Can global warming bring world peace?

The predictions about climate change are depressing. Every time I go to a speech about the topic, I leave feeling overwhelmed and frustrated. So I want to suggest we look at this issue differently. If we can get all countries to focus on global warming (since it will impact us all), this might unite these countries around a common goal. With a focus on one major issue, I would guess that a lot of petty issues that countries argue over today may get downplayed, or simply go away.

Think about the Armageddon-type movies, where the aliens come to destroy the planet, and all people of the world unite to save the planet. This wouldn't be quite as exciting as those movies, but the purpose is the same. Consider sports teams. If you have players focused on their own accomplishments, not winning as a team (the common goal), then distractions and fighting within the team increase (and they never reach the goal).

OK, I know the term "world peace" is not really possible, but I think a world where countries are not engaged in active fighting and war (within their own country or with another country) is possible. However, without a major change in focus, we will never get there. In fact, at our current pace in destroying the planet, we are headed for even more global conflict, which will take us further away from "world peace".

Wars typically start over water, changing patterns of rainfall, food production and land use. These are the major consequences cited in most research on global warming.

The United Kingdom (UK) government commissioned a report called the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, which suggests global warming could shrink the world's economy by 20%. This report has been widely circulated, and has been brought up in the UN Security Council.

"With scientists predicting that land and water resources will gradually become more scarce in the coming years, and that global warming may irreversibly alter the face of the planet, the United Nations Security Council today held its first-ever debate on the impact of climate change on security." [Read article here].

So here is where we are at today: Global warming will overall negatively impact water, food production, land use, and change the patterns of rainfall. These changes historically lead to war and conflict, and will negatively impact the economy around the globe. No country is exempt.

If we can change the focus, the opposite can occur. We reduce global warming, which minimizes the impact on food and water. We rally around a common goal, and focus our resources on growing all economies through clean energy and more sustainable practices. Global warming and climate change might be the ONLY issue that has the potential to rally all countries around the world.

We don't have a choice. If we wait for the disasters to occur, it will be too late. Aligning countries to this message is not impossible. We are actually getting closer (aside from the major powers of the world). It is up to us who live in these major powers (China, US, EU) to force our leaders to make this change, and change immediately.

We can actually "kill two birds with one stone" by focusing on reducing global warming, in order to save ourselves from climate change AND achieve world peace!

Raise the price of carbon, then send everyone a check in the mail?

I recently attended a presentation from the Citizens Climate Lobby group. They are a group that helps citizens organize around climate change through politics. Marc Reynolds, Executive Director of Citizens Climate Lobby, gave a great speech about how citizens can get involved and make a difference.

He talked about the CCL's Carbon Fee and Dividend Proposal, which is actually very simple. If we increase (tax) carbon, that will make it easier for people to choose renewable or clean energy, or conserve what they use. He used smoking as a successful example of how increasing the tax on cigarettes has led to a reduction in smokers. Reducing carbon is no different. If we want to reduce the impact of climate change, we need to reduce our carbon usage. Therefore, we need to figure out a way to accurately price carbon, based upon its impact on the environment. Today, no one has to pay for the impact of carbon, so it gets treated equally in the open market as other sources of energy that are less damaging to the environment. All this would make it a fair playing field.

Here is an overview video:


But won't this increase the cost of electricity and gasoline for everyone? Yes it will. That is why they are proposing to take the taxed income, and send it back to the people to offset their increased utility and gas costs. Then over time, that amount would be less and less, as we replace carbon energy with better sources of energy.

The other good approach is that the tax will increase steadily over time, so that there is a clear path in the future that shows what the price will be, and it eases people into the additional cost. Businesses can invest in different energy with some confidence, and the price impact to all of us is more gradual. After 10 years, they feel it would be priced more appropriately.

The more I think about this, the more I like the idea. It actually appeals to both Republicans and Democrats, whereas other climate bills and legislation have been proposed by one side or the other. If I hear any updates, I'll post them here.

Environmentalist McKibben drives home urgency of climate change to Iowans

Environmentalist and author Bill McKibben spoke to a captive and energetic audience in Iowa City last night, courtesy of the Office of Sustainability at the University of Iowa. His message was both pessimistic and optimistic, but was most importantly honest.

McKibben started out with the current (and depressing) state of the environment. The earth has risen only about 1 degree in temperature, but already we are seeing the major impacts of that increase in glacier melting, increased floods, increased high temperatures, and increase in disease spread (through warmer climates). We are above the 350 parts per million limit that scientists believe is sustainable for the planet (currently at 390, see image below).

After establishing the current state of affairs, he next showed us his efforts to date with the recent 10/10/10 events, which is a part of the overall 350.org movement. I was amazed at how global this initiative has become, especially since I have not heard that much about his organization. He has made an impact on nearly every country in the world, and it continues to grow each year. He even self-admits that he is not a motivational person and knows very little about how to drive a grass-roots effort like this, but it is clearly working. It reaffirms that anyone can make a difference.
Finally, his message was that people have to make political changes to make dramatic reduction in our emissions. The technology is already here to do that (solar, geothermal, wind), but the policies and investment isn't there yet. He mentioned that 70% of your time should be spent on local actions and 30% on political action.

Video clips are available on the Daily Iowan website
Here is McKibben's latest book, Eearth: Making of Life on a Tough New Planet...






And here is the first book he wrote, which was widely popular, called "The End of Nature"