Enjoy!
Any questions? Please contact Lauren Murphy at lm1213a@american.edu
For More Info About 350.org visit their website!
Script
“What Has Posterity Done for Us?”
Where We’re At
Announcer: Please take out your notebooks. Go on. This is going to go by fast.
1 F: "The claim that global warming is caused by man-made emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science" sneezes [Inhofe ] (D&P, 2006).
2 T: The Earth’s climate is changing, and most of all because of us. Yes. You and Me. [points] Science has pretty much got it proved (D&P, 2006).
4 T: Put together by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a [quote fingers] clear scientific view on the current state of climate change, the International Panel on Climate Change is 90 percent certain that human-generated GHGs account for most of the global rise in temperatures over the past half-century (IPCC, 2008).
3 T: The simplest proof of this change is the average temperature of the Earth’s surface, which has gone up about 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past century, with, no shit, the most rapid warming over the last few decades (D&P, 2006).
3 T: Greenhouse gases act like a blanket in the atmosphere, trapping heat and warming the planet (IPCC, 2008).
4 T: Human-caused emissions of carbon come from pretty much everything we do. I mean we burn a lot of fossil fuels, actually 21.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount of this .
5 T: Not to mention the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, agricultural processes, those CFCs, I could go on? (D&P, 2006).
1 F: CO2 does not cause catastrophic disasters—actually it would be beneficial to our environment and our economy (D&P, 2006).
3 T: It is entirely reasonable to question whether human emissions are really responsible for global warming. Over the history of the Earth, the climate has undergone large fluctuations without any human influence (D&P, 2006).
3 F: Because sunlight is the power source that drives the climate, any change in solar variability can affect climate change. Orbital variations change the distribution of sunlight on Earth and can also affect climate change (D&P, 2006).
4 T: But some reasons for doubting climate change don't really cut it. Orbital variations are simply too slow to account for the significant warming of the 20th century. And, because of the enormous thermal inertia of the oceans, the climate is quite insensitive to short-term variations of solar output (D&P, 2006).
4 T: As the scale of human industrial processes and consumer habits grows over the 21st century, it is certain that the Earth will continue to warm.
5 T: It is highly likely that the total global warming over the century will be between 1.4 degrees Celsius and 5.8 degrees Celsius (D&P, 2006).
1 T: A 1 degree increase in Earth’s temperature decreases agricultural productivity by 10% (movie, will cite).
4 T: The climate change problem will be much more serious by the year 2050 and even more so by 2100 (D&P, 2006).
3 F: In the Earth’s past, changes of only a few degrees in global-temperature have not been associated with extreme changes in climate.
1 T: Hurricanes have become more powerful due to global warming and will continue to become even more potent in the future (USGCRP, 2000).
4 F: When the ocean’s waters warm, the volume of the ocean stays the same. Sea levels will not rise.
1 T: Sea ice coverage is shrinking in size and in thickness adding to the rising ocean tides (D&P, 2006).
5 T: Glaciers are retreating faster (D&P, 2006).
5 F: Data from climate proxies, you know, tree rings, ice cores, and corals do not show the whole picture of climate change when they are put together (D&P, 2006).
2 T: The only concern of scientists is how much warming is occurring, not whether warming is occurring.
5 T: The substantial loss of summer Artic sea ice could have implications for global ocean circulation that are not yet well understood, but potentially enormous (D&P, 2006).
4 F: Average precipitation is not projected to increase.
1 T: Average precipitation will increase, and, when combined with increasingly warmer summers, both wet and dry extremes will grow more likely (D&P, 2006).
2 T: Wet extremes will increase the risks of flooding, erosion, and landslides.
3 T: Dry extremes will increase the risk of water shortages, crop loss, wildfires, and increase the vulnerability of crops and forests to pests and diseases (D&P, 2006).
5 F: Climate change will not affect natural or unmanaged ecosystems (D&P, 2006).
1 T: Climate change will affect many aspects of the reproduction, behavior, and viability of species in diverse ways, as well as relationships among species.
2 T: The fossil record and statistical studies suggest that the average rate of extinction over the past hundred million years has hovered at several species per year. Today the extinction rate surpasses 3,000 species per year and is accelerating rapidly—it may soon reach the tens of thousands annually (Myer, 2006).
4 T: In the past century we have accumulated a vast extinction debt that will be paid, with interest, in the century ahead (Myer, 2006).
5 T: Climate change will make many areas inhospitable to their present inhabitants. Entire biotic communities will be evicted: coastal wetlands will be permanently submerged, many cloud forests will dry out, some dry savannas will become lush while others become deserts (Myer, 2006).
