Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Interview: Straight talk about climate change.

Expand Messages
  • npat1
    Fw: [fuelcell-energy] ... Interview: Straight talk about climate change. Jerry Mahlman on dealing with your grandkids problem. Posted: April 2006 Radio:
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 25, 2006
      Fw: [fuelcell-energy]
      ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
      Interview: Straight talk about climate change.
      Jerry Mahlman on dealing with your grandkids' problem.

      Posted: April 2006

      Radio: Humanity has been on an energy "binge"
      Renown climate scientist Jerry Mahlman is perhaps best known for
      the "hockey stick, " a term he coined to describe a chart of
      temperature changes over the last 1,000 years. Formerly the head of
      NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, he's now a senior
      researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
      Mahlman has spent much of his life modeling how Earth's atmosphere
      responds to the steady buildup of greenhouse gases. In 2007, he'll be
      a senior editor of the assessment from theIntergovernmental Panel on
      Climate Change of the latest science and consequesnces of Earth's
      warming climate. Mahlman spoke with Earth & Sky's Jorge Salazar about
      what a warmer world could really mean to you and me.
      Salazar: People are becoming more aware of global warming. Can't we
      just adjust our lifestyles a little and stop it from happening?

      Mahlman: There's a colossal misperception that if you bike to work
      once a week and recycle your garbage, then global warming will be
      fixed up. The problem is that, even if everyone did that, the attempt
      to stop global warming would fail by a factor of, oh, roughly of 100,
      from what we really need to be doing.

      For example, I was in Al Gore's office when he was vice-president.
      And he asked me the question, "If we could hold the emissions of
      carbon dioxide into the atmosphere constant, would global warming go

      And I said, "If you were to hold the emissions constant, you would
      get up to eight times the carbon dioxide, or CO2, that there was
      before the Industrial Revolution. You would still be in a heck of a

      Carbon dioxide results from burning fossil fuels, whether it's coal,
      oil, natural gas, or even more exotic forms. And so we have this
      problem that our population is increasing. Our demand for fossil
      fuels is increasing. You just look at the United States, and the SUV-
      Hummer phenomenon, all happening witlessly within the context of a
      problem that was identified very clearly and quantifiably more than
      25 years ago. In 1979, the National Academy of Sciences essentially
      laid out why global warming is a problem*.

      So this isn't a new thing.

      That early knowledge about global warming has been backed up by the
      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In that backing up, there
      have been now three assessment reports presented to the world.
      Another one is coming up. In fact, I'm the senior review editor for
      the final draft of that report to the world that will come in 2007.

      So all of this information has been put out there. The National
      Academy of Sciences and others have written many, many things about
      this. And, essentially, the governments of the world are choosing to
      do nothing. The largest offenders are the United States of America
      and Australia. Both are highly technical countries that have many
      gifts and much money and are not choosing to address the problem in
      any way whatsoever. That's where we are.

      I'll tell you one of the horrifying facts of global warming, and why
      it is so inexorable. Suppose that you and I wanted - along with all
      the rest of the people in the world - to cut down on CO2 emissions so
      that they would be small enough to let us guarantee that the
      concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere next year, and the
      decade after, and the decade after, would not go up any more.

      What would be your guess as to how much we would have to reduce our
      per capita consumption of fossil fuels to meet that goal? This is an
      intuitive question for you.

      "The system is hard-wired to produce more and more carbon dioxide,
      and to a degree other greenhouse gases, all of which are going into
      the atmosphere."
      Salazar: Well, what you've described sounds pretty serious. It's
      almost something like a war on carbon emissions, and I'd imagine war
      rationing to be, say, 50 percent of my consumption.

      Mahlman: Well, it turns out that every person in the world would have
      to do that, only twice as good as that. You'd have to cut it by 75

      That's a horrific number if you think about everything that you do:
      whether it's talking on the telephone, or diving our cars, or heating
      or cooling our homes. Think of everything that's manufactured, energy
      used to extract metals, for example. So the answer is 75 percent, if
      the entire world were going to participate.

      Salazar: So what does a 75 percent cut in personal emissions look

      Mahlman: You would have to have a radical change in your lifestyle.

      In other words, we're not taking the problem seriously, and if we
      did, we would have a huge challenge making a dent into the problem.
      The system is hard-wired to produce more and more carbon dioxide, and
      to a degree other greenhouse gases, all of which are going into the

      We need to be talking about what we're going to do to arrest global
      warming - to keep it from happening, to keep it from warming - now.
      That's the problem.

      In fact, it's worse than I talk about, because suppose that we're
      able to produce the miracle - the absolute miracle - of reducing 75%
      in our emissions globally. Guess what? Over the next hundred years,
      the Earth would warm up another degree Fahrenheit, even though we
      produced that miraculous result.

      "There are enormous intergeneration equity issues that are going on
      here, right now."
      So what we're really doing now is deferring all of the problem to the
      generations that follow us. And they will not have much access to
      fossil fuels, because we'll have used up most of them. They'll get
      all of the garbage, in terms of the increased warming of the planet.

      There are enormous intergeneration equity issues that are going on
      here, right now. We get all of this dirt-cheap fossil fuel. We burn
      it all up, we screw up the planet with greenhouse gases, warm up the
      planet, warm up the ocean, and therefore have many manifestations
      that are negative. And nobody's really talking about it.

      The IPCC reports tell it all, and they consistently get ignored. The
      reason they get ignored - and this is not warm and fuzzy to talk
      about - is that it's really hard to do something about it in a
      relatively short period of time, say over the next three decades.
      It's really, really hard.

      Salazar: So how do we start talking about global warming?

      Mahlman: It's very easy to focus on what regular people can do, but
      on the other hand, regular people don't have their hands on the
      buttons that have to be pushed in order to change the way that we
      produce goods and services for all humans on Earth. That's the

      You've go to be able to begin to say, "What are the proactive actions
      that you take?"

      And the point is, that nobody's taking that seriously.

      We've been on an energy binge. The binge will continue because of the
      momentum. It's huge.

      Now part of the problem is that when you start to put together
      education programs, there's a barrier. Because the things that we
      scientists are saying are so intolerable that there's actually
      incentives to ignore what we're saying. I'm presenting the basic
      facts in a way that are almost never reported in the media. And yet,
      you read the IPCC report. And there it is in its stark form.

      *Climate Research Board (1979) Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Scientific
      Assessment, Washington, D.C., National Academy of Sciences, 22
      pages.Copyright �1996-2006 Byrd and Block Communications Inc. All
      Rights Reserved.
      Site Design: Bulletproof Studios Site Construction: Monsterbit

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.