Sunday, January 15, 2017

Humanity is now playing in the Major Leagues.

Humanity is now playing in the Major Leagues.

As I said in 2011, in 2016, and say again today in 2017, unless the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion protest, like the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's Dakota Access Pipeline protest is successful, there will be casualties, political casualties and eventually millions of human casualties. Casualties from run-away climate change, sea level rise and from conflict. Not to mention from from difficulties in feeding an ever increasing population.

Continued burning of fossil fuel, driven mainly by capitalist greed, will eventually pollute the atmosphere and the environment to the degree that is will no longer support life. What future are we leaving to our children and grandchildren and future generations? There are those scientists like James Lovelock who argues that it is too 'little too late'. http://bit.ly/2irVnAY

Even if we did suspend the burning of petroleum and coal tomorrow our coastal cities and small island developing states would continue to experience sea level rise for hundreds of years. http://bit.ly/2irRxrC

We have had now had, besides the upcoming Trans Mountain pipeline expansion protest, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's Dakota Access Pipeline protest, the election of president-elect Trump, OWS protests in 2011, protests in Brazil and Turkey, and like it or not social protests are here to stay. As Robbert Muggah said of Brazil's Protests "There is little doubt that the protests have challenged the existing social order and alerted a new generation of youth to the unacceptability of the status quo". This holds true globally. http://huff.to/2gTbl60

The political paradigm has changed. Politicians and governments and the corporate world are proving once again to be slow learners, they are resisting change rather than embracing it, and without listening to their people's protests, they will be swept away by the winds of change.

Globally we are faced with climate change, the most serious peril that has faced humanity in its brief history. However, we are faced with more than climate change, there are the life threatening CO2 levels and looming sea level rise, resource shortages and an out of control population, as well as concerns for water and food security in the years to come.

As I say frequently “failing to plan is planning to fail”.

Humanity is today playing in the major leagues. We are in a sink or swim situation. If we can keep the planet habitable by mitigating and adapting to the changing climate, switching to alternative sources of energy such as solar, wind, geothermal, wave, ocean thermal and nuclear, sequester CO2 and provide the population with adequate supplies of water and food and bring the population under control, humanity may survive . Survival means, amongst all the issues above, learning to navigate successfully through a new political morass.

Warfare and conflict will also need to become a thing of the past, as climate change and energy may well exacerbate conflict situations. With a 9.5 billion global population by 2050 ensuring that everyone has adequate food and water could be problematic.

There is however, no ‘Plan B’ if we fail to resolve all the problems facing us.

When playing in the major leagues, there is no time out, there is no one that is going to offer help, let alone rescue us. Look around, the neighbourhood is somewhat sparsely populated and there are no other worlds on which humanity can survive. Even if there were other habitable worlds nearby they would in all probability belong to someone else. Neo-colonialism on an intergalactic scale may well not end well for humans.

There are, in all likelihood, other intelligent races out there somewhere, however, in the major leagues one survives on ones own. As a young civilization it is up to us to solve all our problems, to make peace among ourselves, to bring the population under control, to implement the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and resolve the inequality that is partially responsible for the protests that are occuring around the world.

We must solve our own problems. As a young race we are as children, and as such we may not be able to solve our own problems. But solve them we must. If we are able to solve the situation facing us and make it to adulthood, in the galactic meaning of the world, we may then be introduced to the neighbors. If we do not make it to adulthood we will be just another minor statistic, a failure, a insignificant footnote in the universal history book.

Humanity needs an initiative to train our young people to become Stewards of Nature and the Environment. I envision this being done by involving and employing indigenous peoples around the world to introduce our youth, at the appropriate age, to indigenous philosophy and cultural understanding of the environment and what nature provides for mankind through ecosystem services.

Nick Robson
The Climate War Room

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Will We Miss Our Last Chance to Save the World From Climate Change?


