Each year’s average temperature is determined by a number of factors, including solar activity and the status of the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon. But heat-trapping gases that have accumulated in the atmosphere, largely from the burning of fossil fuels, have become a dominant force, pushing the Earth’s climate out of its normal range. The planet is now close to 0.8 degrees Celsius warmer than it was a century ago. Hidden within annual averages and expected variability are startling instances of new temperature and rainfall records in many parts of the world — weather extremes that would once be considered anomalies but that now risk becoming the new norm as the Earth heats up.

Worldwide, 2011 was the second wettest year on record over land. (The record was set in 2010, which also tied 2005 as the warmest overall.) Heavier deluges are expected on a warmer planet; each temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius increases the amount of moisture the atmosphere can hold by about 7 percent. Higher temperatures also can fuel stronger storms.

Brazil started the year with the deadliest natural disaster in its history: in January, a month’s worth of rain fell in a single day in Rio de Janeiro state, leading to floods and landslides that killed at least 900 people. That same month, flooding in eastern Australia covered an area nearly the size of France and Germany combined. Overall, it was the third wettest year in Australia since recordkeeping began in 1900.

The most expensive weather disaster of 2011 was the flooding in Thailand in the second half of the year, which ultimately submerged one third of the country’s provinces. At $45 billion worth of damage — equal to 14 percent of Thailand’s gross domestic product — it was also the costliest natural catastrophe the country ever experienced.

In October, more than 100 people died as two storms — one from the Pacific and the other from the Caribbean — pounded Central America with rain. In western El Salvador, nearly 1.5 meters of rain (almost 5 feet) fell over 10 days. And in December, Tropical Storm Washi hit the Philippines, creating flash floods that killed more than 1,200 people.

The 2011 Atlantic hurricane season had 19 named storms. Hurricane Irene brought extreme flooding to the northeastern United States in August, with total damages topping $7.3 billion. The year was the wettest on the books for seven states in the country, while it was among the driest for several others. Although the extremes appear to balance out, making for a near-average year, in fact a record 58 percent of the contiguous United States was either extremely wet or extremely dry in 2011.

Indeed, as is expected on a hotter planet, while some parts of the globe were overwhelmed by rain in 2011, others were distinguished by dryness. A severe drought in the Horn of Africa that began in 2010 devolved into a crisis situation in 2011, characterized by crop failure, exorbitant food prices, and widespread malnutrition. Exacerbated by chronic political instability and a belated humanitarian response, the death toll may have exceeded 50,000 people.

Back in North America, a drought that began in late 2010 and worsened over 2011 led hundreds of farmers from northern Mexico to march to that nation’s capital in January 2012 to draw the government’s attention to their suffering. Nearly 900,000 hectares of farmland (some 2.2 million acres) and 1.7 million head of livestock were lost due to the dryness — the worst in Mexico’s 70+ years of data collecting.

Scorching heat, drought, and wildfires across the U.S. Southern Plains and Southwest caused farm, ranch, and forestry damages that exceeded $10 billion in 2011. Wichita Falls, Texas, experienced 100 days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit — far more than the previous record of 79 days set in 1980. Oklahoma and Texas had the hottest summers of any states in history, breaking by a wide margin the record set in 1934 during the Dust Bowl. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, writes that the likelihood of such extreme heat waves “was negligible prior to the recent rapid global warming.” Texas also had its lowest rainfall on record. Invigorated by the heat and drought, wildfires burned across an estimated 1.5 million hectares (3.7 million acres) in the state.

For the continental United States, summer 2011 was the second warmest in history. Nearly three times more weather stations hit record highs than lows in 2011, in line with a trend of increasing heat extremes. Whereas in the middle of the 20th century there were close to the same number of record highs and lows — as would be expected absent a strong warming trend — in the 1990s highs began outpacing lows. In the first decade of this century, there were twice as many record highs as record lows.

Worldwide, seven countries set all-time temperature highs in 2011: Armenia, China, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Republic of the Congo, and Zambia. Interestingly, Zambia also was the only country to experience an all-time low temperature when it dropped to -9 degrees Celsius (16 degrees Fahrenheit) in June. Kuwait experienced the year’s highest temperature, with thermometers measuring a searing 53.3 degrees Celsius (127.9 degrees Fahrenheit), the highest temperature ever recorded on Earth during the month of August. Even more threatening to health than daytime highs are extra hot nighttime minimum temperatures, which do not allow any respite from the heat. The world’s hottest 24-hour minimum ever — 41.7 degrees Celsius (107 degrees Fahrenheit) — was recorded in Oman in June 2011.

