Time to change 'climate change' by George Monbiot

[bob banner]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/12/climate-change-...
Time to change 'climate change'
by George Monbiot

What's clear from Copenhagen is that policymakers have fallen behind the scientists: global warming is already catastrophic

The more we know, the grimmer it gets.

Presentations by climate scientists at this week's conference in Copenhagen show that we might have underplayed the impacts of global warming in three important respects:

• Partly because the estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) took no account of meltwater from Greenland's glaciers, the rise in sea levels this century could be twice or three times as great as it forecast, with grave implications for coastal cities, farmland and freshwater reserves.

• Two degrees of warming in the Arctic (which is heating up much more quickly than the rest of the planet) could trigger a massive bacterial response in the soils there. As the permafrost melts, bacteria are able to start breaking down organic material that was previously locked up in ice, producing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane. This could catalyse one of the world's most powerful positive feedback loops: warming causing more warming.

• Four degrees of warming could almost eliminate the Amazon rainforests, with appalling implications for biodiversity and regional weather patterns, and with the result that a massive new pulse of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Trees are basically sticks of wet carbon. As they rot or burn, the carbon oxidises. This is another way in which climate feedbacks appear to have been underestimated in the last IPCC report.

Apart from the sheer animal panic I felt on reading these reports, two things jumped out at me. The first is that governments are relying on IPCC assessments that are years out of date even before they are published, as a result of the IPCC's extremely careful and laborious review and consensus process. This lends its reports great scientific weight, but it also means that the politicians using them as a guide to the cuts in greenhouse gases required are always well behind the curve. There is surely a strong case for the IPCC to publish interim reports every year, consisting of a summary of the latest science and its implications for global policy.

The second is that we have to stop calling it climate change. Using "climate change" to describe events like this, with their devastating implications for global food security, water supplies and human settlements, is like describing a foreign invasion as an unexpected visit, or bombs as unwanted deliveries. It's a ridiculously neutral term for the biggest potential catastrophe humankind has ever encountered.

I think we should call it "climate breakdown". Does anyone out there have a better idea?

* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/12/climate-change-...

[Florence Windfall]

Hi Bob,
Thanks for this posting by George Monbiot. He's right. Climate change ought to be called something else, climate breakdown, climate crash. It's horrible to think that the IPCC's worst nightmares are coming true. I've been reading articles of this kind all day -- starting with the article of Kunstler's that you referred us to -- and forcing myself to think about what life will be like without, gadz, coffee, without food stores, without clothing stores, without hardware stores, without any stores, without running water, without electricity, without... Will they really turn the computers off? Who was that woman who told the country that the American standard of living is NOT negotiable? I've been looking at the dark side all day. It's natural for me, I'm the pessimist. So you see, you've fed my pessimism, given me damaging data! Fatal facts!
Sincere as Ever,
Florence

[bob banner]

Heh did you get the papers?.. Did you have an event? How did it go?

<<Who was that woman who told the country that the American standard of living is NOT negotiable? I've been looking at the dark side all day. It's natural for me, I'm the pessimist. So you see, you've fed my pessimism, given me damaging data! Fatal facts!>>

It was Bush senior.
On another note we need to be aware of what comes "natural" to us. I sense that those things are merely habits of mind. My new mantra is BOTH. And I sense that a number of the east bayers are similar and someone there ought to remind people that this can be lots of fun as well as being downright nasty.... Remember, during the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were BOTH kinds of people. the people who hoarded and the ones who cooperated. I dont think it will be any different here.. the best thing we can do is prepare and be examples of cooperation, collaboration and preparedness..

ciao

bob

this is my new publication Im launching this summer... For my sanity and realithy check I need to hang out,with positive people who are working for positive change!!