The United States can follow California's lead of raising climate change goals over time, a congressional leader on global warming initiatives said on Friday.
Representative Henry Waxman, the Democrat who navigated a climate change bill through the U.S. House of Representatives this year, urged his counterparts in the Senate to move quickly on its bill.
"Get your act together. Get a bill passed," Waxman said during a University of California, Los Angeles, climate change panel monitored by webcast.
Lawmakers could then iron out the details on a final version that would be put up to both chambers.
Many in Congress are eager to pass climate change legislation in the face of global warming and to solidify a leadership role for the United States before international talks in Copenhagen in December.
But the U.S. climate change bills being debated in Congress have divided legislators by region of the country, political party and more. A bill passed the House with major changes from its original, and the Senate is tackling health care first, so it may be months before a Senate version is ready for a vote.
Waxman used California as a model.
California leads the nation on climate change legislation, with targets for renewable energy and a regional carbon trading market set to launch in 2012, absent a federal plan.
The state has raised its goals over the years to the governor's current target of one third of electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind by 2020. The original target of 20 percent of electricity from renewable electricity by 2017 has been changed a number of times.
The House bill would require 20 percent of electricity from renewables and energy efficiency gains by 2020, Waxman said.
"I would have liked a more aggressive approach," Waxman said, but the bill had to face political realities.
"So what we did is look to California's example. ... We can strengthen the renewable standards over time. The essential thing is to get something in place and get going with this now, as California has done."
Saturday, August 22, 2009
CM was warned of drought last month: Pachauri
In less than 24 hours after the Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar’s admission that the country is facing draught like situation, another revelation came to the fore on Saturday — the Maharashtra Chief Minister was warned of drought only last month by none other than the chief of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) R K Pachauri.
Pachauri was speaking from Delhi at a teleconference on ‘International Conference on Reverence for Mother Earth: Solutions to Combat Global Warming’, organised in the city. Chairman of Vanrai Mohan Dharia presided over the conference. Pachauri said he had a meeting with the Chief Minister last month where he discussed various issues related to climate change. “I had informed the CM about the extreme precipitation events taking place due to climate change. We had predicted that some rural parts of Maharashtra might face draught owing to extreme precipitation events,” he said. Pachauri said the heavy rains in Mumbai in 2005 had also happened due to extreme precipitation events. “These events are going to multiply in coming years. Though there may be heavy rains in some parts, most of the tropical and sub-tropical areas may be receiving lower rainfall,” he said.
He said the climate change was a symptom of a larger problem. “Issues like implementation of sustainable development policies should be looked into seriously. There is a need to make changes in lifestyle and make it more in harmony with the nature,” he said.
Referring to global warming, Pachauri said the IPCC has projected increase of 1.1 to 6.4 degree Celsius in the next century. “The signs of this increase are already evident in the form of intense heat waves across the world. In 2003, around 35,000 people died in Europe due to heat waves. It has reduced the crop yield too. In India, the effect is seen in decreasing wheat production,” he said.
“The lack of reverence to mother earth is compounding the issue. However, solutions are there. Reducing greenhouse gases by reducing burning of fossil fuels can be done immediately,” he said. He, however, warned that it should be done at a much faster rate.
Eminent scientists Raghunath Mashelkar, Vijay Bhatkar, vice consular of the US Dines Tidwell, Vandana Chavan of NGO Alert were also present on the occasion. President of World Foundation on Reverence for All Life Bahri B R Malhotra welcomed the guest, secretary J G Patil proposed the vote of thanks.
-->
-->
Pachauri was speaking from Delhi at a teleconference on ‘International Conference on Reverence for Mother Earth: Solutions to Combat Global Warming’, organised in the city. Chairman of Vanrai Mohan Dharia presided over the conference. Pachauri said he had a meeting with the Chief Minister last month where he discussed various issues related to climate change. “I had informed the CM about the extreme precipitation events taking place due to climate change. We had predicted that some rural parts of Maharashtra might face draught owing to extreme precipitation events,” he said. Pachauri said the heavy rains in Mumbai in 2005 had also happened due to extreme precipitation events. “These events are going to multiply in coming years. Though there may be heavy rains in some parts, most of the tropical and sub-tropical areas may be receiving lower rainfall,” he said.
He said the climate change was a symptom of a larger problem. “Issues like implementation of sustainable development policies should be looked into seriously. There is a need to make changes in lifestyle and make it more in harmony with the nature,” he said.