Will We Miss Our Last Chance to Survive Climate Change? - Rolling Stone

In the late 1980s, James Hansen became the first scientist to offer unassailable evidence that burning fossil fuels is heating up the planet. In the decades since, as the world has warmed, the ice has melted and the wildfires have spread, he has published papers on everything from the risks of rapid sea-level rise to the role of soot in global temperature changes – all of it highlighting, methodically and verifiably, that our fossil-fuel-powered civilization is a suicide machine. And unlike some scientists, Hansen was never content to hide in his office at NASA, where he was head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York for nearly 35 years. He has testified before Congress, marched in rallies and participated in protests against the Keystone XL Pipeline and Big Coal (he went so far as to call coal trains "death trains"). When I ran into him at an anti-coal rally in Washington, D.C., in 2009, he was wearing a trench coat and a floppy boater hat. I asked him, "Are you ready to get arrested?" He looked a bit uneasy, but then smiled and said, "If that's what it takes."


(http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/will-we-miss-our-last-chance-to-survive-climate-change-w456917

Sunday, December 11, 2016

The Rockefeller Family Fund Takes on ExxonMobil

 
  Above: plant owned by Syncrude, a joint venture of ExxonMobil’s Canadian subsidiary Imperial Oil, which processes oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta, Canada’s biggest source of carbon emissions and the US’s largest source of imported oil; photograph by Garth Lenz from his traveling exhibition ‘The True Cost of Oil’ In the first part of this article, we described recent reporting that ExxonMobil’s leaders knew humans were altering the world’s climate by burning fossil fuels even while the company was helping to fund and propel the movement denying the reality of climate change.1 Ever since the Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate News started publishing articles showing this in late 2015, ExxonMobil has repeatedly accused its critics of “cherry-picking” the evidence, taking its statements out of context, and “giving an incorrect impression about our corporation’s approach to climate change.”2 Meanwhile, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is one of several officials who have been investigating whether the company’s failures to disclose the business risks of climate change to its shareholders constituted consumer or securities fraud.   Since ExxonMobil claims that it has been misrepresented, we encourage it to make public all the documents Schneiderman has demanded, so that independent researchers can consider all the facts. In the meantime we suggest that anyone who remains unconvinced by the record we have collected and published of the company’s internal statements confirming the reality of climate change consider its actions, especially its expenditures. Regardless of its campaign to confuse policymakers and the public, Exxon has always kept a clear eye on scientific reality when making business decisions.   In 1980, for example, Exxon paid $400 million for the rights to the Natuna natural gas field in the South China Sea. But company scientists soon realized that the field contained unusually high concentrations of carbon dioxide, and concluded in 1984 that extracting its gas would make it “the world’s largest point source emitter of CO2 [, which] raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem.” The company left Natuna undeveloped. Exxon’s John Woodward, who wrote an internal report on the field in 1981, told InsideClimate News, “They were being farsighted. They weren’t sure when CO2 controls would be required and how it would affect the economics of the project.”3   This, of course, was a responsible decision. But it indicates the distance between Exxon’s decades of public deception about climate change and its internal findings. So do investments that Exxon and its Canadian subsidiary Imperial Oil made in the Arctic. As Ken Croasdale, a senior ice researcher at Imperial, told an engineering conference in 1991, concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were increasing “due to the burning of fossil fuels. Nobody disputes this fact.” Accordingly,   any major development with a life span of say 30–40 years will need to assess the impacts of potential global warming. This is particularly true of Arctic and offshore projects in Canada, where warming will clearly affect sea ice, icebergs, permafrost and sea levels.   Croasdale based these projections on the same climate models that Exxon’s leaders spent the next fifteen years publicly disparaging. But following his warnings that rising seas would threaten buildings on the coast, bigger waves would threaten offshore drilling platforms, and thawing permafrost would threaten pipelines, Exxon began reinforcing its Arctic infrastructure. Read More   

Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science

a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, January 2007
available at [ucsusa.org](http://ucsusa.org/)

