commercial Ca. rates are 17 – 24 cents per kilowatt hour.

    Implementing a Residential Feed in Tariff at 13 cents per kilowatt hour for the first 2,300 MW, and then allow no more than 3-5 cents reduction in kilowatt per hour, for the first tier Residential rate in you area and for the remaining capacity of Residential Solar, there is a built in Fee for the Utility for using the Grid. A game changer for the Hard Working, Voting, Tax Paying, Home Owner and a Fair Profit for The Utility, a win for our Children, Utilities, and Our Planet.

    We also need to change a current law, California law does not allow Homeowners to oversize their Renewable Energy systems.

    Campaign to allow Californian residents to sell electricity obtained by renewable energy for a fair pro-business market price. Will you read, sign, and share this petition?

    http://signon.org/sign/let-california-home-owners

    Roof top Solar is the new mantra for Solar Leasing Companies with Net-Metering which allows them to replace One Utility with Another, we need to change this policy with a Residential Feed in Tariff that will level the playing field and allow all of us to participate in the State mandated 33% Renewable Energy by 2020.

    This petition will ask the California Regulators and Law makers to allocate Renewable Portfolio Standards to Ca. Home Owners for a Residential Feed in Tariff, the RPS is the allocation method that is used to set aside a certain percentage of electrical generation for Renewable Energy in the the State.

    Do not exchange One Utility for Another (Solar Leasing Companies) “Solar is absolutely great as long as you stay away from leases and PPAs. Prices for solar have dropped so dramatically in the past year, that leasing a solar system makes absolutely no sense in today’s market.

    • Paul Kangas

      Germany has banned fracking & nukes, using 100% solar. Listen to Angela Merkel speak about it 9/21.

      • socalpa

        Ah, perhaps you haven’t heard ? Angie backed out, as did China and India .

        !/3 of the Worlds population and 60 % of emissions says ….,Later.

  • balky

    Don’t care what names you drop, don’t care how dire all of you on this site and the article above try to make all of us fear for our lives, you people are all nuts. The only way to completely stop CO2 emissions from people is for everyone to die, and then you could stop all fossil fuel use, because nobody would be alive to worry about how they would live in a world with no fuel, no electricity, no agri industrial business, so therefore even if you could survive the horrible no fossil fuel world you people want, being a hunter-gatherer again would be ludicrous, unless that’s what you crazy insane people want.

    • Clive Elsworth

      Have you looked into Molten Salt Reactors? That is energy that promises to be cheaper than coal, could use up 99% existing nuclear waste, it’s own waste becomes safe after 300 years, is safer than existing reactor designs and runs at high enough temperature to be able to replace fossil fuels for many of today’s industrial processes. These include fertiliser, hydrogen and cement production and desalination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayIyiVua8cY

      Why are the Chinese and Indians the only ones seriously developing Molten Salt Reactor technology?

      To me, it’s the western world’s anti-nukes that are nuts, in that they apparently want our existing nuclear waste to be kept around forever, instead of it being burnt safely in a way that replaces fossil energy, preventing dangerous climate change.

      BTW Here’s a 2 page summary on nuclear radiation safety (which is probably a lot less dangerous than you think): http://www.mediafire.com/view/71s0v66fc0c2dpb/NuclearRadiationSafety.2014.pdf

  • Vive108

    This article has lots of greenwashing to it, and fails to question industry itself – and the militarism and capitalism behind industrial ecocide. “Revolution” co-opted by Big Eco, Bright Green/Green Tech ideology is a false, manufactured “revolution” that ensures uninterrupted profits of the few over the interests of the living world. Deep Green perspectives are needed – and Zero Emissions today – not over “years.”

    Derrick Jensen, the philosopher of the environmental movement, co-wrote a great book called Deep Green Resistance, and a social-justice environmental organization largely based on that book is starting to advocate for militant resistance. Looking at successful resistances of the past, NO resistance won without a small percentage of effective militancy. MLK + Malcolm X, Gandhi + Bhagat Singh, etc. What we need is resistance to industry, not deal-brokering with industry.