6 T: Studies suggest that the types of climate shifts we can expect over the next century are well within the experiential history of most species that have survived the last two million years. In the past, most could have gone to different places. But today only weedy species like deer and mosquitoes can migrate and reestablish big populations in new habitats with us humans (Myer, 2006).
1 T: "The number of plants and animals we "discover" to be threatened will expand out of control as the extinction debt comes due" (Myer, 2006).
4 F: Natural selection has not been replaced by human selection (Myer, 2006).
2 T: We decide which species get on the list for protection and which are kept off. We decide which habitats of listed species will be labeled critical, which flora and fauna we will protect and which species we will ignore.
3 T: We cannot prevent the end of the wild. Absent an immediate 95-percent reduction in the human population (a truly horrendous thought), we cannot change what's going to happen to the polar bears or any of the other creatures (Myer, 2006).
3 F: We cannot learn about the negative effects of climate change by studying island biogeographies.
5 F: Climate change is an anti-capitalist agenda, a Machiavellian political plot.
5 T: Based on its decision to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruling on carbon emissions, The Nike Corporation is abandoning its position on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (O'Brien, 2009).
4 F: Poorer countries will not have a difficult time adapting to climate change.
5T: Less developed nations and small developing island state are the highest at risk for experiencing the economic, ecological, and social impacts of climate change (Agarwal, 2002).
1 T: National emission targets are the most widely used form of international mitigation commitment.
3 F: Our consumer culture is not to blame for climate change.
1 F: Individual actions, such as replacing all of your old light bulbs with Compact Fluorescent light bulbs, will not help reduce the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.
2 T: Even if all of these silly people with their "science" and "empirical evidence" are wrong, is it not better to err on the side of caution and make improvements to the careless way in which we treat our environment?
3 T: Setting aside the rising CO2 levels caused by deforestation and the environmentally harmful emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, there are more immediate benefits to cleaner air and water. Ask an asthmatic. Or better yet... Ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the Joint Science Academy.
4 T: Or the US National Research Council, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Astronomical Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program.
5 T: Or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stratigraphy
6 T: Why are we all so confused? Why are we all so uncertain? Climate change isn’t coming, it’s here. So why are we having such a difficult time convincing people of its existence?
Rush Limbaugh Tackles Climate Change
Limbaugh: Brackets indicate changes in the script. [Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Show.] "A United Nations document on 'climate change' that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave envisions a huge reordering of the world economy... Now since Obama's in the White House, all pretense is off. The man-made global warming hoaxers are making it very clear what their objective has been all along, and that is fleece the United States of America...
This is nothing more than a giant, global redistribution-of-wealth scheme. Man-made global warming, the hoax that it is, has always been nothing but that -- with the accompanying gigantic growth-of-government from nation to nation occurring at the same time -- and the loss of individual liberty and freedom. Tell the people in Denver! Tell the people in Fargo! I woke up the other day looked at the weather, and it was 35 degrees in New York! And you know, more and more people are starting to ask, "What is this global warming?" More people are starting to consider the notion that we actually may be in a cooling phase, 'cause there hasn't been any significant warming in years. [All right then, we are now going to take a call from our listening audience].
(Bill from Bloomfield appears on the right)
RUSH: This is Bill, of Bloomfield, New Jersey. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, it's an honor.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Yeah. I'd like to talk about this global warming folly. Um, we already have a solution for this, and it won't cost the taxpayer a penny. It will be good for the environment, and it would it would keep gas prices low.
RUSH: Well, but wait. I'm not trying to be contentious for no reason, but as I said earlier here on the program: We try to derive truth. We try to find truth and we espouse it and expose it. There is no global warming. So when you say that we have a "solution" to it, you know, I throw my hands up. There's no "solution" to it because there isn't any global warming -- and I don't care if there is warming or cooling, there's nothing we can do about it! We're just human beings. There's not a damn thing that we can do to cause it or to stop it. We're just prisoners here.
CALLER: I agree. I agree.
RUSH: Okay. All right. Wonderful.
CALLER: I agree. Let me rephrase that. What we can do about different types of fuel maybe?
RUSH: Ah.
CALLER: We could do something about that, we could…
RUSH: [No, There literally is nothing wrong with gasoline. I love gasoline! You know, I love Jet A. I love oil. We're not going to run out of any of it for a long time]. I just think that trying to find an alternative fuel for something, for a nonpolitical reason… Yeah, let's come... Why doesn't somebody find a way to make water, particularly saltwater, fuel? The sea levels are going to rise anyway. What are we going to do with it? Find a way to make saltwater run automobiles.
CALLER: I believe it's too expensive to separate the hydrogen molecules, but the key here is the methanol. I agree with you about --
RUSH: RUSH: (snorts) Nothing is too expensive in America anymore when the government does it! [We’ll be right back after this] (The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2009).
