Skip to main content

We are seeing and hearing of the worse possible scenario for the effects of anthropologic climate change.  Already, it is likely that we can not avoid some of the most damaging effects such as complete melting of the Artic icecaps which when it happens will release their stored carbon to accelerate the process even faster.  The scientific community has stated that in order to keep mass destruction on the planet from occurring we must keep the temperature increase to below 2%C  That would be the tipping point where we would enter a phase where the the planetary catastrophes would be difficult if not impossible to control.  At 3%C increase the damage would be irreversible and in studies done of a possible 4% increase in planetary temperature there would be mass destruction and extinction with the possibility of only about 1/2 billion human inhabitants left on the Earth.

There are solutions being followed and most of them are relying on reducing C02 emissions such as increasing mpg for cars or the use of electric vehicles.  Making buildings and homes more energy efficient and in some cases energy neutral.  We have to do all these things but they will not solve the immediate problems of Climate Change.  C02 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years so even if we went completely C02 neutral today, there would still be the damaging remains of the past use of C02 lingering in the atmosphere preventing us from stopping the most damaging effects of Climate Change.

We need fast solutions and we need them NOW!  There are some working on these fast solutions and World Preservation Foundation had them meet and focus on fast solutions to our climate change catastrophe.  As the scientific basis for these fast solutions has become stronger they have compiled and released this information video to distribute  the information.

I will highlight some of their findings for you but I strongly encourage you to view the entire video.  From the video:

even by meeting our most ambitious emissions reduction targets by 2020, greenhouse gas emissions will be 30% higher then that needed to keep temperature rise to 2%C
We now know that reducing C02 alone will not produce cooling fast enough. Even with a zero carbon global economy tomorrow existing C02 will continue to heat the planet for hundreds of years to come.  Meaning C02 reductions on their own will not prevent runaway climate change.

We need to cool the planet fast and that will require rethinking and changing our consumption patterns.  From the video scientists are recommending a rapid reduction in short lived warming gases.   Those include Black Carbon, Methane and Ground Level Ozone

NASA scientists say that more than 50% of the accelerated global warming in the Artic is due to Black Carbon.  Black Carbon only stays in the atmosphere a few weeks

Meat Methane is at least 72 times more potent than C02 over a 20 year period but takes only 12 years to cycle out of atmosphere.

which is smog and soot cycles out of the atmosphere in a few days. Methane and N02 help to create ground level ozone

Per the video livestock production is a significant contribution to all of the short term climate forces.   The great advantage and opportunity is that these forces all cycle out of the atmosphere fast and can stop global warming fast to buy us the time necessary to reduce C02

We need a short term and a long term solution.  The long term is cutting back on C02 emissions.   The short term is rapid reduction of Black Carbon, Methane and Ground Level Ozone.

There is a simple solution to reducing these short term warming agents.   It tastes good and is healthy for all of us.  Changing our eating patterns is something we can all do together with optimism.

Eliminating, replacing or substituding meat and diary with a healthy plant based diet is the fastest way to stop climate change and temperature rising.

We still have time and a choice to bring about the change, I hope we take it.

ACTION  I have been writing about this here for three years but the need becomes more urgent.  We have power in numbers so for action I am suggesting that you all do what I am doing which is not only eliminating meat and most meat products from my diet but also being a messenger to my family and friends about the urgency.  Talking and writing about it on our networks such as our blogs and myspace etc. will get the word out.

Our future and the future of our children depend on it.

Originally posted to Meatless Advocates Meetup on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 10:13 AM PDT.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots and Climate Hawks.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Major Effort Needs to Go Directly to the Rich (4+ / 0-)

    and their large businesses that aren't vested in dirty energy.

    What you're talking about with popular action will require us to replace most of our representation, and amend several powers into our system of government that could take us into the 22nd century before government gets the practical power to force the economy to respond against its inclinations.

    We have to go direct to those inclinations.

    It may be that ownership is planning on driving a mass dieoff down to 1/2 billion or so, or letting it happen, and in either case we're totally screwed. If that worst case scenario is true, better that we should learn it very quickly through direct lobbying of them than squander 1/3 to 1/2 century waiting for it to eventually dawn on us as we struggle to first build governing power to secondarily push them to act.

    Rebuilding democracy or some kind of governance for the people is desperately needed but it can't possibly come about fast enough to address climate change.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 10:26:41 AM PDT

    •  not talking about that at all... (4+ / 0-)

      what I'm saying and the World Preservation Foundation is that it is in our hands and we can do it by reducing meat consumption...not complicated.

