Canad i ans for Act ion on Climate Change Change the system – not the climate

1. Canadians for Action on Climate Change Change the system – not the climate

2. Canadians for Action on Climate Change Government’s key role is to serve as the trustee of the commonwealth and the common health for this and future generations.  Yet … Canada now stands out as one of the last major industrialized countries opposed to targets for deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and one of the biggest blockers of climate change negotiations. Canadians for Action on Climate Change is a developing non-profit NGO of activists, academia, physicians and citizens focusing on climate change, true cost economy and relocalization. Our organization seeks to provide news, reports and analysis to inform, educate and develop environmental policies for all levels of government in Canada.  We are committed to being part of an international movement against destruction of our shared environment.  Our current economy is unsustainable and an unethical catalyst to ever increasing global warming. This model assumes endless growth and limitless potential wealth that completely disregards the fact that the earth’s life support capacity is finite.  We respect the integrity, resilience, and beauty of the common wealth of all life as the foundation for a new sustainable economic model for our finite planet that will benefit generations to come. You can contact us at canadianclimateaction@gmail.com http://canadianclimateaction.wordpress.com/

3. As the Coral Triangle Group calls for 50% emissions reductions by 2015, Bolivia calls for 49% and the Small Island States for a minimum of 45% - both by 2020 … all based on 1990 baselines. The following are the commitments that are now being broadly announced.  All designed around different baselines in order to confuse the public.  Let’s look at 5 countries to start - India, China, US, Canada & the EU.

4. World on course for catastrophic 6° rise, reveal scientists | November 18th, 2009 The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. Such a rise – which would be much higher nearer the poles – would have cataclysmic and irreversible consequences for the Earth, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and threatening the basis of human civilisation. We are headed for it, the scientists said, because the carbon dioxide emissions from industry, transport and deforestation which are responsible for warming the atmosphere have increased dramatically since 2002, in a way which no one anticipated, and are now running at treble the annual rate of the 1990s. This means that the most extreme scenario envisaged in the last report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2007, is now the one for which society is set, according to the 31 researchers from seven countries involved in the Global Carbon Project. Although the 6C rise and its potential disastrous effects have been speculated upon before, this is the first time that scientists have said that society is now on a path to meet it. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html

5. Copenhagen will formalize a great global suicide pact.  We are cutting our own throats so that the banks and fossil fuel corporations can drain the last drop of blood out of humanity and our living Earth.  We are witnessing the ultimate unimaginable evil - the predatory free (of ethics) market economy that is starving more than half the world alive today and future generations to death. Targets are useless if we don't have a real way to meet them.  One of the only measures that can save humanity now (in our current monetary system) is a global pollution tax / a straight up carbon tax which – a critical tax which is being kept off of the agenda.  No trading – no selling – no profiting – just taxing carbon to death (literally).

6. India announces 24% emission ‘intensity’ reductions from 2005 baseline by 2020: IN REALITY THIS MEANS: Percentage relative to 1990: +34.2% Percentage relative to 1994: +35.5% Percentage relative to 2000:  -8.6% Percentage relative to 1005: -24.0% Percentage relative to 2020: -61.2%

7. China announces 40% emission ‘intensity’ reductions from 2005 baseline: IN REALITY THIS MEANS: Percentage relative to 1990: +38.0% Percentage relative to 1994: +19.6% Percentage relative to 2000:  -8.5% Percentage relative to 2005: -40.0% Percentage relative to 2020: -58.2%

8. Even if China succeeds in improving carbon intensity, Chinese greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow for some time, as the Chinese economy itself will be growing. It's not clear from the pledge how large China's emissions will be by 2020, but if the country's economy continues to grow at its typical 8% to 12% annual rate, its carbon emissions could nearly double between now and then.

9. Carbon intensity targets are like CCS – Carbon Capture Storage – a greenwash for the public that looks like action but really is to continue business as usual. Increased economic growth and corporate output ensure that any reductions will be subsumed by expanding operations. We all know that nature doesn’t care about emissions intensities. The absolute concentration of greenhouse gases is what will determine the severity of the climate crisis.  Once we pass irreversible tipping points – there is no going back.