Announcer: This is a Public Service Announcement.
T: Is this really accurate? The Medias portrayals of the Climate Change debate continue to be filled with wide gaps of missing scientific fact and the unmistakable absence of the creditable accounts of scientific experts and international policymakers who have all reached the same consensus: climate change is real, it’s here, and it’s happening now. While it is easy to say that media accounts will always remain unfailingly biased, it is difficult to understand the media’s continued neglect to divulge concrete information about Climate Change to the public. Though there do exist discrepancies in current projections of the consequences of continued and unfettered carbon an emission, science has unswervingly busted down the door to say: we can’t wait and see what happens! It’s called the precautionary principle, it’s called mitigation, it’s called adaptation, it’s called doing something before it’s too late. Why wait to see where we end up in the future? Why not do something now? Contact your local government officials and tell them you’re ready for change, and not the climate variety. Paid for by Kids for COP15.
Announcer: And now a quick commercial break.
Ad (girl enters dressed in traditional Starbucks wear: black pants, shirt, green apron, green visor): Come in come in come in and try the very exciting very new very amazing very unaffordable very wacky delicious Hazelnut-Caramel-Mocha-Chunka-
T: [walks on stage holding large Stardollars cup] How do those advertisers manage to do that?
Announcer: And now back to Fox News.
GB Explains CO2
BECK: Welcome back to exposed, the climate of fear. I want you to know right up front, this is not a balanced look at global warming. It is the other side of the climate debate that you don`t hear anywhere. Yes, Al Gore, there is another credible side. As you know, the Kyoto Protocol put in a few mechanisms for combating Green House Gases. I will now briefly describe the cap-and-trade program for all you imbeciles out there with the help of James Hackett.
BECK: James, cap and trade: Not a tax?
HACKETT: Oh, it's definitely a tax, Glenn. And I think anybody who tells you otherwise is treating you to fiction. The key is --
BECK: Explain it to the American people in a way they can see how this scam -- I mean, this plan works.
Hackett: CO2… constitutes about 3 percent of all the greenhouse gas emissions, so you're talking about a very small portion of all of the greenhouse gases. The rest is actually water vapor. Of that 3 percent, another portion of that is man-made emissions. There's a lot of other CO2 emissions from other places. And it's a life-giving form, as many of us know, because plants use it. We breathe it about every three seconds. We exhale it.
BECK: Yeah, hang on just a second.
HACKETT: And to think that the EP--
BECK: Hang on. Let me just inter-- James, I'm sorry to interrupt. America, I'm going to harm the planet. I'm going to give some CO2 off. Ready?
[exhales]
Dangerous. That should have been bottled and kept away from the planet because [exhales] that's a dangerous gas. OK. So, anyway, you were saying?
HACKETT: Well, and I think all of us can agree that man-made emissions can't possibly be good, but it means at what cost do we change that, that model that has taken us over a century to build?
BECK: And, now, hang on just very quick. I’m going to lay it out clear for the American public to understand the cap and trade program. We take this invisible gas that [exhales] -- OK? Now, I'm only allowed to breathe, let's say, 50 times a day. If I breathe any more than 50 times a day, then I have to pay for all of the stuff that comes out of my mouth, right? If I only breathe 30 times a day, well, then, I can sell those extra 20 breaths to somebody else that wants to breathe 20 times more than 50, correct? It’s really very simple.
BECK: By the way, just so you know, because I know -- this show has won so many science awards. Sometimes, we get talking about highfalutin science things like this and people are like, "What are you talking about?" So, let me just break it down. Carbon dioxide is basically this:
[exhales] Look how much pollution I just put out (The Glenn Beck Program, 2007)
T: What a lovely little homage to the Fox News network. Glenn Beck is notorious for being a climate naysayer but certainly everyone else has the right idea. Right?
Exxon’s Kampaign for Kids
Exxon: Hey hey hey kiddos. Rex Tillerson here, head CEO of Exxon. I’m here today to talk to you about climate change and what we are prepared to do about it. Simply said, don’t expect us to do much! But don’t you worry we have good reason! Now you may know Oil giants such as BP PLC and Royal Dutch/Shell Group are trumpeting a better-safe-than-sorry approach to global warming. They accept a growing scientific consensus that fossil fuels are a main contributor to the problem and endorse the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps emissions from developed nations that have ratified it. BP and Shell also have begun to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels. But guess what kids? They are wasting their time! The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit research and education organization, said that "There is no consensus about the causes, effects, or future rate of global warming."I mean c’mon kiddos; you look like a smart bunch. Some environmentalists call for a "save-the-day" strategy to 'stop global warming,' saying it is better to be safe than sorry. Such a position seems logical until we stop to think: Immediate action wouldn't make us any safer, but it would surely make us poorer. And being poorer would make us less safe. Right? Well, we are doing something; we even started to say that we support a carbon tax (GreenPeace).
