Change the System, Not the Climate

A People's Declaration from Klimaforum 09 -


The Copenhagen conference on Climate change was a flop and a joke. It was, literally, a bunch of Neros fiddling while the world burned.

But it may have the benefit of finally discrediting the approaches tried to date, such as carbon trading etc.

Another benefit of the Conference was the alternative summits, people's summits, such as the Klimaforum. The Klimaforum document is highly admirable and a sound basis for going forward. Change must come from below, and the exploitative Western capitalist system that created the crisis must be radically altered.

A People's Declaration from Klimaforum 09 -


The Copenhagen conference on Climate change was a flop and a joke. It was, literally, a bunch of Neros fiddling while the world burned.

But it may have the benefit of finally discrediting the approaches tried to date, such as carbon trading etc.

Another benefit of the Conference was the alternative summits, people's summits, such as the Klimaforum. The Klimaforum document is highly admirable and a sound basis for going forward. Change must come from below, and the exploitative Western capitalist system that created the crisis must be radically altered.

Change the System, Not the Climate

Rising Sea Level Projections

Real Climate:

The scientific sea level discussion has moved a long way since the last IPCC report was published in 2007.... The Copenhagen Synthesis Report recently concluded that “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″....

In our view, when presenting numbers to the public scientists need to be equally cautious about erring on the low as they are on the high side. For society, after all, under-estimating global warming is likely the greater danger.

This information is typical of the ongoing development of climate change science. That is, not only is it happenening, but it is happening at a faster rate than at first predicted.

The denialists, therefore, are not only wrong about the science, but also wrong about the speed of change. As Ross Garnaut has said, at bottom the issue is a moral one, and the denialists have no morals.

Real Climate:

The scientific sea level discussion has moved a long way since the last IPCC report was published in 2007.... The Copenhagen Synthesis Report recently concluded that “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″....

In our view, when presenting numbers to the public scientists need to be equally cautious about erring on the low as they are on the high side. For society, after all, under-estimating global warming is likely the greater danger.

This information is typical of the ongoing development of climate change science. That is, not only is it happenening, but it is happening at a faster rate than at first predicted.

The denialists, therefore, are not only wrong about the science, but also wrong about the speed of change. As Ross Garnaut has said, at bottom the issue is a moral one, and the denialists have no morals.

Rising Sea Level Projections

Climate Change Catastrophe

Useful discussion on RealClimate about a recent paper which confirms what we already understand about how serious this problem is and how poor the policy response is.

One commenter points out that exceeding the two degree limit (inevitable with the failed policy approach to date):

We don’t “adapt” to 4 °C of warming,” except in the sense that residents of New Orleans “adapted” to Katrina. It ain’t adaptation. As John Holdren would say, it’s “misery.”

It is also an exceedingly open question as to whether one can in fact “stabilize” at much above 2°C — or whether you destroy the tundra and the peatlands and saturate the sinks and basically quickly go up to 5°C or more. I think the science is moving in the direction of stabilize below 450 ppm or cross thresholds that take you shoot you up to 1000 ppm.

This means that the failure to act now to keep temperatures at no more than 2 degrees would likely be a catastrophic failure.

Another commenter also provides a link to a paper by Hansen where he advocates 100% Citizen's dividend from a carbon tax. Its a good idea, but perhaps it would be good as well to make a 50% split: 50% citizen's dividend, 50% dedicated to buildout of renewable energy infrastructure (windfarms etc).

Useful discussion on RealClimate about a recent paper which confirms what we already understand about how serious this problem is and how poor the policy response is.

One commenter points out that exceeding the two degree limit (inevitable with the failed policy approach to date):

We don’t “adapt” to 4 °C of warming,” except in the sense that residents of New Orleans “adapted” to Katrina. It ain’t adaptation. As John Holdren would say, it’s “misery.”

It is also an exceedingly open question as to whether one can in fact “stabilize” at much above 2°C — or whether you destroy the tundra and the peatlands and saturate the sinks and basically quickly go up to 5°C or more. I think the science is moving in the direction of stabilize below 450 ppm or cross thresholds that take you shoot you up to 1000 ppm.

This means that the failure to act now to keep temperatures at no more than 2 degrees would likely be a catastrophic failure.

Another commenter also provides a link to a paper by Hansen where he advocates 100% Citizen's dividend from a carbon tax. Its a good idea, but perhaps it would be good as well to make a 50% split: 50% citizen's dividend, 50% dedicated to buildout of renewable energy infrastructure (windfarms etc).

Climate Change Catastrophe