10. US announces 17% emission reductions from 2005 baseline by 2020: IN REALITY THIS MEANS: Percentage relative to 1990: -3.4% Percentage relative to 1994: -7.8% Percentage relative to 2000:  -15.7% Percentage relative to 2005:  -17.% Percentage relative to 2007: -17.3% Percentage relative to 2020: -15.7% ***John Schellnhuber, director of the ‘Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research’: Most recently, Schellnhuber told the 4 degrees and beyond conference in Oxford: “Political reality must be grounded in physical reality or it’s completely useless.” Schellnhuber recently briefed U.S. officials from the Barack Obama administration – he states that they chided him that his findings were “not grounded in political reality” and that “the [U.S.] Senate will never agree to this”.  Schellnhuber told them that the U.S. must reduce its emissions from its current 20 tonnes of carbon per person average to zero tonnes per person by 2020 to have an even chance of stabilising the climate around two degrees C.

11. Canada announces 20% emission reductions from 2006 baseline by 2020: (I had to use 2005 as a baseline as 2006 stats were not available) IN REALITY THIS MEANS: Percentage relative to 1990: -1.2% Percentage relative to 1994: -6.2% Percentage relative to 2000:  -18.5% Percentage relative to 2005:  -17.% Percentage relative to 2007: -21.7% Percentage relative to 2020: -23.6%

12. EU announces 20% emission reductions from 2006 baseline by 2020: (I had to use 2005 as a baseline as 2006 stats were not available) IN REALITY THIS MEANS: Percentage relative to 1990: -20.0% Percentage relative to 1994: -13.7% Percentage relative to 2000:  -11.8% Percentage relative to 2005:  -12.8% Percentage relative to 2007: -11.7% Percentage relative to 2020: -4.6%

13. Cutting carbon intensity was George Bush’s proposal for tackling climate change. The minority Harper government followed.  In Canada, industry and government alike have championed carbon intensity targets instead of placing absolute caps on emissions to mitigate the climate change impact of extracting oil from tar sands. This is simply a greenwash. Carbon intensity targets merely distract from the reality that tar sands should be shut down. Because they are the dirtiest and most destructive energy source on the planet, carbon intensity targets are meaningless in the face of plans to triple production between now and 2020. If Canada was serious about climate change, it would leave the tar sands in the ground and invest in true renewables.

14. Agriculture Collapsing: 63–82% cut in US crop yields for temperature alone ! Wolfram Schlenker and Michael J. Roberts Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change PNAS 2009 106:15594-15598; published online before print August 28, 2009, doi:10.1073/pnas.0906865106 Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change

15. The United States produces 41% of the world's corn and 38% of the world's soybeans. These crops comprise two of the four largest sources of caloric energy produced and are thus critical for world food supply. We pair a panel of county-level yields for these two crops, plus cotton (a warmer-weather crop), with a new fine-scale weather dataset that incorporates the whole distribution of temperatures within each day and across all days in the growing season. We find that yields increase with temperature up to 29° C for corn, 30° C for soybeans, and 32° C for cotton but that temperatures above these thresholds are very harmful. The slope of the decline above the optimum is significantly steeper than the incline below it. The same nonlinear and asymmetric relationship is found when we isolate either time-series or cross-sectional variations in temperatures and yields. This suggests limited historical adaptation of seed varieties or management practices to warmer temperatures because the cross-section includes farmers' adaptations to warmer climates and the time-series does not. Holding current growing regions fixed, area-weighted average yields are predicted to decrease by 30–46% before the end of the century under the slowest (B1) warming scenario and decrease by 63–82% under the most rapid warming scenario (A1FI) under the Hadley III model.

16. The only science that is recognized for Copenhagen 2009 is ‘IPCC 07 AR4’ on science up to the year 2006. While this is insane - there has been no objection made to this.  The most compelling science on ever accelerating climate change is all most recent. However - the torrent of scientific data to emerge since IPPC 07 has led many scientists to sound the alarms.

17. http://www.planetdiet.org/pdf/Slideshow_Climate%20Change%20and%20Livestock%20Farming-opt.pdfhttp://www.planetdiet.org/pdf/Slideshow_Climate%20Change%20and%20Livestock%20Farming-opt.pdf The greatest single opportunity for reducing emissions and retaining carbon is the reform of global food production. Food production is the largest source of GHG emissions and so must be addresses as a priority. We need a conversion of all fossil fuel subsidies to organic agro forestry that does not raise livestock for slaughter.