    We don’t need a green INDUSTRIAL revolution – that’s so NOT a revolution! We need to stop industry in its tracks, by targeting key nodes of industrial infrastructure. The moment industry stops the natural world (forest, oceans, grasslands, biosphere itself) will immediately be better off. As it is, industrially accelerated global warming is slated to kill life on this earth down to biome level. Read that book Deep Green Resistance for yourself – the first two chapters are an update on the biosphere emergency that indicate that we are out of time.

    • socalpa

      Ho ! Ho ! ….A Climate Jihadi chimes in !!!

      The whole world wants the Western standard of living and Life Expectancy !

      Lights and heat on at night, AC and reliable transportation.

      Please, stop emitting CO2 CH4 right now. Do the World a favor.

      • Vive108

        Hey troll!

        • socalpa

          Hey Climate Taliban !

    • Paul Kangas

      We need to shift all industry to 100% solar & renewables, like Germany has done.
      “It can’t be done”, is what the oil companies want to hear. That is why that is what the media says.

      • Vive108

        Though all ecology-loving people wish it could be simply so, numbers for applying what’s been done in Germany to all industrialized countries – particularly the U.S. – don’t work out for a global solution. As UC Berkeley sustainability professor Ozzie Zehner’s work points out, “solar & renewables” require ecocide to produce: highly toxic industrial processes, land devastation mining, and the slavery that goes with this geopolitically. So-called solar & renewables are truly just “fossil-fuel derivatives” that unfortunatley require the continuance of the ecocidal industrial economy’s emissions, and the militarism that ensures it and perpetuates it’s own enormous emissions.

        What we need at this point if we are to ward off the worst global warming is non-industrialsm, i.e., passive solar housing, solar thermal cooking, low-tech/no-tech living. Big Oil is Big Industry, and so is Big Eco or so-called “Green Energy” – and there are those who are determined to do business until the last tree is felled, without regard for preserving a biosphere for future life.

        This presentation at the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (the premier environmental law conference in the world) was helpful for my own updating – it has a ton of current analysis, by and for people who want to preserve what’s left of the living planet as the Arctic ice disappears: http://youtu.be/ujmouUY_WyA?list=UUA_lnbzO4FrUnlZC6gb3p9A

  • Tom Radecki

    Yes, zero emission today, not next year! No excuses. We can and should buy and install PV solar today and actually save money. Until you get your solar installed, in most parts of the U.S. you can and should purchase wind energy electricity. You can and should buy a Nissan Leaf today. You’ll markedly reduce your carbon footprint and save money at the same time. The Leaf is the lowest cost new car in America today when the cost of fuel is included. You can and should give up flying on airplanes, eating beef and pork, using clothes dryers, taking daily showers, eating in restaurants, using AC instead of fans, washing clothes or hands in hot water, and much more. Cook at home from scratch with dry beans and grains, nuts and low cost vegetables. The only diet healthier than a vegan diet is a seafood vegan diet. Unfortunately, most seafood will be soon going extinct and some seafood has a sizable carbon footprint. Flax seeds and flour may be an inexpensive and low carbon replacement. Vacationing locally is much more important than buying your fruits and vegetables locally. Live in more compact homes with fewer square feet per person. Of course, ban fossil fuels ASAP, and pass a stiff carbon tax and refund the money if a reasonable way.

    You and I need to practice what we preach. I get sick and tired of seeing all the travel ads in Sierra Club literature, of reading that the Greenpeace International director flies to his meetings instead of taking the train, of NRDC talking of European vacations for Americans like they are morally acceptable behavior. For many of us, there is no excuse to put off living with a carbon neutral footprint. The cost of buying a few extra PV panels and feeding more electricity into the grid to offset your food intake and embodied carbon is not a great financial burden. Global warming is going to be much worse than what you have read or what the IPCC projects. The IPCC has always underestimates and is already way out of date on sea level rise. Yes! Reduce your emissions as soon as humanly possible.

    • Paul Kangas

      If you listen to Angela Merkel speak on 9/21, she will say, “The best way to stop global warming is for each city to pass a solar payment policy requiring Utilities to pay solar farmers $0.44 kwh. That is why Germany now leads a coalition of 69 nations at the UN, who all have adopted the Germany solar policy.

      • socalpa

        Then why did Angela pull out of the 9/21 UN meeting along with India and China ?