      •  They're not exclusive, do both and more (6+ / 0-)

        Solving the climate problem is going to require many solutions, not just a few.  Your suggestion is an easy cherry pick and people should examine their conscience and ask, how can I not do this.

        The more ways we find to fight global warming, the better chance we'll have.

      •   Need to be accurate and realistic (3+ / 0-)

        First, the polar ice caps may be destabilizing, and if so, will take a couple hundred years or more to disintegrate.  In a few years there may be no summer sea ice in the Arctic, but that is a different thing, even though it accelerates warming.

        Second, the planet is not going to be destroyed.  The planet has been through many cataclysms,  including an asteroid strike.  The planet will survive.  Life will survive; it is very resilient.  Life survived several great extinctions.

        What won't survive if we don't act is civilization.  Our human life as we know it.  I expect that to be gone by mid-century.  That is very serious and will cause a huge amount of suffering, and should be avoided if at all possible, but it isn't The destruction of the  planet or even the end of all life.  Be accurate.

        And we need many solutions, like energy solutions, more conservation, greater efficiency,  less consumption, many solutions within each of those categories.

        The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

        by Mimikatz on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 11:23:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  but I like civilization and our species n/t (5+ / 0-)
          •  I don´t (5+ / 0-)

            in general, things can only leave one misanthropic. But thats another matter. Isnt it astonishing - mimikatz says "wait dont exaggerate, its just the end of civilization we´re looking at, not the end of the planet" --- as if that were soothing!

            last time people actually feared for the survival of civilization, and then it was only the "civilized" part of it as opposed to rather barbaric expressions of human societies, we fought a world war over it, the most massive mobilization humanity has ever seen.

            And now scientists tell us that our behaviour puts the existence of civilized humanity at risk within one generation, and people say what me bother?

            that means noone actually believes it. Its infantile, like the youths who get told that theyre going to die and who act as if that couldnt ever happen. Doesnt help them - and the lifetime wasted can not be recovered by repentance when one ages.

            I like a lot of species as well ... not that they care ... but I am really hard pressed to like ours in general. (Only in some specific examples, on occasion).

            If we were serious about anything, then not only should meat be priced off everyone´s menu (by government intervention of course; this should then not be left to individual choice), then 10 dollar a gallon fuel tax should be the first step, and a draft like mobilization of the workforce to rebuild urban architecture against car use the second, just the warmup for measures to come. If we really believed that we´re playing with doom here (as I think we are) then all that "ohh freedom needs individual choice" whining should be frowned down as it is essentially enemy propaganda (the enemy being us of course). Only we arent serious about anything, least of all the most critical issue that we´re faced with since the steam engine was invented.

            supporting example - myself who still eats meat out of sheer laziness. bbif is quite right with this diary, only she´s far too friendly with people.

            for the summer sea ice in the arctic it´s already too late. It´s already collapsing, a dead man walking. When this decade´s out, the whole northern hemisphere will have to contend with whatever is the weather consequence of a seasonally ice free, absorptive Arctic ocean. We have done that already to ourselves.

            What we truly need is a total overhaul of our pricing system. Carbon dumping space in the atmosphere is already way used up. It´s scarce - it´s actually way in the negative. It must be as expensive as that scarcity implies. Prices of everything, and that includes food and specifically meat, must reflect the amount of such carbon dump space requirement that follows from its production and life cycle. If we had that, then no one could afford meat anyways. By allowing every one and every thing to piss as it were into the one atmosphere, we have a price structure that is a gross distortion of physical and ecological reality. Meat, with its excessive lifecycle CO2/methane budget, should be as expensive as caviar or gold. With every gram we eat, we eat up the life of one of our grandchildren. It´s practically cannibalism. Thats how meat eating should be regarded. And this isnt  ... what was the name here? doomer porn? Emo-terrorism? This is the gross truth of what we´re doing everyday. We´re taking the lives of the people who come after us, and we ourselves are the zombies that we like to see in the movies to entertain us. That´s what this humanity comes down to. A skull grinning back at us out of the mirror, eating the flesh (called meat) of the people who would have liked to come after us onto a livable planet. That´s a likable homo sapiens?

        •  I agree with beach babe in fl. (3+ / 0-)

          But I keep hoping that our species will become smarter, abruptly, in time to at least admit that we face a serious problem.