As you must all know by now, especially if your folks are paying attention to reliable news sources, while some environmental problems are legitimate, most are exaggerated by environmental groups to raise money and build support for more government power. Sound science, not scare tactics, ought to set the agenda for environmental protection. That’s why I’m here to answer any and all questions you may have.
Student #1: You mentioned the report from the Heartland Institute. Don’t you guys pay them a lot of money to discredit scientific data relevant to the climate change issue? I mean, for years you guys quietly gave millions of dollars to a web of climate-naysaying groups, such as the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute. Using tactics similar to the tobacco industry’s playbook, these groups successfully created the impression that the science was still far too uncertain to know whether action was needed (Carey, 2007).
CEO: “Our approach to this has evolved,” we already dropped funding for some of the groups challenging global warming--in particular, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which the media was increasingly describing as being appreciably supported by Exxon. The funding of that group was unfortunately becoming a distraction. But we still fund a variety of groups looking into climate change issues (Carey, 2007).
Student #2: Yeah you do. Last year you dumped $1.6m into the pockets of the American Enterprise Institute. You might remember that your old Exxon buddy Lee Raymond is the current vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees. In fact, if I remember correctly AEI is cited as buying off scientists with $10,000 and full-paid travel expenses to “thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs” (Carey, 2007).
Would you or would you not agree that the IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline? Would you not admit that the bribing of scientists undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice?
CEO: Um, we had no knowledge that AEI was soliciting scientists to comment upon the IPCC Assessment and we did not condone any attempt to dispute or downplay the 4th IPCC assessment.
Student #2: Ok. Well, that didn’t really answer my question.
2 T: Well, even if the oil companies aren’t doing much to help us combat climate change, at least our government officials are attempting to do something. They are, aren’t they?
Larry Summers Has Influenza
Lobbyist: Mr. Summers! It is so good to see you again, thanks so much for taking the time to talk to me. I just had a few questions about what our company should expect from US negotiations concerned with climate change. I mean, are we really going to start calculating externalities into our budgets? As you know, this would be a huge deal. In light of the new Boxer bill, I’ve spoken to several corporate heads and I don’t think we can really afford to consider reducing our emissions. We are thinking about building some of our factories overseas to get under the radar, you know…to sneak on by.
Summers: Just between you and me, the World Bank should be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the Less Developed Countries.
The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that (Vallette, 1999).
Lobbyist: Yes, yes, yes, of course. Should we look at South American countries or…
Summers: I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. And I mean, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand (Vallette, 1999).
Lobbyist: Yes sir, I see your logic. Oh wait, here comes the President.
3 T: Time out. Are you serious? This can’t be true.
4 T: Unfortunately it is the real deal. These are statements from Larry’s 1991 memo on trade liberalization. Once it leaked to the public they said it was a deliberate fraud and forgery to discredit Larry and the World Bank. But maybe one should also consider this little fact, Summers was pushed out of the president’s post at Harvard in large part because he mused out loud whether women were less successful in science because they were genetically disadvantaged. Yup. He’s the economic advisor to the President. What can I say? So who is trying to combat climate change?
COP15
President of the Maldives: [on the telephone] Hello? Hello? Yes, hello this is Mohamed Nasheed. Yes. Who am I? I’m the President of the Maldives. Yes. Yes, I can hold.
Hello? Hello to whom am I speaking? Hello there. I am trying to get in contact with Ban Ki-moon. I am very worried that I will not be able to make it to the Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen. We can't go to Copenhagen because we don't have the money. Yes I will hold.
Hello? Hello? This is President Mohamed Nasheed. I must speak to someone immediately with regards to my attendance at COP15. In 2100, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that a rise in sea levels by 7.2 to 23.2 inches would be enough to render my country uninhabitable. It is very important that I am in attendance. Yes, yes I will hold (IPCC, 2008).
Hello. Yes, this is President Mohamed Nasheed. Yes. President. Of where? Of the Maldives. We are a small island state. Yes. No this phone call is extremely important. The Maldives is a frontline state. I keep saying this: if the Europeans thought it was important to defend Poland in the '30s and '40s - in any threat you really have to look after your frontline states. We are a frontline state! [exhales deeply] Yes. I can hold (BBC, 2009).
T: In 1996 the GHG emissions of one U.S. citizen were equal to those of 19 Indians, 30 Pakistanis and 269 Nepalis (Agarwal, 2002).