  • gwsmith

    You idiots are talking as if suicide is the only answer! Cave men lived the ideal life?!!!

  • Vive108

    Zero Emissions is meaningless unless it involves the dismantling of industry. “My planet is being murdered and I’ve got three questions: What is that murder made of? Who is in charge? How do we stop them?” Lierre Keith, co-author of Deep Green Resistance

  • socalpa

    Remember Australia ?

    Fired the Government . Repealed Carbon Tax . Fired the Climate Commission and cut Climate Funding over 90% !

    Coming to a country near you!

  • socalpa

    No one wants Unelected Bureaucrats to have authority over trace gasses necessary to Life ! No One Sane anyway !

    Think “mission creep” !

    Think NSA !

    Defund the EPA NOW !

  • For God please stop accusing gases as GHG.
    GH gas theory is ridiculous, imaginary, false, spurious and so on.
    Gases can’t form green house. So green house effect due to gases is impossible.
    They are actually helping the earth to cool down by convection method of
    heat transmission. Gases have freely moving molecules, so you can’t fix any fluid
    to make a structure. CAN YOU?? Shame on you IPCC / NASA !!!!

    let us first have water for every body and every where!
    by developing water supply networks.Moisture content on land surface controls our climate.
    No dry part on the land surface of the earth! Nature will take care rest. We are expanding
    more and more dry land surface by urbanization, deforestation and deserts formation
    causing climate change
    and power crisis. It is possible to run turbines in series without decreasing their
    efficiency. Running turbines does not decrease the power of running water, it remains contant.
    CC is real. It is reversible. We can control Climate, since we are chaNGING.
    Man-made not gas-made. For solution to
    power crisis and climate change
    visit my blog for details

    devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com

    dev bahadur dongol

  • For God please stop accusing gases as GHG.
    GH gas theory is ridiculous, imaginary, false, spurious and so on.
    Gases can’t form green house. So green house effect due to gases is impossible.
    They are actually helping the earth to cool down by convection method of
    heat transmission. Gases have freely moving molecules, so you can’t fix any fluid
    to make a structure. CAN YOU?? Shame on you IPCC / NASA !!!!

    let us first have water for every body and every where!
    by developing water supply networks.Moisture content on land surface controls our climate.
    No dry part on the land surface of the earth! Nature will take care rest. We are expanding
    more and more dry land surface by urbanization, deforestation and deserts formation
    causing climate change
    and power crisis. It is possible to run turbines in series without decreasing their
    efficiency. Running turbines does not decrease the power of running water, it remains contant.
    CC is real. It is reversible. We can control Climate, since we are chaNGING.
    Man-made not gas-made. For solution to
    power crisis and climate change
    visit my blog for details

    devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com

    dev bahadur dongol

  • markopar

    Earth Day, 1970:

    “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
    • Kenneth Watt, ecologist

    “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
    • Life Magazine

    “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
    • George Wald, Harvard Biologist

    “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
    • Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

    “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
    • New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

    “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
    • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

    “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
    • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

    “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
    • Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

    “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
    • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

  • markopar

    Climate Change Doomed the Ancients

    By ERIC H. CLINEMAY 27, 2014

    THIS month, a report issued by a prominent military advisory board concluded that climate change posed a serious threat to America’s national security.

    The authors, 16 retired high-ranking officers, warned that droughts, rising seas and extreme weather events, among other environmental threats, were already causing global “instability and conflict.”

    But Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a stalwart believer that global warming is a “hoax,” dismissed the report as a publicity stunt.

    Perhaps the senator needs a history lesson, because climate change has been leading to global conflict — and even the collapse of civilizations — for more than 3,000 years. Drought and famine led to internal rebellions in some societies and the sacking of others, as people fleeing hardship at home became conquerors abroad.

    One of the most vivid examples comes from around 1200 B.C. A centuries-long drought in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean regions, contributed to — if not caused — widespread famine, unrest and ultimately the destruction of many once prosperous cities, according to four recent studies.

    The scientists determined the length and severity of the drought by examining ancient pollen as well as oxygen and carbon isotope data drawn from alluvial and mineral deposits. All of their conclusions are corroborated by correspondence, inscribed and fired on clay tablets, dating from that time.

