Government Inaction on the Climate Emergency

More than 90% of the countries signing the Paris Climate Agreement have failed to meet their target emission reductions. Some countries, notably the U. S., have instead grown their emissions beyond the worst-case predictions.

BLUNDELL

The original goal was to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees celsius (2.7 degrees fahrenheit). However, national actions that would keep warming below 2 degrees celsius (3.6 degrees fahrenheit) were acceptable. Only three countries are on track to do either of these. Most are on the way to increases of 3 or 4 degrees celsius. Scientist fear that these higher increases will wipe out human civilization.

Government Inaction on the Mass Extinction of Wildlife

At the same time global warming is threatening humanity, global wildlife numbers are plummeting. This itself threatens the survival of human civilization even without the compounding effect of global warming. Under threat here is the soil, the foundation of life on Earth. And in the oceans, the delicate chemical and temperature balance that allows abundant marine life to exist.

The Extinction Rebellion

As the majority of the world’s citizens become aware that both climate and extinction are in danger of spiraling out of control, there are growing efforts to direct our governments to take action. Since the time India separated from the British Empire, we have all known that peaceful demonstration and protest can force major changes. The Student Strike, the progressive politics embodied by the Green New Deal, and The Sunrise Movement are starting to have an impact on government policies. It is essential that these groups welcome and endorse the efforts of the Extinction Rebellion. It is essential that all of us take part in local demonstrations sponsored by these and other groups concerned with avoiding extinction.

Photo: Rupert Read

Here are the basic demands of the Extinction Rebellion. I expect these will be expanded in the months ahead:

WE DEMAND:

These demands only represent XR US. They are still in the process of development.

That the Government must tell the truth about the climate and wider ecological emergency, it must reverse all policies not in alignment with that position and must work alongside the media to communicate the urgency for change including what individuals, communities and businesses need to do.
The Government must enact legally-binding policies to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and take further action to remove the excess of atmospheric greenhouse gases. It must cooperate internationally so that the global economy runs on no more than half a planet’s worth of resources per year.
We do not trust our Government to make the bold, swift and long-term changes necessary to achieve these changes and we do not intend to hand further power to our politicians. Instead we demand a Citizens’ Assembly to oversee the changes, as we rise from the wreckage, creating a democracy fit for purpose.
We demand a just transition that prioritizes the most vulnerable people and indigenous sovereignty; establishes reparations and remediation led by and for Black people, Indigenous people, people of color and poor communities for years of environmental injustice, establishes legal rights for ecosystems to thrive and regenerate in perpetuity, and repairs the effects of ongoing ecocide to prevent extinction of human and all species, in order to maintain a livable, just planet for all.

The first U. S. XR (Extinction Rebellion) events begin tomorrow.

Catastrophe or Just a Big Problem?

In the sugarcane region of El Salvador, as much as one-fifth of the population has chronic kidney disease, the presumed result of dehydration from working the fields they were able to comfortably harvest as recently as two decades ago. Photo: Heartless Machine

GR: On Tuesday (July 11, 2017) I introduced an article by David Wallace-Wells that describes the climate change events that will happen and the events that might happen. Some prominent climate scientists have responded with criticism because of the article’s strong message of disaster and doom. These scientists believe that gentle persuasion instead of doomsday warning is the correct way to deliver the climate-emergency message. It is true that gentle persuasion is resistant to ridicule by oil-company sponsored climate-change deniers (whew). Moreover, gentle persuasion isn’t criticized by other scientists (who learned at their mentors’ knee true science is never certain). However, I disagree with these scientists’ stated reason for gentle persuasion. They say:

Such rhetoric [doomsday warnings] is in many ways as pernicious as outright climate change denial, for it leads us down the same path of inaction. Whether climate change is a hoax (as President Trump has asserted) or beyond our control (as McPherson insists), there would obviously be no reason to cut carbon emissions.

I do not believe that gentle persuasion by climate scientists is changing people’s attitudes. It’s certainly not leading to action. Sure, renewable energy production is climbing, electric automobiles are coming on, and most people believe global warming is a genuine problem. However, almost no one in academia, government, or society is responding as if they believe there is a GLOBAL CLIMATE EMERGENCY (please pardon the shouting). If gentle warnings do not work, it seems reasonable to try severe warnings (If you keep patting the beehive, the bees will definitely sting you.)

Here’s a bit of the article by Mann, Hassol, and Toles:

Doomsday Scenarios Are as Harmful as Climate Change Denial

“It is easy to understand why advocates for climate action have become somewhat dispirited in recent months. In the space of less than a year, we’ve seen the U.S. go from playing a leading role in international climate negotiations to now being the only nation in the world to renege on its commitment to the 2015 Paris climate accord.

“It is in this environment of defeat and despair that we’ve witnessed a dramatic rise in the prominence of climate doomism—commentary that portrays climate change not just as a threat that requires an urgent response but also as an essentially lost cause, a hopeless fight. Some of the more egregious examples can be found among fringe characters such as ecologist Guy McPherson—a doomist cult hero who insists that exponential climate change likely will render human beings and all other species extinct within 10 years.”

“Such rhetoric is in many ways as pernicious as outright climate change denial, for it leads us down the same path of inaction. Whether climate change is a hoax (as President Trump has asserted) or beyond our control (as McPherson insists), there would obviously be no reason to cut carbon emissions.” –Michael E. Mann, Susan Joy Hassol and Tom Toles (Doomsday Scenarios Are as Harmful as Climate Change Denial).