          That seems to be the only thing that's stopping us from significant action against Global Climate Change.

          So he says to me, do you wanna be a BAD boy? And I say YEAH baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! I'm makin' gravy WITHOUT THE LUMPS! HAAA-ha-ha-ha!!!

          by Cenobyte on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 12:03:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  and we sit here and screw around (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beach babe in fl, bnasley, Pluto

    gotta have a fairness doctrine.

    Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

    by mightymouse on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 10:30:42 AM PDT

    •  mightym - what is plan B? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, Amber6541, FG

      The Fairness Doctine isn't coming back. There is no support for a new FD in Congress or the White House. In addition, I don't think it would survive a constitutional challenge with the current SCOTUS.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 10:50:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  are you in the right diary...this is about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        climate change and individual action.

      •  I don't know - there was a diary the other day (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beach babe in fl, Amber6541

        with some ideas - basically press the stations' sponsors and press universities not to broadcast games on hate radio stations.

        this is a gigantic problem for dealing with climate. our people are swimming in an ocean of disinformation.

        Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

        by mightymouse on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 11:07:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  mightym - the sponsor angle might help (0+ / 0-)

          but changing the radio broadcast of university sports idea isn't going to happen. Most often the winger radio station has the most powerful signal in the region. No Sports Information Director or Athletic Director is goint to dump the strongest signal in the market, long time radio host of the "__", for political reasons. They would lose their jobs.

          The boycott of sponsors is to weaken winger radio financially, rather than bringing back a new FD.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 11:18:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  we have reality to deal with... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Regina in a Sears Kit House

          and that is that now we only have the options of fast solutions to prevent the worse effects of climate change.
          We can only control our own lives.  But we can try to have an effect on our personal circles and that will broaden out for increased influence.   After all, meatless monday is now practiced by 18 % of US families.   And it was all done through grassroots action.   If we wait for somebody else to solve this it won't be done.

  •  "reducing" co2 emissions (7+ / 0-)

    is like slowing to 80 from 90 while barreling straight at the wall.

    Now, if anyone starts talking about completely stopping all co2 and other greenhouse gas emissions as of TODAY, or even better 20 or 30 years ago, then we might have a chance of surviving this as an "advanced civilization" - and I use those quotes somewhat sarcastically...

    On May 16, 2009 a collaboration between the British medical journal The Lancet and University College London released the first UCL Lancet Commission report, assessing the impact of global warming on global health, and on populations.

    Titled Managing the health effects of climate change (.PDF), the year long study highlights the threat of climate change on patterns of disease, water and food insecurity, human settlements, extreme climatic events, and population migration. The report also highlights the action required by global society to mitigate the health impacts of climate change.

    "Climate change," the report concludes, "is the biggest global health threat of the 21 century."

    The report presents the two distorted maps shown below  - density equalizing cartograms depicting a comparison of undepleted CO2 emissions by country for 1950-2000 versus the regional distribution of four climate sensitive health consequences (malaria, malnutrition, diarrhea, and inland flood-related fatalities).

    expand image

    The first image shows the world in terms of carbon emissions. America, for instance, is huge. So is China. And Europe. Africa is hardly visible.

    The second map shows the world in terms of increased mortality -- that is to say, deaths -- from climate change. Suddenly, America virtually disappears. So does Europe. Africa, however, is grotesquely distended. South Asia inflates.

    In Barack Obama's commencement address Sunday May 17, 2009 at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, Obama exhorted the graduates to recognize that "that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a 'single garment of destiny.'" and "Your [not his, apparently] generation must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it."

    But the peoples of the world are not bound equally.

    "Loss of healthy life years as a result of global environmental change (including climate change) is predicted to be 500 times greater in poor African populations than in European populations," states the UCL Lancet Commission report bluntly.

    In other words, for every million deaths related to climate change in Europe - and North America btw - there will be five hundred million deaths in Africa and other countries.

    Warning - steep grade ahead...

    Antemedius | Liberally Critical Thinking

    by Edger on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 10:36:38 AM PDT

  •  certainly (4+ / 0-)

    you have helped to keep my awareness of this option up but I must admit that I am not very effective in unmeating. Not that I would care so much about meat per se (which I think is not all that great a treat and which I would be willing to miss). But I find it rather difficult to build proper attention to food at all into this life and I find that the usual last minute fast consumption preprocessed food is quite often meat oriented. Not that that is any excuse.