Referring to global warming, Pachauri said the IPCC has projected increase of 1.1 to 6.4 degree Celsius in the next century. “The signs of this increase are already evident in the form of intense heat waves across the world. In 2003, around 35,000 people died in Europe due to heat waves. It has reduced the crop yield too. In India, the effect is seen in decreasing wheat production,” he said.
“The lack of reverence to mother earth is compounding the issue. However, solutions are there. Reducing greenhouse gases by reducing burning of fossil fuels can be done immediately,” he said. He, however, warned that it should be done at a much faster rate.
Eminent scientists Raghunath Mashelkar, Vijay Bhatkar, vice consular of the US Dines Tidwell, Vandana Chavan of NGO Alert were also present on the occasion. President of World Foundation on Reverence for All Life Bahri B R Malhotra welcomed the guest, secretary J G Patil proposed the vote of thanks.
-->
-->
Global warming of 7 degree Celsius could kill billions of people this century
new research has suggested that global temperatures could rise by more than 7 degree Celsius this century, killing billions of people and leaving the world on the brink of total collapse.
According to a report in the Telegraph, the study, carried out in unprecedented detail, projected that without "rapid and massive action", temperatures worldwide will increase by as much as 7.
degrees C by 2100, from levels seen in 2000.
Previous estimates have concluded that the likely increase this century would probably be 2.4C (4.3F). However, the new study by scientists at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) included projected economic growth in developing countries and new information on the affect increased carbon emissions will have on biological processes, such as the capacity of the ocean to absorb greenhouse gases.
The results are based on 400 trials of the new system, each time using slightly different variations in data at the start to try and iron out errors.
Study co-author Ronald Prinn, Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry
and director of MIT's Centre for Global Climate Change, said all the results resulted in an increase in temperatures.
The projections average out at a likely Earth temperature increase of 5.2 C this century, and conclude there is a 90 per cent chance the temperature change will be between 3.5 C and 7.4 C.
"Overall, they stacked up so they caused more projected global warming. There is significantly more risk than we previously expected," said Prinn.
"This increases the urgency for significant policy action. There is no way the world can and should take these risks," he added.
According to Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken, if the new research by MIT is accurate, the results for the planet would be catastrophic.
He called for the world to try and reduce the chance of such an increase in temperatures by committing to reduce carbon emissions at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen at the end of this year.
"The consequences of such changes would be off the known scale. They are unthinkable," he said.
"A 7.4 C rise would mean severe ecosystem collapse worldwide, with total economic collapse in many parts of the world," he added.
"The planet would face resource wars between people, and you can safely say many, many hundred of millions of people would die," he further added
According to a report in the Telegraph, the study, carried out in unprecedented detail, projected that without "rapid and massive action", temperatures worldwide will increase by as much as 7.
degrees C by 2100, from levels seen in 2000.
Previous estimates have concluded that the likely increase this century would probably be 2.4C (4.3F). However, the new study by scientists at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) included projected economic growth in developing countries and new information on the affect increased carbon emissions will have on biological processes, such as the capacity of the ocean to absorb greenhouse gases.
The results are based on 400 trials of the new system, each time using slightly different variations in data at the start to try and iron out errors.
Study co-author Ronald Prinn, Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry
and director of MIT's Centre for Global Climate Change, said all the results resulted in an increase in temperatures.
The projections average out at a likely Earth temperature increase of 5.2 C this century, and conclude there is a 90 per cent chance the temperature change will be between 3.5 C and 7.4 C.
"Overall, they stacked up so they caused more projected global warming. There is significantly more risk than we previously expected," said Prinn.
"This increases the urgency for significant policy action. There is no way the world can and should take these risks," he added.
According to Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken, if the new research by MIT is accurate, the results for the planet would be catastrophic.
He called for the world to try and reduce the chance of such an increase in temperatures by committing to reduce carbon emissions at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen at the end of this year.
"The consequences of such changes would be off the known scale. They are unthinkable," he said.
"A 7.4 C rise would mean severe ecosystem collapse worldwide, with total economic collapse in many parts of the world," he added.
"The planet would face resource wars between people, and you can safely say many, many hundred of millions of people would die," he further added
Global warming can be an insurer's nightmare
Hot extremes of temperature result in heat waves and draught; cold extremes of temperature result in frost; rainfall extremes result in flash flood or draught; and intensified mid-latitude storms and tropical cyclones result in wind storm, snow storms, hailstorm and avalanche, which affects insurance for health, life, property, vehicle, business interruption, agriculture and food stuff.