Even the Arctic had a notably warm year, with the 2011 temperature a record 2.2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit) above the mean for 1951–80. Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost U.S. city, spent a record-breaking 86 consecutive days at or above freezing, far more than the previous record of 68 days set in 2009.

In fact, over the last 50 years temperatures in the Arctic have risen more than twice as fast as the global average, melting ice and thawing permafrost. Arctic sea ice has been shrinking more rapidly, falling to its lowest volume and second lowest area on record during the 2011 summer melt season. With the summertime ice loss outpacing wintertime recovery, Arctic sea ice has thinned, making it increasingly vulnerable to further melting. Scientists expect a completely ice-free summertime Arctic by 2030 or even earlier.

As the reflective ice disappears, it exposes the dark ocean, which more readily absorbs solar energy, further warming the region. This sets forth a climate cascade, accelerating ice loss both in the ocean as well as on nearby Greenland, which contains enough ice to raise global sea level by 7 meters (23 feet) if it completely melted. The warming also thaws Arctic permafrost, releasing carbon dioxide and methane, further accelerating global warming.

Even without fully incorporating such climate feedback, models show that continued reliance on fossil fuels could raise the global temperature by up to 7 degrees Celsius (over 12 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of this century. Such an elevated temperature would amplify temperature and precipitation extremes enough to make the weather events of recent years look tame in comparison. Only a rapid, dramatic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can hold future temperatures in a range bearing any resemblance to what civilization has known.

By Janet Larsen and Sara Rasmussen

IEA predicts that over the next five years the world will build so many dirty factories, fossil-fuelled power stations and energy inefficient buildings that it will become impossible for us to stop global warming from rushing past safe climate levels. And so they warn that our last chance against dangerous climate change will be lost forever. Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said that “the door is closing.”

“I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum for safety. The door will be closed forever.”

Everything that produces greenhouse gas emissions, such as dirty coal plants and other fossil-fueled power stations, which are being constructed from now on, will continue to spew out carbon for decades to come. And this will lock the world on a path towards irreversible climate change with disastrous effects. The Guardian reports:

“If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world’s existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that “carbon budget”, according to the IEA’s analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.

If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available “carbon budget” will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA’s calculations.”

A couple of days before the IEA “bombshell” the US department of energy released another gloomy report which showed that global carbon dioxide emissions rose with 6% in 2010, greatly exceeding the worst case scenario outlined by the IPCC. Al Jazeera English reports:

“In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution, and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution.

Tom Boden (director of the Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee) said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 2.4 and 6.4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century with the best estimate at four degrees Celsius.”

According to the report the world released around 564 million more tonnes of carbon emissions into the air during the last year compared to previous levels in 2009. The increase in emissions mainly comes from China and the USA which alone stood for more than half of the emissions in 2010. But more and more emissions come from developing countries. “We really need to get the developing world because if we don’t, the problem is going to be running away from us,” climate scientist Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria said. “And the problem is pretty close from running away from us.” But “the more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing,” John Reilly, co-director of MIT’s Joint Programme on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said.

It’s now clearer than ever. We must start to aggressively change our high-carbon energy systems to more clean and renewable energy sources, scrap our massive fossil fuel subsidies and deploy a myriad of climate policies such as a carbon tax. We only have a few remaining years to make a difference until we must face certain and worldwide climate catastrophe. It looks grim, really grim to be honest. But we can’t give up just yet. Let’s put up a good fight.

The Chinese government announced this on the back of record investment in renewable technology in 2010 overtaking the U.S. for the first time in 2010 with an astounding $54.4Bn being invested in the renewable sector. This compares with the US at $34Bn and the UK about a tenth of that at $3.3Bn. $54.8Bn equates to about 56,000MW of installed hydro power, 44,000MW of installed wind capacity and 800MW of installed solar power. The BBC reported that a total of $211Bn was invested globally last year with a 32% growth rate in the renewable sector. Using my back of the envelope calculation, this equates to the renewable market doubling every two-and-a-bit years, a formidable growth.

China, it would seem, is a good place to invest in renewable technology. So good in fact, that back in June of this year the World Bank awarded China and seven other countries grants to be used directly in organising, implementing and developing climate change mitigation technologies.