    So while I´m in principle totally agreeing with you, I must admit that I havent actually done anything like you suggest.

    there´s a short expression for that:

    Der Geist ist willig, doch das Fleisch ist schwach.

    btw I heard that youve been under some kind of trouble herearounds lately. So I might mention that I´m largely solidaric with you, always have been & will be. (Solidarity is a thing which should get used more often!)  

  •  Human overpopulation, of course (6+ / 0-) the underlying cause of this and all environmental crisis on the planet.

    I very much like the less-consumption lifestyle -- but in the big picture it is folly to address the symptoms (CO2 production) rather than the cause, itself.

    The earth needs to shed several billion people -- who are drowning in their own waste -- as quickly as possible. And it will.

  •  I'll keep trying to draw attention to the (2+ / 0-)

    serious threat posed by the methane our actions threaten to unleash. A depiction of the chain-reaction eruptions of sea-floor methane deposits:

    So he says to me, do you wanna be a BAD boy? And I say YEAH baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! I'm makin' gravy WITHOUT THE LUMPS! HAAA-ha-ha-ha!!!

    by Cenobyte on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 12:00:55 PM PDT

  •  Beach Babe, I like marsanges thought: (4+ / 0-)


    You know, I used to be almost meatless in my diet when I was younger.  I weighed a constant 132 lbs. Which now explains why I am looking for a place to sell my very beautiful suits at 61. Never going to be that svelt again.

    When I was 47 I got very sick with what I was told was Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue.  Several years later I found out I was infected with Borrelia (Lyme Disease).

    As I got sicker, I started craving beef.  I talked to my doctors about it.  They told me that the amino acids in meat were the most bioavailable and our evolution developed us as omnivores. They encouraged me to switch over because it takes less personal energy to derive the nutrition I need directly.

    To survive I had to cut carbs radically and go for meat and high protein carbs.  I have hesitated saying anything because I believe in your cause and your point.

    Our way of contributing, and it is helping keep a local farmer in business is to buy into local beef and pork organic raisers. Then use local produce from our CSA farm.

    They are helping create small business, maintaining and improving the soil and flora and giving us options.

    We usually are meatless on Monday too.

    I hope you understand, and I appreciate all you do.

    I think the level of need for our environment is way past alarm. Industrial farming, is horrible, and should be banned.

    We are trying desperately to rationalize the expense of solar (still waiting for numbers) and would love to have more subsidies for energy efficiencies in hot water, personal electrical production (This New House on HGTV has such great products, but are very expensive.) and conservation, and heating.

    Thank you again.

    Science is hell bent on consensus. Dr. Michael Crichton said “Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing to do with consensus... which is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,”

    by Regina in a Sears Kit House on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 12:24:25 PM PDT

    •  of course I understand, I do agree that the level (4+ / 0-)

      of need for our environment is way past alarm.  It's really amazing to see and recognize the end stages of a civilization in decline in real time rather than from history books.

      •  beach babe, I went back to see the hoo ha. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RunawayRose, beach babe in fl

        So sorry. These kind of things are enough to drive a person out.  

        I really hesitated to contribute to May's Lyme Awareness because of previous vitriol and stalking behavior of some towards sick people who openly admit their search for help, answers and a better life.

        I finally took the plunge and "came out" to help and support a worthy person and group which is much maligned.

        In times of extremes it is the moderates who are silenced first.  We must be vigilant, and supportive.

        Thank you for everything, much adored and in solidarity.

        Science is hell bent on consensus. Dr. Michael Crichton said “Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing to do with consensus... which is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,”

        by Regina in a Sears Kit House on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 12:51:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Many vegetarians don't realize (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that more tropical deforestation is caused by the demand for off-season produce than for meat. This in no way demeans vegetarianism, but it does mean one must choose vegetables carefully.

      Industrial farming (of export crops) not only kills the environment but also kills the local economy.

      Keep repeating the lie until the public believes it is truth: TARP worked! TARP worked! TARP worked!

      by Pale Jenova on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 01:01:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree and wrote a diary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Regina in a Sears Kit House

        about that

        the sources I used verify my point

      •  I would think (2+ / 0-)

        that "eat less/no meat" shouldnt be seen in isolation. I would say "eat local" should go with it. (easier said than done).

        In all places there is a wealth of local and totally unknown (mostly plant) local food that could be used and is caried enough for all kinds of tastes. Its been pushed aside because at some stage it wasnt convenient in an agribusiness based on insanely cheap transport and equally insane fertility transfers. But its all still there and available to people who´d like to care.  
        Taking the plunge to care at all is the main step.

