Responding to our Climate Emergency

Now I'm beginning to understand why there is panic just under the surface when climate scientists explain what's happening to our planet.

For years they have been trying to get through to us. They've used the careful, measured language of science, couching their worries in the uncertainty that is intrinsic in a system as complex as the global climate. NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen refers to this as the problem of "scientific reticence."

Some special interests (particularly those funded by the oil and coal industries) have taken advantage of this reticence, suggesting it means the greenhouse phenomenon, and the human causes, remain in doubt. The reality is that scientists continue to refine and test their models, but if anything, the behavior of the climate is following the worst-case scenarios.

Some changes associated with the climate happen in a gradual, linear way. More carbon leads to more warming, which expands the volume of the oceans, for example, and gradually raises sea levels. But Hansen is among those who shows that the effects of greenhouse gases on climate can have an abrupt, non-linear quality. When a little bit of warming melts the reflective ice covering the Arctic Ocean, the dark sea beneath absorbs heat. A warming ocean hastens the melting of ice, and you have a positive feedback loop in which the warming climate is fueling still more warming.

Likewise, when rising temperatures cause permafrost to melt, methane is released into the atmosphere -- a gas more than 20 times more powerful in its greenhouse effect than carbon. More methane, more warming, more melting permafrost, still more warming.

A third example of this run-away effect is the drying of the Amazon, which, when healthy, is an extraordinary recycler of moisture and a carbon sink (that is, it absorbs and safely stores carbon). As the Amazon dries, it burns, dies, and becomes a source of carbon. There are other examples of this dynamic.

Fortunately, there are also some negative feedback loops -- more warming should result in more cloud cover, for example, which can deflect the warming effects of the sun. But so far, the feedback loops that cause further warming appear to have the upper hand.

We appear to be very near a tipping point, after which the effects of global heating feed on themselves, and it may be that by the end of the century, the Earth will be, as Jim Hansen puts it, a very different planet.

Our editorial team is pouring over studies and reports as we work on the spring issue of YES! on climate change. We will be forthright about what the science is telling us. We don't plan to try to spin the story for the benefit of the oil and coal industry--or to avoid alarming people.

We are skirting very close to danger, and what we do in the next few years (Hansen says less than 10 years) may determine whether we get caught up in run-away effects that will mean a new climate equilibrium of gases and temperature on Earth that may or may not support human life.

Most agree that we can still avert the worst. But the needed changes really are "inconvenient" as Al Gore says. Business as usual -- new coal plants, more cars, exploiting the tar sands, the continuation and spreading of the "American dream" -- any of these could be disastrous for many species of life, including our own. And some of the responses could also set us on a destructive path that does more to benefit narrow private interests than to solve the climate problem—so-called "clean" coal plants, most bio-fuels, nuclear power.

On the other hand, the changes we make that rise to this global emergency could also have spin-off benefits, including providing millions of jobs, restoring community, reducing poverty, giving us a fresh start on building the infrastructure of our societies. And especially heartening, people worldwide are ready to "step up" to the challenge.

The spring issue of YES! will lay out a path to averting disaster and restoring the health of our planet home, while we still have time. Here's a preview: what we in the wealthy part of the world -- especially the U.S. -- decide to do will make the difference—and the tools, will power, and intelligence are already with us. More on that soon.

How to Stop War on Iran

Do you hear the drum beat of war? Does it sound like déjà vu all over again?

This time the target is Iran, the country President Bush recently referred to, jokingly, as a possible cause of World War III. There are two rationales for a U.S. attack--that we need to attack before Iran develops nuclear weapons, and that Iran is killing Americans in Iraq. Both are as questionable as the rationales for invading Iraq.

The plan? Veteran journalist Seymour Hersh spells it out in The New Yorker. Since the U.S. can't handle another ground war, this assault is likely to be a massive bombing attack. Congress recently appropriated funds to retrofit B-2 Stealth bombers to handle the enormous 15-ton bunker buster bombs slated for use in Iran.

The possible effects are terrible to imagine: Huge numbers killed and maimed, retaliations on U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, an even more inflamed Middle East, possibly retaliatory strikes against Israel, disruption of oil markets already pushing $100 a barrel, and further shocks to the U.S. economy, which is suffering from sub-prime mortgage debacle.

The majority of Americans know that there is a better way; according to a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll, 73 percent support diplomatic or economic engagement with Iran, and just 18 percent support military action. Likewise, Iran has made overtures to the U.S. to settle the differences by talking.

But the Bush administration has been unresponsive to both, and Congress has been unwilling to stand up to the out-of-control administration. So now is the time for "we the people" to educate ourselves and speak loud and clear. But what can we do? The worldwide protests prior to the Iraq war did not deter the invasion.

In the winter 2008 issue of YES!, veteran activists David Solnit and Aimee Allison make a critical strategic point. We cannot stop the war in Iraq or prevent war against Iran simply by appealing to the Bush administration. Instead, we have to put pressure on those who enable the war.

These enablers in this case include:

The media, whose unquestioning repetition of the administration’s rationale for war in Iraq set the conditions the invasion. Now, many in the media are doing it again. But unlike the president, media decision-makers care what we think. We can write to the news sources we use, asking them to be critical, balanced, and factual, and we can express our own views in letters to the editor, blogs, and by calling in to talk shows.

The Congress. Despite the anti-war mandate of the 2006 elections, Congress has done little to discourage administration from attacking Iran. In fact, the Senate adopted the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a “terrorist” organization. But there are some signs of backbone. On the first of November, 30 members of the Senate sent a letter to the president stating that no authorization exists for a unilateral US attack on Iran. Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia) and Representative Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) have each proposed amendments that require the approval of Congress before the administration can launch an attack on Iran. You can have an influence on your representative by talking to them in person, if possible, or writing. Get your town or city to adopt a resolution for diplomacy, not war, with Iran. Ask candidates for president and Congress for their positions on Iran as well as Iraq. If they say “all options are on the table,” challenge them to justify the use of nuclear weapons in our volatile world. And remember, Congress doesn't need a veto-proof majority to take action--all they need to do is withhold funds for unwise policies.

The military. A call has gone out to members of the military to refuse an order to bomb Iran—especially if it is an order to use nuclear bombs. Some believe there is already deep division within the military about administration plans for war. If you know people in the military, forward them this link.

International law. When the U.S. fails to abide by international law, we lay the groundwork for others to operate outside the law. If we want Iran to adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we will have to also. The U.S., as a signer of the treaty, agreed to phase out our mammoth nuclear stockpile, by far the largest in the world. Instead, our government has been developing new nuclear weapons systems. But there's new momentum for getting serious about our obligations under the Treaty. Cold warriors George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry, and Sam Nunn are leading the charge, calling for a world without nuclear weapons.

A unilateral attack on Iran is a violation of international law. And it is immoral. Are we to become like the “good Germans” who did nothing while the Holocaust was taking place in their name? Now is the time for each of us to act on the four strategic pressure points and stop this madness.

Read more on what's being planned in Iran and what to do about it here.