This all sounds very promising but, as with nearly every bit of good news, there is an important addendum which highlights a more subdued reality. Last year China emitted 7.7Bn tonnes of carbon equivalent which is a 13.3% increase on last year’s total. Since 2000 China’s CO2 emissions have risen by 170.6% and have been closely related to the country’s Gross Domestic Product growth. This is why the huge investment in renewable technologies is so important, as it is the only way to break the link between carbon emissions and GDP growth. In a world where GDP growth is king, the Chinese government could be showing the way in sustainable energy production and low carbon emissions.

The coming few years are going to be very interesting.

Analysts from IEA says the extreme rise in greenhouse gas emissions will make it impossible to reach the 2 degrees target that politicians have claimed is the threshold we should aim for to prevent dangerous runaway climate change. Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA, says that if the current rise in carbon emissions continues the 2 degrees target will just become "a nice Utopia".

"I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions," Birol told the Guardian. "It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say."

The British top climate economist Nicholas Stern, who recently endorsed the 350 ppm target, said in a response to the new shocking figures that we could see "widespread mass migration and conflict" as a result:

"These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a ‘business as usual’ path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path … would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100.

Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce."

John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, warned that time is now seriously running out for us:

"This news should shock the world. Yet even now politicians in each of the great powers are eyeing up extraordinary and risky ways to extract the world’s last remaining reserves of fossil fuels – even from under the melting ice of the Arctic. You don’t put out a fire with gasoline. It will now be up to us to stop them."

And just two days ago preliminary data from the US government’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory was released showing that carbon dioxide levels peaked at the highest levels on record last week. The data show that "2011 CO2 levels peaked last week at 394.97ppm. This is an increase of nearly 1.6ppm on last year and the highest ever recorded".

With only a few days left before the 2010 Olympic Games officially begins, there is a buzz around the streets of Vancouver. Being a resident of the city, I can certainly say it has undergone some radical changes in the past few months. Regardless of whether or not you support the games, it seems everyone has something to say.

Recent talk has surrounded the issue of sustainability. Considering, at the very least, the carbon emissions created by all the flights into the host city (and some residents’ flights out of the city) the Olympics can never be genuinely environmentally-friendly. However, Vancouver 2010 has been promoted as “the greenest Olympics ever” (official website: http://www.vancouver2010.com/sustainability/).

Interestingly, David Suzuki recently awarded Vancouver 2010 a bronze medal for sustainability (full article: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnews/dsfnews02031001.asp). He writes: “achievements of the 2010 Olympics include building energy-efficient venues, using clean-energy sources, relying on public transit during the Games, and offsetting part of the Games’ emissions.” However, several areas were lacking. For example, the David Suzuki Foundation admits that “opportunities to create lasting reductions in transportation emissions in the region have been missed.” In addition, the carbon-offsetting accounted for less than half of the overall emissions.

Are the 2010 Olympics green? Yes, but only because there’s no snow! Which raises the first major point. Vancouver is mild, sunny, and snow-free, which has Olympic officials incredibly worried. What has everyone most concerned is the lack of snow at Cypress mountain, where major events will be held. The solution? Instead of switching locations to snow-filled Whistler, trucks have been transporting snow three hours—from Manning Park all the way to Cypress, using fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases. Around the city, road closures and detours have also created traffic havoc, thereby increasing greenhouse gases.

An equally controversial topic is the famous red Olympic $10 mittens. They are marketed as the must-have souvenir for the games and it seems every second Vancouver resident on the street is wearing them. Ironically, the mittens are made in China. This has been argued by some as trivial and irrelevant, but as such a prominent icon of the (“green”) Olympics, the symbolic importance of this hypocrisy should not be ignored. Profit is certainly more important than sustainability, as countless other souvenirs (made around the world and shipped to Vancouver) are also ready on the shelves to be consumed.

Finally, as if Christmas lights don’t create enough controversy, many Vancouver residents have been encouraged by VANOC to “Paint the Town Red” by decorating their houses with red and white lights, using more electricity.

As climate change continues to become a more and more pressing issue, it’s crucial that long-term, legitimate measures be taken on the part of organizations like the Olympic Committees. Greenwashing won’t cut it. After all, the Winter Olympics just wouldn’t be the same without, well, winter.

Photo credit: JoshuaDavisPhotography.COM

How can you be an eco-friendly traveller? Well, considering the immense amount of carbon emissions generated by air travel (hundreds of pounds of fuel per passenger), the term “eco-friendly traveller” may be a bit of an oxymoron. Still, when on vacation or on business abroad, the search for greener alternatives is not totally hopeless. 

Before You Leave

• Packaging, Packaging, Packaging:

Unfortunately, all those cute, miniature-sized toothpastes, shampoos and conditioners create much more waste than regular or refill-sized packages. Instead, opt for products with less packaging, or bottles and boxes that can be re-used.