18. METHANE Livestock causes over 50% of global warming GHG emissions according to a the just published Worldwatch paper. This huge increase in past estimates is because the IPCC underestimates the warming effect of methane by stretching it out over 100 years. This is future discounting of methane's warming and is not scientific. World watch used a 20 year IPCC number of 72 X CO2. http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf While the IPC uses a global warming potential for methane of 25 X CO2 (CO2 being 1) the actual global warming effect of methane emissions that last 12 years in the atmosphere is close to 100. http://fixtheclimate.com/component-1/the-solutions-new-research/methane/ Research (not related to above) published this month by Drew Shindell increases methane warming by another 40%. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6895907.ece

19. Main methane sources include livestock landfills.  We can stop both of these. A global transition from the livestock industry to plant agriculture will stop the main cause of deforestation (80%) therefore will drastically reduce CO2 emissions. A plant based diet would be a catalyst to immense benefits in human health.  We would see a immediate, steep decline in a health care crisis we currently face in developed / developing countries. (obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.)

20. The IPCC makes no recommendations - as Rajendra Pachauri, (Chairman of IPCC) confirmed in a recent public statement on 350 ppm[1]. This means that Copenhagen has no formal recommendations from the IPCC. The IPCC states that the only policy recommendations can come from policy makers. [1] As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations,” said Rajendra Pachauri when asked if he supported calls to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below 350 ppm.  “But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target,” http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-25-pachauri-call-for-350-breakthrough-moment-for-climate-movement/

21. The IPCC states it cannot define or declare what dangerous interference is[1].  [1] Indeed, the 2007 IPCC report never mentions the word "dangerous," apparently substituting the term "reasons for concern." The IPCC itself does not define a level at which climate change becomes "dangerous."http://www.climate-change-emergency-medical-response.org/defining-dangerous-climate-change.html

22. The Copenhagen Science Congress which is fully aware of the post IPCC science still states it cannot declare what dangerous interference is.  They state that only 'society' can decide[1]. [1] “It is crucial that in Copenhagen in December 2009 governments from across the world reach agreement on tackling the challenge of climate change on a collective basis. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has as its central objective actions to avoid a level of human interference with the earth's climate system that could be termed as dangerous. Yet, after 17 years of agreement on this Convention the world has still not agreed on what would constitute a dangerous level of anthropogenic interference.” http://blog.rkpachauri.org/blog/13/Why-Copenhagen-is-important-for-the-future-of-human-civilization.htm

23. The IPCC mitigation calculations that are being referred to by all countries, have omitted the additional warming from all carbon feedbacks which is beyond dangerous.[1] [1] Cf. Annex 1 p. 31

24. It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. Jiddu Krishnamurti

25. APATHY – THE CANCER OF OUIR SOCIETY We are now at a crossroads.  Some citizens have such a deep sense of entitlement that they actually fight for their ‘right’ to harm our shared environment.  Such individuals are so disconnected from nature that they do not understand that their perceived ‘right’ to pollute and degrade our shared environment is at the expense of not only their own health, but the health and welfare of their own children and the people they love.  Such perceived ‘rights’ and senses of entitlement are the root cause of climate change which now kills 300,000 people per year. 

26. Late 2008: Hadley Centre (UK) researchers announced new calculations that suggest a rise of up to +7 ºC by 2100. And in early in 2009, so did MIT. If these projected potential increases occur, climate extremes will render the planet UNLIVABLE for most life by around +6 ºC (or less) which, incredibly, could become a reality BEFORE THE END OF THIS CENTURY.

27. In short, the fate of perhaps the next 100 billion people to walk the Earth rests with scientists (and those who understand the science) trying to communicate the dire nature of the climate problem (and the myriad solutions available now) as well as the ability of the media, the public, opinion-makers and political leaders to understand and deal with that science. Two additional papers were published by ‘Nature’ in April 2009. While governments and the United Nations set targets for cuts by a certain date, this science measured something quite different. It measured the total volume of carbon dioxide we can produce while still standing a good chance of avoiding more than two degrees of warming.

28. The obvious conclusions from these three papers are glaring. Firstly - The trajectory of cuts is more important than the final destination. An 80% cut by 2050, for example, could produce very different outcomes. If much of the cut were made towards the beginning of the period, the total emissions entering the atmosphere would be much smaller than if most of the cut were made at the end of the period. Secondly - The measure that counts is the peak atmospheric concentration. This means that emissions must down to zero, as soon as possible. Why would any rational person wait until 2015 to hit ‘peak’ emissions?

