"We are what is wrong, and we must make it right."--Al Gore

Nobel Committee salutes global warming campaigners

"By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control." (From Nobel press release.)

In his award speech today Professor Ole Danbolt Mjøs, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, connected global warming with peace by noting the grave potential threats not only to individual security, but the potential for international and civil strife as the impacts of climate change multiply. "The Norwegian Nobel Committee rarely raises its voice. Our style is largely sober. But it is a long time since the committee was concerned with such fundamental questions as this year," he said.

In his speech to the assembled dignitaries Mr. Gore said, among other things, "Vi som tilhører menneskeslekten står overfor en verdensomspennende krisesituasjon - en trussel mot vår sivilisasjons overlevelse som fortsetter å bygge opp et illevarslende og ødeleggende potensiale mens vi er samlet her. Men det finnes jo også fortrøstningsfulle nyheter: Vi har muligheten til å løse denne krisen og unngå de verste – om enn ikke alle – dens følger hvis vi handler med dristighet, besluttsomt og raskt."

Mr. Gore also said:

We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war. These prior struggles for survival were won when leaders found words at the 11^th hour that released a mighty surge of courage, hope and readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal challenge.

These were not comforting and misleading assurances that the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; that Providence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves.

No, these were calls to come to the defense of the common future. They were calls upon the courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples, citizens of every class and condition who were ready to stand against the threat once asked to do so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free people would not rise to the challenge; they were, of course, catastrophically wrong.

Now comes the threat of climate crisis – a threat that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once again, it is the 11th hour. The penalties for ignoring this challenge are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable. For now we still have the power to choose our fate, and the remaining question is only this: Have we the will to act vigorously and in time, or will we remain imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?

You can read Mr. Gore's speech (in English or Norwegian) here, or even watch a video of it. The speech of Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri, who accepted the prize on behalf of co-winner The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of which he is Chairman, is here.

---

tags: global warming, climate change, carbon choices, green, Al Gore, Nobel prize, IPCC

If They Can Make It There--Be As Green As NYC

Is New York City really the greenest in the land?

A few years ago David Owen wrote a piece for The New Yorker asserting, "By the most significant measures, New York is the greenest community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world." (PDF version here--worth a read.)

Earlier this year NYC completed its first greenhouse gas emissions inventory (PDF report here). It showed that in 2005 the city emitted 58.3 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gases on a CO₂ equivalent basis. That's 7.1 tonnes CO₂e for every man, woman and child in the city. The average for the whole country is 24.5 tonnes per person.

If the rest of the residents of the U.S. could cut their greenhouse gas output to the level achieved by New Yorkers, that would be a two-thirds reduction in national emissions. Admittedly that isn't 80% below 1990 levels, but it shows what is possible. And New Yorkers don't use any special technology. They just don't drive as much (good public transit) and they live in more densely packed housing, close to where they work.

Per capita CO2e emissions of select cities and the United States. From NYC inventory report (pdf).

How is your city doing? Read about the Cities for Climate Protection™ (CCP) Campaign.

---

tags: global warming, climate change, carbon choices, greenhouse gas emissions, CO₂, green

Why We Care About Global Warming

We Can Challenge Climate Change

We who participate in this site probably believe things like this:

• There are lots of critical issues and concerns we could be active about, but addressing climate change is the most pressing.
• Yes, I too am concerned about people who don't pick up after their dogs, war, poverty, the problems of our educational system, political venality, corruption, the Doha round, the high costs of health care, the upcoming or recently past election, and a lot of other things. But the potential impact of global climate change dominates all of these.
• If we all stay on the greenhouse-gas-emissions path we are on today, then by 2050 global warming will certainly have passed 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. As we pass 2° and head toward 3°, 4° or even 5° of warming major disruption of global and regional climate and economic systems becomes inevitable. We don't want to go there.
• It is not too late. If we can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 then the climate should reach equilibrium at about 2°C above preindustrial levels.
• Since the emissions of the developing world will continue to increase inexorably for the next decade or two before they can start to fall, the developed world will have to cut emissions very deeply. Rich countries will have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels. Eventually developing countries will have to cut their emissions to 20% below 1990 levels.
• This makes sense, since developed countries emit much more today than developing countries do, when measured on a per capita basis. But even if the developed countries cut their emissions to zero, continuing increases in developing country emissions would push us past the 2° mark by mid-century. And the people of developing countries generally have the most to lose from uncontrolled global warming.
• We can't wait for politicians to act for us on this. We must lead by taking action ourselves to reduce emissions associated with our lifestyles, our companies and their products, and our cities and towns.
• Action must be timely and effective. There is no more time to waste on boondoggles.
  
• The purpose of this site is to bring together meaningful analysis, information, and recommendations to enable people and businesses to take concrete steps to challenge climate change.
  

---

tags: global warming, climate change, carbon choices, greenhouse gas emissions, CO₂, green, community