The Soap Works (http://puresoapworks.com/index.htm) has been making biodegradable, natural bar soaps with absolutely no packaging for 25 years. Their Shampoo & Conditioner bar is perfect for hair washing while travelling, the Carbolic bar repels mosquitoes and other pests, and the Tea Tree bar’s antiseptic properties make it perfect to clean minor cuts and scrapes.

Wysi Wipes (http://www.canawipe.com/home.html) are a great green alternative to pre-moistened cloths, for washing dishes while camping, removing make-up, or cleaning up spills. Rather than using one-time-use facial cleansing wipes that remain in a landfill forever, Wysi Wipes can be washed, re-used, and are eventually biodegradable. They start as tiny tablets that take up no room in a suitcase, but expand many times their original size after adding water.

• Natural Remedies:

Products without synthetic ingredients, preservatives, artificial colours and harsh chemicals and pesticides are easier on the environment, and safer for everyone.

Swimming and snorkelling while wearing sunscreens with harsh chemicals are not only dangerous to you, but can harm the fish, coral, and natural environment around you. Sunscreens should be PABA and paraben free. Badger (http://www.badgerbalm.com/default.aspx) or Soleo (http://www.soleousa.com/) are some of the cleanest brands you can find.

Essential oils can be used as natural bug repellents. Citronella, lavender and tea tree are at the top of the list. If you get bitten, tea tree oil works well to soothe the itch. They can also be purchased in ready-made spray forms at your local health food store.

Other natural remedies include: ginger for nausea and motion sickness, probiotics to prevent travellers’ sickness and digestive upsets, and grapefruit seed extract to purify drinking and bathing water.

While You’re There

• Reuse:

Everything possible on vacation should be re-used. Pack some cloth bags in your suitcase for shopping and bring your trusty reusable water bottles along as well. Tip: double walled stainless steel canteens keep water cold hours longer in tropical heat than single walled stainless steel, aluminum or plastic (plus, they’re better for you).           

• Respect the Local Ecosystem:

Choose hotels, tours and day trips that use environmentally friendly practices. Eat local whenever possible (this is usually much more fun than eating local at home). When in nature, remember the golden rule—take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints.

• Save Electricity, Water, and Gas:

Just like at home, don’t leave lights, TVs or electric appliances on. Don’t leave the water running or take long showers. If you’re staying in a full-service hotel, refrain from requesting laundry or cleaning services unless absolutely necessary. Or, if you’re doing some sightseeing, take the bus or walk instead of renting a car. You’ll experience more of the culture that way in the process.

On Your Way Home

• Recycle:

Believe it or not, a lot of resorts and vacation destinations don’t have the same recycling facilities that we’re used to. So—take it home! Empty packages aren’t heavy, so bringing them home to be recycled isn’t too hard.

• Souvenir Shopping:

Although the most environmentally-friendly option is to avoid buying any souvenirs, most people like taking a little something back to remember their trip. If you’re buying souvenirs for yourself or for others, ensure that they’re environmentally responsible choices. For example, make sure they’re actually made in the location you travel to, but don’t damage the local ecosystem (no crocodile skin wallets!). As always, don’t buy anything you don’t need or won’t want in a few years.

Good luck and bon voyage!

The world must cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2020 to avert catastrophe, according to paleoclimate scientist Dr Dr Andrew Glikson (Australian National University) in an interview broadcast by Radio Australia (for the interview see “Carbon emissions must be cut by 80 percent [by 2020]: scientist“) .

This expert opinion telescopes the time frame for requisitely dealing with the worsening climate disruption, climate emergency and climate genocide from half a century to a decade.

Dr Andrew Glikson is an Earth and paleoclimate scientist, Visiting Fellow, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research School of Earth Science and Institute of Planetary Science, Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Dr Andrew Glikson interviewed by taxpayer-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Radio Australia, 2009, in response to the question ”what has to be done?” stated (in part):

“extremely rapid reduction in emissions … I would say, 80 percent within the next ten years or so … people like me have been looking at the evidence about this on a day to day basis and we have been doing it for years, and to look in to the abyss at this length is a daunting task.”

Dr Glikson’s plea is consonant with the dire views of Professor Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows, climate scientists at the prestigious Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK.

