But this rejection from the US state department is only a temporary setback for TransCanada, the developer, and not a definite “no” to the pipeline. As a result of a legislative standoff in 2011, where Republicans forced a final decision-deadline on the pipeline plan within 60 days, the state department didn’t have the time to do a full and proper investigation. And thus the Keystone XL pipeline was rejected by the state department.

President Barack Obama acknowledges this and blames the denied permit on the Republicans. According to Obama the rejection by the state department “is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline”:

“As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security,” Obama said.

TransCanada has announced that they are “disappointed” by the outcome but that they are still “fully committed” to the Keystone XL pipeline project:

“This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

Several Republicans have criticized Obama for the rejection of the pipeline. Mitt Romney, one of the front-runners in the 2012 Republican primary, have said the decision shows a “lack of seriousness” when it comes to bringing down unemployment in the US. “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs,” a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said. And Republicans in Congress have proclaimed that they will try and put forward new legislation to push the Keystone XL pipeline project forward, the Guardian reports.

But it’s interesting to note that the US state department concluded in their report that the Keystone XL pipeline “is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment” levels. The report also concludes that the pipeline would make little difference to economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term in the US. According to the report only around “5,000 to 6,000 direct construction jobs” would be created because of the Keystone XL pipeline. And these jobs “would last for the two years that it would take to build the pipeline”.

So we can now be sure on a couple of things. The Keystone XL pipeline has only been temporary stopped. TransCanada will re-apply, and most likely they will get their permit a couple of months after the presidential election. Barack Obama doesn’t acknowledge the dangerous effects the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands will have on our environment and climate. He would gladly approve the pipeline project today, if that was possible. If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline will only create a few thousands temporary jobs and it will not help the US reach energy independence or energy security. And if the tar sands are exploited, it would only result in the destruction of our climate.

“Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year.”

“If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long,” James Hansen, the director of GISS, said.

“The warmth this year reinforces the notion that we are seeing climate change,” said David Easterling, from the National Climatic Data Center.

"Satellite monitoring by the NSIDC in Boulder, Colorado, shows that the melting of sea ice has been unusually fast this year, with as much as 40,000 sq km now disappearing daily.

The melt season started almost a month later than normal at the end of March and is not expected to end until September.

Meanwhile, research from the polar science centre at the University of Washington suggests that the volume of sea ice in March 2010 was 20,300 cubic km, 38% below the 1979 level when records began."

And according to James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and one of the world’s most prominent climate scientist, new data also shows that the global surface temperatures may also be at record levels. According to a newly released paper by Hansen and his colleagues the temperature on Earth has for the past 12 months been 0.65C warmer than previous global temperatures from 1951 to 1980. The paper also shows that the global temperature this year will break the previous record from 2005.

"It is likely that the 2010 global surface temperature … will be a record", Hansen writes.

"Global warming on decadal timescales is continuing without let-up … we conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.2C/decade that began in the late 1970s."

The Guardian article has written about more findings so be sure to check that article out. Especially worth noting is the new data which shows that January to April this year has been the hottest on record so far. Climate Progress writes:

"Last month tied May 1998 as the hottest on record in the NASA dataset. More significantly, following fast on the heels of easily the hottest April — and hottest Jan-April — on record, it’s also the hottest Jan-May on record.

Also, the combined land-surface air and sea-surface water temperature anomaly for March-April-May was 0.73°C above the 1951-1980 mean, blowing out the old record of 0.65°C set in 2002."

And the temperature records continues! New data also shows that the temperature during January-June this year has been the hottest ever recorded by NASA.

"It’s all the more powerful evidence of human-caused warming “because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance is having its maximum cooling effect,” as a recent NASA paper notes."

But La Nina conditions might build up during July and August which might reduce the average heat temperature for 2010.

Meteorologist Jeff Masters also notes that new temperature records have been reached in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Chad, Niger, Pakistan and Myanmar. Masters writes:

"We’ve now had eight countries in Asia and Africa, plus the Asian portion of Russia, that have beaten their all-time hottest temperature record during the past two months. This includes Asia’s hottest temperature of all-time, the astonishing 53.5°C (128.3°F) mark set on May 26 in Pakistan…. This week’s heat wave in Africa and the Middle East is partially a consequence of the fact that Earth has now seen three straight months with its warmest temperatures on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center."

Also read:  Hundreds die in Indian heatwave – Death toll expected to rise as India faces record temperatures of up to 122F in hottest summer on record

They variously argue AGAINST carbon pricing based on a Kyoto Protocol-based Cap-and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) of which the pro-coal Australian Government’s carbon pollution-increasing and misleadingly named Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) is a spectacularly flawed, irresponsible, anti-social, anti-humanity, anti-environment, anti-Planet and disastrous example.

Thus the pro-coal Australian ETS involves a rigged auction involving only major polluters and then extraordinarily hands most of the receipts back to the major polluters. The proposed Australian ETS is estimated to mean an increase in Australian domestic and exported greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 80% on 2000 levels by 2050 (see my letter in the leading Australian newspaper The Age, 14 June, 2009).

Well, we hear plenty from ignorant and dishonest politicians about their pet Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). Indeed such a scheme is a key part of the Obama Administration Waxman-Markey energy, climate and cap-and-trade Bill that has just passed the US House of Representatives and now faces the US Senate.

But what do top climate scientists and climate economists say? Below are some key comments made by experts who press for a direct, global Carbon Tax rather than failed, worse than ineffective, dishonest, risky and market manipulatable Carbon Trading (for detailed, extensive and updated documentation of such views see the website of the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group).

Professor James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; adjunct professor, Columbia; University, New York, USA), February 2009:

“The most honest effective way to achieve a carbon price capable of driving our economy and our society to the clean world of the future is “Carbon Tax with 100% Dividend” … The worst thing about cap-and-trade [ETS], from a climate standpoint, is that it will surely be inadequate to achieve the sharp reduction of emissions that is needed. Thus cap-and-trade would practically guarantee disastrous climate change for our children and grandchildren.” [1].