The insurance industry must face up to the growing threat of climate change or risk financial ruin. Insurers must act now to understand and actively manage risks from emerging threats such as greenhouse gases and rising sea levels. Although it's been almost two decades since the UN recognised that climate change was a catastrophic threat to earth, it is clear that the insurance industry has not taken catastrophe trends seriously enough. With recent scientific evidence suggesting that climate change is happening faster than previously thought, investment in research and a change in industry behaviour are long overdue.
Recent natural disasters have revealed the inadequacy of capital and pricing models, so catastrophe models must be updated regularly to keep pace with the latest scientific evidence. The industry must take a new approach to underwriting, looking ahead and factoring in climate change scenarios, rather than simply basing decisions on historical records. Insurers must prepare for the impact of climate change on asset values and regularly review and communicate conditions of coverage in light of the impact of climate change.
Rating agencies are retooling their models and many are worried what the new views of catastrophe risk from these concerns like global warming menace will mean for the industry.
Fitch Ratings has released a draft of its new Prism rating model and asked insurers, investors, brokers, investment bankers, regulatory bodies and other individuals and organisations to comment by July 10. Fitch hopes to complete the shift to the Prism model in early 2007.
Standard & Poor's has also issued major revisions to its insurer latest capital model, which is not dynamic as Fitch but still recognises the preparedness for scenarios like global warming.
Industry leaders need to get the message to front-line underwriters to maintain pricing discipline, but even that won't prevent inevitable soft markets or a potential competitive pricing 'bloodbath' by very insensitive nature of insurance regulation. Who cares for a ruin reserve on a slow surfacing risk like global warming?
Speaking at the Standard & Poor's Insurance Conference in New York, the chief executives Ed Kelly of Boston-based Liberty Mutual, Martin Sullivan of New York-based American International Group and Dinos Iordanou of Bermuda-based Arch Capital Group admitted in unison, "We don't seem to learn from the mistakes of the past. That's a fact. Some of us are in this business for 36 years, and candidly, we don't like good times forever. The down cycles of soft markets that have emerged are always longer than the up cycles. It's always been lack of capacity that's driven prices upward, dwindling capacity in the property market, particularly in catastrophe-prone regions, is pushing those prices up. We're seeing price changes daily. Even if there's plenty of capacity, the price of coverage is pretty steep. For example in Mexican standoff between buyers and sellers, the buyers are waiting for somebody to blink. And given that it's already a few days into hurricane season, some blinking is going to happen soon. If there's a moderate hurricane season, we are concerned that there will be a bloodbath in the fall in pricing, as perceived excess capacity may push top-line thinking to take over overnight."
This illustrates the helplessness of even global insurance leaders to tackle their own insider indiscipline.
The insurance industry must face up to the growing threat of climate change or risk financial ruin. Insurers must act now to understand and actively manage risks from emerging threats such as greenhouse gases and rising sea levels. Although it's been almost two decades since the UN recognised that climate change was a catastrophic threat to earth, it is clear that the insurance industry has not taken catastrophe trends seriously enough. With recent scientific evidence suggesting that climate change is happening faster than previously thought, investment in research and a change in industry behaviour are long overdue.
Recent natural disasters have revealed the inadequacy of capital and pricing models, so catastrophe models must be updated regularly to keep pace with the latest scientific evidence. The industry must take a new approach to underwriting, looking ahead and factoring in climate change scenarios, rather than simply basing decisions on historical records. Insurers must prepare for the impact of climate change on asset values and regularly review and communicate conditions of coverage in light of the impact of climate change.
Rating agencies are retooling their models and many are worried what the new views of catastrophe risk from these concerns like global warming menace will mean for the industry.
Fitch Ratings has released a draft of its new Prism rating model and asked insurers, investors, brokers, investment bankers, regulatory bodies and other individuals and organisations to comment by July 10. Fitch hopes to complete the shift to the Prism model in early 2007.
Standard & Poor's has also issued major revisions to its insurer latest capital model, which is not dynamic as Fitch but still recognises the preparedness for scenarios like global warming.
Industry leaders need to get the message to front-line underwriters to maintain pricing discipline, but even that won't prevent inevitable soft markets or a potential competitive pricing 'bloodbath' by very insensitive nature of insurance regulation. Who cares for a ruin reserve on a slow surfacing risk like global warming?