T: The world’s richest countries, which have contributed by far the most to the atmospheric changes linked to global warming, are already spending billions of dollars to limit their own risks from its worst consequences (Agarwal, 2002).
T: Despite longstanding treaty commitments to help poor countries deal with warming, these industrial powers are spending just tens of millions of dollars on ways to limit climate and coastal hazards in the world’s most vulnerable regions (Agarwal, 2002).
T: The most vulnerable regions happen to be situated in the poorest nations (Agarwal, 2002).
T: Many of these regions are already afflicted by chronic underdevelopment, water scarcity and pollution, food insecurity, civil conflict, infectious disease and feeble domestic institutions.
T: The plight of the world’s poor cannot be ignored, they need our help.
T: Industrialized and developing countries must agree to share atmospheric space in an equitable manner. Without equitably sharing, global solidarity in combating climate change will not be possible (Agarwal, 2002).
T: Any limit on carbon emissions amounts to a limit on economic growth. That’s why we are all so reluctant to change.
T: But, even if the North fails to curb emissions and relies on adapting to climate change, it must still face the geopolitical, demographic, economic, and human problems that will spill over from the South’s likely inability to similarly adapt” (Agarwal, 2002).
T: UN sponsored scientists have reported that on a vulnerability index, developing countries are, on average, twice as vulnerable as industrialized countries and small island developing countries are three times as vulnerable (Agarwal, 2002).
T: The US is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide.
T: The Kyoto Protocol has been basically meaningless because of the US’s decision to not ratify it. Though we essentially drafted the document, we’ve refused to be parties to it saying that there must be “meaningful participation” by developing countries (Heyward, 2007).
T: LDCs are unable to meaningfully address their emissions of greenhouse gases because of their extremely underdeveloped economies and corrupt government institutions (Sari, 2009).
T: Developing countries will continue to grow, making huge energy investments. If these investments lock developing countries into a carbon energy economy like industrialized countries, it will be almost impossible for them to get out of it (Agarwal, 2002).
T: Responses to climate change are wound up with other social and economic issues facing nations and are fundamentally about inequality and injustice (Heyward, 2007).
T: The extreme poverty of dozens of nations leaves them without the capacity to negotiate effectively with the North (Parks & Roberts, 2006).
T: Industrialized nations have already backpedaled on their promises of massive technology transfers and technical assistance to the developing world (Parks & Roberts, 2006).
T: Global inequality makes it difficult to coalesce around a socially shared understanding of what is “fair” (Parks & Roberts, 2006).
[T: Mistrust of many nations along with different and unsound
T: It seems the answer is simple: reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It all seems so easy. Reflecting on the Kyoto Protocol and the ongoing debates surrounding climate change in the Senate and on the world stage, it is easy to see that Climate Change does not have a simple solution. Unfortunately, turning to science in the optimistic hope of getting a “quick fix” is not much different from taking a pessimistic attitude. Each involves individual citizens relinquishing the authority to make decisions. Environmental issues raise fundamental questions about what we as human beings value, the kind of beings we are, the kind of lives we should live, our place in nature, and the kind of world in which we might flourish. As Socrates once said, “we are dealing with no small thing, but with how we ought to live.” So how should you live? (Desjardins, 1993).
A Manual for Independent Activism “10 Easy Steps” (UNEP)
Whether you are an individual, are the head of an organization, or a business or a government, there are a number of steps you can take to reduce your carbon emissions, the total of which is described as your carbon footprint (Climate Action Programme, 2009).
T: Number One. Just like your mother told you countless times: Turn off the water when brushing your teeth. Take shorter showers. While these may have been rules in your house to lower your water bill, these easy actions have a global impact.
In some parts of the world a changing climate is drying up traditional water sources and leading to erratic weather, leaving 1.1 billion people without access to safe water. This causes conflict over scarce resources, puts strain on the women of the family to walk miles for water, leads to death and illness from drinking unsafe water, and affects food production, leading to hunger and increased global food prices when there is a decline in supply (PCCR, 2008).
Currently, there are water wars raging in this country. In California, political negligence, drought, and a century's worth of unbridled growth have resulted in the resurgence of their water wars. Farmers can’t irrigate their crops, and many underground reservoirs have become contaminated. Water scarcity is affecting us here on the home front.
T: Number Two. Buy paper or wood products that adhere to internationally certified standards. The Forestry Stewardship Council is an international non-profit organization promoting responsible management of the world’s forests. The FSC trademark is increasingly recognized as an international standard for responsible forest management. Switching to recycled or sustainably sourced paper can also lead to considerable savings, reducing both landfill use and carbon emissions. Using recycled paper can save 1.4 tonnes of CO2 for every tonne of paper and cardboard. Save the trees by buying sustainably (Climate Action Programme, 2009).