29. This means that what the governments hoped about the trajectory of temperature change are ill-founded. Most, including Canada’s, are working on the assumption that we can overshoot the desired targets for temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2, then watch them settle back later. What this science shows - is that wherever temperatures peak, that is more or less where they will stay. There is no going back.

30. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, the December climate conference in Copenhagen is being set up to fail.  There is thus far no mention of the need to achieve virtual zero CO2 emissions as quickly as possible and there is an ongoing denial that the world has reached a state of emergency beyond the point of “dangerous interference” with the climate system that threatens the ability of vulnerable populations (e.g. children, not even mentioned), future generations and most other life to survive.

31. None of this is currently on the table. The targets and methodology being used by governments and the United Nations - which will form the basis for their negotiations at Copenhagen - are not even wrong; they are irrelevant. If we do not set the record right on dangerous interference now it never will be corrected and there will be no hope for the future.  Time is not on our side. We are rapidly shifting the composition of the atmosphere, raising levels of carbon dioxide higher than they’ve been in at least the past 800,000 years.

32. Climate scientists have discovered a particularly inconvenient truth: by the time definitive predictions of climate change are adopted by scientific consensus, the climate system may have reached a tipping point at which climate change begins to feed on itself—and becomes essentially irreversible for centuries into the future. The trajectory of current melting plummets through the IPCC graphs like giant meteorites falling to earth. As the ice disappears, the region becomes darker, which means that it absorbs more heat. White ice and snow reflect 80 percent of sunlight back to space, while dark water reflects only 20 percent, absorbing a much larger heat load. A recent paper published in ‘Geophysical Research Letters’[1] shows that the extra warming caused by disappearing sea ice penetrates 1500km inland, covering almost the entire region of continuous permafrost.

33. Arctic permafrost contains twice as much carbon as the entire global atmosphere. It remains safe for as long as the ground stays frozen. But themelting has begun. Methane gushers are now gassing out of some places with such force that they keep the water open in Arctic lakes, through the winter.[2] The rapidly melting permafrost is unleashing methane chimneys from the ocean floor along the Russian coastline. Methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more toxic than carbon dioxide. [1] Lawrence David M., Slater Andrew G. Tomas Robert A., Holland Marika M., Deser Clara, “Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss”, Geophysical Research Letters, June 2008. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033985.shtml • [2]Methane Gas and Arctic permafrost http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/arctic-gas-leak-time-bomb-discovered-13980581.html#ixzz0TdluA5SX

34. The effects of melting permafrost are not incorporated into any global climate models. Runaway warming in the Arctic alone could flip the entire planet into a new climatic state. The Middle Climate could collapse faster and sooner than the grimmest forecasts proposed. September 2008 - The first evidence that millions of tons of a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists.[1] The Arctic permafrost holds more carbon in its frozen soil than is currently in the entire atmosphere today that being 1672 BILLION TONNES. [1]Methane Gas and Arctic permafrost: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html /http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hundreds-of-methane-plumes-discovered-941456.html

35. August 2009 - Arctic sea ice thickness down 53 percent[1] - Tom Wagner, NASA's cryosphere program manager, added: "A fantastic change is happening on Earth -- it's trulyone of the biggest changes in environmental conditions on Earth since the end of the ice age. It's not an easy thing to observe, let alone predict what might happen next."[2] [1]Arctic sea Ice thickness: United International press, September 2009 http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/09/02/Arctic-sea-ice-thickness-down-53-percent/UPI-80181251899105/ [2]Arctic Sea Ice thickness:http://canadianclimateaction.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/arctic-sea-ice-thickness-down-53-percent/

36. The Arctic summer sea ice is now expected to melt entirely within the next five years — 80 years earlier than predicted in the 2007 IPCC report.[1] [1] IPCC, Observations: change in snow, ice and frozen ground, Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch04.pdf

37. Fact - as you read this, global average temperature is already higher than at any time over the last 2 MILLION YEARS.

38. We must HALT man made greenhouse gas emissions to as near to ZERO (virtual 100%, also stated in the 2007 IPCC report) as fast as possible through conservation and carbon rationing.

