There was a tremendous build up to this international climate conference. There was lots of anticipation by the public. It was declared to be the ‘most important international gathering of our time’. Peaceful public demonstrations all around the world intensified as the date of the conference approached. People in numerous countries publicly declared that they want change to avoid a global disaster due to greenhouse emissions. They clearly indicated that they’ve had enough of talk and wanted action, now. So did the climate conference live up to the expectations?

The following statement by Yvo de Boer sums up the outcomes succinctly:

”The Copenhagen Accord, which was expected highly to lead to a legally binding treaty, aroused opposition from several developing countries, who said the emission reduction targets were not ambitious enough and refused to adopt it. Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of UN Framework Conventionon Climate Change said at his closing press briefing that the Copenhagen Accord not only failed his hope of achieving a legally binding treaty, but also failed the hope of an agreement for such a treaty. But he still believed that countries should strive for such goals at the next UN climate conference in Mexico in 2010.”

Unfortunately lots of the sceptics predicted this result (and I’m not talking about climate change sceptics either but sceptics who don’t believe that we should place our faith in governments and leaders). Respected climate scientists are urging for immediate cuts to GHG emissions to prevent a more than 2C increase in global temperatures. Well-known international economists are insisting on allocating more funds towards low carbon technologies but again without support from the top people are cautious about investing in the renewable energy market. The fossil fuel market must become non-profitable to drive investments in the low-carbon economy.

Another statement by Monbiot again summarises where we are at: “The longer a comprehensive agreement is delayed, the steeper the emissions cuts will have to be if we are to avoid climate breakdown. Beyond a certain point the scale of the cuts becomes politically, economically and technologically infeasible. That point must already be close”.

So we will have to wait another year to see whether the international leaders can agree on some sort of binding treaty instead of everyone doing their own thing without any scrutiny. In the mean time you don’t have to wait to make a change. Start living a more sustainable lifestyle and support renewable energy and companies that are genuinely trying to make a difference to our planet.

(Ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/30/stern-monbiot-copenhagen-deal/print)

Following the day of action I was looking forward to reading about this world-wide rally in the newspapers but I was quickly disappointed to discover that it only got a short mention on page four of one of the major weekend papers. Likewise the major TV channels only dedicated a newsflash type of segment to this news.

After learning about this international action day coordinated by 350.org (see blog on 20^th Oct) I decided to attend the local rally in the Dandenongs. Despite the best efforts of 350.org I believe that this climate change day was not getting enough attention in the main stream media. Most people would only have found out about it through alternative sources, such as the internet and perhaps from the banners and placards strategically placed by passionate environmentalists.

Nevertheless, a large number of grass root groups joined forces to take part in this campaign and it is believed that around 5,400 events in 180 countries took place all around the world. According to Bill McKibben, a writer and environmentalist who founded www.350.org:

“We had no idea we would get the overwhelming support, enthusiasm and engagement from all over the world that we’re seeing. It shows just how scared of global warming much of the planet really is, and how fed up at the inaction of our leaders.”

Let’s hope they will get the message before the Copenhagen Conference .

While back in the Dandenongs on Saturday the local chapter of 350.org managed to get around 150 people to take part. It was good to see the range of people who came to support this movement. There were the elderly, the mums with prams, school kids, quite a few young people and of course the more alternative types. Overall a good cross section of society was represented by this small group who marched up and down in the main street until arriving at the local MP’s office. Speeches included the discussion of Climate Change and our future.

The rally culminated in the passing of judgement on the current Labour Government’s policies on Global Warming. The list was long and the final verdict on all their policies so far was ‘GUILTY’. This list was mounted on the side of the MP’s office and the crowd continued to enjoy the day with a BBQ and live music. Local Councillor Samantha Dunn then handed out 350 native plants for the participants to take home and plant in their gardens to help reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

According to dire news reported in the media last week Australians are losing interest in Global Warming. While in 2007 this issue was ranked as the equal most important foreign policy goal for the Federal Government the most recent polls indicate that out of ten possible goals it is in seventh place. Now fewer people see Global Warming as a threat to Australia’s national interests and it is perceived as the fourth most critical threat facing us out of twelve possibilities.

The fact that the current government was delaying action and the fact that the opposition party still hasn’t resolved its position on emission trading and the global financial crises have all been blamed for the loss of interest in Climate Change. The good news is that 76% of those surveyed in the annual Lowy Institute Poll still rated Climate Change as a problem and want some action. See full article here: (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/global-warming-drops-down-list-20091012-gu1w.html)

For those who still think that we should do something about Climate Change, this weekend is an important day. This Saturday on the 24^th of October it is the ‘International Day of Climate Action’. This is an international movement and people from many countries around the world will join in some form of protest to send a message to government leaders around the world. The message is clear: people want action on Climate Change. It is expected that thousands of images of people gathering in many cities and remote areas will be projected to the UN Headquarters and to Times Square.