Jonathan Leake (science and environment editor of the UK Sunday Times), March 2009:

“Britain’s faith in carbon trading as a way of reducing greenhouse gases could be dangerously misplaced, according to an independent academic working with the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Dr Chris Hope of the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School … [has] a far wider conclusion: the current European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is deeply flawed and should be replaced – or at least augmented – with a green tax … For the ETS to work, the price has to be set at a level that makes it worthwhile for consumers to cut their energy use. According to Hope’s research, the minimum price needed is about £85 per tonne [A$173] , rising at roughly 2 to 3 per cent a year … Prices now stand at roughly £9.50 [A$19] per tonne of CO2 – less than 12 per cent of what Hope’s calculations show is needed.… He believes a market-based trading system such as the ETS is very unlikely to generate consistent high prices, and this instability could undermine the whole point of the scheme”. [2].

Professor William Nordhaus (Sterling Professor of Economics, Yale University, USA), March 2009:

“The international community is making huge wager on the Kyoto model. The wager is that the cap-and-trade structure contained in the model will do the job of slowing global warming. The new United States Administration advocated that the U.S. adopt this system as its contribution top solving the global problem, and the primary legislation in the U.S. Congress is firmly a cap-and-trade proposal. But, as I have suggested above, the cap-and-trade approach is a poor choice of mechanism… You need only to look today at the wreckage of the current financial system to see the latest example of the effects of failed regulatory and risk-management design. So, if the Kyoto model turns out to be another failed model, it has lots of company. But it would be better to recognize and change it now, rather than in one or two more decades of ineffective and inefficient efforts to slow emissions. The international community should move quickly to replace the current cap-and-trade structure with one in which the central economic mechanism is a tax on greenhouse-gas emissions.” [3].

Professor Jacqueline McGlade (Director of the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, marine biologist and Professor of Environmental Informatics in the Department of Mathematics at University College London, UK), March 2009:

“His [Nordhaus’] idea is very sensible. We need to move the burden of taxation away from labour to resources — and tax not just on carbon but other resources such as water to tackle the far wider environmental and resource problems we face.” [4].

Professor Daniel M. Kammen, (Energy and Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley), March 2009:

“Evolving the filed of climate solutions science: the economics of clean and sustainable energy must be supported for individuals and companies to achieve a shared vision; a price on greenhouse gas emissions is essential (but alone it is not sufficient); innovative financing is needed to advantage clean energy; innovation and implementation is needed in the North and South; scientific, and policy innovations open the door for quantified cases of clean development that, in turn, can reset the political landscape in favour of a low carbon future.” [5].

Professor Barry Brook (Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia), 2009:

“1. A cap and trade mechanism is by its nature, an all consuming policy instrument that extinguishes the effectiveness of voluntary actions, harming rather than enhancing the evolution of a low carbon economy. 2. With a cap and trade approach, the target is everything as both the emissions cap and emissions floor are locked in. No one can do better than the cap, and so the cap must be a science based all consuming sustainable target pathway that won’t lock in failure. As we don’t yet have the widespread political and economic preparedness to commit to an all consuming sustainable target pathway (either nationally or internationally), the cap and trade mechanism is the wrong approach and we should instead focus on a carbon tax with complementary mechanisms that would transform the economy more effectively than the [Australian] proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).” [6].

Larry Lohmann (climate economist, The Corner House, London, UK); summary of book “Carbon Trading”, by Larry Lohmann, editor, 2006 [implicit in the GHG pollution cessation argument is taxing GHG pollution out of existence]:

“The main cause of global warming is rapidly increasing carbon dioxide emissions — primarily the result of burning fossil fuels. Some responses to the crisis, however, are causing new and severe problems — and may even increase global warming. This seems to be the case with carbon trading — the main current international response to climate change and the centrepiece of the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon trading has two parts. First, governments hand out free tradable rights to emit carbon dioxide to big industrial polluters, allowing them to make money from business as usual. Second, companies buy additional pollution credits from projects in the South that claim to emit less greenhouse gas than they would have without the investment. Most of the carbon credits being sold to industrialized countries come from polluting projects, such as schemes that burn methane from coal mines or waste dumps, which do little to wean the world off fossil fuels.” [7].

Dr Robert J. Shapiro (Chair, U.S. Climate Task Force and finance consultancy firm Sonecon; undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs in the Clinton Administration), January 2009:

“A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new, trillion-dollar risks for the financial system. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme, based on the Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office, there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. Another factor is the “offset” permits that European “transition” economies, themselves exempt from caps, can sell to other ETS members…the volatile prices for the permits themselves, traded on financial markets, would attract speculation and new financial derivatives, putting us at risk for another crisis. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of cap-and-trade’s inherent price volatility or the incentives for its participants, including governments, to evade or manipulate the system. These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics, Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade. A carbon tax system would apply a stable price to carbon, creating direct incentives to develop and use less carbon-intensive fuels and more energy-efficient technologies. President-elect Barack Obama is committed equally to fighting climate change and restoring economic growth. The best way to do both is to give up cap-and-trade and learn to love carbon-based taxes.” [8].

More from Dr Robert J. Shapiro, March 2009:

“The proper approach here is a straightforward one. First, enact a carbon-based tax to move people and firms to prefer and choose less-carbon-intensive fuels and technologies. Second, as we change the relative prices of different forms of energy based on their effects on the climate, protect people’s incomes and the overall economy by returning all or virtually all of the revenues through payroll tax cuts or lump-sum payments to households. Third, use the certainty of a substantial tax on carbon, along with additional subsidies, to promote the development of new climate-friendly fuels and technologies that can capture a new and fast-growing global market. I recently co-authored a study that used the same modeling system as the Department of Energy to estimate the environmental and economic consequences of applying this specific approach. We found that we can effectively address climate change without harming our economy … And after the carnage of Wall Street’s recent rounds of malfeasance, it is painfully clear that the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department simply lack the ability (and the resources) to effectively police complex, fast-moving markets involving many, many thousands or millions of trades per day. Despite its advocates’ good intentions, cap-and-trade could put America at risk of another meltdown — one originally created and financed by the government itself. None of these painful and difficult issues arise with a carbon tax-shift. Rather, it could enable us to effectively do our part in addressing climate change, while protecting or even enhancing our economic prospects. That’s a deal Congress cannot afford to pass up.” [9].