    Ancient letters from the Hittite kingdom, in what is now modern-day Turkey, beseech neighboring powers for shipments of grain to stave off famine caused by the drought. (The drought is thought to have affected much of what is now Greece, Israel, Lebanon and Syria for up to 300 years.) One letter, sent from a Hittite king, pleads for help: “It is a matter of life or death!”

    Another letter, sent from the city of Emar, in what is now inland Syria, states simply, “If you do not quickly arrive here, we ourselves will die of hunger.” The kingdom of Egypt, as well as the city of Ugarit, on the coast of what is now Syria, responded with food and supplies, but it is not clear if they were able to provide enough relief.

    It certainly created problems of national security for the great powers of the time. Correspondence between the Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Cypriots, Minoans, Mycenaeans, Assyrians and Babylonians — effectively, the Group of 8 of the Late Bronze Age — includes warnings of attacks from enemy ships in the Mediterranean. The marauders are thought to have been the Sea Peoples, possibly from the western Mediterranean, who were probably fleeing their island homes because of the drought and famine and were moving across the Mediterranean as both refugees and conquerors.

    One letter sent to Ugarit advised the king to “be on the lookout for the enemy and make yourself very strong!” The warning probably came too late, for another letter dating from the same time states: “When your messenger arrived, the army was humiliated and the city was sacked. Our food in the threshing floors was burned and the vineyards were also destroyed. Our city is sacked. May you know it! May you know it!”

    While sea levels may not have been rising then, as they are now, changes in the water temperature may have been to blame for making life virtually unlivable in parts of the region.

    A 2012 study published in the Journal of Archaeological Science found that the surface temperatures of the Mediterranean Sea cooled rapidly during this time, severely reducing precipitation over the coasts. The study concluded that agriculture would have suffered and that the conditions might have influenced the “population declines, urban abandonments and long-distance migrations associated with the period.”

    To top it off, catastrophic events, in the form of a series of earthquakes, also rocked many ancient cities in these areas from around 1225 to 1175 B.C. These, together with the famines and droughts, would have further undermined the societies of the time, most likely leading to internal rebellions by the underclass and peasant populations who were facing severe food shortages, as well as invasions by migrating peoples.

    We still do not know the specific details of the collapse at the end of the Late Bronze Age or how the cascade of events came to change society so drastically. But it is clear that climate change was one of the primary drivers, or stressors, leading to the societal breakdown.

    The era that followed is known as the first Dark Ages, during which the thriving economy and cultures of the late second millennium B.C. suddenly ceased to exist. It took decades, and even hundreds of years in some areas, for the people in these regions to rebuild.

    We live in a world that has more similarities to that of the Late Bronze Age than one might suspect, including, as the British archaeologist Susan Sherratt has put it, an “increasingly homogeneous yet uncontrollable global economy and culture” in which “political uncertainties on one side of the world can drastically affect the economies of regions thousands of miles away.”

    But there is one important difference. The Late Bronze Age civilizations collapsed at the hands of Mother Nature. It remains to be seen if we will cause the collapse of our own.

    Eric H. Cline, a professor of classics and anthropology at George Washington University, is the author of “1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed.”

    So another words the climate has been changing,,, seance the beginning of our existence.

  • markopar

    Leading climate economist accused of “distorting” research

    Last updated on 1 August 2014, 8:42 am

    Frank Ackerman says 2013 paper by Richard Tol, used by IPCC, minimises economic risks of climate change
    Calculating the potential costs of future extreme weather events is essential for governments to make decisions (Pic: Hartford Guy)

    Governments need to know the potential costs of future extreme weather events in order to determine policies (Pic: Hartford Guy)

    By Ed King

    One of the world’s top climate change economists stands accused of inserting inaccurate information into the UN’s recent climate science report.

    US economist Dr Frank Ackerman has written to Sussex University professor Richard Tol, saying he used “a narrow distorting lens” when compiling a 2013 paper examining the impacts of climate change.

    In a document published on July 21 Ackerman, who is senior economist at consultancy Synapse Energy and an MIT lecturer, wrote: “Tol’s 2013 review article, despite its appearance of objectivity, is founded on faulty selection of data and analyses, and contains interpretive flaws that make its facile conclusions unsupportable.”