Professor Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows, in a key paper in the prestigious Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 2008, stated:

“According to the analysis conducted in this paper, stabilizing at 450 ppmv [carbon dioxide equivalent = CO2-e, atmospheric concentration measured in parts per million by volume; roughly the present level at 390 ppm CO2] requires, at least, global energy related emissions to peak by 2015, rapidly decline at 6-8% per year between 2020 and 2040, and for full decarbonization sometime soon after 2050 …Unless economic growth can be reconciled with unprecedented rates of decarbonization (in excess of 6% per year), it is difficult to envisage anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilization at or below 650 ppmv CO2-e … Ultimately, the latest scientific understanding of climate change allied with current emissions trends and a commitment to “limiting average global temperature increases to below 4oC above pre-industrial levels”, demands a radical reframing of both the climate change agenda, and the economic characterization of contemporary society” (see: Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows, Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc, A, 2008).

Indeed Dr Glikson’s interpretation of the data of Anderson and Bows is “The ocean/atmosphere system is fast tracking to conditions similar to those of an ice-free earth .. [we need] Urgent deep reductions in carbon emissions, on the scale of at last 5% per year, relative to 1990 … The alternative to urgent fast tracked mitigation efforts does not bear contemplation” (see Andrew Glikson, “21st century carbon blueprints: perspective from the recent history of the atmosphere”, July 2009 – to see this and a related expertly written power point lecture scroll down at “Dr Andrew Glikson: earth and paleoclimate scientist: reduce GHG emissions by 80% by 2020”).

A layperson’s take on what Dr Glikson is saying is provided by the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) summary of the interview with Dr Andrew Glikson: “Despite urgent global warming warnings, there’s little hope that December’s Copenhagen climate change meeting will secure an international agreement. Even domestic measures are subject to bitter politics and trade-offs, like the Australian government’s plans to cut emissions by five-to-15 per cent by the year 2020. Even if such measures did pass, one expert [Dr Glikson] says it’d be like giving aspirin to a cancer patient. He says nothing less than 80 per cent emissions cuts over the next ten years will avert catastrophe”.

Dr Glikson’s dire warning is consonant with warnings from other climate change analysts .For a compilation of such opinions see the website “Cut carbon emissions 80% by 2020”.

Thus Sam Carana’s Change Our World, 2008 says: “James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist, says in “Target CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” (see Target CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? ) that the EU target of 550 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 – the most stringent in the world – was not good enough, as this would cause the world to warm by 6C, rather than the previous estimate of just 3C. Hansen says targets should be slashed to 350 ppm … As the Environmental Protection Agency’s inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2005 (see: inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005 ) shows, well over 80% of US emissions are caused by fossil fuel – the mining of fossil fuel and burning it in power plants and in transportation. So, if we switched to electric vehicles over a period of a dozen years and to electricity produced in clean and safe ways, such as with wind and solar power, this would achieve an 80% cut by 2020 “ (see: Sam Carana, “Reduce emissions by 80% by 2020, Symptoms of global warming”, Change Our World, 2008).

The prestigious Earth Policy Institute (EPI) is an environmental organization founded in 2001 by Lester R. Brown, based in Washington, D.C., U.S.A., and dedicated to building a sustainable future and informing the public about climate change, population expansion, mass species extinction and other threats impacting upon Humanity (see Wikipedia and Earth Policy Institute).

Thus Lester R. Brown and colleagues, “Time for Plan B. Cutting emissions 80 percent by 2020”:

“When political leaders look at the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions to curb global warming, they ask the question: How much of a cut is politically feasible? At the Earth Policy Institute we ask a different question: How much of a cut is necessary to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change? … Cutting CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2020 will take a worldwide mobilization at wartime speed. First, investing in energy efficiency will allow us to keep energy demand from increasing. Then we can cut carbon emissions by one third by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources for electricity and heat production. A further 14 percent drop comes from restructuring our transportation systems and reducing coal and oil use in industry. Ending net deforestation worldwide can cut CO2 emissions another 16 percent. Last, planting trees and managing soils to sequester carbon [biochar] can absorb 17 percent of our current emissions. None of these initiatives depends on new technologies. We know what needs to be done to reduce CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2020. All that is needed now is leadership“ (see Lester R. Brown, Janet Larsen, Jonathan G. Dorn, and Frances C. Moore, “Time for Plan B. Cutting emissions 80 percent by 2020”, Earth Policy Institute).

