9 Nov 2019
On Monday, the United States formally submitted to the UN its plans to exit the Paris climate agreement. This was an expected formality; according to UN rules, Monday was the earliest day the plan could be submitted pursuant to President Trump’s June 1, 2017 announcement of our intention to leave the agreement shared by 187 other nations to make their best efforts to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius or, better yet, 1.5 degrees Celsius, above pre-industrial temperatures.
U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, explained on Monday that the Paris agreement threatens to impose an “unfair economic burden” on the United States, a nation which has enjoyed the economic benefits of being the #1 cumulative carbon dioxide emitter over approximately the past 170 years since the Industrial Revolution.
This statement appeared to expand on President Trump’s declaration of his reaction to his own government’s detailed 2018 climate assessment report, “I don’t believe it.”
Neither Secretary Pompeo nor President Trump has provided any significant evidence, measurements, expert reports, computations, graphs, tables, or numerals to back up their opinions based upon which they are busy making globally consequential decisions on behalf of all Americans.
In other news…
On Tuesday, a group of 11,258 scientists from 153 countries jointly published in the journal, BioScience, an open letter not-so-subtly entitled, “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” I recommend reading the entire letter, which is just 4 pages long and straightforwardly written.
“Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to ‘tell it like it is.’ On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.”
-Opening paragraph of the letter
The writers recount a 40-year history of explicit warnings from various groupings of scientists that have occurred since scientists from 50 nations assembled in Geneva at the 1979 First World Climate Conference (see U.S. National Academy of Sciences report published that year).
“Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business as usual and have largely failed to address this predicament … The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected … It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity … Especially worrisome are potential irreversible climate tipping points and nature’s reinforcing feedbacks … that could lead to a catastrophic ‘hothouse Earth,’ well beyond the control of humans … These climate chain reactions could cause significant disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies, potentially making large areas of Earth uninhabitable.”
Unlike Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Trump, the scientific authors of this open letter present an abundance of data supporting their arguments. Arguing that simple global surface temperature alone is an inadequate measure of humanity’s progress on the climate (a reasonable argument, since inertia in Earth’s climate system will ensure that the excess CO2 already in the atmosphere will continue to warp Earth’s geologic state for decades and longer), the authors present a suite of 15 graphical “vital signs” measuring various aspects of human activity that affect the climate (Figure 1, reproduced below).
Similarly, they present 14 graphical panels documenting measured impacts on, or responses of, Earth’s climate system (Figure 2).
Finally, the authors propose 6 “critical and interrelated steps” that humanity must take to avoid the worst consequences of climate change:
Energy – Rapidly reduce CO2 emissions by leaving remaining fossil fuels in the ground and moving to renewable energy sources and improved energy conservation practices as quickly as can safely be done.
Short-lived pollutants – Vigorously reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants like methane, black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which the authors tie directly (with evidence) to the saving of millions of lives over the upcoming few decades.
Nature – Rapidly reduce ongoing losses in Earth’s biodiversity, including forests, sea grasses, and microorganisms that store large amounts of carbon. Take on reforestation efforts at large scales, which could accomplish a third of emission reductions needed to meet the 2030 Paris agreement targets.
Food – Eating more plants and less meat, particularly ruminant livestock meat (beef), would result in substantial emission reductions while simultaneously freeing up cropland currently used for feeding and grazing livestock to instead grow food for people and plant carbon-sequestering trees.
Economy
“We need a carbon-free economy that explicitly addresses human dependence on the biosphere and policies that guide economic decisions accordingly. Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality.”
Population – Strengthen policies like provision of and easy access to family-planning services, improving gender equality, and making primary and secondary education of girls ubiquitous — policies that have proven to lead to stabilization of population while simultaneously improving human rights.
“We are encouraged by a recent surge of concern … Schoolchildren are striking. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding in the courts. Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change, and many countries, states and provinces, cities, and businesses are responding … The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual. We believe that the prospects will be greatest if decision-makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home.”
I wonder, how shrill will the warnings of scientists need to become, how strongly worded their opening paragraphs, how unambiguous the titles of their studies, how many scientific signatories will their papers require, how voluminous the data and inventive the graphical methods will they they need to employ, just how complete will their consensus need to become? How many schoolchildren will feel compelled to strike from school and how many tears will they need to shed before parliaments and international governing bodies in their efforts to call attention to the science?
How much all of that?
Before we will stop tolerating government representatives who stand in front of bouquets of microphones trolling scientists and making vapid statements about “unfair economic burdens” and “the reality of the global energy mix” while themselves living conspicuously unburdened economic lives and transparently being on the take from the similarly economically unburdened purveyors of the “current energy mix?” Before we will stop entertaining the crackpot ramblings of this or that radio personality or pseudo-scientist on Fox News questioning mainstream climate science, as if he represents an actual dispute among real scientists when real scientists author papers with hundreds or thousands or over 11,000 signatories and while the land-based ice on Greenland is quite obviously melting in great torrents and California burns? Before we will listen instead to the scientists and our own schoolchildren, who are striking because they realize they will own the consequences of the decisions we make right now and the real-world effects of climate change are so glaring as to be easily apprehended by any fourth grader?
How much evidence will be required? Before we will vote out the idiots and the profiteers, and vote in the pragmatists, the scientifically literate, the inspirational and justice-minded leaders ready to set to work on the difficult choices that need to be made and the hard but rewarding work that needs to be done?
How much, before we start to put things right?
