That's right, we've got 10 years left to make major changes, or we are totally screwed. That is, according to an article in today's Sunday Times (UK), subtitled "Scientists say rising greenhouses gases will make climate change unstoppable in a decade":
THE world has just 10 years to reverse surging greenhouse gas emissions or risk runaway climate change that could make many parts of the planet uninhabitable.The stark warning comes from scientists who are working on the final draft of a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
[...]
They conclude that unless mankind rapidly stabilises greenhouse gas emissions and starts reducing them, it will have little chance of keeping global warming within manageable limits.
The results could include the destruction of the Amazon rainforest and the Great Barrier Reef, the forced migration of hundreds of millions of people from equatorial regions, and the loss of vast tracts of land under rising seas as the ice caps melt.
Ten more years, that's not a lot of time. Still, if we started to move quickly right now, we could do it. But wait, I almost forgot for a minute, the village is missing its proverbial idiot and he's in the White House, plotting the next war or choking on pretzels or whatever it is he does there. What's particularly infuriating is that the Bush Administration has completely wasted the past six years, with the high likelihood that they will waste the next two as well, on the biggest threat (by far!) to our planet's environment.
Now, just imagine for a moment that after 9/11, President Bush had issued a clarion call for the United States to slash its oil consumption (and imports) for both geopolitical and environmental reasons (hence the term "geo-green"). Today, we'd be well on our way to reversing global climate change and getting that problem behind us.
But noooooo, of course not. God forbid BushCheney would have disobeyed their masters in Big Oil and actually done something to reduce our carbon emissions the past six years. Even now, when the science is as clear as science ever can be that we're facing a catastrophe, what do we get from Bush? A massive, Apollo-like push for energy efficiency (e.g., 100 mile-per-gallon cars)? An ambitious program to push the development of wind, solar, and other non-carbon-emitting energy sources? Oh no, that would be too logical.
Instead, what we get from Bush is a pathetic, lame-ass plan to increase output of corn-based ethanol, a fuel which takes large amounts of fossil fuels to grow and process, while using up land that could be producing food for people and livestock. As a result of increased corn-based ethanol production, corn prices already have hit 10-year highs, livestock producers are getting pissed, and prices are rising for products made from corn. Freakin' brilliant.
Meanwhile, the clock continues to tick on those ten years we've got before environmental disaster becomes inevitable. Unfortunately, there's no sense of urgency at the White House. Instead, BushCheney continue to fiddle - and waste hundreds of billions of dollars on their assinine, botched war in Iraq - as the earth burns. Heckuva job.
If McCain and Lieberman can get their climate bill passed, history might actually forgive them someday for all their war cheerleading.
We also need to continue to lobby our local officials to show the kind of local leadership that Paul Ferguson and the Arlington County Board have shown.
For those hoping for real action on global warming and energy policy, the State of the Union address was a downer. There had been hints and hopes that the speech would be a Nixon-goes-to-China moment, with President Bush turning conservationist. But it ended up being more of a Nixon-bombs-Cambodia moment.[...]
The only real substance was Mr. Bush's call for a huge increase in the supply of "alternative fuels." Mainly that means using ethanol to replace gasoline. Unfortunately, that's a really bad idea.
[...]
...corn is such a poor source of ethanol that researchers at the University of Minnesota estimate that converting the entire U.S. corn crop - the sum of all our ears - into ethanol would replace only 12 percent of our gasoline consumption.
The article goes on to talk about how ethanol "benefits two well-organized groups: corn growers and ethanol producers (especially the corporate giant Archer Daniels Midland)" and how, "[a]s a result, it's bad policy with bipartisan support." Great stuff, huh?
Add Paul Krugman to the list of serious analysts who have weighed in recently on why Bush's corn-based ethanol "plan" is a complete and utter fiasco. Is there anyone, other than those funded by the ethanol lobby, politicians currying favor from voters in the farm belt, or simply people who are ignorant, who support this garbage? This is politics and economics at its worst, plain and simple.
Now is the time for action. The only words we need to hear are direct orders to fix the problem or truly motivational words to inspire people into action.