T: Number Three. Improving the efficiency of your buildings, computers, cars and products is the fastest and most lucrative way to save money, energy, and reduce carbon emissions. Very simple measures can lead to immediate savings. Just turning off unused lights, motors, computers and heating can substantially reduce wasted energy—and money (Climate Action Programme, 2009).
T: Number Four: Change your light bulbs Compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) have evolved rapidly in the past decade. They now last between six and 15 years and reduce electricity use by a minimum of 75 per cent compared to a standard incandescent bulb. The advantages of CFLs and other high efficiency lighting have prompted legislation to ban incandescent bulbs. In 2007, Australia was the first country to mandate that no incandescent bulbs will be sold by 2012, a move that will reduce emissions by four million tonnes and cut power bills for lighting by up to 66 per cent (Climate Action Programme, 2009).
T: Number Five: Switch to low carbon energy. Did you know you can call your energy provider and request renewable energy for your home? Consumers can now choose to have a percentage of their electricity supplied from a renewable energy source, such as a wind farm or landfill gas project. These ‘green choice’ programs are maturing and proving to be a powerful stimulus for growth in renewable energy supply. Also, at the household level, tax breaks and incentives can make solar photovoltaic systems and other renewable energy technologies cost effective (Climate Action Programme, 2009).
T: Number Six. Drive a hybrid, better yet walk. The transport sector is responsible for 25 per cent of total energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning petrol and diesel. Various options exist for kicking the carbon habit. Hybrid engines that combine electricity and conventional petrol or diesel engines can offer substantial fuel savings while reducing emissions. Use and support public transportation, carpool, walk, or bicycle. Your car emits more carbon than your house - which isn't surprising given that the average American drives enough miles to go around the world once a year. By using alternative transportation, you can reduce your emissions by up to 60% (Climate Action Programme, 2009).
T: Number Seven. Buy Green. Purchase products from companies that “design for sustainability.’ Sustainable design includes life cycle design and environmentally conscious design and manufacturing. This new approach considers environmental aspects at all stages of development to create products with the lowest environmental impact throughout the product life cycle. Ecodesign is an important strategy for small and medium sized companies both in developed and developing countries to improve the environmental performance of their products, reduce waste and improve their competitive position on the market (Climate Action Programme, 2009).
T: Number Eight. Use power strips for your TV and DVD players, and turn the power strips off when the equipment is not in use. 75% of electricity used for home electronics is consumed while the products are actually turned off. Monitors, TVs and DVDs in standby mode still use several watts of power (Climate Action Programme, 2009).
T: Number Nine. Don’t fly, if you need to purchase carbon offsets to neutralize your next air travel trip. Flying puts a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and because of radiative forcing, it causes just about twice as much damage as it does when emitted at ground level. Call it penance for eco-conscious travelers. A growing number of travel Web sites and nonprofit groups are selling carbon offsets designed to compensate for travel-generated emissions by reducing levels of greenhouse gases in some unrelated way. These carbon offset programs donate money for projects that promise to produce energy without burning fossil fuels or otherwise reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Climate Action Programme, 2009).
T: Number Ten. Buy locally, or better yet grow it yourself. By adding transportation, processing and packaging to the food system equation, the fossil fuel and energy use of our current food system puts tremendous stress on the environment. Sustainable agriculture involves food production methods that are healthy, do not harm the environment, respect workers, are humane to animals, provide fair wages to farmers, and support farming communities. Go to the Eastern market next time you need produce, or visit the nursery to invest in seeds to plant your own! (My own step)
T: According to the IPCC (2008), to keep the planet habitable, we must cut emissions not 10, not 20, but a full 80 percent by 2050; anything short of that could be dangerous.
T: As global citizens, it is our responsibility to combat climate change. You are more powerful than you can possibly imagine. Tell your parents, tell your friends, tell your professors. Don’t worry this won’t be a quick fad, climate change isn’t going away. Join EcoSense or contact the AU Sustainability Program to learn more about what American University is doing to combat climate change and how you can contribute. You may be surprised!
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Lauren Murphy distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. This constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Annotated Bibliography
Annotated Bibliography
Agarwal, A. (2002). ‘A southern perspective on curbing global climate change’, in Schneider, S. H.,
Rosencranz, A. and Niles, J. (eds), Climate Change Policy: A Survey, Washington, D.C.: Island
Press.