    Ackerman said the study, which was published in the Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, was a “central building block” in Chapter 10 of the IPCC Working Group 2 report, published on March 31.

    He added Tol ignored the potential for low cost climate mitigation strategies, and promoted economic growth scenarios that would lead to dangerous levels of global warming.

    An advisor to the climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) campaign group, Tol is one of the highest profile climate economists in the world.

    Earlier this year he made headlines ahead of the IPCC Working Group 2 launch in Yokohoma after he branded its conclusions alarmist, and declined to be named on the headline Summary for Policymakers document.
    The IPCC’s WG2 report assessed the possible impacts, adaptation plans and national vulnerability to climate change

    The IPCC’s WG2 report assessed the possible impacts, adaptation plans and national vulnerability to climate change

    Produced every six to seven years, IPCC reports are a synthesis of existing research, and used by governments around the world to determine their climate change policies.

    Earlier this week a panel of UK MPs determined the latest IPCC report was robust, and urged the government to accept its findings.

    In an interview with RTCC, Tol dismissed Ackerman’s critique, suggested he had “not kept up with the literature” and had “poor reading skills”.

    “Ackerman is throwing out allegations and insinuations without having checked whether what he is saying is feasible or correct or anything,” he added.

    Speaking from the US, Ackerman told RTCC he decided to write the paper because he felt Tol was misrepresenting the views of the economic profession.

    “He represents one opinion way over to one extreme of the economics profession and has been willing to try to bully people into silence and write endlessly about it when they disagreed with him,” he said.

    The economists have a history of disagreements dating back to 2011. Ackerman has accused Tol of waging a campaign to discredit him, an allegation Tol strenuously denies.

    Weak data

    Ackerman’s specific criticisms, detailed in the 8-page document, accuse Tol of using a small and selective number of studies to back his thesis, and of misrepresenting Ackerman’s own work on carbon prices.

    “Tol’s repetitive and antiquated collection of 16 favourite studies fills one small shelf in the rapidly expanding library of research on global climate damages,” he said.

    Ackerman said Tol used a “grab bag” of data to illustrate there are net benefits from warming between 0 and 2.25C, significantly higher than the 2C the UN wants to avoid.

    “Though I have not yet determined whether Tol misrepresents other studies in this way, his offhand and inadequate representation of the results of my own work gives me cause for concern about the others,” wrote Ackerman.

    Report: Cutting CO2 emissions saves money, says UN

    The debate over the costs and benefits of addressing climate change cuts to the heart of current negotiations at the UN on developing a global agreement to curb carbon pollution.

    Some governments are wary of adopting tough green policies, fearful of slowing growth. But many economists say curbing emissions will have a minimal effect on development, and has added co-benefits such as reducing air pollution.

    The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, published by the UK government in 2006, said the “benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs”.

    Tol disputes its conclusions, and says it inflated the damages climate change would cause.

    Ackerman says he has no plans to raise his concerns with the IPCC, but Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said that could be an option.

    Ward, who has also published his concerns over Tol’s work in a series of blogposts, said the IPCC did not subject the Sussex University professor’s contributions to proper scrutiny during discussions earlier this year.

    He also suggested Tol used his position as an IPCC lead author to allow his own research to dominate the chapter he was charged with editing.

    “What he has done I think would constitute an abuse of the IPCC process,” Ward said.

    Despite Ackerman’s allegations, Tol said he has no plans to release an official response or take legal action.

    “There is nothing here to respond to,” he said. “This is essentially a baiting exercise to provoke me into suing him”.
    – See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/08/01/leading-climate-economist-accused-of-distorting-research/#sthash.LHnmOt57.dpuf

    • socalpa

      Of course, this could not be a smear campaign, could it ?

      Ho ! Ho ! Ho ! Tol is an Infidel ! Off with his Head !