        •  We are so lucky in our local area. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          beach babe in fl

          We have the right climate; for now snow melt and rain/snow for irrigation; perfect conditions for growing almost anything except citrus fruit.

          The last three years have been a challenge for local CSA though.  Too long, cold and wet springs have made it difficult to grow zucchini.  But we load up on lettuce and later on cabbages of all kinds. Yum.

          Science is hell bent on consensus. Dr. Michael Crichton said “Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing to do with consensus... which is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,”

          by Regina in a Sears Kit House on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 02:43:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  actually it's more what you eat than where (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          it came from.

          That locally-produced, free-range, organic hamburger might not be as green as you think.

          An analysis of the environmental toll of food production concludes that transportation is a mere drop in the carbon bucket. Foods such as beef and dairy make a far deeper impression on a consumer's carbon footprint.

          "If you have a certain type of diet that's indicative of the American average, you're not going to do that much for climate while eating locally," says Christopher Weber, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh who led a comprehensive audit of the greenhouse gas emissions of our meals.

          To drive his point home, Weber calculated that a completely local diet would reduce a household's greenhouse emissions by an amount equivalent to driving a car 1600 km fewer per year. He assumed the car travels 10.6 km per litre of petrol (25 mpg). Switching from red meat to veggies just one day per week would spare 1860 km of driving.

          •  I don't consider meat evil (0+ / 0-)

            though I don't tend to eat all that much of it, especially beef, except on special occasions.

            But it does matter where it comes from. Eastern Oregon, for instance, is range country, ideal for raising cattle, provided you have a water source. Raising water intensive crops is very technology heavy and expensive. But cattle can graze on the range with ease.

            (Yes, it is very important that you don't over-graze--range does have a carrying capacity you must take pains not to exceed.)

            Keep repeating the lie until the public believes it is truth: TARP worked! TARP worked! TARP worked!

            by Pale Jenova on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:25:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I've been thinking what could be done too. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There is a good series on rabbit raising, and I have raised chickens in the past. Before industrialized farming these were common personal protein sources even in urban settings.

    What I do see is that for those who can afford it, reducing carbon footprint, should be number one.

    The personal is political; the political is personal.

    Science is hell bent on consensus. Dr. Michael Crichton said “Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing to do with consensus... which is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,”

    by Regina in a Sears Kit House on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 12:34:50 PM PDT

  •  So your solution is for all people on (0+ / 0-)

    Earth to become vegetarians? I don't think that's going to fly.

    •  just putting scientific information out there (0+ / 0-)

      Scientific information re climate change hasn't flown with many so I don't have much hope

    •  Meat eating can run from providing a farm (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beach babe in fl

      family with "portable" protein, converting inedible resources (cellulose) into nutrition and providing organic fertilizer to boot to the resource depleting Hummer of the the food world, the American fast food hamburger. That's a huge range.

      Man is a Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. - Mark Twain

      by the fan man on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:28:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fastest thing,replace all coal plants w/ IGCC-CCS (0+ / 0-)

    ~600 coal plants produce 50% of electricity(for electric cars too)and produce 55% of energy caused GHG.
    If 30 plants were coverted per year we'd reduce CO2 energy emissions by 50%.

    •  from my diary (0+ / 0-)
      C02 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years so even if we went completely C02 neutral today, there would still be the damaging remains of the past use of C02 lingering in the atmosphere preventing us from stopping the most damaging effects of Climate Change.

      removing C02 is not a short term solution we need fast solutions at this point.

      •  That's not what James Hansen says (0+ / 0-)

        He's for elimination of CO2 emissions by 2030.

        •  does hansen contradict himself here... (0+ / 0-)

          here is what Hansen says about non C02 forcings.   the difference of opinion would be if you think that C02 is difficult to turnaround....unless someone can do that immediately and totally,  it seems that yes, C02 is incredible difficult to turn around

          from Hansen

          Chart 7
          It follows that the non-CO2 forcings are important, and because of the difficulty of turning
          CO2 around, they may play a strategic role in the next several decades
        •  here in his own words.... (0+ / 0-)

          it all comes down to "do you think all is being done to reduce C02 fast" if so then just take your time and wait for the powers that be to get their act opinion is that we don't have that time....and no harm will be done by covering our bases.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site