Ignorance and confusion surrounding the climate change-including a lack of understanding of climate science, its implications for the environment and society, and the range of policy options available-contributes to the political quagmire over dealing with climate change in which we find ourselves. In the past, and today, the southern perspective has been ignored by influential industrialized countries in climate change negotiations. Agarwal summarizes the North-South divide as it relates to climate issues and underlines how, when coupled with continued creative accounting, the deficiencies in the Kyoto Protocol’s compliance mechanisms and its transparent inequity in the distribution of responsibility makes the agreement impractical in reaching the UNFCCC’s suggested emissions targets. Agarwal argues that developing nations should not be expected to end their current growth strategies, but that ample consideration must be paid to future generations who will carry the burden of modern developmental actions. Agarwal’s criticism of the inequitable position of the global South in negotiations, mitigation, as well as in their capacity for future adaptations hinders the international community’s commitment to bring an end human-induced climate change. Agarwal’s description of the historical and future responsibility for climate change, and the attention give to global inequity in the climate change arena, was of particular importance in the creation of “What Has Posterity Done for Us?”
BBC, (2009, September 7). Maldives to miss climate summit. BBC News. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk.
Carey, J. (2007, April 23). Climate Wars: Episode Two. BusinessWeek, Retrieved September 27, 2009, from The McGraw-Hill Companies database.
For years we ignored the existence of climate change and today we continue to debate if human activities are to blame. Carey addresses many of the previously conceived notions for disregarding climate change in the past, as well as how and why these skeptics’ ideas were ultimately dismissed. Many corporations are presently siding with the certifiable science that posits climate change does indeed exist and are agreeing that reduced emissions are necessary. The author explains the current institutions in place to decrease carbon emissions and briefly summarizes the cap and trade program. In this article, the author addresses the funding of climate “naysaying” groups by the ExxonMobil conglomerate and their continued financial support of investigative climate change analysis. This point was incorporated in the vignette “ExxonMobil’s Kampaign for Kids.”
Climate Action Programme, (2009). UNEP World Environment Day 2009. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from UNEP: http://www.unep.org.
Retrieved from the UNEP’s World Environment Day website, this particular webpage calls the common man to action. As global citizens we are all responsible for current climate change and we are all effected by its negative implications. The UNEP’s list of twelve steps to combat climate change provides a broad inventory of specific actions individuals, businesses, and governments can do to limit their contributions to global emissions. The UNEP’s list comprises actions for organizations and individuals including: “de-carboning your life;” getting energy efficient; and buying green. This list was essential in the assembly of “10 Easy Steps” to reduce climate change in the vignette “A Manual for Independent Activism.”
DesJardins, J. (1993). Environmental Ethics. An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
DesJardins comprehensively considers issues central to global environmental politics through the use of sample cases and the lens of moral philosophy. Topics he considers in a philosophical context include economics and ethics, responsibility to future generations and the natural world, biocentric ethics, deep ecology, and ecofeminism. Each chapter includes a timely case study and develops the philosophical arguments requisite to grasping what is at stake in these and similar issues. Grounded in practical environmental subjects and concerns, this book introduces students to an array of ethical and philosophical issues that emanate from the interaction of human beings and the natural environment. With a balance of theoretical and empirical concerns, the author discusses the development of the field of environmental ethics, including the evolution of environmental theory and practice. Subsequent an preliminary survey of a variety of environmental and philosophical issues, DesJardins provides accounts of contemporary debates in the field,—involving such topics as pollution, energy, and animal rights—enlightening how philosophical analysis can clarify the issues and offer direction for action.
Dessler, A.E., & Parson, E.A. (2006). The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dessler and Parson discuss how current projections of catastrophic climate change emphasize dangerous effects on the welfare of future generations and ecosystems in the biosphere. The authors frame the issue of climate change as the most critical environmental issue in the 21st century. Within the book, the authors state that the capacity to deal with industrial, technological, and economic costs associated with climate change policies are confronted with stringent political barriers. The foundations of developed economies rely upon the unhindered burning of fossil fuels; thus, ecological costs associated with its continued use are more complicated to control. The book’s main incentive is to elucidate the climate-change debate and investigate the disagreements between scientific arguments and political controversies. Chapter One provides a concise background on the climate change issue, its anthropogenic origins, as well as a history of current policies and organizations connected with the subject. The Kyoto Protocol is briefly addressed, together with the reactions of developing and developed nations. Chapter Three summarizes the accumulated scientific knowledge about, and evidence of, climate change. The majority of my True/False testaments in “What Has Posterity Done for Us?” are derived from this particular publication.
Greenpeace, (n.d.). ExxonSecrets.org: How Exxon funds global warming denial. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from Greenpeace: http://www.exxonsecrets.org
Heyward, M. (2007). Equity and international climate change negotiations: a matter of perspective . In M. Grubb (Ed.), Climate Policy (Vol. 7, pp. 518-534).