  • markopar

    NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012

    NOAA
    Tuesday, July 01, 2014 by: J. D. Heyes
    Tags: global warming fraud, data manipulation, NOAA

    (NaturalNews) As global warming and climate change alarmists burn tons of fossil fuel jetting around the world, lecturing people about how burning tons of fossil fuel is destroying our planet, federal government agencies and learned academic institutions are quietly revising previously published data to reflect “an inconvenient truth” — that, contrary to their earlier claims, the earth is actually getting cooler, and weather is actually getting milder.

    One of the most recent examples of this fraud was reported by The Daily Caller: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been criticized for manipulating temperature records to give the illusion of a warming trend. Since then, the agency has been caught changing temperature data from both the past and present.

    Here’s the story. A couple of years ago, NASA scientists and climatologists declared July 2012 to be the hottest month in a report titled, “Too Hot to Handle?” [See it here: http://science.nasa.gov]. During the summer months of that year, the country experienced widespread drought and wildfires burned more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA statistics and data.

    Now, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on
    record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.” [You can see that assessment here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov]

    ‘You can’t get any clearer proof’ of fraud

    “The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

    When checked by The Daily Caller, that claim by the NOAA was still available on the agency’s website. However:

    [W]hen meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data [June 29] he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.

    Watts wrote: “Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States. Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.” [See his blog post here: http://wattsupwiththat.com]

    Watts had used data from NOAA’s “Climate at a Glance” plots from 2012, a graphic showing that July 2012 was the hottest month on record at 77.6°F. July 1936 — which was during the infamous Dust Bowl years — is listed at only 77.4°F.

    He ran the same data plot again on June 29 and discovered that NOAA inserted a new number in for July 1936; the average temperature for July 1936 was made slightly higher than July 2012, meaning, again, that July 1936 is the hottest year on record.

    “You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures,” Watts wrote. “This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately.”

    He went on to note that in “one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why.

    “This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.”

    U.S. ‘cooling since the Thirties’

    Watts’ assessment of the NOAA data manipulation came on the heels of earlier reports stating that the federal agency was lowering past temps to create the illusion of a warming trend in the U.S. that did not coincide with the raw data.

    The after-the-fact data manipulation was documented by climate blogger Steven Goddard, which was summarily reported by Britain’s Telegraph newspaper earlier in June.

    “Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models,” the paper’s Christopher Booker wrote. “The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.”

    The real data, Booker said, “show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record.”

    Sources:

    http://dailycaller.com

    http://science.nasa.gov

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk

    http://science.naturalnews.com

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html##ixzz36DzMPR5W

  • agsb

    I gather they(Greenies) want a power source that converts 100% of the energy that goes in. The problem with that is that it violates (big time) the laws that govern heat engines.

  • Tom Radecki

    5000W of American made solar panels with a 25-year guarantee can be purchased today from Amazon for $5600 with a federal income tax credit of roughly $1600. That means an end cost of just $4000. Inverter and mounting fixtures are not expensive. Many people can install their own. Even in cloudy NW PA, this will generate 7000 kWh of electricity per year. The vast majority of the U.S. get more sun energy. With most states requiring utilities to give a feed-in credit so that excess electricity can be fed into the grid and withdrawn later when needed, and with the national average for electricity costing 11 cents per kWh, the cost for a do-it-yourself installation is recovered in just five years with 20 years of free electricity after that.

    Also, battery technology is improving rapidly. In Australia where utilities are not required to allow consumers to feed into the grid for later usage, most people are using batteries and totally disconnecting from the grid. If you buy a Nissan Leaf, you have a massive 24 kWh battery for storage and get better than 3 miles travel out of one kWh of energy when driving. In my opinion, it is immoral to buy a fossil fuel vehicle. A Chevy Volt does use a little fossil fuel, but nationally over 75% of Volt driving is done with electricity off the grid or from distributed solar PV panels.

    The value of utility stocks is dropping because distributed solar threatens their business model. Many power companies have coal and gas power plants which will become stranded, unused assets, Unfortunately, power companies are fighting tooth and nail to kill solar, e.g., funding unscrupulous Republican officials to eliminate the solar and wind tax credits and creating as many roadblocks as possible. The power companies were forewarned 40 years ago that global warming was coming and about the need to avoid fossil fuels, but most of them have done little or nothing.

