Share

Thousands Gather for Worldwide Climate Protests

by:   |  Agence France-Presse

photo
Children in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia participate in the international day of climate action. (Photo: www.350.org)

    New York - From Asia to the Americas via Europe and the Middle East, activists around the planet have protested in an effort to mobilize public opinion against global warming 50 days ahead of a crucial UN climate summit.

    Many of the thousands that gathered on the steps of Sydney's iconic Opera House to kick off the event waved placards bearing the logo 350, a figure scientists believe is the maximum parts per million of CO2 that the atmosphere can bear to avoid runaway global warming.

Also see below:     
Mr. Obama, Be Tough on Climate Change    β€’

    In New York's Times Square, a crowd of demonstrators gathered as giant screens beamed in images from around the world. Organizers told the activists that events had taken place in "more than 180 countries" at 5,200 events.

    To read more on the climate protests, click here.

 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Mr. Obama, Be Tough on Climate Change

by: Bill McKibben  |  Visit article original @ The Boston Globe

    President Obama will appear at MIT this morning to talk about climate change and energy - and chances are he’ll try pretty much to use the same tactic he has used in the health care debate, working with Congress to pass something modest. It’s the sensible and straightforward approach, but in this case good politics may be bad science.

    That's because global warming is different from almost every other problem we face. The negotiation that really counts is not between Republicans and Democrats or industry and the greens, or even between the United States and China. The real bargaining is happening between human beings and physics and chemistry, and that's a tough negotiation.

    Physics and chemistry have already announced their bottom line. In the last two years a slew of research has shown that the most carbon we can safely have in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million - indeed, a NASA team said that above that figure we can't have "a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed or to which life on earth is adapted."

    We're already well past the 350 figure, at 390 parts per million, which is why Arctic sea ice is melting, glaciers thawing, and the ocean turning steadily more acidic. To meet the 350 goal will mean a far more aggressive approach than the one Obama and Congress have so far taken (the bill making its way through Congress explicitly aims for a world with 450 parts per million carbon).

     To read more from the director of 350.org click here.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
  

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

If you believe that carbon

If you believe that carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change and you therefore agree to carbon taxes, you should propose a new money system as well because under the current money system (monetarism) a carbon tax makes the private money creators richer. We need a new ecological money system without private money creation. The governments all over the world should create their own money for the benefit of their people and with respect for ecological issues.

McKibben is right that

McKibben is right that global warming is different from other problems and that the "moderate" approach Obama is taking makes no sense at all. If we don't do enough, it will be a total failure, but they don't get that, nor do they realize how urgent the situation already is. But even though I participated in the day of climate action on 10/24, I don't think that type of thing has much effect. The next day I didn't see anything at all about the event just by browsing the news. I had to do a search to find a few very short articles that basically just said the event happened. People are so heavily in denial and avoiding responsibility, that it is going to take something much more drastic to wake them up. I don't know what would work. Does anyone else have any ideas?

The wake-up events will

The wake-up events will happen: sea level rise, more violent and frequent "Katrinas", drought in the southwest. Those events will be noticed. Will they prompt political will? On a next-election time line? Probably not. Will insurance corporations notice? Yes. Will there be pressure for more public funds to rebuild private houses in threatened areas? to create a dike around Florida and the Gulf coast? to siphon water from the Great Lakes for use in the southwest? Yes. Will there be public pressure to stop emitting CO2 if that means personal life-style changes? Take a guess. So, just a question: what are you personally doing right now to limit your use of hydrocarbons?

Mr. Obama, be tough on

Mr. Obama, be tough on climate change scientists. Force them to be transparent so their work can be examined by those who are outside their "club". Force them to respond promptly to FOIA requests when their work has been funded by taxpayers, or when their conclusions could influence public policy. Force them to release their raw data and their methods for examination. If you seriously think we should make sacrifices at the altar of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), then at least let us all see the evidence it is based on. Otherwise you are violating the separation of church and state, because without evidence that is subject to independent evaluation, AGW is a religion not a science.

