There may well be more than one like this active at present. Here's the link Your Climate Change and by no means, sign or redistribute it on my say-so. Do that only if you think it is accurate and appropriate.
Myneni seems a typical Earth-system scientist, as you could see from searching his publications. I have no insight about why he got this 'wild hair' just now. This petition website is a plea, and he might have done more there to make the case to non scientists. This ties back to mojo's sceptic thread: how sure are we that stronger CO2 reductions are needed now, balancing all apparent costs and benefits? I might not agree with this quote "Yet, there has been little meaningful action to solve this global problem..." I think there have been MANY actions, including transportation efficiency (e.g., Prius), thermal efficiency of buildings, and adding non-fossil energy sources (e.g., wind, solar). Whether we all have dragged our feet in these is a matter for discussion. It seems clear to me that we have dragged our feet in monetizing fossil-C emissions with regard to climate, and secondarily about small inhalable particles and coal-mercury. The world's largest industry depends on burning fossil C for profit. Opposition to change there is strong and perhaps correctly so. None of that is in Mynen's, and what will change if a petition with a billion signers (not signees!) gets read at Earth Day 2014 in the UN? I have suggested here before that real change will only follow a major global-climate-change-related event. A large antarctic-ice dump could do it. Cricton foresaw that, but he had to dress it up for book sales! But we still here living should address the matter. Is there a large thing that would cause us to reconsider the endless expansion of fossil-C burning? Should we reconsider w/o such a thing? I am not sure that the current climate models are persuasive.
I was a little surprised by the graph. Its truly scary. No, not the data, we have seen that before. Its the labeling. It seem that we went above the point labeled habitable in the 1960s. Most of the earth's population might be surprised to find that the earth stopped being habitable from too much carbon dioxide before they were born. Since carbon dioxide has passed that level the world's population has doubled. It seems according to the graph the world became a dangerous place during the Clinton administration and now somehow we are in the red. That seems to be a zone too dangerous to even label. I only point this out, because it greatly confuses me. Do the authors want the UN to somhow lower carbon dioxide levels back to 320 ppm? How do they intend that the UN does this with so many more people on the planet? Completely agree there are technological ways to decrease fossil-C emissions and maybe to even aid sequestration by better land management. If the authors don't see these things as part of the solution, then I'm curious what they expect the UN to do. We see some massive changes in Germany on fuel use. I can only see these things when it becomes economically justifiable. The switch from coal to natural gas and wind in the US is because the relative price of natural gas and wind has gotten better compared to coal. This is despite many policies in the US regulatory environment that still favor coal. China is a much tougher problem with electrical demand growing so fast, and higher relative prices between natural gas and coal. Only if non-fossil fuel is competitive in price. It does not need to be lower just close to the price, and government regulation needs to give people the choice and information. The European plan does not look like it will work for most of the world. Results have been worse than expected, and Some companies simply get enriched while many are taxed. That doesn't mean a better cap and trade plan could not work, it simply means politicians like giving to their patrons (lobbiests) and exaggerating what you actually get for the extra money you pay.
I would not have capped the habitable level at 333 ppm either. Wouldja believe it, the first time I saw this graph it was so long ago that we were still in the green zone? A low-resolution CO2 meter can be yours for about $200. Far less accurate than Licor, and Picarro, forget about it. But, then you can measure CO2 anywhere. You may be amazed how many high-occupied rooms are 900 ppm. It is a ventilation problem. And you thought the lectures were boring; turns out you were just rebreathing. And if you are doing all-night drives and start feeling dozy, do not recirculate air in your Prius! Sure, I am obfuscating. But, it is a lot easier to define the danger zone in simple systems. In 'the earth system' there are some potential feedbacks that haven't been figured out. We would know the bad number for sure when(if) the high-latitude methane speeds up. But then it may be a bit late. That is the problem, and why some people advocate erring on the side of caution. If we were to take a pause at 500 ppm (much more feasible than returning to 333), we could check things out. It's not like were could not burn more later if 'the coast is clear'.
I'd never seen the colors before, but if those people drawing in crayons on the graph are trying to tell us that they want to do what ever it takes to go back over 60 ppm, I can't really help them. Some people want to go back to jim crow, or before woman had the vote, etc. Its not going to happen without a lot of pain and protest, and the odds are to get there you will make the world a much worse place to live. OK, off the soap box now. 500 ppm, that seems like a much more reasonable goal. Its very difficult, but you don't need to start killing or arresting a large portion of the population to get there. There is caution, and then their is crazy. I would call the graph labels advocating on the side of crazy. Hey we might not even have to go to war to attempt that goal
Justifications to aim for 333, or 350, or xxx are whatever people con offer that is compelling. I mention 500 because (a) it would take more political will than is currently obvious to stop at less (b) is is a round number (c) it is less than 560, doubling of preindustrial, so should land us at less than whatever is the actual +T associated with doubling (d) is is a rare study that shows plants benefitting from >500 unless strong efforts are also made to prevent any other resource limitation. None of those may be compelling, but there they are . I didn't link to the petition site to dun y'all, just wanted you to know that it exists.
The first couple of lines in that article says it all. The answer is right there in front of the reader. "A billion linked hands" When are humans going to get it: overpopulation. DBCassidy
I bumped this because there is a new petition Sign the Climate Declaration — Ceres and you can see that it has some corporate support. So, take a peek, feel good about it if that is your way. Or if you believe that this is the greatest hoax in the history of mankind, then you have a convenient list of firms to boycott.
A new corporate signer of the climate declaration GM is First Automaker to Sign ‘Climate Declaration’ Just a year since GM ceased supporting the Heartland institute, and now this. Oh my. I guess Toyota could be the second automaker to sign. second's not so bad.