Pro-coal US and pro-coal Australia are world leading greenhouse has (GHG) polluters. Pro-coal, climate criminal Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and a world leading greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter. Thus Australia’s domestic and exported “annual per capita GHG pollution” is 54 tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year – 2 times that of the US, 10 times that of China, 25 times that of India and 60 times that of Bangladesh.

If the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference opts, like the climate criminal nations of the US and Australia, for a Cap-and-Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), then the World is facing disastrous inaction over man-made global warming and the real prospect of worsening, First World-imposed climate genocide. Top UK climate scientist Dr James Lovelock FRS has estimated that fewer than 1 billion people will survive global warming this century, this constituting a prospective climate genocide that will kill 10 billion non-Europeans including 6 billion infants, 3 billion Muslims, 2 billion Indians and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis (for detailed documentation see here).

Key References

[1]. Dr James Hansen, “Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade”, Committee on Ways & Means, US House of Representatives, February 2009: http://cleanenergy-project.de/…/carbon-tax-100-dividend-vs-tax-trade/ ; http://www.columbia.edu/…/WaysAndMeans.pdf.

[2]. Tricia Holly Davis & Jonathan Leake, New Statesman, 26 March 2009: http://newstatesman.com/…/carbon-price-climate-hope-co2.

[3]. Professor William Nordhaus, “Economic issues in designing a global agreement on global warming”, Keynote plenary address for the 10-12 March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference on Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions”: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/speaker-11march2009.pdf/ ; for this and other plenary lectures see: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/congresspresentations/.

[4]. Oliver Tickel, “Replace Kyoto Protocol with global carbon tax, says Yale economist”, Guardian, 12 March 2009.

[5]. Professor Daniel M. Kammen, “From climate science to solutions: shared agendas in the North and South”, Keynote plenary address for the 10-12 March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference on Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions”: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/speaker-11march2009.pdf/ ; for this and other plenary lectures see: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/congresspresentations/.

[6]. Professor Barry Brook, “CPRS versus carbon tax: Senate Inquiry”, 30 March 2009.

[7]. Larry Lohmann, summary of book “Carbon Trading. A critical conversation on climate change, privatisation and power” by Larry Lohmann, editor, 2006, published by Dag Hammarskold Foundation, Durban Group for Climate Justice and The Corner House, 2006.

[8]. Dr Robert J. Shapiro, “The real choice between Cap-and Trade and Carbon-based taxes”, Roll Call, 15 January 2009.

[9]. Dr Robert J. Shapiro, “Shapiro: economy will force quick action on climate change“, Roll Call, 30 March 2009.

An overwhelming global scientific consensus says that man-made global warming is happening NOW. Indeed for the latest see the report from President Obama’s science advisers that states that massive climatic disruption is already affecting the United States and that projects that the average U.S. temperature could rise by as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century (see “White House: climate change damage happening now. Obama’s first global warming report most dire yet: Ill effects already here, will get worse”). Thus White House report report co-author Anthony Janetos of the University of Maryland:

“There are in some cases already serious consequences. This is not a theoretical thing that will happen 50 years from now. Things are happening now.”

Nevertheless the climate sceptics are unfazed and essentially all governments around the world are committed to continuing to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration above the present level of circa 390 parts per million (ppm) to even more dangerous levels.

In contrast, in climate criminal Australia (one of the world’s worst annual per capita greenhouse gas polluters) climate activists and leading climate scientists are calling for urgent reduction of atmospheric CO2 to 300 ppm. The Australia-based Climate Emergency Network, the Canberra Climate Action Summit (over 140 Australia-wide climate action groups), the influential Yarra Valley Climate Action Group and 300.org all say – informed by the latest science from America’s Dr James Hansen (NASA GISS), Australia’s Professor Barry Brook (climate science, University of Adelaide) and others – that for a safe and sustainable existence for all people and all species the atmospheric CO2 of our warming-threatened planet must be urgently reduced from the current circa 390 ppm to 300 ppm (click here for details and documentation).

What can a man believe? Well, just as we turn to top medical specialists for advice on life-threatening disease, so we turn to the opinions of top scientists and in particular top biological and climate scientists for climate change risk assessment and climate emergency facts and requisite actions. Further, we haven’t the time or money to attend university courses on climate science – but we can access publicly available lectures given by top climate scientists and analysts.

A number of readily accessed, readily scanned, easily comprehended and brilliantly illustrated climate change power point lectures are available which point to the urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO2 from the current ~390 ppm to ~300 ppm.

Thus that by NASA’s Dr Hansen entitled “Global warming 20 years later: tipping points near” (2008) (address to National Press Club, and House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global warming, Washington DC [44 pages]) spells out that 300-325 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration is needed for restoration of sea ice, QUOTES: “Target CO2: <350 ppm To preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed" and "Arctic Sea Ice Criterion. 1. Restore Planetary Energy Balance -> CO2: 385 ppm -> 325-355 ppm. 2. Restore Sea Ice: Aim for – 0.5 W/m2, CO2: 385 -> 300-325 ppm. Range based on uncertainty in present planetary energy imbalance (between 0.5 and 1 W/m2)”.

Some of these excellent power point lectures on climate change are accessible via the links provided below. The credentials of these top scientists and analysts are given in parentheses.

1. Professor Barry Brook (Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia), “Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies” (2008), an outline of paleoclimate history, climatic disruption and mitigation and adaptation strategies [40 pages].

2. Dr Andrew Glikson (Earth and paleoclimate scientist, School of Archaeology and Anthropology & Research School of Earth Science, Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia), “Human evolution and the atmosphere: return of the Pliocene?” (2008), illustrating the global temperature, methane and CO2 levels in the generally cooling period since the Pliocene (3 Mya, million years ago) during which time the genus Homo evolved to yield Homo sapiens (us) about 100,000 years ago. However, massive man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution in the industrial era (post-1750) has pushed atmospheric CO2 concentration outside the range of 180-300 ppm obtaining during the final evolution of Homo sapiens from his immediate precursors over the last 600,000 years [46 pages].

3. Dr James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Adjunct Professor, Columbia University, New York; member of the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences; 2007 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science), “Global warming 20 years later: tipping points near” (2008) – address to National Press Club, and House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global warming, Washington DC [44 pages].