    There is no need for a high feed-in payment. Government should make it easier to install solar. For instance, it could mandate banks to allow solar costs to be added to the home mortgages to help fund their installation. It could encourage landlords to install solar with an accelerated investment tax credit. You and I can and must go zero carbon this year!

    • socalpa

      Can I make $ 17.50 an hour from home too ?

    • socalpa

      Why should renters subsidize homeowners with tax credits for solar ?

      • Tom Radecki

        Because renters are killing future humans with their emissions today if they don’t rent from a landlord who minimizes the carbon footprint of the housing as much as possible. Landlords can also tax-deduct the cost of PV solar. Renters should not rent from disreputable landlords who pollute the Earth with their emissions. It has been estimated that every 150 tons of CO2 emissions now will kill one more human later this century. That means that the average American is killing one person every 10 years. I really don’t think that you are trying to find the truth and understand the science. Please, try harder.

        • socalpa

          “killing future humans”…,? Source ?. As the emissions of China and India alone exceed those of the U.S. by 70% and climbing, what do you suppose should be done ? Sanctions ? Bombing ?

          Are you aware that C02 and the .8C warming is Greening the Planet ?

  • DaveMurphy4561

    Zuma Targetted Over His Role in Nuclear Power Negotiations with Russia

    September 30, 2014 • 9:14AM

    Two
    big players in the South African publications media have launched a
    campaign against South African President Jacob Zuma in the wake of his
    negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin for South Africa to
    acquire an as yet unannounced number of nuclear power power plants from
    Russia.

    The deal with Russia has not yet been finalized. Zuma has met Putin
    three times in the past year, with negotiations advancing during Zuma’s
    recent post-BRICS Summit to Moscow. South Africa, the only African
    country with a functioning—albeit aged—nuclear power plant, is
    confronted with severe ongoing electrical power shortages, which is
    holding back its economic development.

    The South African Mail & Guardian on Sept. 26 reported
    that Zuma personally took control of negotiations with Russia for a R1
    trillion rand ($89 billion) nuclear deal for the construction of as many
    as eight nuclear plants in South Africa. The scandal, in the Mail & Guardian’s
    eyes is that Zuma negotiated directly with Putin and then ordered the
    South African energy minister to sign the deal, apparently instead of
    letting the deal go through “channels.”

    Zizi Kodwa, national spokesman of the African National Congress
    (ANC), Zuma’s party, said in response that any problems in the process
    should not be used as a pretext to torpedo the deal for South Africa, “a
    country with a problem of energy.”

    Zizi Kodwa said Zuma is only “implementing what he announced in the
    state of the nation manifesto.” He noted that South Africa had a problem
    of electrical power shortage, and charged that “People are not
    interested in building a future in the country.” On Sept. 27, the energy
    department issued a statement denying that Zuma had interfered: “The
    allegations are baseless and at worst ludicrous, and they are purely
    concocted in order to tarnish the image and integrity of the president
    and the government of South Africa.”

    On Sept. 28, South African publication Times Live attempted
    to resurrect a scandal, on behalf of the Democratic Alliance opposition
    party, alleging Zuma involvement in an arms scandal with a French arms
    firm. Previous French President Nicolas Sarkozy had visited South Africa
    on March 3, 2011, to get the R1 trillion reactor deal for six reactors,
    the largest tender in South Africa’s history, for which France was
    considered to have the edge. President Francois Hollande also later
    visited South Africa, and discussed the nuclear project.

    The dominant figure in Times Live is South African businessman Tokyo Sexuale, a major player in the South African diamond industry.

  • DaveMurphy4561

    ZERO EMISSIONS LETS PUT A HANDKERCHIEF AROUND THE COMMIES NECK FIRST!!

  • Addison Conroy

    The constantly changing fashionable take on reduce emissions demonstrates the depth of the subject. Indispensable to homosapians today, there are just not enough blues songs written about reduce emissions. Often it is seen as both a help and a hindrance to the easily lead, trapped by their infamous history. With the primary aim of demonstrating my considerable intellect I will now demonstrate the complexity of the many faceted issue that is reduce emissions.

  • Sully

    18 years now no measurable warming. Its time these cultists stop radicalizing our children You are being mann~ipulated. No oil means no plastics. Once they realize this truth, your children will rebel and your death cult will fail.