Massachusetts is a state already known for its leadership on the climate change front. Its progressive leaders, including Congressman Markey, are working on new federal energy legislation – the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. And of course, under the leadership of Governor Devel Patrick, the state is part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap & trade program for 10 northeast states, as well as its exemplary 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act. That game changing legislation set a 80% by 2050 reduction goal.
But is all that enough? No, not according to the many grassroots activists across the state that want even more for its “Green New Deal.” Their success amending the party platform sets the stage for the larger battle ahead – COP15 (see http://cop15.dk/).
They want to promote “those strategies which will quickly stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide at a maximum of 350 ppm and protect against further climate change.” But they want that “in accord with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” That’s because the world will pull back from the climate precipice only with a strong international treaty, the right goal set and everyone in on it. That happens this December.
350 ppm is the idea of the nation’s number one climate scientist James Hansen (see http://350.org/). Having spent his career working on climate models, he was aware that in some respects the real world was outstripping previous models, including those used by the IPCC for its historic Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change (see http://www.ipcc.ch/).
Arctic sea ice was reaching record lows; many of Greenland’s glaciers were retreating; the tropics were expanding. “What was clear was that climate models are our weakest tool, in that you can’t trust their sensitivity in any of these key areas,” he says. Those warning signs – and his studies of past climate change – led Hansen to conclude that only by pulling CO2 concentrations down below today’s value could humanity avert serious problems.
That’s the idea behind an absolute mandate to “stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide at a maximum of 350 ppm.” Its a big idea with monumental consequences. Let’s see if our activists can make something of the fact that its now the mandate of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, and pry loose some new victories on the global warming solutions front.
This is a wonderful amendment that was added to the MA Democratic Platform this past weekend. I hope it can be moved to the front page.
Thank you.
Carol Coakley
Heeding Thoreau’s dictum that in wildness is the salvation of the world, another amendment promoted by progressive activists winning passage at the Democratic state convention calls for “prioritizing the preservation of open space and urban wilds by all means necessary, including state and municipal acquisition.” This amendment together with the 350 ppm amendment makes a strong statement against global warming since we must save every bit of forest habitat and open green space that we can if we are going to slow down our dangerous climatic trajectory, let alone reverse its course.
<
p>One pressing example of this urgency is in Cambridge, Belmont and Arlington, where we want to see the Patrick Administration take direction from these strong words and commit to helping preserve the rare Silver Maple Forest ecosystem located on the Alewife Reservation straddling all three municipalities, which is in imminent danger of being bull-dozed by developers.
<
p>A large group of community representatives, activists, scientists, and elected officials met recently with EOEEA officials to plead the case for saving this forest and to form an ongoing committee dedicated to seeking a creative solution. The environmental imperatives of the Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform as adopted at Saturday’s convention will only strengthen their efforts.
<
p>
after all, I wondered if that meant that wind turbines in rural areas were “out”… be it rural Western Mass or rural Horseshoe Shoal…
<
p>anybody got any insight on that?
Geez, that is a radical concept. Should we activate the National Guard to the Alewife Reservation to stop the bull dozers?
They Chinese produce 10,000 times more CO2 that MA.
The Chinese followed the US lead in burning fossil fuels, and now they’re in trouble, and they know it. They are trying, and like the US, have been holding back from an international treaty until they have greater confidence, and the political and technical will & means to achieve it. Where Massachusetts goes, so goes the nation, and the world will eventually follow. I have faith in our Commonwealth, that we can lead on this issue. Finger pointing does nothing but insure further intransigence.
The total emissions by China just surpassed that of the USA last year, and US has only 50 states, so it is a gross misstatement that Chinese emissions is 10,000 times that of MA. It reflects the disinformation the fossil fuel industry puts out to stall climate action here in the US.
<
p>Also, Chinese population is about 7x that of the US, so per capita their emission is still much much lower than the US, the long tome champion in the world.
<
p>Much of the Chinese emission is for producing goods (a lot of it is junk goods) for the developed world consumption, and much of that is the US. Stop buying junk merchandise full of plastic and cheap electronics from Walmart, etc., and you help remove a major driver for Chinese emissions as well as chemical pollution. Buying organic local food is good for your health, and reduces need for transportation to bring you food from thousands of miles away (yes, including China, especially many ingredients in your processed foods).
<
p>Also, China did rectify the Kyoto Protocol, but US never did.
<
p>Developed nations, particularly the US, are responsible for most of the CO2 that have accumulated in the air. China and India now say “we want development, too, we want to reduce our poverty”. The best way for us to get them to reduce their emissions, is by us having a strong domestic emission reduction target first, and then be able to push them towards a strong target at the negotiation table this December. Our climate legislation (Waxman-Markey) in the US House is only proposing to cut our emissions 1% below 1990 levels by 2020, far short of what science says is necessary. See my blog for details: http://www.securegreenfuture.o…
<
p>Once we have a strong domestic climate legislation, then we can work with other nations to reach equitable, effective global agreements, which, due to our historical emission responsibility, and our better capacity to pay, must include ways for developed countries to transfer technology and financial aid to the developing countries to help with their emission cuts (as well as addressing the root causes of the rampant deforestation problem, although that’s not a problem in China), while still allowing some poverty alleviation. See the Greenhouse Development Rights Framework:
http://www.ecoequity.org/docs/…
And that’s due to their effective population control policies for several decades, which is a necessary self-discipline if our species wants to ensure long term survival on this finite planet – another simple fact that politicians cringe at acknowledging.
<
p>And yes, Chinese per capita emission is still way lower than US’s.
The USA emits 19.4839 thousand metric tons per 1,000 people per year (source). Assuming Massachusetts is close to American average (higher heat load, lower transportation load, mixed electric generation) Massachusetts emits 126,606 thousand metric tons per year based on a google reported population of 6,497,967 (July 2008).
<
p>China emits 2.65908 thousand metric tons per 1,000 people. Based on google’s reported July 2008 population of 1,330,044,544 that means China emits 3,536,695 thousand metric tons per year.
<
p>China_emissions / MA_emissions = 28.
<
p>Yeah, that’s right. China emits 28 times more carbon dioxide than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Not 10,000 times more. Not 1,000 times more. Not even 100 times more. They emit about 1/10th per person as the USA, and a big chunk of their emissions are manufacturing for American consumers.
<
p>Thanks for playing.
One scientist comes up with 350 ppm, and it’s a green mandate? Where’s the national debate? Who sez Hanson is right?
<
p>Aren’t we having the coldest spring in many years? Hasn’t Chicago had the coldest spring since records were kept?
<
p>Aren’t wheat prices and sunspot activity correlated? Isn’t this growing season’s cold weather hurting crop production?
<
p>Why 350 ppm?
I just returned from http://www.350.org. It’s virtually devoid of science. This is the “science” section. The “science” consists of 2 papers by … James Hanson! Oh, and the UN’s IPCC report. (I’d write “report” but I’m running out of sarcasm quotation marks.)
<
p>This is a religious cult, not a scientific imperative. Perhaps it’s an international plot to wreck the American economy.
<
p>However, if I ever needed a website, I’d want Biro Creative to do it. Brilliant!