4. Dr James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Adjunct Professor, Columbia University, New York), “Climate threat to the planet. Implications for energy policy and intergenerational justice”, Bjerknes Lecture, American Biophysical Union, San Francisco, California, 17 December, 2008 [39 pages]. [For a series of other incisive writings by Dr James Hansen see: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/, most notably Dr James Hansen, “Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade”, Committee on Ways & Means, US House of Representatives, February 2009].

5. Professor John Holdren (Professor of Environmental Policy and Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University; Director, Woods Hole Research Center; former president, American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS; President Barack Obama’s chief science adviser), “The Science of Climate Disruption” (2008) – a summary of the basis of man-made global warming and the climatic disruption that has already occurred [32 pages].

6. Dr Graeme Pearman (former Climate director, Australian CSIRO, Australia’s premier scientific research organization; GP Consulting; interim director, MSI; Monash University Sustainability Group), “Climate change: the evidence, science and current projections” (2008) [37 pages].

7. Dr Peter Seligman (Bionic Ear engineer, Cochlear Pty Ltd and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia), “Bang for Buck in CO2 abatement” (2008) discusses where you can invest your money most effectively to reduce your Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions; some of our favourite solutions do not bear up under his analysis [43 pages].

8. David Spratt and Phillip Sutton, Climate Emergency Network, “A Safe Climate Future”, (2008), based on the book “Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” by David Spratt and Phillip Sutton (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008), a powerful summary of the latest climate science results by 2 leading non-scientist climate activists heavily informed by top climate scientists such as NASA’s Dr James Hansen who indeed endorsed “Climate Code Red” as “a compelling case … we face a climate emergency” [95 pages].

The brilliant power point lectures I have listed above are not only educative for climate activists – they should be very useful for educating the public as a whole. Please tell everyone you can and encourage them to judge for themselves.

All of the above are referred to by me (biochemist, teacher, La Trobe University, Melbourne and U3A, Melbourne) in my “Global Warming, Climate Emergency Course” (2009) detailed course notes for an 8 x 2 hour course for the Yarra Valley University of the Third Age (U3A) on global warming, the present climatic disruption and what we can do about it [if you are in Melbourne , Australia: Semester 2, St. Andrew’s Hall, Rosanna, Melbourne, Australia; 1.30-3.30 pm, each Tuesday, 7 July 2009 onwards; one semester course attendance cost A$15 for non-U3A members, A$7.50 for members of another U3A branch]. You can attend this up-to-date climate change course for FREE from the other side of the planet by simply accessing the 52 pages of carefully documented notes via this link.

The BAD NEWS is that top UK climate scientists, Professor Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, made the following shocking conclusions in a 2008 paper in the prestigious Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: “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] 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.” [1]

Yet, for example, Australia remains the world’s biggest coal exporter, the OECD’s worst annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter and a world leader in per capita GHG pollution. Extrapolating from US Energy Information Administration data on Australian coal and liquid natural gas exports in the last decade, the recent decisions of the Australian Federal Government mean that Australia’s annual Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution will actually INCREASE by 40% over the 2000 value by 2020 and by 80% by 2050. [2]

The Australian Great Barrier Reef will die above 450 ppm CO2 due to ocean acidification and warming. Professor James Hansen (top US climate scientist, head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies): “We face a climate emergency”. Australian Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty: “We are in real danger.” Professor David de Kretser AC (eminent medical scientist and Governor of Victoria, Australia) “There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency.” Dr Andrew Glikson (palaeo-climate scientist, ANU, Canberra): “The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has … raised CO2 levels to 387 ppm CO2 to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO2 levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres.” Top UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS predicts that only 500 million people will survive this century as a result of unaddressed, man-made climate change – Climate Genocide. [3]

And yet the GOOD NEWS is that the best non-carbon and renewable energy options (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro-electric) currently yield power at roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power. [4]

It is NOT necessarily too late to urgently cease carbon pollution and apply existing non-carbon energy technologies, re-afforestation and returning carbon to soil as biochar in order to necessarily REDUCE atmospheric CO2 to below 350 ppm as urgently advocated by leading climate scientists. Please send this message and the One-page summary “Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions” of the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group to everyone you can. [5]

References

[1] Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows, Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc, A, 2008

[2] “Australia’s 5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and Biosphere”

[3] Climate Emergency Facts Sheets of the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group

[4] “Hope – best renewables now cost same as coal power. “One Day Pathétique” Symphony painting”

[5] One-page “Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions”

Photo credit: go_greener_oz

With Parliament in recession for Christmas and the Christmas-New Year holiday), the pro-Coal Australian Government that presides over the Developed World’s worst per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter and the World’s biggest coal exporter – climate criminal Australia – has finally announced commitment to a derisory “5% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020”.

This appalling decision has drawn trenchant criticism from Australian scientists and environmentalists (indeed a courageous young woman protestor who shouted “NO!” was hauled from the Australian PM’s press conference. This appalling decision is in stark contrast to the Climate Emergency Facts (from top Australian and world climate scientists) and the Climate Emergency Actions required to deal with the Climate Emergency that are summarized at the end of this article (see “Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions” on the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group’s website.).

I have presented below a very detailed critique of this appalling, irresponsible, selfish and incompetent decision by the extreme right wing, Bush-ite Rudd Labor Government – a decision which, if adopted globally, would be tantamount to Terracide (destruction of the Earth’s Bisophere) and global Climate Suicide. A top Australian climate scientist Professor Andy Pitman responded to the Australian Government’s “5% off by 2020” by saying that we need to keep atmospheric CO2 to below 450 ppm to avoid a catastrophic 2 degrees C temperature rise and that means global 25%-50% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020.

According to data from “Coal Facts Australia 2008” of the Australian Coal Association. Australia’s Domestic greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 totalled 559 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (Mt CO2-e) or about 1.24% of estimated global emissions (45 Gt CO2-e = 45,000 Mt CO2-e).

Australia’s greenhouse gas production in CO2-e in 2000 was 535.3 million tonnes (Mt) according to “Greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized countries. Where does Australia stand?” by Hal Turton (Discussion Paper 66, The Australia Institute, June 2004). Based on an annual growth rate of 2% this indicates a 2008 value of 627 Mt.

However Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and is also a major exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) that is Exported and thence burned to produce CO2 . Using a 2008 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimate of 627 Mt (derived from the 2000 value and assuming an annual growth rate of 2%) plus CO2 emissions estimates from exported coal and LNG in 2008 of 474.3 Mt and 28.4 Mt, respectively (see US Energy Information Administration data), one can estimate that Australia’s 2008 Domestic and Exported greenhouse gas emissions totalled 1130 Mt CO2-e or 2.5% of estimated global emissions.

Extrapolating from US Energy Information Administration data on Australian coal and liquid natural gas exports in the last decade (beautifully LINEAR and UPWARDS when plotted versus time and hence permitting qualified extrapolation), this decision of “5% decrease on the Domestic 2000 GHG pollution value by 2020″ and official Labor policy of “60% decrease on the Domestic 2000 GHG pollution value by 2050” means that Australia’s annual Domestic plus Exported greenhouse gas pollution (in Mt CO2-e = million tonnes of CO2-e) will INCREASE from 885 Mt (2000) and 1130 Mt (2008) to 1245 Mt (2020; an INCREASE of 41% over the 2000 value) to 1586 Mt (2050; an INCREASE of 79% over the 2000 value).

If one supposed that sanity broke out globally and that the rest of the world, except for Australia, immediately stopped any increase in greenhouse gas emissions, then it is estimated that Australia’s share of annual global GHG pollution would increase from 2.5% (2008) to 1245 x100 /44,115 = 2.8% (2020) and to 1586 x 100/44,456 = 3.6% (2050).

2000 per capita greenhouse gas production with land use change considered (or without land use change) was 25.9 (25.6) for Australia versus 3.9 (3.9) for China (see “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”).

However Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter, the worst per capita greenhouse gas polluter in the developed world, and one of the worst annual per capita greenhouse polluters in the world as a whole – and it accordingly would be disingenuous and indeed dishonest to IGNORE Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution in calculating Australia’s annual per capita GHG pollution. Thus if Australia didn’t extract fossil fuel and sell it then it this fuel wouldn’t get burned – we are responsible for our actions and the only way Australia would be innocent of the GHG pollution consequences of coal and LNG burning would be if it sold the coal and LNG overseas on the strict condition that it would NOT be burned).

Accordingly, in 2000 Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution (tonnes CO2-e per person per year) was 44.2 versus 3.9 for the annual per capita GHG pollution by China. Based on US EIA data projections and Labor GHG pollution policy (and assuming population stasis at 21 million) Australia’s Domestic plus Exported CO2-e pollution will reach 59 in 2020 (15 times China’s 2000 annual per capita GHG pollution value) and 75.5 by 2050 (19 times China’s 2000 value of 3.9; 33 times Pakistan’s 2000 value of 2.3; 40 times India’s 2000 value of 1.9; and 84 times Bangladesh’s 2000 value of 0.9) (see Wikipedia).

The extraordinary international disparity and the extraordinary current Australian “exceptionalism” (it is operationally OK for Australia but not for others; Australia will reduce its per capita GHG pollution only if China reduces its too) brings to mind other extraordinary mathematical statements of White Australian “exceptionalism” in relation to Chinese from Australia’s non-politically correct (non-PC) past.

Thus in 1947 then Labor Immigration Minister (and later Labor leader) Arthur Calwell notoriously stated that “Two Wongs do not make a White” (for context and documentation see p183, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability“:http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ )– however, as indicated above, current Australian Labor is evidently aiming for a circa twenty (20)-fold disparity.

Indeed way back in 1901, Edmund Barton (Australia’s first Prime Minister and Father of the notorious White Australia Policy aka the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act that was finally abolished by the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act) stated: “The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of an Englishman and a Chinaman” (for context and documentation see p179, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability“. See: janeaustenand.blogspot.com).

The effectively “business as usual” “5% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution level by 2020” must be unequivocally seen in the context that 16 million people already die avoidably annually due to increasingly global warming-impacted deprivation (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”: ) and that, according to top UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS (the Gaia hypothesis, “The Revenge of Gaia”), over 6 billion people will perish this century due to unaddressed man-made climate change.

Indeed the scale of the actual and potential lethality of First World tardiness in response to the Climate Emergency – exemplified by the appalling conduct of Australia, the worst First World per capita GHG polluter – and First World demands that they will reduce their extremely high per capita GHG pollution if Developing countries reduce their already very low per capita GHG pollution, demands a new Climate Lexicon e.g. Climate Racism, Climate Politically-correct Racism, Climate PC Racism, Climate Exceptionalism, Climate Terrorism, Climate Terrorists, Climate Terror, Climate Criminal, Climate Crime, Climate Criminality, Climate Injustice, Climate Justice and Climate Genocide.

Indeed in 2008 a formal complaint was sent to the International Criminal Court in relation to Australian involvement in Climate Genocide. Thus Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention states that

“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

This formal complaint pointed out that

“Australia is steadfast in its refusal to reduce its world leading annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution and has a major responsibility for the accelerating Climate Genocide that, as estimated by outstanding UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS, will affect billions; as reported by the Royal Society: “Even if we act now Professor Lovelock believes that six to eight billion humans will be faced with ever diminishing supplies of food and water in an increasingly intolerable climate and wildlife and whole ecosystems will become extinct” (see his recent lecture at the Royal Society)”

and that

“Countries at major risk from sea level rises due to climate change include island nations in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific (some of which face total extinction) and countries with mega-deltas in Europe, Africa, the Americas and Asia (of which some face catastrophic loss of agriculture and massive population displacements). Such Nations will be receiving copies of this formal complaint and are urged to transmit formal complaints to the International Criminal Court”.

Australian “exceptionalism” is put into stark contrast by the following values of “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution” (tonnes per person per year) estimated for 2004 using data from the US Energy Information Administration: 19.2 (for Australia; 40 if you include Australia’s coal exports), 19.7 (the US), 18.4 (Canada), 9.9 (Japan), 4.2 (the World), 3.6 (China), 1.0 ( India),Pakistan (0.7) and 0.25 (for Bangladesh).