Speaking at the Standard & Poor's Insurance Conference in New York, the chief executives Ed Kelly of Boston-based Liberty Mutual, Martin Sullivan of New York-based American International Group and Dinos Iordanou of Bermuda-based Arch Capital Group admitted in unison, "We don't seem to learn from the mistakes of the past. That's a fact. Some of us are in this business for 36 years, and candidly, we don't like good times forever. The down cycles of soft markets that have emerged are always longer than the up cycles. It's always been lack of capacity that's driven prices upward, dwindling capacity in the property market, particularly in catastrophe-prone regions, is pushing those prices up. We're seeing price changes daily. Even if there's plenty of capacity, the price of coverage is pretty steep. For example in Mexican standoff between buyers and sellers, the buyers are waiting for somebody to blink. And given that it's already a few days into hurricane season, some blinking is going to happen soon. If there's a moderate hurricane season, we are concerned that there will be a bloodbath in the fall in pricing, as perceived excess capacity may push top-line thinking to take over overnight."
This illustrates the helplessness of even global insurance leaders to tackle their own insider indiscipline.
Hillary Rodham Clinton displayed the naïvete, economic suicide
Hillary Rodham Clinton displayed the naïvete of a 19th-century Bible Society lecturer recently when she badgered India to embrace the Gospel of Global Warming by curtailing its sinful output of carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) — commonly known as greenhouse gases.
One could almost hear the imperial strains of Sir Arthur Sullivan’s “Onward Christian soldiers” as the U.S. Secretary of State met with Indian officials in New Delhi late last month.
In essence, Mrs. Clinton told India’s leaders to put their nation’s prosperity on hold in order to drastically curtail their carbon dioxide emissions that she, her close political pal Al Gore and many scientists say are causing catastrophic climate changes.
The sum of the message was that India can accomplish this feat by slashing electricity output from coal-fired power plants.
Indian Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh listened to Secretary Clinton’s plea with extreme politeness and then told her to bug off.
With more than two-thirds of India’s estimated 1.2-billion people living in abject poverty, Mr. Ramesh bluntly informed Mrs. Clinton his country had no intention of committing economic suicide by signing a global treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
“There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have the lowest emissions level per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Mr. Rameesh told his startled visitor, adding, “and if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”
Despite the remarkable progress of India in the few decades since it discarded the shopworn socialist system introduced by Nehru in 1948, 800-million of its people still live on $2 a day or less.
She had marginally more luck in China where government leaders said after some delay, that they may consider setting carbon dioxide emission targets. In short, the Chinese still rejected her pleas with more nuance, but left a crack open.Whether this spoonful of sugar was intended to sweeten the bitter draught is open to interpretation. The real reason may have been a simple calculation that soothing the top diplomat from China’s best customer can do harm. China’s cumulative trade surplus with the United States runs into the trillions of dollars.
Carbon dioxide looks different in Beijing and New Delhi than in Washington or Ottawa. Anyone who has walked through the slums of Mumbai would realize th at the real pollutants are raw sewage, tainted water, chemical discharges and cow dung. The near-permanent brown clouds stretching hundreds of miles into the Indian Ocean say that millions of Indians must burn dry cow dung to warm their hovels and cook their meals.
Leaders at the controls of India’s full-throttle economic engine understand something the Obamas and Clintons of the world just don’t get; for sheer survival, it really is the economy — stupid.
The key to cleaning up the Earth’s most polluted air lies in prosperity, not in unctuous moralizing. Indians and Chinese will demand clean air when they can afford it. They see that in the United States and Canada, corporate profits and taxes pay for cleaning up the environment —and they are willing to wait until the same thing is true for them.
Cars built and sold in North America are 98 percent less polluting than they were in 1973. Industrial smokestacks no longer spew a witches’ brew of toxicity. There is fishing and swimming in rivers where oil and chemical slicks covered the water and would catch fire — as happened in Cleveland when the Cuyahoga lit up in flames.
Chinese and Indian leaders disagree with their counterparts in Washington and Ottawa. In Beijing and New Delhi, the governing class understands that gutting their countries’ economies with cap-and-trade carbon taxes, will not scrub the air clean, but could well raise the price of actually doing so far beyond what is acceptable.
That’s why Mr. Rameesh dowsed Mrs. Clinton with the cold water of reality. In my view, it would good if he would do as much for Al Gore, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, respectively the former vice president, then chairman of the Hour Energy Committee, the speaker of the House, and arguably the most vehement woman in the Senate.