The aim of this action -organised by www.350.org worldwide- is to focus the attention on the science and the citizens to remind world leaders that they need to take physical reality into account when they are making decisions about our collective future at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December. People are not interested in backroom business deals and political interest groups but in one united goal; that is to reduce greenhouse emission and to ensure that the CO2 remains below 350 ppm in the atmosphere. Saturday’s campaign is expected to be the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet’s history with over 3000 events in 160 countries. 350.org will assemble all the photos for a gigantic, global visual petition and present to the UN before the conference.

If you want to get involved visit this website for nearest location: www.350.org/map#/map/-25.274398/133.775136/4

I have compiled the following information as a response to a friend of mine who has been following the reaction to Ian Plimer’s arguments against human induced Climate Change in his recently published book ‘Heaven and Earth’. I thought it would be a good idea to share the main points with others regarding the release of this controversial book. I can’t really analyse the scientific evidence because I’m not a climate scientist nor am I qualified in any similar fields. For this I rely on others who have the knowledge and experience. But I believe it is important to look at both views on the subject to keep the conversation going.

1. Fortunately we live in a free society where people can offer alternative views to what is accepted by others (even if it is the majority). This obviously applies to scientific stance as well. People have the right to hear both sides of an argument and make up their own minds. It is a radical move though on Plimer’s behalf to publish a book (Heaven and Earth) on such a ‘hot topic’ (excuse the punt) as Climate Change, thus giving ammunition to the deniers who don’t believe that humans have anything to do with global warming. No doubt there are lots of people out there who find comfort in believing that we humans are not responsible for destroying our environment and so they welcome the evidence proposed by Ian Plimer in his book on Climate Change.

2. Nevertheless, all media attention is useful because it brings the topic back into the limelight and initiates and/or continues a public debate on Climate Change. Just consider all the articles published as a result of Plimer’s book and all the other media interviews with both sides of the argument (The Guardian and The Spectator have widely covered this as has the The Australian – see references below). The public wants to hear answers from all the well-known scientists involved in the ongoing debate (and even politicians feel the need to comment on these issues). The blog spots are also running hot with comments on the book and on the exchanges between Plimer, Monbiet, Karoly, Lambert, Enting, Lambeck, Ashley etc. All this attention has resulted in keeping the debate alive and in the end it helps us in reinforcing the importance of doing something about Climate Change.

3. Drawing attention to Climate Change and the challenging of the general consensus in Heaven and Earth has worked because the debate has been taken up by the experts in the appropriate scientific disciplines. They (such as David Karoly and Tim Flannery) have disputed many of Plimer’s points by simply pointing out how unreliable and unsubstantiated the ‘scientific’ facts in his book are. There are lots of inaccuracies and reproductions of scientific explanations by others that were never properly cited or in some cases the actual results that were contrary to his points have been left out of his book. Meanwhile other evidence has been changed to support his arguments – according to these authorities on the subject.

4. The discussion of Climate Change in the media and on internet blogs is very timely as the United Nations Climate Change Conference is only a couple of months away from the 7^th December 2009 in Copenhagen.

The following are links related to this topic:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3659606/the-modern-heresy-of-true-science.thtml

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6804961.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism

http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=page&id=14&chapter=0

http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Monbiot-Plimer_Debate

Since I read the draft of Climate Code Red by David Spratt and Philip Sutton just under two years go I’m now setting up an annual routine of looking up the Arctic summer ice thickness in mid September, when the ice extent is at a minimum.

Climate Code Red alerted me and many other Australians to the rapid loss of Arctic Ice, with the Arctic compared to the “canary in the coal mine” when it comes to global warming. I wrote an article which I posted on Squidoo about this towards the end of 2007, which summarised my understanding of Climate Code Red.  Now in September 2009 the need to rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions is no less urgent. And if anything – as indicated locally by the bushfires in Victoria in February and the record breaking weather of August – climate change is happening quicker than we thought.

Now for an update on the Arctic. Science Daily recently reported on research which has correlated satellite data with submarine records. This shows that in the winter of 1980 Arctic ice averaged 3.64 meters in thickness. By the end of  2007 the average was 1.89 meters.  Over 27 years the depth of Arctic ice halved.

Over the same time the extent of the summer sea ice has greatly reduced.  The summer of 2007 had the lowest extent of summer sea ice. In September 2009, as reported by the Examiner, the ice extent is somewhat more than in September 2007, but still well below the 1979 to 2000 average.

The canary in the coal mine is still alive, but its future isn’t looking good. We need to keep on cutting carbon emissions.