Of course “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution” is but one – albeit a very important – indicator of climate impact. The Germanwatch Climate Change Index 2008, a comparison of the 56 top CO2 emitting nations, takes other parameters into account in ranking. In this ranking of 56 top CO2 emitting nations, Sweden and Germany are #1 and #2 for greenhouse responsibility, while shale-oil-rich Canada (a US ally), coal-rich Australia (a US ally), the USA and oil-rich Saudi Arabia (US-linked) rank #53, #54, #55 and #56, respectively.

To assist public understanding of the issue here are some key estimates relating to “annual per capita GHG pollution” and deriving from authoritative primary data provided by the US Energy Information Administration and the UN Population Division and taking into account the OFFICIAL Australian 2020 targets of “5% reduction on 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2020” and “60% reduction on 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2050”.

Australia’s “annual LNG exports” (Mt CO2 produced): 21.8 (2000), 28.4 (2008), 38.2 (2020), 62.8 (2050).

Australia’s “annual coal exports) (Mt CO2 produced): 327.6 (2000), 474.3 (2008), 609.7 (2020), 1255.4 (2050).

Australia’s “annual Domestic GHG pollution) (Mt CO2-e produced) : 535.3 (2000), 627.2 (2008), 508.5 (2020), 267.7 (2050).

Australia’s “annual Domestic & Exported GHG pollution” (Mt CO2-e produced): 884.7 (2000), 1129.9 (2008), 1245.4 (2020), 1585.9 (2050).

Australia’s population (Millions): 19.1 (2000), 21.0 (2008), 23.4 (2020), 28.0 (2050).

Australia’s “annual per capita Domestic & Exported GHG pollution” (tonnes CO2-e per person per year): 46.3 (2000), 53.8 (2008), 53.2 (2020), 56.6 (2050).

Australia’s “annual Domestic & Exported GHG pollution as % of 2000 value”: 100% (2000), 128% (2008), 141% (2020), 179% (2050).

As indicated above, Australia needs to REDUCE its “annual per capita Domestic & Exported” GHG pollution” by 90% to bring it back to the World average – but, in stark contrast, is set to INCREASE this under its quite FALSELY labelled “GHG pollution reduction” policies.

According to Professor Andy Pitman (University of New South Wales, a top Australian climate scientist and a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

“The basic science says we need to try to keep CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 450 parts per million equivalent, which is the bundle of all the greenhouse gases” (see ABC report).

In response to the Labor Government announcement of “5% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” Professor Pitman has stated on Australia’s ABC Radio National that we need to keep atmospheric CO2 to below 450 ppm to avoid a catastrophic 2 degrees C temperature rise and that means global 25%-50% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020.

The Australian Government’s falsely named “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” has a highly flawed Emissions Trading System (ETS) as an INDIRECT mechanism of Government intervention in “the market” to supposedly get “the market” (the actual source of the Climate Emergency problem) to moved to a solution. The Australian ETS is highly flawed Cap and Trade system and, in short, is based on a Cap that will destroy the Great Barrier Reef , ignores 2/3 of Australian GHG sources and absurdly RETURNS a large part of the Government receipts for “licences to pollute” to the major polluters (for detailed critique see “Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will INCREASE Carbon Pollution”) .

The self-absorbed and “exceptionalist” Australian Government, media, politicians and people simply don’t understand the International Legal principle that just as we are held responsible for out actions that damage others at a national level, so this also applies at an International level (as exampled by huge compensation cases for disasters associated with pollution from mining). Thus a UK organization Bring Climate Criminals to Justice (BCCJ) has an aim “To establish a legal process in the UK and abroad to facilitate the criminal prosecution of Government Ministers and key business leaders whose policies and activities contribute to the mass loss of life which Climate Change is certain to now cause” and is particularly concerned with ALREADY HAPPENING damage to Bangladesh and “Working to ensure UK environmental campaign groups re-focus campaigning, uniting to call for the criminal prosecution and imprisonment of the worst offenders” (see: http://climate-criminals.co.uk). As outlined above, a formal complaint outlining Australian complicity in Climate Genocide was sent to the International Criminal Court in 2008 (see: http://climateemergency.blogspot.com).

Sanctions and Boycotts were successfully applied to the Apartheid régime of South Africa for denying equal rights and one-man-one-vite to Africans, Chinese and Indians in South Africa. Australia, accordingly, must be at serious risk of Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariff and Reparations Demands over the damage it is already causing and the huge threat it poses to billions of people and the very existence of some Island States through its remorseless, world leading per capita greenhouse gas pollution.

A fundamental key issue is Public Honesty in Word and Deed. Thus it is egregiously dishonest for the Australian Government to call a scheme that will INCREASE Australia’s GHG pollution as a “”Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”. Further, the Rudd Labor Government was elected in 2007 with Climate Change as a major public concern – however, in 2008 Australia’s annual Domestic and Exported Greenhouse Gas (GHG) pollution INCREASED by 2.1% from that in 2007 under the Coalition Federal Government and , barring recession effects, is expected in 2009 to have increased by 6.5% over that in 2007 (see “Australia INCREASED Greenhouse Gas pollution in 2008 by 2% over 2007”).

Even if we set aside the argument about required GHG pollution reduction between expert scientists VERSUS industry, the coal industry and the Liberal-Labor (lib-Lab) political consensus, there is a fundamental issue of public honesty and zero tolerance for lying (by omission or commission) that is absolutely required for rational risk management in the interests of public safety and national security. Unfortunately a Letter recently sent to about 3,000 State and Federal MPs, many non-science academics, media and other influential Australians – a Letter that made this fundamental risk management point with numerous examples of huge realities (including Climate Emergency realities such as the likely destruction of the Great Barrier Reef) that are IGNORED by Mainstream media, politicians and academics and pleaded for them to inform others (see “Climate Emergency, Exceptionalism & Ignoring Downunder. Letter to eminent Australians over public honesty”) – resulted in a mere 0.2% of recipients responding by saying that they would inform others about the shocking but IGNORED facts I reported.

Finally, the sheer IRRESPONSIBILITY, GREED and policy FAILURE implicit in the Developed World’s worst per capita GHG polluter, Australia, committing to a derisory “5% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” is in STARK CONTRAST to the Climate Emergency Facts (from top Australian and world climate scientists) and the Climate Emergency Actions required to deal with the Climate Emergency that are summarized below (see “Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions” on the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group’s website: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions ; for other detailed, quantitative and well-referenced analyses relating to the Climate Emergency see the following articles and fact sheets placed on the Web by the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group).

Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions

Just as we turn to top medical specialists for advice on life-threatening disease, so we turn to the opinions of top scientists and in particular top biological and climate scientists for Climate Change risk assessment and Climate Emergency Facts and requisite Actions as exampled below (for detailed documentation of everything below see the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group website).

Professor James Hansen (top US climate scientist, head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies): “We face a climate emergency”.

Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty: “We are in real danger.”

Professor David de Kretser AC (eminent medical scientist and Governor of Victoria, Australia) “There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency.”

Dr Andrew Glikson (palaeo-climate scientist, ANU): “The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has … raised CO2 levels to 387 ppm CO2 to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO2 levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres.”

Major Climate Emergency Facts

1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has increased to 387 parts per million (ppm) as compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial and is increasing at about 2.5 ppm per year with average global temperature about 0.8 degrees C above the pre-industrial.

2. Man-made global warming due to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution from carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxides is already associated with major ecosystem damage (Arctic, ocean, coral reefs), melting of glaciers and Arctic sea ice, sea level rise, methane release from melting tundra and positive feed-back effects accelerating GHG pollution and warming.

3. Consequences of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase and warming to current 387 ppm: major ecosystem damage; current species extinction rates are 100-1,000 times greater than previously; to over 400 ppm: “new territory” not seen for millions of years with acute dangers from positive feedbacks; to over 450 ppm: major damage and death to coral reefs and associated fisheries; to over 500 ppm: major loss of ocean phytoplankton, ocean life, cloud seeding, the Greenland ice sheet and densely populated global coastal regions due to massive sea level rises.

Climate Emergency Actions URGENTLY Required

1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying.

2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO2 to a safe level of less than 350 ppm as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists.

3. Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth.

PLEASE TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

Now a second, extensively edited and revised version of this book has been published in Melbourne: “Climate Code Red- the case for emergency action” by David Spratt and Phillip Sutton (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008). This revised version is very readable and accordingly ideal for getting this extremely serious message across to the general public.

I must confess that as a scientist I preferred the first version for scientific cultural reasons because of the detailed scientific literature documentation provided and in particular for a 2 page colour insert that summarized the core data in a series of Figures. Indeed, when I reviewed the first version it was very convenient to base the bulk of my review on this 2 page data review. However as a lover of poetry, plays and novels as well as of dispassionately presented scientific rigour, I readily concede the Two Cultures argument to the extremely well written second version of Climate Code Red. Further, a selection of key references are provided for each chapter and a key photograph, a key Figure and a key Table are provided to complement the argument.

The hard, scientific case for emergency action presented in “Climate Code Red” is best summarized in the following quotation from a scientific article by top US climate scientist Dr James Hansen (Head, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and his American, British and French colleagues:

“Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2 [carbon dioxide; atmospheric CO2 280 ppm pre-industrial], including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm [parts per million], a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects”.

In the last analysis, while cognizant of the need for sensible open-mindedness, rational risk management means we must take very seriously the advice of top scientific experts at the cutting edge of climate change research – just as we would take very seriously the advice of top specialist medical experts in relation to a life threatening medical condition. Top US and World expert on climate change, Dr Hansen, commented thus on “Climate Code Red”: “A compelling case … we face a climate emergency”.

Eminent medical scientist and Governor of the State of Victoria, Australia, Professor David de Kretser launched “Climate Code Red –the case for emergency action” in the Victorian State Parliament House in Melbourne recently and used the following unambiguous words:

“The book draws on a vast array of information to build a cogent and compelling case that we do have a genuine emergency on our hands if we are to limit the rise of greenhouse gas emissions to a level at which we can limit the degradation of our planet to manageable levels … There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency”.

Outstanding Australian scientist and Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty has recently published a related book entitled “A Light History of Hot Air” (Melbourne University Publishing, 2007) in which he states : “We are consuming the future and it’s up to us to develop and use renewable resources”. In an interview about this Professor Doherty summarized the dilemma thus: “Everything is about hot air. Political and in the atmosphere. We are in real danger. The recent CSIRO report suggests that temperatures could rise as much as five degrees by 2070. The ice is melting much more quickly than anyone expected. The Himalayas are melting very fast. We are now talking about the Arctic being ice-free by 2030”.

David Spratt (climate policy analyst and founder of Carbon Equity) and Phillip Sutton (convenor of the environmental strategy-based Greenleap Strategic Institute) are economic analysts and not scientists, but were driven, in part, to write “Climate Code Red” by the apparent silence (with notable exceptions ) of the scientific community. This problem of academic and institutional timidity has been perceived by no less than outstanding UK and World climate change scientist Dr James Lovelock FRS (2008): “I hate academia. Most of the scientists who work there are not free men any more and they can’t speak out. That’s no way to do science”.

“Climate Code Red” is divided into 3 parts, specifically Part One, “The Big Melt” (the threat to the biosphere due to global warming and the ice melting in the polar regions), Part Two “Targets”( where we are headed in terms of temperature increase of over 2 degrees Centigrade, massive sea level rise and huge loss of ecosystems and human sustainability – and where we have to aim for to avoid catastrophe), and Part Three “The Climate Emergency” (how to achieve a safe climate economy and deal effectively with the Climate Emergency).

Part One “The Big Melt”deals with the accelerating loss of Arctic sea ice (if you want to be shocked see the latest images and data on the official US National Snow and Ice Data Center, NSIDC), the thawing of Greenland, the Himalayan glaciers, the tundra and the Antarctic and the threat from rising sea levels. Chapter 6 deals with the current mass species extinction phenomena and the threat to ecosystems across the world. Chapter 7 “The Price of Reticence” deals with the institutional scientific conservatism (and cowardice) that has been dishonestly exploited by “dirty energy” big business and the climate sceptics.

Part Two, “Targets”, begins with the sentence “Something is wrong and we must make it right”. Successive chapters explore what is a safe climate zone (less than a 2 degree C rise above pre-industrial; we are already 0.8 degrees C and on track for a 3-6 degrees C increase above the 1750 value as indicated in the quote from Dr Hansen given above). How we can get to a safe zone will require mechanisms for a draw-down on atmospheric CO2 to less than 350 ppm (renewable energy use, cessation of carbon burning, re-afforestation, return of carbon as biochar to soils).

