politics

The following editorial was published today by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like The Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page. The Guardian editorial is free to reproduce under Creative Commons.

Copenhagen climate change conference: Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

real progress... could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”

At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it. Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

UPDATED! In my first radio broadcast, and my first scientific debate, I went head-to-head with Roy Spencer, a famous global warming denier on the radio show Political Animals. You can listen to the show here. I debate Roy Spencer for about 30 minutes. Then I am on for another hour with the hosts and callers.

Update: You don't need to skip the first 25 minutes -- I cut it to jump right in to my part.

According to RealClearPolitics.com, Barack Obama maintains a strong lead in the Electoral Vote (270 electoral votes needed to win), but anything can happen on election day.

What are your predictions?

Is the way the are treating Sarah Palin sexist? Should teen pregnancy be a personal and private issue? Who is to blame? Is a Governor and former mayor of a small town qualified for the vice presidency? Watch and see:

John Houghton was one of the chief science editors for the IPCC for the first 3 assessments. He is a devout Christian and is now giving lectures on why Christians should care for the environment (and that they are lagging behind other groups).

Houghton is one of the most respected climatologists alive today. He feels that all people have a responsibility to the wellbeing of the planet, and calls on Christians, especially, to help reduce the impacts of climate change. Here's a quote:

"Well, Christians believe that we have been put into the world to look after it and to care for the whole of creation. That's a message presented very early on in the Bible. Adam and Eve were put into a garden and they were told to look after that garden. That garden is Earth.
"Because of the enormous population we now have and the rapid development of technology, we are putting pressure on resources, and our care of the Earth is very far from what it should be. We should pay much more care to looking after the Earth in a sustainable way. The simplest definition of sustainability that I know is not cheating on our children, not cheating on our neighbors, or the poor people in the world, who stand to be very disadvantaged by things like climate change. And also not cheating on the rest of creation. We are in danger of losing thousands, if not millions, of species because of climate change.
"Of course, it's a very broad human responsibility, not just a Christian one. But on the whole, Christians have been lagging behind many other groups in their concern for the environment, care for the Earth, and care for poor people. And Christians, because of their beliefs, should really be out in front."

Read the full article and interview of John Houghton.

In his movie, SiCKO, Michael Moore exposes the inadequacies of the US health care system Globalization. Outsourcing. Micro-economics defeating macro-economics. And now health care? In his movie, SiCKO, Michael Moore exposes the inadequacies of the US health care system and calls for universal health care. At least, he argues, US citizens deserve health care as good as what is provided to detainees at Guantanimo Bay!

If you're sick of our health care system, or lack of one, get your free SiCKO health care card.

Is this the future of our health care system here in the US?

Cartoon courtesy of Seppo Leinonen. Be sure to check out his other great cartoons!

Enjoy this hilarious clip of Jon Stewart assessing Bush's lack of expertise (or expertease:

The new Creationist Museum, it turns out, was actually built on famous layers of fossil-rich limestone and shale. Those fossils provide clear evidence of evolution the age of the Earth. Hmmmmm . . . is that ironic enough for you?

Here's a video discussing this irony:

That's right. Fox news is helping to cause global warming by continuing to blow hot air!

Fox news is helping to cause global warming by continuing to blow hot air! Alright, so I am trying to sound funny, but the truth is that we need to act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Why aren't we? One main reason is doubt. Why do so many doubt that global warming is a real issue that needs immediate action? They are having hot air blown in their faces by every news program they watch -- all owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is promoting the lie that global warming is a hoax.

Watch this footage from Fox:

Enjoy this (spoof) video of Steve Jobs unveiling the latest products by Apple, a parody on Bush's fantastic foreign policy blunders.