IPCC (2008). Climate change 2007: synthesis report . IPCC Assessment Report, 4. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch (Pachauri, & Reisinger, 2007)
The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report begins with an introduction to the origins and purpose of the International Panel on Climate Change. It builds upon past IPCC assessments and incorporates new findings from the past six years of research. Scientific progress is based upon large amounts of new and more comprehensive data, new sophisticated analyses of data, improvements in understanding of processes and their simulation in models, and more extensive exploration of uncertainty ranges. The Assessment Report provides a detailed analysis of the findings of the three Working Group reports and supplies an amalgamation of these findings that explicitly addresses the issues of concern to policymakers in the area of climate change. The Assessment Report confirms that climate change is taking place now, by and large as a result of human activities. This publication meaningfully illustrates the impacts of global warming already under way and the consequences of unfettered carbon emissions to be expected in future. The analytical summary addresses the potential for adaptation of society to decrease its vulnerability and presents an analysis of costs, policies, and technologies proposed to limit the degree of future changes in the climate system.
Meyer, S. M. (2006). The End of the Wild. Somerville, MA: MIT Press.
Meyer presents a pithy explicit diagnosis of the state of the biosphere in his book, and his final prognosis is not good. So omnipresent is humankind, he argues, instead of natural selection we now have human selection. Other species must adapt to our climate-changing presence, as have the common rat and the white-tailed deer, or face extinction. Hundreds of thousands of organisms have become “relic species” as they mêlée to maintain their niches in milieus radically changed by human development. The species we choose to defend for economic or aesthetic reasons are relegated to “boutique populations” in bioreserves, which are, in truth, the “antithesis of the wild.” Meyer outlines humanity’s threats to biodiversity and calls for a revived ecological consciousness. Meyer’s statements concerning the fate and future of Earth’s biota were incorporated into “What Has Posterity Done for Us?”
O'Brien, M. (2009, September 30). Nike resigns from Chamber's board, citing climate-change differences. The Huffington Post. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.
This recent article from the Huffington Post discusses the Nike Corporation’s resignation from the Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a 97-year-old business advocacy group, has been courting controversy by questioning climate change and attempting to weaken a clean energy bill. Commenting on their resignation, Nike expressed concern with the United States’ slow move towards a sustainable economy. Nike argues that in order to remain competitive and ensure continued economic growth in the future, the U.S. must adopt a clean energy bill and begin the transition to a sustainable economy.
Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, (2008). Water Wars. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from Pulitzer Gateway: http://waterwars.
Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. C. (2007). Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. C. (2007, ). A Climate of Injustice Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy. Somerville, MA: MIT Press.
Sari, Agus P., Developing Country Participation: The Kyoto-Marrakech Politics (November 2005). HWWA Discussion Paper No. 333. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=
The Glenn Beck Program, (2007, March 2). Exposed: The Climate of Fear. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from CNN: http://transcripts.cnn.com.
The Rush Limbaugh Show, (2009, March 27). UN Climate Change Plan Fits with Obama's Anti-Capitalism Scheme. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from Premier Radio Networks: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com.
UNFCCC, (n.d.). Feeling the Heat. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from UNFCCC: http://unfccc.int.
U.S. Global Change Research Group (2000). Climate Change Impacts on the United States The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Washington, D.C., National Assessment Synthesis Team, U.S. Global Change Research Program. Retrieved September 26, 2009, from http://www.globalchange.gov.
The National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change is a milestone in the ongoing efforts to understand what climate change means for the United States. Climate science is growing hurriedly and scientists are increasingly capable to project changes at the regional scale, pinpointing regional vulnerabilities, and assessing possible regional impacts. Science increasingly indicates that the Earth’s climate has altered in the past, continues to change, and that even greater climate change is very likely in the 21st century. This Assessment has begun a national process of research, analysis, and dialogue about the coming changes in climate, their impacts, and what Americans can do to adapt to an uncertain and endlessly changing climate. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) synchronizes and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. This source was used in researching information regarding climate change’s impact on certain meteorological processes. From this source I competently verified that hurricanes will indeed strengthen in magnitude and intensity in the future.
Vallette, J. (1999). Larry Summers' War Against the Earth. Global Policy Forum, Retrieved September 28, 2009, from http://www.globalpolicy.org.
This source serves as the main text of the vignette, “Larry Summers Has Affluenza.” Included in this source is the 1991 memo drafted on December 12 by the chief economist for the World Bank, Lawrence Summers. The memo includes Mr. Summers candidly stating that more industrialized countries should look to the South for help with the disposal of their toxic wastes. Vallette reflects on the current state of world trade and its inclusion of what he describes as “unbalanced cargoes.” While regulations tighten around dirty coal and dangerous nuclear power plants in the North, they are proliferating in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America, where they are owned and operated by Northern corporations.