Part Three, “The Climate Emergency”, gets into the economic systems management area of professional expertise of the authors. Successive chapters deal with how we must deal with the Climate Emergency. Chapter 26 “In the End” draws upon the experience of World War 2 and the dramatic increase in military outlays as a percentage of national income in the US, UK, Germany and Japan i.e. we have already an extraordinary precedent for extraordinary, short term societal effort.

The 2008 current market collapse has already provided an example of the rapid global action currently being taken at enormous expense to protect the vested interests of the very people (Top Capitalists) primarily responsible for the Climate Emergency. Earlier this year Nobel Laureate Al Gore urged dramatic requisite action to save the planet : “Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years … So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge – for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It’s time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now”.

Dramatic changes in technology mean that Al Gore’s vision is achievable NOW – the energy cost cross-over point has finally been reached and the best renewable and geothermal power options now cost essentially the same as the (heavily subsidized) “market cost” of coal power (see “One Day Pathétique” Symphony Painting. HOPE – Best Renewables Now Cost Same as Coal Power”).

“Climate Code Red” is a powerful statement of the case for emergency action to deal with the Climate Emergency and Sustainability Emergency. Most importantly, “Climate Code Red” is a very well written and eminently readable book directed at sensible citizens in general. Inevitably one can make criticisms such as those made above at the beginning of this review – but more Tables, Figures and Scientific References would have been to the detriment of readability and hence of public education. In some ways “Climate Code Red” did not go far enough. Thus matters that could have been raised include the “true cost” of coal burning-based power (4-5 times the heavily subsidized”market price) and the avoidable death of 0.2 million people each year world-wide from the effects of coal burning pollutants (see Yarra Valley Climate Action Group). Also absent was the likely death of over 6 billion people this century due to unaddressed climate change (according to Dr James Lovelock FRS).

“Climate Code Red” was condemnatory of both scientific reticence and climate sceptic ignorance, and indeed represents a major step towards reversing public ignorance about the Climate Emergency. However “Climate Code Red” could have gone even further in exposing and condemning the core of the problem that lies in a culture of ignoring, of wishful thinking and of “looking away” that is actively promoted by a dominant political and media culture committed to carbon-based economic growth.

Indeed Dr James Hansen recently advocated criminal prosecution of climate criminal corporate heads involved in self-interested misinforming of the public to the detriment of public safety (see James Hansen: Try Fossil Fuel CEOs for “High Crimes Against Humanity”) . In my own modest way I have acted by exposing the extraordinary Culture of Ignoring in Australia’s media, political and academic Establishment over the Climate Emergency and other very serious matters (see “Climate Emergency, Exceptionalism & Ignoring Downunder. Letter to Eminent Australians over Public Honesty”).

There is zero tolerance for lying in science and this now needs to be made a general rule in a world facing a Climate Emergency. “Climate Code Red – the case for emergency action” sets an important baseline for climate reality and public responsibility. This important book should be in every school and institutional library. “Climate Code Red – the case for emergency action” is a cogently argued blueprint for the survival of Humanity and the Biosphere.

Last week the verdict came in the case against the six Greenpeace activists – Ben Stewart, Will Rose, Kevin Drake, Tim Hewke, Huw Williams and Emily Hall – who in October last year performed a protest against the Kingsnorth coal plant in the UK.

The six Greenpeace activists tried to shut down the coal plant and paint ‘GORDON BIN IT’ down the side of the coal plant’s chimney. For this they were accused of criminally causing £30,000 ($53,000) worth of damage.

But last week the UK Crown Court jury acquitted all six activists which Greenpeace says resulted in a “landmark global warming trial“. The jury “found their actions justified when considering the damage to property caused around the world by CO2 emissions from the plant”.

“The activists admitted trying to shut down the station by occupying the smokestack and painting the world “Gordon” down the chimney, but argued that they were legally justified because they were trying to prevent climate change causing greater damage to property around the world.

It was the first case where preventing property damage caused by climate change has been used as part of a “lawful excuse” defence in court. It is now expected to be used widely by environment groups.”

The accused had helped from, for example, the prominent climate and NASA scientist James Hansen who said that “the 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted daily by Kingsnorth could be responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species” and that humanity was in “grave peril”.

After the verdict Greenpeace announced that:

“This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement. It stands as an example to governments everywhere and an inspiration to people world-wide that they can and should take a stand against coal fired power stations in defence of the climate!”

Emily Hall, Greenpeace’s communications director and one of the six acquitted, said that “it’s time the prime minister stepped in and embraced a clean energy future for Britain.”

Commentators say the verdict will “embarrass the government and strengthen the anti-coal movement”.

“There are game-changers and then there are world-changers. From Internet giants working to make renewable energy cheaper than coal, to a sea captain monitoring the ocean’s plastic waste, to the growth of intentional communities (they’re not just for hippies anymore)—welcome to Plenty’s second annual list honoring (in no particular order) 20 dynamic individuals and 20 pioneering companies that are bettering the planet, plus 10 innovative ideas that will revolutionize how we live.”

Head over to their site or purchase their latest issue to get bios and explanations on, what they call, the Plenty 20.

Here they are, the Plenty 20 people:

• Al Gore
• Andrew Revkin
• Charles Moore
• David de Rothschild
• Fred Krupp
• Frederick Kirschenmann
• Heidi Cullen
• James Hansen
• Joe Lovett
• Kathleen Sebelius
• Kevin Wall
• Lester Brown
• Maude Barlow
• Michael Pollan
• Mindy Lubber
• Nicholas Negroponte
• Peter Diamandis
• Van Jones
• Vinod Khosla
• William McDonough & Michael Braungart

And here are the Plenty 20 businesses:

• A123 System
• Applied Materials
• Arup
• Bon Appétit Management Company
• Coskata
• Environmental Working Group
• Forest Stewardship Council
• Google
• Home Depot
• Iberdrola
• IBM
• Innovest Strategic Value Advisors
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
• Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams
• Nike
• Patagonia
• Pizza Fusion
• RecycleBank
• Swiss Re
• TransFair USA

What do you think? Have Plenty chosen the right people? And can a business really be green?