Thursday, December 1, 2016

CARBON WAR ROOM LAUNCHES SHIPPING EFFICIENCY ADVISORY BOARD

 

NEWS: CARBON WAR ROOM LAUNCHES SHIPPING EFFICIENCY ADVISORY BOARD

25 February 2016, London, UK
 
Six leaders and influencers from across the shipping industry will join global NGO Carbon War Room’s (CWR’s) Shipping Efficiency Advisory Board. Their backgrounds span the shipowning, chartering, technical analysis, finance, and academic worlds. The board will lend extensive industry insight and support CWR’s mission to profitably decarbonise the international shipping industry. Galen Hon, Manager, Shipping Efficiency, Carbon War Room, commented:
 
"We are thrilled to have gathered a group with so much knowledge and experience in shipping. Following UNFCCC in Paris, the industry has an obligation to find new and innovative ways to reduce carbon while remaining competitive. With expertise spanning finance, ship operation, classification, data analysis, technology, and software, these individuals are perfectly positioned to identify and evaluate opportunities for innovation and growth.
 
“The calibre of the board reflects the credibility that CWR has garnered within the shipping industry. It’s a validation of our ongoing efforts to work directly with the industry to deliver paths to carbon reduction in ways that make good business sense.” More
 
 

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Climate Victory

 Victory for America’s Youth – Constitutional Climate Lawsuit against U.S. to Proceed Federal Judge Ann Aiken rejects U.S. government and fossil fuel industries motions to dismiss

Saturday, September 10, 2016

I Stand in Solidarity With The 21 Youth Plaintiffs!

PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE TO SIGN AND SHARE!
    "Sometimes, it falls upon a generation to be great. You can be that great generation. Let your greatness blossom." ~Nelson Mandela   My name is Nick Robson. I am proud to be part of this generation, to be part of a global climate movement that understands what’s at stake and what is needed to protect the rights of present and future generations.    Our voices won’t be silenced.    Our rights must be protected.    From the native lands of North Dakota, to the halls of power in Washington, DC, to the courts in the US and around the world, Ro the Foreign &Commonwealth Office in London, our generation stands in solidarity, calling for rights and justice for all... More    

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

“Loss and Damage” and “Liability and Compensation” – What’s the Difference and Why Does It Matter?

Loss and Damage” and “Liability and Compensation” – What’s the Difference and Why Does It Matter?
When wildfires become unstoppable, consuming forests, farmlands, communities, and anything else in their path, how will those affected cope? When typhoons slam coastal populations, dumping over a foot of rain in a single event, who will be there to help mop up? When seas rise up, drowning centuries-old communities, where will the displaced go?   The international community’s answers to these questions, so far, are rooted in the concepts of loss and damage, liability and compensation, risk transfer, and climate financing. The distinctions between these mechanics, which operate variously through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), individual governments, NGOs, and the private sector, are sometimes blurred.   In particular, loss and damage is a term that is often associated with liability and compensation. Both are used in the jargon of climate policy, predominantly in the context of finance transfers from polluter nations to highly impacted vulnerable nations. How are these two key terms related and why does it matter?   Loss and damage is a term that is used to describe total losses, such as death and land lost due to climate induced sea-level rise, and repairable damage, such as destroyed infrastructure. While loss and damage typically refers to the economic consequences of climate change, the term can also apply to cultural and traditional practices that are lost due to climate impacts.   Liability refers to the legal culpability of nations that have made large contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. Compensation, as the word suggests, are payouts to poor and highly impacted nations. If a court determined that a nation was liable for the impacts of climate change, then that nation could be required to compensate others who are now suffering the consequences. This is a chain of events that most industrial countries have sought to avoid.     To the more casual observer the distinction between these two sets of terms is not always clear. To negotiators, however, the differences between “loss and damage” and “liability and compensation” are not only distinct, but represent embattled red lines. More