Even big business has wised up to the realities. Thus British Telecom (BT) is the major UK telecommunications company (see Wikipedia). According to Earth2tech, 2 June 2008: “British Telecom (BT) said today it plans to reduce its carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020. The UK-based incumbent telecom operator is already on its way to meeting that aggressive target, and last October said it would invest close to half a billion dollars in wind farms that could supply close to 25 percent of the company’s power needs by 2016. That was the largest investment in renewable power by a non-power company in the UK … BT also says the company has created a new tool called the Climate Stabilisation Intensity (CSI) Target to measure and track carbon emissions” (Katie Fehrenbacher, Earth2tech, “British Telecom (BT) to cut carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020”, 2 June 2008).

In horrible contrast to these expert views that we must “reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2020”, world governments talk of a notional “80% off 2000 GHG emissions by 2050” but mostly, as predicted by Drs Anderson and Bows, show no sign of taking anything like the requisite steps.

Thus, for example, climate criminal Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and is a world leader in GHG pollution on a per capita basis. As of 2008, “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 2.2 (India), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included (see Wikipedia, “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”).

However climate criminal Australia has offered a derisory “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” and”60% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2050”, these offerings IGNORING Australia’s enormous annual Exported GHG pollution that is about half of the total annual Domestic and Exported GHG pollution of Australia (see “Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere“).

We are running out of time – so what can decent folk do in the face of greedy, corrupt, climate racist, climate genocidal, climate criminal intransigence?

Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity. In the words of Dr Andrew Glikson, informed people are now staring into “the abyss”. Decent, responsible people must (a) inform everyone they can and (b) advocate intra-national and international sanctions, boycotts, green tariffs, reparations demands and criminal prosecutions against people, corporations and countries (notably climate Australia) complicit in the worsening climate disruption, climate emergency and climate genocide that is predicted to kill 10 billion people this century.

Photo credit: saba♫dija

In the latest of his groundbreaking encounters with the figures whose decisions shape our environment, George Monbiot meets Andy Harrison, the chief executive of easyjet, and takes him to task over the budget airline’s plans for an “ecojet”, growing carbon emissions from the aviation industry and the company’s carbon offsetting scheme

Click here to watch the interview on the Guardian!

Also, take a moment to watch these interviews:
- George Monbiot meets Yvo de Boer
- Monbiot meets Fatih Birol and Shaun Spiers
- Monbiot meets the chief executive of oil giant Shell

“The “Climate Safety” report gives a simple summary of the latest science, delivering a clear message that to have any chance of maintaining a safe climate, we must rapidly decarbonise our society, preserve global sinks, and address the problem with an unprecedented degree of seriousness.”

The new report is said to show that we can’t afford to follow Brown’s or Obama’s climate plans, which both calls for an 80% reduction in global emissions. Instead global emissions must decline by between 6-8% per year from 2020 to 2040, and lead up to a complete 100% decarbonisation by 2050, according to a paper by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

“Even with a commitment to 80% carbon cuts by 2050, “Climate Safety” warns that our current policy response does not match up to the scale of the challenge. Join us to discuss finding a way to get beyond “politics-as-usual” and achieve a full, emergency response.”

And if we are to keep global temperatures from reaching a 2 degree increase we need to cut global emissions by even more than 8% a year. So there is no point anymore in arguing about any percentage as everything has to go, and the sooner the better.

Some people have already read the new Climate Safety report. George Monbiot is one of them, and he says that “you cannot overstate the importance of this report: it has opened my eyes to levels of climate risk far beyond those of which I was aware. Crisp, clear-headed and profoundly shocking, this report should be read immediately by everyone who cares.”

And Mark Lynas, author of “Six Degrees”, says that “Climate Safety plainly shows us that we need to inject a sense of urgency into the debate about how we respond to climate change. It’s not about gradually reducing emissions any more, it’s about recognising the risks we face and cutting our emissions to zero as quickly as possible.”

Climate Safety is “a report to keep every policy maker awake at night,” Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party in the UK, have said. Let’s hope she is right.

This can be compared to 25% for corn ethanol and 93% for soybean ethanol. But one of the more interesting and positive result from the study was that the emissions created by switchgrass would be around 94% lower than the emissions from petrol. That means switchgrass would be almost carbon neutral.

Another positive thing with using switchgrass as biofuel is that it does not need to take up valuable land areas. Kenneth Vogel explains that switchgrass only needs to be grown on secondary croplands. And the switchgrass only needs to be planted once as it returns year after year.

Rainer Zah, head of the Life Cycle Assessment & Modelling group of the Swiss Materials Science and Technology research institution, EMPA, in Saint Gallen, acknowledges that switchgrass seems to be a very promising fuel but he worries about its dinitrogen oxide emissions, a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Image credit: AdsitAdventures. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works license.