The quartet would be more effective in putting carbon dioxide emissions under control, if instead of posturing, they concentrating on setting doable targets and realistic ways to reach them.
One could almost hear the imperial strains of Sir Arthur Sullivan’s “Onward Christian soldiers” as the U.S. Secretary of State met with Indian officials in New Delhi late last month.
In essence, Mrs. Clinton told India’s leaders to put their nation’s prosperity on hold in order to drastically curtail their carbon dioxide emissions that she, her close political pal Al Gore and many scientists say are causing catastrophic climate changes.
The sum of the message was that India can accomplish this feat by slashing electricity output from coal-fired power plants.
Indian Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh listened to Secretary Clinton’s plea with extreme politeness and then told her to bug off.
With more than two-thirds of India’s estimated 1.2-billion people living in abject poverty, Mr. Ramesh bluntly informed Mrs. Clinton his country had no intention of committing economic suicide by signing a global treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
“There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have the lowest emissions level per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Mr. Rameesh told his startled visitor, adding, “and if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”
Despite the remarkable progress of India in the few decades since it discarded the shopworn socialist system introduced by Nehru in 1948, 800-million of its people still live on $2 a day or less.
She had marginally more luck in China where government leaders said after some delay, that they may consider setting carbon dioxide emission targets. In short, the Chinese still rejected her pleas with more nuance, but left a crack open.Whether this spoonful of sugar was intended to sweeten the bitter draught is open to interpretation. The real reason may have been a simple calculation that soothing the top diplomat from China’s best customer can do harm. China’s cumulative trade surplus with the United States runs into the trillions of dollars.
Carbon dioxide looks different in Beijing and New Delhi than in Washington or Ottawa. Anyone who has walked through the slums of Mumbai would realize th at the real pollutants are raw sewage, tainted water, chemical discharges and cow dung. The near-permanent brown clouds stretching hundreds of miles into the Indian Ocean say that millions of Indians must burn dry cow dung to warm their hovels and cook their meals.
Leaders at the controls of India’s full-throttle economic engine understand something the Obamas and Clintons of the world just don’t get; for sheer survival, it really is the economy — stupid.
The key to cleaning up the Earth’s most polluted air lies in prosperity, not in unctuous moralizing. Indians and Chinese will demand clean air when they can afford it. They see that in the United States and Canada, corporate profits and taxes pay for cleaning up the environment —and they are willing to wait until the same thing is true for them.
Cars built and sold in North America are 98 percent less polluting than they were in 1973. Industrial smokestacks no longer spew a witches’ brew of toxicity. There is fishing and swimming in rivers where oil and chemical slicks covered the water and would catch fire — as happened in Cleveland when the Cuyahoga lit up in flames.
Chinese and Indian leaders disagree with their counterparts in Washington and Ottawa. In Beijing and New Delhi, the governing class understands that gutting their countries’ economies with cap-and-trade carbon taxes, will not scrub the air clean, but could well raise the price of actually doing so far beyond what is acceptable.
That’s why Mr. Rameesh dowsed Mrs. Clinton with the cold water of reality. In my view, it would good if he would do as much for Al Gore, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, respectively the former vice president, then chairman of the Hour Energy Committee, the speaker of the House, and arguably the most vehement woman in the Senate.
The quartet would be more effective in putting carbon dioxide emissions under control, if instead of posturing, they concentrating on setting doable targets and realistic ways to reach them.
Obama to visit China mid-November
President Barack Obama will visit China in mid-November, the new United States ambassador to Beijing said on Saturday, setting a date for a big summit likely to tackle the global economy, North Korea and climate change.
Washington's new envoy to Beijing, Jon Huntsman Jr., told reporters Obama "is going to be visiting in the middle of November," but he did not give specific dates.
Until now, neither Beijing nor Washington has publicly given such a firm time for the big visit.
It means the U.S. President is likely to go to Beijing and perhaps other regional capitals after the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders' summit in Singapore on 14-15 November.
Huntsman, speaking at his residence after arriving in the Chinese capital, said relations between the two economic and political powers were improving.
"By the end of the year, we should be in better shape than ever before between the United States and China," he said, in a speech that switched between English and fluent Mandarin Chinese.
But Obama's summit with Chinese President Hu Jintao will also confront thorny differences with Beijing on trade and economic policy, North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions, and climate change policy, with nations seeking to agree in December on a new international pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
China has chided Washington for policy failings exposed by the financial meltdown, has resisted U.S. calls to pressure Pyongyang with tougher sanctions, and said rich countries must lead the way in greenhouse gas emissions cuts.