39. Scientist Bill Hare has had the scientific and human integrity to say this – many more scientists are now starting to speak out. (Mr. Hare is with Germany’s Potsdam Institute and a Lead Author for the IPCC’s Climate Change 2007). It has been determined that only zero carbon emissions can bring about a reduction in atmospheric carbon concentrations. However, we know at present time it is technically impossible to achieve this – therefore we need to set ourselves on the pathway that will get us there as fast and effectively as possible.

40. Only two scientists have stated publicly we are nowbeyond dangerous interference - John Holdren and James Hansen. The Climate Action Network FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change) submission does not state we are beyond dangerous. We need more scientists to state this position if we are to influence the political realm. Copenhagen assumes dangerous climate interference is some time in the future.

41. Speaking at the Kennedy School of Government on November 6, 2007, Dr. Holdren stated the disruption and its impacts have grown more widely than anyone ever expected a few years ago. ‘The world is already experiencing dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system’. The question now is whether we can avoid catastrophic interference.

42. James Hansen: Invited to testify before the United States Congress, in June of 2007, the chief climatologist of NASA declared: “Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. ” Putting profits and super-profits before the climate: the scandal is enormous.

43. Speaking in Washington on the twentieth anniversary of his historic testimony, James Hansen had a sharp warning for policymakers: “If we don’t begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next several years, and get on a very different course, then we are in trouble....This is the last chance.”

44. If we are to RACE BACK TO a 'safe' climate balance of not more than +1 ºC -- FAST (Bill Hare, Worldwatch Institute, State of World 2009, Chapter 2), the world community must peak emissions as soon as possible, rapidly reduce to virtual ZERO emissions, AND REMOVE much of the carbon from the atmosphere that has already been released.

45. John Schellnhuber, director of the ‘Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research’: “Policymakers who agreed to a two-degree C goal at the G20 summit easily fool themselves about what emission cuts are needed,” Schellnhuber said. Even with a two-degree rise, most of the world’s coral reefs will be lost, large portions of the ocean will become dead zones, mountain glaciers will largely vanish and many other ecosystems will be at risk, Schellnhuber warned. And there is the risk of reaching a tipping point where the warming rapidly accelerates. [1]Climate Code Red :http://climatecodered.blogspot.com/2009/10/4-degree-world.html Margot O’neill, Countdown to Copenhagen, ABC news, 2009 http://blogs.abc.net.au/events/2009/10/taking-the-temperature-of-our-climate-scientists-part-1.html

46. Myles Allen of the Climate Dynamics group at University of Oxford’s Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department: “The climate negotiators heading to Copenhagen in December must accept the fact that the world’s carbon emissions must eventually stop – and stop completely. There is no sustainable per capita carbon emission level because it is the total amount of carbon emitted that counts. Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for many centuries, which makes it the most important greenhouse gas to reduce and eliminate. The current focus on CO2 concentrations like 450 ppm or 350 ppm is the not the right approach since it is the total cumulative emissions that determine how warm the planet will get. If climate negotiators only look at slowing rates of carbon emissions, then natural gas will be substituted for coal because it has half of the carbon – but the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere will continue to increase.”

47. Researchers say that global temperature is likely to rise more than 3.5Ceven if every country enacts all climate legislation promised to date.

48. The EU has long stated that 2C is 'not safe', and that 2C 'does not exclude runaway climate change, it minimizes it'. - 2ºC is now insane because we have Arctic carbon feedback from both permafrost and methane hydrates at today's 0.78ºC. Permafrost is now estimated to contain 2 times atmospheric carbon.

49. At today’s 0.78ºC we also have Arctic summer ice meltdown, which will add up to another 2C to heating by 2100. At today’s 0.78ºC we have most all planetary ice masses melting at an accelerating rate. At today’s 0.78ºC we have all of Antarctica warming. The term ‘Dangerous climate interference’ is agreed to mean a safe concentration of atmospheric GHGases (UN FCCC secretariat).

50. Today's atmospheric GHG concentrations determine that today's global temperatures will practically double (a commitment of an additional 75%) and the increase will last over 1000 years along with global climate disruption. Sea level rise and ocean acidification will last thousands. Therefore - the one thing we must have out of Copenhagen is an agreement that ‘we now need an emergency response because we are in a state of emergency beyond dangerous interference risking catastrophe’[1] [1]John Holdre, Harvard University JKK Multimedia Forum http://www.iop.harvard.edu/Multimedia-Center/By-Program/JFK-Jr.-Forum/Global-Climate-Disruption-What-Do-We-Know,-What-Should-We-Do