LET’S DEAL WITH GLOBAL WARMING NOW!
Let us examine the 80% of allocated funds ($720 million of $900 million) of the world to other than Africa. Does this breakdown address the highest need to deal with Global Warming? It would appear that all these agencies are off the mark to “helping countries build Resilience to climate change’s impacts.“ Building this kind of Resilience is like locking the stable door after the horse has been stolen.
What comes first? An Emission absorption solution or manufacturing of face masks for everyone. The situation cannot be changed by improving security after a major theft. We must deal with the Security Problem first! The door (Our world as we know it) cannot be vulnerable to attack.
To correct the problem we must fix the barn door (Emission absorption Solution) or harness the horse (Reduce Emissions). Now we really must catch the horse (Solve the emission problem), but very few people (the Millennium Development Goals Achievement Fund (MDG-F) are searching for the horse. This includes all of the participants starting from the largest: UNDP, UNICEF, FAO, UNESCO, ILO, UNFPA, WFP, UNIDO, UNWOMEN, PAHO/WHO and IOM.
In the meantime, our governments are simply thinking about taxing some polluters a little and readjusting the tax to keep it neutral. Our Governments are only talking to locksmiths. In other words, they are not addressing the problem at all. (Remember: the horse has already bolted).
Carbon Emission to be Solved
The world leaders must find a way to absorb carbon dioxide emissions that is in our atmosphere now. Trees and soils are the only way to absorb the present glut of CO2 in your world.
Presently these funds are improperly managed because they attempt to make the tax neutral by redirecting the fund for tax rebates to working families, cutting sales tax and reducing the tax on manufacturing. All this is very admirable but it doesn’t solve the high concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, which is presently causing global warming.
The Funds to Finance Rehabilitation
There are two sources of funds based on two different methods of absorbing carbon emissions: one from biochar in soils and the other from planting of trees. Continue reading SEVEN BILLION TREES
THE ECONOMIC CASE
Cutting emissions will not be enough to keep global warming in check.
Greenhouse gases must be scrubbed from the air.No one in power is listening to the climate skeptics anymore.
One discovery after another suggests the world is warming faster, and climate damages are appearing sooner, than anyone had expected. Much of the policy discussion so far has been aimed at keeping the atmospheric concentration of CO2 below 450 parts per million (ppm) — which was until recently thought to be low enough to prevent dangerous levels of warming. But paleoclimatic evidence shows 450 ppm is the threshold for transition to an ice-free earth. This would imply a catastrophic rise in sea levels, eventually flooding all coastal cities and regions.
To avoid reaching such a crisis stage, climate scientists now call for stabilizing CO2 concentrations at 350 ppm. The world is now around 390 ppm and rising.
Some scientists and activists believe that a concentration of over 350 parts-per-million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could lead to feedback loops (the release of methane from Arctic permafrost, for example) that could make warming almost impossible to stop.
A British team demonstrated that coral reefs won’t survive acidified waters unless we get CO2 concentrations back down below 360 ppm.
There is a failure of the press to cover urgency of carbon tax. Carbon should not flow unpriced into the atmosphere, any more than you should be allowed to toss your garbage in the street. It makes no sense that the fossil fuel industry is allowed to put out their waste for free, using the atmosphere as an open sewer.
Nearly all of those decisions share a common, crucial element: they are shaped, by the relative prices of available energy choices. The only way to get enough change is to send a price signal so that everyone from investors to car buyers will change their behavior automatically: a kind of perpetual motion machine.
A straightforward plan is simply to tax carbon directly. Canada has introduced the gradual approach of a $10/ton of carbon emissions to finally get the ball rolling, while some of the provinces have elected to increase this tax to $30/ton. In the meantime, Exxon has been planning for $50 a ton to make sure it won’t put a crimp in their business.
Yes, carbon tax is inevitable but one thing stands in the way: PRICE POINT. If we want to move the needle, we have to move the market. We need a top down message. A steadily rising tax on fossil fuels will send a strong price signal. A proposed carbon tax pending in the New York state legislature (A.B. 8372: proposes to increase the tax gradually from $35 to $185 per ton.)
Is that the only thing that needs to be done?
To keep the pressure on carbon emissions, a “fee-and-dividend” approach sets a price on carbon, and then rebates all the revenue straight to citizens, perhaps even sending them a monthly check. Yes, the price we pay at the pump goes up but the check covers the increased cost. It’s called revenue neutrality.
It’s one arrow in a quiver full of other arrows we’re going to need. As we see temperatures shattering new records every month, we need to do everything: not just a price on carbon, but dramatic subsidies for renewables to speed their spread.
We know what to do, but building a will to do it seems like an insuperable obstacle.
The definition of quixotic: foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals especially marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action. Our rash ideas are bringing us to the opposite direction with no change in sight.
The clock ticks and each month we lose ground and face a warmer future and a bigger challenge to reign in green house gas effects on our life support on this planet. Building such an effort requires an international cooperation far beyond anything accomplished thus far, with an effort comparable to, or greater than, World War II.
In the pre-industrial global carbon cycle before 1750, there was zero carbon change. It was not unlike a chemical equilibrium that automatically balances itself.