"There has never been a more important period for the United States and China to get along," said Huntsman. "The world today more than ever before relies too much on a healthy and stable U.S.-China relationship."
With his strong personal ties to China and fluent Mandarin, Huntsman is likely to be a high-profile envoy.
Huntsman mastered Chinese as a missionary in Taiwan. He was the Republican governor of Utah before accepting the ambassadorship, and also worked as a U.S. trade official.
Huntsman's family founded chemical company Huntsman Corp, which has operations in China, including a factory in Shanghai. One of his seven children was adopted from China.
Washington's new envoy to Beijing, Jon Huntsman Jr., told reporters Obama "is going to be visiting in the middle of November," but he did not give specific dates.
Until now, neither Beijing nor Washington has publicly given such a firm time for the big visit.
It means the U.S. President is likely to go to Beijing and perhaps other regional capitals after the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders' summit in Singapore on 14-15 November.
Huntsman, speaking at his residence after arriving in the Chinese capital, said relations between the two economic and political powers were improving.
"By the end of the year, we should be in better shape than ever before between the United States and China," he said, in a speech that switched between English and fluent Mandarin Chinese.
But Obama's summit with Chinese President Hu Jintao will also confront thorny differences with Beijing on trade and economic policy, North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions, and climate change policy, with nations seeking to agree in December on a new international pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
China has chided Washington for policy failings exposed by the financial meltdown, has resisted U.S. calls to pressure Pyongyang with tougher sanctions, and said rich countries must lead the way in greenhouse gas emissions cuts.
"There has never been a more important period for the United States and China to get along," said Huntsman. "The world today more than ever before relies too much on a healthy and stable U.S.-China relationship."
With his strong personal ties to China and fluent Mandarin, Huntsman is likely to be a high-profile envoy.
Huntsman mastered Chinese as a missionary in Taiwan. He was the Republican governor of Utah before accepting the ambassadorship, and also worked as a U.S. trade official.
Huntsman's family founded chemical company Huntsman Corp, which has operations in China, including a factory in Shanghai. One of his seven children was adopted from China.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Global Youth United in Efforts to Stop Climate Change
CBS morning show had a piece on the youth activism around global climate change. Young people like 15-year-old Alec Loorz is taking
"his message across the country, using poles to illustrate the predicted sea level rise if nothing is done to prevent global warning."
But this generation of youth isn't new to global warming nor the activism surrounding it. The 1990's brought a nation wide effort in Canada called the Youth Alliance for the "Turnaround Decade" where young people advocated for solutions to climate change, and young people in California particularly advocated for recycling programs when environmental activists invested in a generation of young people who also convinced their parents to take action. And who can ever forget growing up with Jesse the good-hearted environmentalist on Saved by the Bell (before she became a stripper). There was even an entire episode about how "drill baby drill" on the school football field killed hundreds of the crew's beloved science pets in the school's pond.
A whole generation of youth from 35 and under grew up with saving the world from ourselves and the extenuation of "last chances" has sputtered on and on like an old diesel engine.
The fight among young people to stop global warming isn't merely a US fight, its become the common bond to unite a generation of our planet's youth. The UN's Environment Program announced Thursday it's new partnership with the Republic of Korea for increased reduction in carbon emissions.
But while UN officials met with State Leaders, 700 young people ranging from 10 to 24 attended the largest ever UN backed global youth gathering on taking action against climate change.
"They issued a declaration, entitled “Listen to Our Voices: The Future Needs Strong Vision and Leadership,” expressing their “concern and frustration that their governments are not doing enough to combat climate change,” and emphasizing that “we now need more actions and less talking.”
The week-long Tunza Children and Youth Conference on the Environment is part of the UN’s “Seal the Deal” campaign spearheaded by the Secretary-General, who has made tackling global warming one of his top priorities.
The young people’s “voices will and must be heard because they will inherit the outcomes of our actions,” Mr. Ban said."
India too has noted the importance with incorporating youth into a global climate change agenda.
"Calling for strengthening the scientific foundations of environment policies with mass participation, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Tuesday. "We must involve more stakeholders, particularly youth, to lead the movement for environmental protection."
If only we'd listened to Saved by the Bell back in 1991, we wouldn't be drilling anymore or using styrofoam containers. Instead a quiet majority works through the process to enact meaningful social change in hopes that the threats of a last chance decade can be pushed off for another ten years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)