The problem is the awful

The problem is the awful fact that people don't understand basic non-exotic physics and chemistry. They think that the issue of global warming is debatable, a matter of politics, a concept demanding "belief" which they are free to reject. They didn't learn the basics during their school years as American kids -- they were outscored in international exams by the kids of many other countries. And we are doing nothing by way of science education even for the current generation of kids -- who might teach their parents a little if they were being properly taught. But Americans prefer entertainment and polemics to serious study, never mind facts and principles. As Al Gore said, these truths are "inconvenient."

Carbon taxes will make the

Carbon taxes will make the rich richer as the rich pass costs on to unwired people. Increasing taxes on people unable to pay drops the revenue government gets even though government accounting offices declare they will get more. Smaller jurisdictions can offset costs by saving energy and generating products from waste streams. School buildings afford visibility and traffic and can serve as demonstration sites for solar and other technologies. Ratepayer-owned utilities are well-positioned for this. When they succeed, wired=in people will help with replication or get run over.

The global warming, now spun

The global warming, now spun as climate change, issue is the biggest fraud ever pulled over on the people of the world. Those behind the push are making sinful amounts of money from it. Al Gore is one of the biggest wasters of energy in this country. He is an absolute hypocrite who is making a fortune from this fraud. Science has proven him wrong repeatedly. Regina is correct - global warming is not debatable, a matter of politics, etc. What science has proven is that the earth is cooling, not warming, meaning that global warming is not debatable, a matter of politics, or a concept to believe in, but a fraud because it is not happening. A fraud because mankind does not have a significant influence on it. These are the inconvenient truths.

"Anonymous", for your

"Anonymous", for your information, Transparency, availability of raw data, disclosure of methods of analysis, and all that, is routine procedure for scientists. Your demand is already fulfilled.

So many "Anonymous" authors

So many "Anonymous" authors who think they have the intellect to project opposing views of environmental change and economic conditions. With all this wisdom available why don't they come out and help us fix the problems, or show the rest of us how we're wrong to buy the circumstances as presented (i.e., "cooling rather than warming"). Then again, if they have to sign commentary as "Anonymous" maybe they aren't all that sure of themselves to begin with. Maybe a touch of the "Party of NO"?

"Anonymous", for your

"Anonymous", for your information, The Earth is still warming, even cherrypicking the last ten years; 1998 was unusually warm, and 2008 was comparatively cool, so if you take just those two years it could look as if "the world has not warmed for a decade", but if you do a proper linear regression using all the years OF the decade, the trend line is still going up. The decade was the warmest on record, eight of the years were in the top ten warmest on record. For commentary and explanation of real climate science, by real climate scientists, see http://www.realclimate.org/

08:15: "Transparency" may be

08:15: "Transparency" may be routine procedure for scientists, but not for climate "scientists". Go to climateaudit.org. Steve McIntyre, who famously debunked the hockey stick graph by Mann et al (and his work was substantiated by esteemed statistician Wegman in a Congressional investigation), typically has to file FOIA requests to get the data, and even then data is missing and/or methods are not released. McIntyre is also one of the IPCC reviewers, and he has pushed the IPCC to make the review process transparent, as well. (It is still not completely transparent, but to the degree that it is, the IPCC has cooperated only reluctantly.) To 13:07: RealClimate.org is a propaganda site. They routinely delete skeptical comments they are unable to answer.

Climate denier organizations

Climate denier organizations and "scientists" have always been funded by the fossil fuel industry or by far right-wing organizations. Their arguments are always faulty, every single time I've investigated them. And I've also discovered the people who follow them often also do not "believe in" evolution. They truly have no understanding of or respect for science, even though they use the fruits of science all the time. But effectively they are destroying all of us via their ignorance and inability to think logically or consider with an open mind anything they don't already "believe in". Maybe the best thing to do is ignore them the same way they ignore the truth. If the mainstream media and the politicians would learn to do that, we might have a chance of avoiding the global calamity that otherwise is bound to come.

20:56: You are making

20:56: You are making sweeping generalizations about all climate skeptics. I am sure there are some who fit your description, but others are taking a more scientific approach than the global warming alarmists. They promote truth and transparency, which is what science is supposed to be about. On the funding aspect, the global warming alarmist scientists have at least a 200 to 1 funding advantage over skeptical scientists. If catastrophic global warming theory was no longer accepted, funding for climate research would plummet and they know it. Luckily, everyday people are not ignoring the skeptics; now more people believe in haunted houses than in human-caused global warming.